| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 4/28/04 8:25 PM, in article oYXjc.9662$RE1.937959@attbi_s54, "Nousaine"
wrote: Sorry I wasn't a bit more clear. If, as this sire claimed, 8 of 9 amplifiers could be distinguished from a straight wire when their output was played through a 2nd amplifier then amplifiers 'different' sounding than a piece of wire are common. However, there have been a couple dozen bias-controlled listening tests of amplifiers which have only found amplifiers with a lack of competence (frequency response, overload or other operating errors) to sound different from one another. So putting these two data set together I would think that all those amplifiers that sound different from a piece of wire (90%) but do not show up as being different sounding from each other in other tests must have errors with enough similarity that they sound like each other even if they don't sound identical to a piece of wire. That is a good test, that. And the source of my amplifier upgrade - the Arcam was not capable of driving the speakers the way I wanted ! |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 4/28/04 3:10 PM, in article FkTjc.37648$0u6.6349206@attbi_s03, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: Because the differences were down to easily traceable technical faults, and while I *could* build an amp which would both meet the criteria and be instantly identifiable, it would not be within the *spirit* of the challenge. It would not be a 'superior' high end amp, but would have some quite horrific colourations (or a very high noise floor) which are not covered in the entry criteria. I don't see the point of cheating for its own sake on such a test.......... Dunno ... It all depends on the response the amp has - did he specify the specification of the amps required for the challenge? As we discuss and dissect this - the "challenge" can get rather ... Esoteric. |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:40:32 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 4/28/04 12:41 PM, in article w8Rjc.6132$lz5.814689@attbi_s53, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Moreover, I and those preferring tubes usually are speaking of good old push-pull tubed amps with reasonably low output impedances. Not the SET's that you guys love to whup up on. Indeed, I'd agree that a top-class PP tube amp like the ARC VT100 or C-J Premier Eight is indistinguishable from any good SS amp, which is kinda interesting, given all the claims for 'tube magic', which seems to go away as the tube amp gets better....................... What about the slew rate of a tube - isn't it slower than most non-switch mode solid state? Not necessarily, and slew rate is almost never an issue with music. Like TID, SRD was a fashionable urban myth of the '70s. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 29 Apr 2004 03:48:31 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 4/28/04 3:10 PM, in article FkTjc.37648$0u6.6349206@attbi_s03, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Because the differences were down to easily traceable technical faults, and while I *could* build an amp which would both meet the criteria and be instantly identifiable, it would not be within the *spirit* of the challenge. It would not be a 'superior' high end amp, but would have some quite horrific colourations (or a very high noise floor) which are not covered in the entry criteria. I don't see the point of cheating for its own sake on such a test.......... Dunno ... It all depends on the response the amp has - did he specify the specification of the amps required for the challenge? Not in detail, and not concerning noise and distortion. As we discuss and dissect this - the "challenge" can get rather ... Esoteric. Not at all, it's simply a means of debunking the myth of 'high end' amplifiers sounding different from 'mid-fi' amps. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 29 Apr 2004 03:50:19 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/28/2004 12:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: FkTjc.37648$0u6.6349206@attbi_s03 On 27 Apr 2004 23:32:37 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/27/2004 9:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Hfwjc.30312$0u6.5306584@attbi_s03 The choice of speaker system is free to the challenger, so what's your problem? BTW, electrical measurements are irrelevant, we're talking about *sound* quality here. Once a difference in *sound* has been established, it's easy enough to pin it down, because it is IME *always* tied to a gross technical problem, nothing at all subtle! Given the fact that you have reported hearing differences between certain models of amplifiers in your own blind tests, why don't you take the challenge and collect the 10K? Because the differences were down to easily traceable technical faults, Clipping? nonlinear frequency response? I don't remember what you said was the probable cause of the differences you heard. Nonlinear distortions, and drooping treble. and while I *could* build an amp which would both meet the criteria and be instantly identifiable, it would not be within the *spirit* of the challenge. It would not be a 'superior' high end amp, but would have some quite horrific colourations (or a very high noise floor) which are not covered in the entry criteria. I don't see the point of cheating for its own sake on such a test.......... -- I wouldn't suggest that you or anybody cheat but if memory serves me the amps in question were ones that are considered to be "competent" by objectivists. Who told you that? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
much snipped...
Tom, I don't think they are saying that every amp has the same errors, but they can probably be divided into a few "groups". I've not read all the different tests that have been conducted during the years, but usually, the amps coming up to be transparent (or very close) are e.g. NAD 208 THX and Rotel RB 1090. The recommended list of equipment is he http://www.lts.a.se/teknik/rekommenderat.html Although it is in Swedish it is probably not difficult to understand which components that are "recommended". T Sorry I wasn't a bit more clear. If, as this sire claimed, 8 of 9 amplifiers could be distinguished from a straight wire when their output was played through a 2nd amplifier then amplifiers 'different' sounding than a piece of wire are common. However, there have been a couple dozen bias-controlled listening tests of amplifiers which have only found amplifiers with a lack of competence (frequency response, overload or other operating errors) to sound different from one another. So putting these two data set together I would think that all those amplifiers that sound different from a piece of wire (90%) but do not show up as being different sounding from each other in other tests must have errors with enough similarity that they sound like each other even if they don't sound identical to a piece of wire. It might be so that many amps have similar errors and that these might be missed when comparing amps against amps, rather than amps against wires. However, I think that the goal of the tests differ. If you want to have an amp capable of playing all sorts of music at realistic sound levels in your home without audible coloration in 95% of the speakers (excluding speakers with extreme impedances), many amps would turn out to be different from each other. Besides clipping/compression, frequency response errors might be audible. Arny now has some HP filter experiments with -3 dB varying from 50 Hz down to 2.5 Hz I believe. By making tests with bypass wire using high-end subwoofer systems one could tests whether tactile differences exist among amps without going into any compression/clipping distortion. T Thomas |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:b5akc.16617$lz5.1349040@attbi_s53... On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:40:32 GMT, Bromo wrote: On 4/28/04 12:41 PM, in article w8Rjc.6132$lz5.814689@attbi_s53, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Moreover, I and those preferring tubes usually are speaking of good old push-pull tubed amps with reasonably low output impedances. Not the SET's that you guys love to whup up on. Indeed, I'd agree that a top-class PP tube amp like the ARC VT100 or C-J Premier Eight is indistinguishable from any good SS amp, which is kinda interesting, given all the claims for 'tube magic', which seems to go away as the tube amp gets better....................... What about the slew rate of a tube - isn't it slower than most non-switch mode solid state? Whose tubes? Do you consider all eg., 6550 or 12AX7a to be (and sound) the same? |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 4/29/2004 9:31 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: v5akc.8098$kp.227618@attbi_s52 On 29 Apr 2004 03:50:19 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/28/2004 12:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: FkTjc.37648$0u6.6349206@attbi_s03 On 27 Apr 2004 23:32:37 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/27/2004 9:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Hfwjc.30312$0u6.5306584@attbi_s03 The choice of speaker system is free to the challenger, so what's your problem? BTW, electrical measurements are irrelevant, we're talking about *sound* quality here. Once a difference in *sound* has been established, it's easy enough to pin it down, because it is IME *always* tied to a gross technical problem, nothing at all subtle! Given the fact that you have reported hearing differences between certain models of amplifiers in your own blind tests, why don't you take the challenge and collect the 10K? Because the differences were down to easily traceable technical faults, Clipping? nonlinear frequency response? I don't remember what you said was the probable cause of the differences you heard. Nonlinear distortions, and drooping treble. and while I *could* build an amp which would both meet the criteria and be instantly identifiable, it would not be within the *spirit* of the challenge. It would not be a 'superior' high end amp, but would have some quite horrific colourations (or a very high noise floor) which are not covered in the entry criteria. I don't see the point of cheating for its own sake on such a test.......... -- I wouldn't suggest that you or anybody cheat but if memory serves me the amps in question were ones that are considered to be "competent" by objectivists. Who told you that? Here is your post on the amps in question. Stewart said "I positively identified several amps, the Yamaha was closest to indistinguishable from the top runners (Krell, Hafler and Audiolab in this case). The C370 was compared at a later date, to the same Krell transfer standard. Interestingly, a Mark Levinson 333 also provided a positive result against the Krell, showing similar treble sharpness. I did not compare Yamaha and Levinson directly, but that would have been *very* interesting! :-)" Either you were making positive IDs on amps that are considered 'competent' or the Mark Levinson 333 and the Yamaha amp are not "competent" amps. Are those amps exluded from the Clark challenge? Are they or are they not "competent" amps? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 4/29/04 2:13 PM, in article 0Bbkc.16381$Rd4.1126875@attbi_s51, "Norman
Schwartz" wrote: Indeed, I'd agree that a top-class PP tube amp like the ARC VT100 or C-J Premier Eight is indistinguishable from any good SS amp, which is kinda interesting, given all the claims for 'tube magic', which seems to go away as the tube amp gets better....................... What about the slew rate of a tube - isn't it slower than most non-switch mode solid state? Whose tubes? Do you consider all eg., 6550 or 12AX7a to be (and sound) the same? Nope - just asking generalities - the number of volts moving per unit of time. I think I heard somewhere the slew rate of a tube is slower than most solid state - just asking for some confirmation. |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
"Bromo" wrote in message
... On 4/29/04 2:13 PM, in article 0Bbkc.16381$Rd4.1126875@attbi_s51, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: Indeed, I'd agree that a top-class PP tube amp like the ARC VT100 or C-J Premier Eight is indistinguishable from any good SS amp, which is kinda interesting, given all the claims for 'tube magic', which seems to go away as the tube amp gets better....................... Sorry to have confused you, my question was directed at the above "tube magic" idea and not slew rates. I meant to imply that it's possible that the tubes themselves got better, rather than top-class PP amps. That is to say how could one ever know, without having listened to vintage equipment using contemporary tubes and vice versa? Whose tubes? Do you consider all eg., 6550 or 12AX7a to be (and sound) the same? Nope - just asking generalities - the number of volts moving per unit of time. I think I heard somewhere the slew rate of a tube is slower than most solid state - just asking for some confirmation. |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 30 Apr 2004 03:48:20 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote:
"Bromo" wrote in message ... On 4/29/04 2:13 PM, in article 0Bbkc.16381$Rd4.1126875@attbi_s51, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: Indeed, I'd agree that a top-class PP tube amp like the ARC VT100 or C-J Premier Eight is indistinguishable from any good SS amp, which is kinda interesting, given all the claims for 'tube magic', which seems to go away as the tube amp gets better....................... Sorry to have confused you, my question was directed at the above "tube magic" idea and not slew rates. I meant to imply that it's possible that the tubes themselves got better, rather than top-class PP amps. That is to say how could one ever know, without having listened to vintage equipment using contemporary tubes and vice versa? Easy - use NOS tubes. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:19:43 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 4/28/04 11:50 PM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: I wouldn't suggest that you or anybody cheat but if memory serves me the amps in question were ones that are considered to be "competent" by objectivists. If you aren't careful you could end up specifying a 'competent amplifier' - and those amps that do not meet the specification would not be qualified for this challenge - and instead of debunking, you could back yourself into specifying a near colorless amp. That would be most 'mid-fi' amps, thereby debunking the 'high end' myth yet again. Any amp which can't meet 20-20,000 Hz +/- 0.1dB is fundamentally *not* competent! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 29 Apr 2004 22:47:21 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/29/2004 9:31 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: v5akc.8098$kp.227618@attbi_s52 On 29 Apr 2004 03:50:19 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: Stewart said "I positively identified several amps, the Yamaha was closest to indistinguishable from the top runners (Krell, Hafler and Audiolab in this case). The C370 was compared at a later date, to the same Krell transfer standard. Interestingly, a Mark Levinson 333 also provided a positive result against the Krell, showing similar treble sharpness. I did not compare Yamaha and Levinson directly, but that would have been *very* interesting! :-)" Either you were making positive IDs on amps that are considered 'competent' or the Mark Levinson 333 and the Yamaha amp are not "competent" amps. Are those amps exluded from the Clark challenge? Are they or are they not "competent" amps? The Yamaha has a fair amount of HF IMD, leading to a (slightly) bright treble, and the ML has a treble peak in the response - very unusual for an amp of this supposed quality, but perhaps a *deliberate* ploy to make it sound 'better' than mere mid-fi amps............... So, in that sense, the Yamaha would meet the Clark criterion, but the ML might not. However, in the *spirit* of the challenge, both have readily identifiable deviations from the linear response which is widely available from other amps. Of course, Tom Nousaine would challenge my results anyway, and I only did the one series of tests. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 4/30/04 12:23 PM, in article 74vkc.3767$kh4.242195@attbi_s52, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:19:43 GMT, Bromo wrote: On 4/28/04 11:50 PM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: I wouldn't suggest that you or anybody cheat but if memory serves me the amps in question were ones that are considered to be "competent" by objectivists. If you aren't careful you could end up specifying a 'competent amplifier' - and those amps that do not meet the specification would not be qualified for this challenge - and instead of debunking, you could back yourself into specifying a near colorless amp. That would be most 'mid-fi' amps, thereby debunking the 'high end' myth yet again. Any amp which can't meet 20-20,000 Hz +/- 0.1dB is fundamentally *not* competent! But if "any old" amp, such as the Yamaha is claimed to sound "the same" as a HiFi amp then in the spirit of the challenge it does instruct that there may be differences in Mid and HiFi as far as amplifiers are concerned. At least potentially. Would not debunk the "high end" since one thing a lot of folks might be able to get is the 20-20k +/-0.1dB design and the attention to quality of this type that would command a premium. At least MidFi to HiFi. |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... Bromo wrote: On 4/26/04 1:34 PM, in article zKbjc.41838$IW1.2009846@attbi_s52, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: I agree that is a good use of an end user's time and money - but still - if people claim to hear a difference, it might be good to do the due diligence as a scientific sort to see if there is anything to these claims. Some have been made in the past that haven't helped, but some has been made that did. That is the exact purpose of the various amp and cable challenges. The problem is that it is *not* due diligence, but grandstanding rather loudly ! Real due diligence wopuld involve getting the amplifiers in question and doing both double blind testing with a variety of speaker systems and a variety of sonic and electrical measurements. Not some silly $10k "challenge" As if that had not already been done. By May of 1990 over 2 dozen bias-controlled listening tests had been published, none of which showed that any amplifier that had matched levels and frequency response had any "sound" of its own. Mr Clark, like other professionals such as me, has been constantly bombarded with sometimes simply misguided but often wild shouting about the "sound" of amplifiers which have never been verified. This was his way of encouaging those who insist on amp-sound to cough up some evidence, prove their case or get out of the way. I think its clever but ultimately self-defeating because keeping the faith depends heavily on refusing to supply evidence and to keep 'debating' the issue and challenges no matter how fair or how possibly rewarding are unlikely to be met. This is because keeping the story or any Urban Legend "alive" depends on a lack of scientific investigation (no positive evidence) and diversion (You haven't proven that amplifiers don't sound different and Your Tools Aren't Good Enough.) So sure, Clark doesn't get many applicants because deep down inside no Subjectvists is sure enough of himself to step up to the plate. It's much more comforting to argue than to prove your case. SO instead of simply proving his case Mr Lavo suggests a long complicated experiment which if it doesn't support his hypothesis (supply results identical to those gathered under conditions known to encourage common human bias mechanisms) will be proclaimed to have disqualified all extant evidence. Its a clever tactic for 2 reasons. First its long, expensive and unlikely to ever be coinducted (certainly not by him) and if it is it has a pre-determined outcome. IOW it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh yes, I forgot it keeps the "debate" going. Sheer Balderdash!! Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.) I would appreciate if you would stop misrepresenting my point of view. And I am asking the moderators to enforce the "quotation standard" on both sides, please. |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... Bromo wrote: On 4/26/04 1:34 PM, in article zKbjc.41838$IW1.2009846@attbi_s52, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: I agree that is a good use of an end user's time and money - but still - if people claim to hear a difference, it might be good to do the due diligence as a scientific sort to see if there is anything to these claims. Some have been made in the past that haven't helped, but some has been made that did. That is the exact purpose of the various amp and cable challenges. The problem is that it is *not* due diligence, but grandstanding rather loudly ! Real due diligence wopuld involve getting the amplifiers in question and doing both double blind testing with a variety of speaker systems and a variety of sonic and electrical measurements. Not some silly $10k "challenge" As if that had not already been done. By May of 1990 over 2 dozen bias-controlled listening tests had been published, none of which showed that any amplifier that had matched levels and frequency response had any "sound" of its own. Mr Clark, like other professionals such as me, has been constantly bombarded with sometimes simply misguided but often wild shouting about the "sound" of amplifiers which have never been verified. This was his way of encouaging those who insist on amp-sound to cough up some evidence, prove their case or get out of the way. I think its clever but ultimately self-defeating because keeping the faith depends heavily on refusing to supply evidence and to keep 'debating' the issue and challenges no matter how fair or how possibly rewarding are unlikely to be met. This is because keeping the story or any Urban Legend "alive" depends on a lack of scientific investigation (no positive evidence) and diversion (You haven't proven that amplifiers don't sound different and Your Tools Aren't Good Enough.) So sure, Clark doesn't get many applicants because deep down inside no Subjectvists is sure enough of himself to step up to the plate. It's much more comforting to argue than to prove your case. SO instead of simply proving his case Mr Lavo suggests a long complicated experiment which if it doesn't support his hypothesis (supply results identical to those gathered under conditions known to encourage common human bias mechanisms) will be proclaimed to have disqualified all extant evidence. Its a clever tactic for 2 reasons. First its long, expensive and unlikely to ever be coinducted (certainly not by him) and if it is it has a pre-determined outcome. IOW it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh yes, I forgot it keeps the "debate" going. Sheer Balderdash!! Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.) I would appreciate if you would stop misrepresenting my point of view. And I am asking the moderators to enforce the "quotation standard" on both sides, please. I have come into this one a bit late, but I do want to interject my two-cents worth. I mean it is obvious that the old "amps have a definable sound" argument lives on in different forms, with different rationalizations, even if the amps measure the same and are built by competent designers, and sound the same during blind comparisons. OK, we read about this amp "sound" thing all the time, both in manufacturer ads and in enthusiast magazine test reports, and of course we hear it proclaimed by numerous high-end boutique sales people. Certain reviewers are particularly bad. One may get hold of an esoteric, "super-duper" (and expensive or even super-expensive) amp, and after discussing its sometimes arcane features and maybe even doing some rudimentary measurements (or spouting often bizarre manufacturer specifications), that reviewer may engage in an almost poetic monologue regarding its sound quality. Often, he will do this while comparing it to other units (expensive and super-expensive) that he has on hand or has had on hand. He may not "hear" profound differences, but he rhapsodizes about the subtle ones he does hear. Comparing the test unit to one he "had on hand" in the past is of course absurd, particularly when it comes to subtle differences, because there is no way anyone could do a meaningful comparison between units that were not set up and listened to at the same time. However, even when he has another "reference" unit on hand to compare with the device being reviewed the confrontation may be seriously flawed, mainly because levels are not matched and the comparison procedures are such that quick switching is impossible. Actually, few of those reviewers who get involved with amp reviewing do a blind comparison even once at the beginning of their reviewing careers - just to see just how revealing it will be of similarities. There is no audio-fun romanticism to be had in that kind of brass-tacks behavior. For a lot of people, audio involves a lot more than sound quality and accurately reproducing input signals. Interestingly, some "reviewers" go beyond commenting upon imagined subtle differences and will instead make proclamations about the vast differences between the amp under test and one or more reference units. The comments are often absurd in the extreme, with the commentary going on and on about soundstaging, depth, focus, transparency, dynamics, and the like. The problem is that without close, level-matched comparing, opinions of that kind are not only a big joke they are also misleading the readers, and misleading readers, no matter how entertaining the report's often flowery text, is not the job of a product reviewer. I have done a fair amount of comparing between amps, using some pretty good ancillary hardware, and with careful level matching. Let me tell you that although some amps might be very, very slightly different sounding from the mainstream (I found one that did, but shortly after the comparison it went up in smoke), nobody is going to be able to pinpoint such differences without doing some very close listening and precise comparing. What's more, an amp that does sound a tad different from mainstream models (here I am talking about some tube units, particularly single-ended versions) is probably going to not be as accurate an amplifying device as those others. Ironically, many of those good performing mainstream amps can be found contained inside of modestly priced AV receivers, at places like Best Buy and Circuit City. OK, now fantasy is sometimes fun and I do not begrudge any reader who wants to fantasize about his audio components. I rather enjoy fantasizing myself when I am off line. However, when reviewing, reviewers should be different. They should deal with brass tacks and not speculations - even if speculations make for more poetic literature. I suppose that enthusiast consumers who want to be involved with something special feel obligated to spend big bucks so they can fantasize about how great things sound. Fine for them, but the sensible consumer will not be self-suckered, nor should he be duped into overspending on a super-duper amplifier. Howard Ferstler |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
news:wP7pc.49177$xw3.2938368@attbi_s04... OK, now fantasy is sometimes fun and I do not begrudge any reader who wants to fantasize about his audio components. I rather enjoy fantasizing myself when I am off line. However, when reviewing, reviewers should be different. They should deal with brass tacks and not speculations - even if speculations make for more poetic literature. Fantasy, shmantasy. If a reviewer receives remuneration for listening and reporting on heard differences, what do you expect? Doesn't occur to anyone other than myself that the industry depends upon this fantasy. The manufacturers, mags, their editors and contributors, boutiques, second-hand houses simply would not exist without such fantasy. Perhaps only Julian Hirsch, may he rest in peace, told it the way it was, is and must be. All properly functioning pieces of equipment, up to their tasks sound the same, period, (transducers; e.g.. cartridges and speakers naturally excepted.) |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
Before we even consider giving even tentative consideration to a
speculative only now arm chair testing approach, we need to work from the established benchmark. The latter is the set of several listening only tests that show no difference in amps and wire. To attempt to undermine any of the assumptions on which that benchmark is based, one needs to take one part of it and hold other parts constant to show results are not reliable. For example introduce a 1 db level at 1k to see if differences appear, or have a test to have only short time between samples vs. no time constraint to see if differences appear, or hide the gear behind a barrier comparded to having it in full view to see if differences appear, or use no switching gear but have only connections changed to see if connections appear, etc.; the aim is to try to force in all ways but letting the subject know which gear is active. After all possible considerations were forced and no difference was heard, we can assume it is the not knowing bit that really makes the difference. This is the proper way to do the test, by forcing every possible variable on the test the presumed new speculative arm chair test is supposed to reveal; not by using the new test but forcing the existing benchmark. There is also the infinite regression question, by what test do we test the new test or then that test and then that test etc. in a never ending series. Use the benchmark we have, poke it, prod it, press it in every way where a weakness is thought to exist and systemattically exclude every caution one might have. I agree that is a good use of an end user's time and money - but still - if people claim to hear a difference, it might be good to do the due diligence as a scientific sort to see if there is anything to these claims. Some have been made in the past that haven't helped, but some has been made that did. That is the exact purpose of the various amp and cable challenges. The problem is that it is *not* due diligence, but grandstanding rather loudly ! Real due diligence wopuld involve getting the amplifiers in question and doing both double blind testing with a variety of speaker systems and a variety of sonic and electrical measurements. Not some silly $10k "challenge" As if that had not already been done. By May of 1990 over 2 dozen bias-controlled listening tests had been published, none of which showed that any amplifier that had matched levels and frequency response had any "sound" of its own. Mr Clark, like other professionals such as me, has been constantly bombarded with sometimes simply misguided but often wild shouting about the "sound" of amplifiers which have never been verified. This was his way of encouaging those who insist on amp-sound to cough up some evidence, prove their case or get out of the way. I think its clever but ultimately self-defeating because keeping the faith depends heavily on refusing to supply evidence and to keep 'debating' the issue and challenges no matter how fair or how possibly rewarding are unlikely to be met. This is because keeping the story or any Urban Legend "alive" depends on a lack of scientific investigation (no positive evidence) and diversion (You haven't proven that amplifiers don't sound different and Your Tools Aren't Good Enough.) So sure, Clark doesn't get many applicants because deep down inside no Subjectvists is sure enough of himself to step up to the plate. It's much more comforting to argue than to prove your case. SO instead of simply proving his case Mr Lavo suggests a long complicated experiment which if it doesn't support his hypothesis (supply results identical to those gathered under conditions known to encourage common human bias mechanisms) will be proclaimed to have disqualified all extant evidence. Its a clever tactic for 2 reasons. First its long, expensive and unlikely to ever be coinducted (certainly not by him) and if it is it has a pre-determined outcome. IOW it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh yes, I forgot it keeps the "debate" going. Sheer Balderdash!! Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.) I would appreciate if you would stop misrepresenting my point of view. And I am asking the moderators to enforce the "quotation standard" on both sides, please. |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Full post repeated below. I fully agree Howard but Mr Lavo tries to claim that controlled listening tests haven't been "validated" because no one has 'proved' that results don't conform to those that would otherwise be obtained with long-term open listening. In other words, if the results don't come to the same conclusions that Mr Lavo has already decided they remain "un-validated." This is simply yet another twist similar to the old high-end saw "you haven't tested every amplifier ever made" so your results are suspect. I simply offer that bias-controlled listening tests have not validated long term open-ended evaluated of some opinionists because of the implementation of well-known and common listening bias elements. And that "open-ended evaluation" of any length has not been validated as to acoustical cause. To imply that listening evaluations that are purposely limited to acknowledged acoustical cause has not been "validated" is just a side-step to avoid facing the fact that no one has yet shown that amps/cables with known electrical competence impart any audible difference to system "sound" (which by using transducers has to be limited by the generation of acoustical sound) when even the most modest of bias controls (blanket over I/O terminals) have been implemented. IOW if he can get others (perhaps even himself) to "believe" that the extant evidence is somehow flawed then he can go on believing his own irrational conclusions. All this in spite of the complete lack of un-biased controlled evidence for his own conclusions. His challenge can be simply stated in a manner similar to this 'show me that I'd come to the same sonic conclusions if I didn't use bias controls than when I do and then I'll believe you.' I'd say that on its face the test requires that I implement all the non-sonic bias mechanisms or supplement/replace them in some other way in order to obtain the same results. IOW I'd have to bias the experiment to comply with the expected conclusion that some how bias-controls "mask" real differences and un-controlled listening with no bias control mechanisms offer the real "truth" in respect to acoustical cause. Harry Lavo wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... Bromo wrote: On 4/26/04 1:34 PM, in article zKbjc.41838$IW1.2009846@attbi_s52, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: I agree that is a good use of an end user's time and money - but still - if people claim to hear a difference, it might be good to do the due diligence as a scientific sort to see if there is anything to these claims. Some have been made in the past that haven't helped, but some has been made that did. That is the exact purpose of the various amp and cable challenges. The problem is that it is *not* due diligence, but grandstanding rather loudly ! Real due diligence wopuld involve getting the amplifiers in question and doing both double blind testing with a variety of speaker systems and a variety of sonic and electrical measurements. Not some silly $10k "challenge" As if that had not already been done. By May of 1990 over 2 dozen bias-controlled listening tests had been published, none of which showed that any amplifier that had matched levels and frequency response had any "sound" of its own. Mr Clark, like other professionals such as me, has been constantly bombarded with sometimes simply misguided but often wild shouting about the "sound" of amplifiers which have never been verified. This was his way of encouaging those who insist on amp-sound to cough up some evidence, prove their case or get out of the way. I think its clever but ultimately self-defeating because keeping the faith depends heavily on refusing to supply evidence and to keep 'debating' the issue and challenges no matter how fair or how possibly rewarding are unlikely to be met. This is because keeping the story or any Urban Legend "alive" depends on a lack of scientific investigation (no positive evidence) and diversion (You haven't proven that amplifiers don't sound different and Your Tools Aren't Good Enough.) So sure, Clark doesn't get many applicants because deep down inside no Subjectvists is sure enough of himself to step up to the plate. It's much more comforting to argue than to prove your case. SO instead of simply proving his case Mr Lavo suggests a long complicated experiment which if it doesn't support his hypothesis (supply results identical to those gathered under conditions known to encourage common human bias mechanisms) will be proclaimed to have disqualified all extant evidence. Its a clever tactic for 2 reasons. First its long, expensive and unlikely to ever be coinducted (certainly not by him) and if it is it has a pre-determined outcome. IOW it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh yes, I forgot it keeps the "debate" going. Sheer Balderdash!! Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.) I would appreciate if you would stop misrepresenting my point of view. And I am asking the moderators to enforce the "quotation standard" on both sides, please. I have come into this one a bit late, but I do want to interject my two-cents worth. I mean it is obvious that the old "amps have a definable sound" argument lives on in different forms, with different rationalizations, even if the amps measure the same and are built by competent designers, and sound the same during blind comparisons. OK, we read about this amp "sound" thing all the time, both in manufacturer ads and in enthusiast magazine test reports, and of course we hear it proclaimed by numerous high-end boutique sales people. Certain reviewers are particularly bad. One may get hold of an esoteric, "super-duper" (and expensive or even super-expensive) amp, and after discussing its sometimes arcane features and maybe even doing some rudimentary measurements (or spouting often bizarre manufacturer specifications), that reviewer may engage in an almost poetic monologue regarding its sound quality. Often, he will do this while comparing it to other units (expensive and super-expensive) that he has on hand or has had on hand. He may not "hear" profound differences, but he rhapsodizes about the subtle ones he does hear. Comparing the test unit to one he "had on hand" in the past is of course absurd, particularly when it comes to subtle differences, because there is no way anyone could do a meaningful comparison between units that were not set up and listened to at the same time. However, even when he has another "reference" unit on hand to compare with the device being reviewed the confrontation may be seriously flawed, mainly because levels are not matched and the comparison procedures are such that quick switching is impossible. Actually, few of those reviewers who get involved with amp reviewing do a blind comparison even once at the beginning of their reviewing careers - just to see just how revealing it will be of similarities. There is no audio-fun romanticism to be had in that kind of brass-tacks behavior. For a lot of people, audio involves a lot more than sound quality and accurately reproducing input signals. Interestingly, some "reviewers" go beyond commenting upon imagined subtle differences and will instead make proclamations about the vast differences between the amp under test and one or more reference units. The comments are often absurd in the extreme, with the commentary going on and on about soundstaging, depth, focus, transparency, dynamics, and the like. The problem is that without close, level-matched comparing, opinions of that kind are not only a big joke they are also misleading the readers, and misleading readers, no matter how entertaining the report's often flowery text, is not the job of a product reviewer. I have done a fair amount of comparing between amps, using some pretty good ancillary hardware, and with careful level matching. Let me tell you that although some amps might be very, very slightly different sounding from the mainstream (I found one that did, but shortly after the comparison it went up in smoke), nobody is going to be able to pinpoint such differences without doing some very close listening and precise comparing. What's more, an amp that does sound a tad different from mainstream models (here I am talking about some tube units, particularly single-ended versions) is probably going to not be as accurate an amplifying device as those others. Ironically, many of those good performing mainstream amps can be found contained inside of modestly priced AV receivers, at places like Best Buy and Circuit City. OK, now fantasy is sometimes fun and I do not begrudge any reader who wants to fantasize about his audio components. I rather enjoy fantasizing myself when I am off line. However, when reviewing, reviewers should be different. They should deal with brass tacks and not speculations - even if speculations make for more poetic literature. I suppose that enthusiast consumers who want to be involved with something special feel obligated to spend big bucks so they can fantasize about how great things sound. Fine for them, but the sensible consumer will not be self-suckered, nor should he be duped into overspending on a super-duper amplifier. Howard Ferstler |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
I was just noticing how well I could compensate for my budget speakers
with my Sony and Onkyo home theatre receivers.I am still really enjoying dipping my toes into tube filled waters off mainland China. It has reactivated my sense of gadgeteer romance. I cannot spend $100,000 on stereo equipment nor would I. I often wonder if reviewers have better ears than the rest of us or better imaginations. It is some of the best non fiction writing in America. Anyway Howard, you ARE the man. Howard Ferstler wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... Bromo wrote: On 4/26/04 1:34 PM, in article zKbjc.41838$IW1.2009846@attbi_s52, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: I agree that is a good use of an end user's time and money - but still - if people claim to hear a difference, it might be good to do the due diligence as a scientific sort to see if there is anything to these claims. Some have been made in the past that haven't helped, but some has been made that did. That is the exact purpose of the various amp and cable challenges. The problem is that it is *not* due diligence, but grandstanding rather loudly ! Real due diligence wopuld involve getting the amplifiers in question and doing both double blind testing with a variety of speaker systems and a variety of sonic and electrical measurements. Not some silly $10k "challenge" As if that had not already been done. By May of 1990 over 2 dozen bias-controlled listening tests had been published, none of which showed that any amplifier that had matched levels and frequency response had any "sound" of its own. Mr Clark, like other professionals such as me, has been constantly bombarded with sometimes simply misguided but often wild shouting about the "sound" of amplifiers which have never been verified. This was his way of encouaging those who insist on amp-sound to cough up some evidence, prove their case or get out of the way. I think its clever but ultimately self-defeating because keeping the faith depends heavily on refusing to supply evidence and to keep 'debating' the issue and challenges no matter how fair or how possibly rewarding are unlikely to be met. This is because keeping the story or any Urban Legend "alive" depends on a lack of scientific investigation (no positive evidence) and diversion (You haven't proven that amplifiers don't sound different and Your Tools Aren't Good Enough.) So sure, Clark doesn't get many applicants because deep down inside no Subjectvists is sure enough of himself to step up to the plate. It's much more comforting to argue than to prove your case. SO instead of simply proving his case Mr Lavo suggests a long complicated experiment which if it doesn't support his hypothesis (supply results identical to those gathered under conditions known to encourage common human bias mechanisms) will be proclaimed to have disqualified all extant evidence. Its a clever tactic for 2 reasons. First its long, expensive and unlikely to ever be coinducted (certainly not by him) and if it is it has a pre-determined outcome. IOW it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh yes, I forgot it keeps the "debate" going. Sheer Balderdash!! Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.) I would appreciate if you would stop misrepresenting my point of view. And I am asking the moderators to enforce the "quotation standard" on both sides, please. I have come into this one a bit late, but I do want to interject my two-cents worth. I mean it is obvious that the old "amps have a definable sound" argument lives on in different forms, with different rationalizations, even if the amps measure the same and are built by competent designers, and sound the same during blind comparisons. OK, we read about this amp "sound" thing all the time, both in manufacturer ads and in enthusiast magazine test reports, and of course we hear it proclaimed by numerous high-end boutique sales people. Certain reviewers are particularly bad. One may get hold of an esoteric, "super-duper" (and expensive or even super-expensive) amp, and after discussing its sometimes arcane features and maybe even doing some rudimentary measurements (or spouting often bizarre manufacturer specifications), that reviewer may engage in an almost poetic monologue regarding its sound quality. Often, he will do this while comparing it to other units (expensive and super-expensive) that he has on hand or has had on hand. He may not "hear" profound differences, but he rhapsodizes about the subtle ones he does hear. Comparing the test unit to one he "had on hand" in the past is of course absurd, particularly when it comes to subtle differences, because there is no way anyone could do a meaningful comparison between units that were not set up and listened to at the same time. However, even when he has another "reference" unit on hand to compare with the device being reviewed the confrontation may be seriously flawed, mainly because levels are not matched and the comparison procedures are such that quick switching is impossible. Actually, few of those reviewers who get involved with amp reviewing do a blind comparison even once at the beginning of their reviewing careers - just to see just how revealing it will be of similarities. There is no audio-fun romanticism to be had in that kind of brass-tacks behavior. For a lot of people, audio involves a lot more than sound quality and accurately reproducing input signals. Interestingly, some "reviewers" go beyond commenting upon imagined subtle differences and will instead make proclamations about the vast differences between the amp under test and one or more reference units. The comments are often absurd in the extreme, with the commentary going on and on about soundstaging, depth, focus, transparency, dynamics, and the like. The problem is that without close, level-matched comparing, opinions of that kind are not only a big joke they are also misleading the readers, and misleading readers, no matter how entertaining the report's often flowery text, is not the job of a product reviewer. I have done a fair amount of comparing between amps, using some pretty good ancillary hardware, and with careful level matching. Let me tell you that although some amps might be very, very slightly different sounding from the mainstream (I found one that did, but shortly after the comparison it went up in smoke), nobody is going to be able to pinpoint such differences without doing some very close listening and precise comparing. What's more, an amp that does sound a tad different from mainstream models (here I am talking about some tube units, particularly single-ended versions) is probably going to not be as accurate an amplifying device as those others. Ironically, many of those good performing mainstream amps can be found contained inside of modestly priced AV receivers, at places like Best Buy and Circuit City. OK, now fantasy is sometimes fun and I do not begrudge any reader who wants to fantasize about his audio components. I rather enjoy fantasizing myself when I am off line. However, when reviewing, reviewers should be different. They should deal with brass tacks and not speculations - even if speculations make for more poetic literature. I suppose that enthusiast consumers who want to be involved with something special feel obligated to spend big bucks so they can fantasize about how great things sound. Fine for them, but the sensible consumer will not be self-suckered, nor should he be duped into overspending on a super-duper amplifier. Howard Ferstler |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
|
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:52bpc.12469$6f5.981525@attbi_s54... Howard Ferstler wrote: Full post repeated below. I fully agree Howard but Mr Lavo tries to claim that controlled listening tests haven't been "validated" because no one has 'proved' that results don't conform to those that would otherwise be obtained with long-term open listening. In other words, if the results don't come to the same conclusions that Mr Lavo has already decided they remain "un-validated." Once again, Tom (and moderators), show me one place I ever said any such thing! Quit putting (erroneous) words in my mouth. You want to challenge my proposed test, go to the discussion of that test (or bring it here) and then respond to what I actually said! This is simply yet another twist similar to the old high-end saw "you haven't tested every amplifier ever made" so your results are suspect. I simply offer that bias-controlled listening tests have not validated long term open-ended evaluated of some opinionists because of the implementation of well-known and common listening bias elements. And that "open-ended evaluation" of any length has not been validated as to acoustical cause. To imply that listening evaluations that are purposely limited to acknowledged acoustical cause has not been "validated" is just a side-step to avoid facing the fact that no one has yet shown that amps/cables with known electrical competence impart any audible difference to system "sound" (which by using transducers has to be limited by the generation of acoustical sound) when even the most modest of bias controls (blanket over I/O terminals) have been implemented. You "offer" that but you don't "offer" the possibility that the test itself obscures the listening evaluation, which is the whole point of my proposed test. You assume the result. That is called "faith". IOW if he can get others (perhaps even himself) to "believe" that the extant evidence is somehow flawed then he can go on believing his own irrational conclusions. All this in spite of the complete lack of un-biased controlled evidence for his own conclusions. Again, show me where I say or imply this. I say or imply that if subjectivists believe it, objectivists don't believe it, and blinding (while holding the test technique constant) removes the difference, then I agree the differences were the result of bias. That is exactly what the control test is designed to do. You don't like the control test so you keep implying nefarious motives to me. Ad hoc hominem! His challenge can be simply stated in a manner similar to this 'show me that I'd come to the same sonic conclusions if I didn't use bias controls than when I do and then I'll believe you.' I'd say that on its face the test requires that I implement all the non-sonic bias mechanisms or supplement/replace them in some other way in order to obtain the same results. Again, repeating the same misstatement of my position over and over does not make it so. (Moderators, where the hell is the quotation rule! You have here a direct, mistated quotation in semi-quotes no less. It is wrong and has never been used or even approximated by me.) IOW I'd have to bias the experiment to comply with the expected conclusion that some how bias-controls "mask" real differences and un-controlled listening with no bias control mechanisms offer the real "truth" in respect to acoustical cause. Only if you believe your own strawman. Not on my account. Harry Lavo wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... Bromo wrote: On 4/26/04 1:34 PM, in article zKbjc.41838$IW1.2009846@attbi_s52, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: I agree that is a good use of an end user's time and money - but still - if people claim to hear a difference, it might be good to do the due diligence as a scientific sort to see if there is anything to these claims. Some have been made in the past that haven't helped, but some has been made that did. That is the exact purpose of the various amp and cable challenges. The problem is that it is *not* due diligence, but grandstanding rather loudly ! Real due diligence wopuld involve getting the amplifiers in question and doing both double blind testing with a variety of speaker systems and a variety of sonic and electrical measurements. Not some silly $10k "challenge" As if that had not already been done. By May of 1990 over 2 dozen bias-controlled listening tests had been published, none of which showed that any amplifier that had matched levels and frequency response had any "sound" of its own. Mr Clark, like other professionals such as me, has been constantly bombarded with sometimes simply misguided but often wild shouting about the "sound" of amplifiers which have never been verified. This was his way of encouaging those who insist on amp-sound to cough up some evidence, prove their case or get out of the way. I think its clever but ultimately self-defeating because keeping the faith depends heavily on refusing to supply evidence and to keep 'debating' the issue and challenges no matter how fair or how possibly rewarding are unlikely to be met. This is because keeping the story or any Urban Legend "alive" depends on a lack of scientific investigation (no positive evidence) and diversion (You haven't proven that amplifiers don't sound different and Your Tools Aren't Good Enough.) So sure, Clark doesn't get many applicants because deep down inside no Subjectvists is sure enough of himself to step up to the plate. It's much more comforting to argue than to prove your case. SO instead of simply proving his case Mr Lavo suggests a long complicated experiment which if it doesn't support his hypothesis (supply results identical to those gathered under conditions known to encourage common human bias mechanisms) will be proclaimed to have disqualified all extant evidence. Its a clever tactic for 2 reasons. First its long, expensive and unlikely to ever be coinducted (certainly not by him) and if it is it has a pre-determined outcome. IOW it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh yes, I forgot it keeps the "debate" going. Sheer Balderdash!! Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.) I would appreciate if you would stop misrepresenting my point of view. And I am asking the moderators to enforce the "quotation standard" on both sides, please. I have come into this one a bit late, but I do want to interject my two-cents worth. I mean it is obvious that the old "amps have a definable sound" argument lives on in different forms, with different rationalizations, even if the amps measure the same and are built by competent designers, and sound the same during blind comparisons. OK, we read about this amp "sound" thing all the time, both in manufacturer ads and in enthusiast magazine test reports, and of course we hear it proclaimed by numerous high-end boutique sales people. Certain reviewers are particularly bad. One may get hold of an esoteric, "super-duper" (and expensive or even super-expensive) amp, and after discussing its sometimes arcane features and maybe even doing some rudimentary measurements (or spouting often bizarre manufacturer specifications), that reviewer may engage in an almost poetic monologue regarding its sound quality. Often, he will do this while comparing it to other units (expensive and super-expensive) that he has on hand or has had on hand. He may not "hear" profound differences, but he rhapsodizes about the subtle ones he does hear. Comparing the test unit to one he "had on hand" in the past is of course absurd, particularly when it comes to subtle differences, because there is no way anyone could do a meaningful comparison between units that were not set up and listened to at the same time. However, even when he has another "reference" unit on hand to compare with the device being reviewed the confrontation may be seriously flawed, mainly because levels are not matched and the comparison procedures are such that quick switching is impossible. Actually, few of those reviewers who get involved with amp reviewing do a blind comparison even once at the beginning of their reviewing careers - just to see just how revealing it will be of similarities. There is no audio-fun romanticism to be had in that kind of brass-tacks behavior. For a lot of people, audio involves a lot more than sound quality and accurately reproducing input signals. Interestingly, some "reviewers" go beyond commenting upon imagined subtle differences and will instead make proclamations about the vast differences between the amp under test and one or more reference units. The comments are often absurd in the extreme, with the commentary going on and on about soundstaging, depth, focus, transparency, dynamics, and the like. The problem is that without close, level-matched comparing, opinions of that kind are not only a big joke they are also misleading the readers, and misleading readers, no matter how entertaining the report's often flowery text, is not the job of a product reviewer. I have done a fair amount of comparing between amps, using some pretty good ancillary hardware, and with careful level matching. Let me tell you that although some amps might be very, very slightly different sounding from the mainstream (I found one that did, but shortly after the comparison it went up in smoke), nobody is going to be able to pinpoint such differences without doing some very close listening and precise comparing. What's more, an amp that does sound a tad different from mainstream models (here I am talking about some tube units, particularly single-ended versions) is probably going to not be as accurate an amplifying device as those others. Ironically, many of those good performing mainstream amps can be found contained inside of modestly priced AV receivers, at places like Best Buy and Circuit City. OK, now fantasy is sometimes fun and I do not begrudge any reader who wants to fantasize about his audio components. I rather enjoy fantasizing myself when I am off line. However, when reviewing, reviewers should be different. They should deal with brass tacks and not speculations - even if speculations make for more poetic literature. I suppose that enthusiast consumers who want to be involved with something special feel obligated to spend big bucks so they can fantasize about how great things sound. Fine for them, but the sensible consumer will not be self-suckered, nor should he be duped into overspending on a super-duper amplifier. Howard Ferstler |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:55:55 GMT, Philip Meech
wrote: I was just noticing how well I could compensate for my budget speakers with my Sony and Onkyo home theatre receivers.I am still really enjoying dipping my toes into tube filled waters off mainland China. It has reactivated my sense of gadgeteer romance. I cannot spend $100,000 on stereo equipment nor would I. I often wonder if reviewers have better ears than the rest of us or better imaginations. It is some of the best non fiction writing in America. What makes you think it's non-fiction? After all, these guys get *paid* for 'hearing' differences among audio gear, and reporting them in colourful prose. Such 'differences' pay their mortgages....... Do you really *believe* all that guff that Kessler, Fremer et al spout every month? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
|
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
Harry Lavo wrote:
Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations To be honest, Harry, I can't recall you ever stating this explicitly before. I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous here. I'm only suggesting that perhaps you weren't as clear as you thought you were. (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said thatÂ* if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.)Â* I and others have found numerous faults with it. Purely as a practical matter, it's impossible to pull off. I even suggested an alternative that would be far more straightforward, and meets every requirement you have insisted on, and you rejected that. Under the circumstances, I can understand Tom's suspicion that you were merely throwing up smoke. As for the "many other subjectivists here," I think you are being presumptuous. Finding flaws with bias-controlled tests seems to be part of what makes one a subjectivist. I see no reason to believe that your test, even if you could pull it off, would be any different. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
"Do you really *believe* all that guff that Kessler, Fremer et al spout
every month? Do you believe they are knowingly making stuff up to keep their jobs?" They are fully subject to all the problems of the perception process which leads them to "hear" that which is not in the signal reaching their ears. They, like any who make such reports, are only making reports claiming to be exceptions to the listening alone benchmark testing which shows no difference in much of the gear they are writing about as they take keyboard in hand. There is not one shred of evidence they are exceptions in the least. They do believe in the perceptions they experience, as are the sincere expressions of others in this regard. |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:soupc.16766$6f5.1472957@attbi_s54... Harry Lavo wrote: Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations To be honest, Harry, I can't recall you ever stating this explicitly before. I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous here. I'm only suggesting that perhaps you weren't as clear as you thought you were. I said it that explicitly, albeit not that succinctly, here within the last month. And it was apparent that you, Tom, and others were not reading what I said at the time, but rather going into a "riff" based on what you think I said, or thought I would say, or wished I would say. But that is what I said. (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.) I and others have found numerous faults with it. Purely as a practical matter, it's impossible to pull off. I even suggested an alternative that would be far more straightforward, and meets every requirement you have insisted on, and you rejected that. Under the circumstances, I can understand Tom's suspicion that you were merely throwing up smoke. Your test did not "meet..every requirement I have insisted on". For it continued to be based on quick swith a-b testing, a technique that is of itself being questioned as possibly contributing to erroneous conclusions. That is why I proposed a test that started where the subjectivists live...with extended evaluative listening, and changed only the condiditon of "blindness" not the listening techniques themselves. That is why I rejected the approach as I said at the time. It is inviting in its simplicity but it would not sway subjectivists including myself because of this flaw. As for the "many other subjectivists here," I think you are being presumptuous. Finding flaws with bias-controlled tests seems to be part of what makes one a subjectivist. I see no reason to believe that your test, even if you could pull it off, would be any different. bob That's not how I read it/them at all. They may have some differences with me / my way of thinking, but the main problem they have is the *assumption* (unverified) that a test that is good for picking out small level differences in codec artecfact and other known acoustic anomalies is a suitable technique for open ended evaluation of audio components. Once that criticism is addressed, I think you will find most objections melt away if your assumptions prove true. But since the very idea of the test possibly being flawed is so threatening that even acknowledging the possibility seems beyond the objectivist ken, there is little movement on either side. |
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 5/15/04 1:02 PM, in article Q2spc.54787$xw3.3277048@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:55:55 GMT, Philip Meech wrote: I was just noticing how well I could compensate for my budget speakers with my Sony and Onkyo home theatre receivers.I am still really enjoying dipping my toes into tube filled waters off mainland China. It has reactivated my sense of gadgeteer romance. I cannot spend $100,000 on stereo equipment nor would I. I often wonder if reviewers have better ears than the rest of us or better imaginations. It is some of the best non fiction writing in America. What makes you think it's non-fiction? After all, these guys get *paid* for 'hearing' differences among audio gear, and reporting them in colourful prose. Such 'differences' pay their mortgages....... Do you really *believe* all that guff that Kessler, Fremer et al spout every month? Perhaps you can take a less cynical view - these people review music and point out what is enjoyable to them as well as things that sound as if they are recorded and mastered well. They also review equipment that sounds as if it could reproduce that music either accurately or at least sounding "good" to them as possible. When looking to build a system or upgrade an old one - we are unlikely to try out as much equipment as they look at - so warts and all, it has value. I would agree that you don't need to and shouldn't swallow everything that people write or tell you - but heck, that is true in GENERAL, not just for audio reviewers. Also, from what I can tell, audio journalists are hifi geeks at heart - enthusiasm for the Next Big Thing is the only fault, if any, I doubt they go out and try to figure out how to dupe the guy reading their rag. And just like a movie review - because a reviewer likes it doesn't mean you will like it. No need to be an audio curmudgeon ! |
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
|
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
Regarding the wisdom of testing blind testing:
"I would think finding flaws with any methodology would be very important to anyone who thinks they are being scientific about things. Commands: Use arrow keys to move, '?' for help, 'q' to quit, '-' to go back." Yes, test the elements of blind testing, don't test it by running an similarilyuntested parallel set of nonblind tests. The only claim for the latter is that some people have done them for a couple of generations now so they must have some validity. What test tests the parallel subjective test and what test tests that test and so on in an infinite series. Poke and prod and examine the blind test in every way to see if one can make it stumble, that is the proper approach. |
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:soupc.16766$6f5.1472957@attbi_s54... Harry Lavo wrote: Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations To be honest, Harry, I can't recall you ever stating this explicitly before. I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous here. I'm only suggesting that perhaps you weren't as clear as you thought you were. I said it that explicitly, albeit not that succinctly, here within the last month.* And it was apparent that you, Tom, and others were not reading what I said at the time, but rather going into a "riff" based on what you think I said, or thought I would say, or wished I would say.* But that is what I said. Fine, Harry. Whatever you say. (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.) I and others have found numerous faults with it. Purely as a practical matter, it's impossible to pull off. I even suggested an alternative that would be far more straightforward, and meets every requirement you have insisted on, and you rejected that. Under the circumstances, I can understand Tom's suspicion that you were merely throwing up smoke. Your test did not "meet..every requirement I have insisted on".* For it continued to be based on quick swith a-b testing, No, it wasn't. What about "take as long as they want" did you not understand? Apparently, the only way you can argue with something is to misrepresent it. a technique that is of itself being questioned ....by the uninformed... as possibly contributing to erroneous conclusions. That is why I proposed a test that started where the subjectivists live...with extended evaluative listening, and changed only the condiditon of "blindness" not the listening techniques themselves.* Which is exactly what I proposed. In fact, what I proposed was far closer to what subjectivists actually do, because it would not require them to keep scoresheets, or to evaluate components based on pre-determined criteria. My approach would let them listen however they want, for whatever they want, and then decide which component they prefer. That is why I rejected the approach as I said at the time.* It is inviting in its simplicity but it would not sway subjectivists including myself because of this flaw. A good example of a subjectivist concocting a "flaw" out of thin air. As for the "many other subjectivists here," I think you are being presumptuous. Finding flaws with bias-controlled tests seems to be part of what makes one a subjectivist. I see no reason to believe that your test, even if you could pull it off, would be any different. bob That's not how I read it/them at all.** They may have some differences with me / my way of thinking, but the main problem they have is the *assumption* (unverified) that a test that is good for picking out small level differences in codec artecfact and other known acoustic anomalies is a suitable technique for open ended evaluation of audio components. The unverified assumption here is yours: that the human ear works differently when comparing sound from high-end components than when comparing sounds from other sources. * Once that criticism is addressed, I think you will find most objections melt away if your assumptions prove true.* But since the very idea of the test possibly being flawed is so threatening that even acknowledging the possibility seems beyond the objectivist ken, there is little movement on either side. We've posted our tests. Where are yours? Science is about more than quibbling over methodology, Harry. It's about actually doing experiments. Your standing in this debate will rise immeasurably when you actually do one. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963 |
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:soupc.16766$6f5.1472957@attbi_s54... Harry Lavo wrote: Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations To be honest, Harry, I can't recall you ever stating this explicitly before. I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous here. I'm only suggesting that perhaps you weren't as clear as you thought you were. I said it that explicitly, albeit not that succinctly, here within the last month. And it was apparent that you, Tom, and others were not reading what I said at the time, but rather going into a "riff" based on what you think I said, or thought I would say, or wished I would say. But that is what I said. (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.) I and others have found numerous faults with it. Purely as a practical matter, it's impossible to pull off. I even suggested an alternative that would be far more straightforward, and meets every requirement you have insisted on, and you rejected that. Under the circumstances, I can understand Tom's suspicion that you were merely throwing up smoke. Your test did not "meet..every requirement I have insisted on". For it continued to be based on quick swith a-b testing, a technique that is of itself being questioned as possibly contributing to erroneous conclusions. That is why I proposed a test that started where the subjectivists live...with extended evaluative listening, and changed only the condiditon of "blindness" not the listening techniques themselves. That is why I rejected the approach as I said at the time. It is inviting in its simplicity but it would not sway subjectivists including myself because of this flaw. As for the "many other subjectivists here," I think you are being presumptuous. Finding flaws with bias-controlled tests seems to be part of what makes one a subjectivist. I see no reason to believe that your test, even if you could pull it off, would be any different. bob That's not how I read it/them at all. They may have some differences with me / my way of thinking, but the main problem they have is the *assumption* (unverified) that a test that is good for picking out small level differences in codec artecfact and other known acoustic anomalies is a suitable technique for open ended evaluation of audio components. Once that criticism is addressed, I think you will find most objections melt away if your assumptions prove true. But since the very idea of the test possibly being flawed is so threatening that even acknowledging the possibility seems beyond the objectivist ken, there is little movement on either side. It seems to me the 'threatening' part is validating open-ended uncontrolled bias evaluation. One should be able to do that easily by showing the ability to come to the same conclusions under listener-bias controlled conditions following open-ended evaluation. Why won't you? Why has no one else done so? Again, Tom, you give evidence that you either don't read or don't want to understand what I say. That is exactly the purpose of the evaluative sighted-evaluative blind leg of my proposed test. And I just repeated the reasons for that in the lates post you are just now responding to. Please re-read paragraph #1 above and tell me what about believing "blind results" (if they support your position) I am above believing? What has not been "validated" are the conclusions you gain from non-controlled open listening as to acoustical cause. To imply that simply removing the sight of I/O terminals or otherwise hiding the answers somehow changes the acoustics of the situation (inducing masking) is a misdirection. If on the other hand, conclusions you hold are simply the result of a myriad of influences many of which have no acoustical cause why should anyone else but you care? As I have said repeatedly, one casual, undocumented, anecdotal case does not prove your case, however interesting. There is good reason for starting with sighted, open-ended evaluative listening...because that is where most audiophiles and reviewers start and make their judgments. So if that is erroneous, you have to *prove* it with rigorous testing...and you do that by doing the exact same test but "blind" instead of sighted. You do not do it by changing the test technique as well as going blind. My case all along is that you have switched two variables at once, yet you impute the difference in results to only one of those variables, while in fact the other variable may be at fault. How much clearer can I make it!! |
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:soupc.16766$6f5.1472957@attbi_s54... Harry Lavo wrote: Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that: 1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted *evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with no reservations To be honest, Harry, I can't recall you ever stating this explicitly before. I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous here. I'm only suggesting that perhaps you weren't as clear as you thought you were. I said it that explicitly, albeit not that succinctly, here within the last month. And it was apparent that you, Tom, and others were not reading what I said at the time, but rather going into a "riff" based on what you think I said, or thought I would say, or wished I would say. But that is what I said. Fine, Harry. Whatever you say. (and I further said that if real differences existed then I expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test). 2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and support your test as validated. Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other subjectivists here.) I and others have found numerous faults with it. Purely as a practical matter, it's impossible to pull off. I even suggested an alternative that would be far more straightforward, and meets every requirement you have insisted on, and you rejected that. Under the circumstances, I can understand Tom's suspicion that you were merely throwing up smoke. Your test did not "meet..every requirement I have insisted on". For it continued to be based on quick swith a-b testing, No, it wasn't. What about "take as long as they want" did you not understand? It is not only how long they have, but how they have to do the identification and make the choice...even after three days, they have to use their left brain in an a-b to make a choice. As opposed to evaluating the equipment and leaving the evaluation itself lead them to their choice whether in one hour, one day, or one month...whenever they feel certain they have a handle on it. Without having to make a separate "choice". Please reread my origiinal proposal...there is a reason I proposed what I did. Apparently, the only way you can argue with something is to misrepresent it. Not so. I just explained why right above. a technique that is of itself being questioned ...by the uninformed... No, by the very informed. as possibly contributing to erroneous conclusions. That is why I proposed a test that started where the subjectivists live...with extended evaluative listening, and changed only the condiditon of "blindness" not the listening techniques themselves. Which is exactly what I proposed. In fact, what I proposed was far closer to what subjectivists actually do, because it would not require them to keep scoresheets, or to evaluate components based on pre-determined criteria. My approach would let them listen however they want, for whatever they want, and then decide which component they prefer. No, it proposes that they have to make a left-brain "choice" as opposed to an evaluation. Big difference. In my test, I let the statistics make the "choice"...the audiophile never has to chose...he may prefer one on one characteristic and the other on another characteristic. If a statistically significant sampling indicates one way or the other, then that piece of equipment can be said to "differ" on that characteristic. Regardless of choice. That is why I rejected the approach as I said at the time. It is inviting in its simplicity but it would not sway subjectivists including myself because of this flaw. A good example of a subjectivist concocting a "flaw" out of thin air. No, you keep assuming the validity of your test when in fact what is needed is validation of it before you promulgate it to the world as "the answer". As for the "many other subjectivists here," I think you are being presumptuous. Finding flaws with bias-controlled tests seems to be part of what makes one a subjectivist. I see no reason to believe that your test, even if you could pull it off, would be any different. bob That's not how I read it/them at all. They may have some differences with me / my way of thinking, but the main problem they have is the *assumption* (unverified) that a test that is good for picking out small level differences in codec artecfact and other known acoustic anomalies is a suitable technique for open ended evaluation of audio components. The unverified assumption here is yours: that the human ear works differently when comparing sound from high-end components than when comparing sounds from other sources. No, that the ear-brain combination works differently when asked to evaluate a components sound on an open-ended basis versus having to choose between two components in a short timeframe. And my test is exactly designed to separate the effects of "blindness" from the effects of two different test techniques. Yours is not. Once that criticism is addressed, I think you will find most objections melt away if your assumptions prove true. But since the very idea of the test possibly being flawed is so threatening that even acknowledging the possibility seems beyond the objectivist ken, there is little movement on either side. We've posted our tests. Where are yours? Science is about more than quibbling over methodology, Harry. It's about actually doing experiments. Your standing in this debate will rise immeasurably when you actually do one. I'm trying to gain enough intellectual support on this forum to spend a year of my time going to the trouble to set up the control test with Tom, since it obviously cannot be done by one person but must be done by many. My taking a test I don't believe in up front would show me nothing at this point. I said I would do it when it is part of a control test. And BTW, I have done blind testing in the past on my own, but not rigorously. And sometimes I can hear differences. And sometimes not. Same as when testing sighted. But those are anecdotes...I am trying to help the group see what is needed to scientifically separate the two variables...comparative/evaluative and blind/non-blind. |
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
"Bromo" wrote in message
... Perhaps you can take a less cynical view - these people review music and point out what is enjoyable to them as well as things that sound as if they are recorded and mastered well. They also review equipment that sounds as if it could reproduce that music either accurately or at least sounding "good" to them as possible. (snip) No need to be an audio curmudgeon ! Many years ago Stereophile recommended the shielded version of a Grado cartridge, in their periodic listings over *several* years duration. I'm sure it sounded fine, the only trouble being that no such animal was ever even contemplated (according to Mr. Joe Grado himself). The owner at Lyle Cartridges became real ****ed by people wishing to buy one (myself included). Despite his requesting them to remove the recommendation at various shows, they continued on with it. |
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 16 May 2004 14:44:33 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 5/15/04 1:02 PM, in article Q2spc.54787$xw3.3277048@attbi_s04, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Do you really *believe* all that guff that Kessler, Fremer et al spout every month? Perhaps you can take a less cynical view - these people review music and point out what is enjoyable to them as well as things that sound as if they are recorded and mastered well. However, that's not what they say in their reviews. I would agree that you don't need to and shouldn't swallow everything that people write or tell you - but heck, that is true in GENERAL, not just for audio reviewers. Also, from what I can tell, audio journalists are hifi geeks at heart - enthusiasm for the Next Big Thing is the only fault, if any, I doubt they go out and try to figure out how to dupe the guy reading their rag. And just like a movie review - because a reviewer likes it doesn't mean you will like it. The point of course is that you should like it, because it sounds *just the same* as last month's 'best amp ever'. No need to be an audio curmudgeon ! Sorry, but *you* claim to be a professional engineer, yet you apply extreme sloppiness to your listening tests regarding cable, and you refuse even to discuss the detail of your 'experiment'. IME, those who apply less rigorous attention to their hobby than to their work, are not really interested in that hobby. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know of this challenge?
On 15 May 2004 18:28:31 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 5/15/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Q2spc.54787$xw3.3277048@attbi_s04 After all, these guys get *paid* for 'hearing' differences among audio gear, and reporting them in colourful prose. Really? Can you cite anyone being fired for reporting that something didn't sound different? Can you cite anyone ever having reported this? It is one thing to claim that the differences may be imagined. You are claiming a conspiracy of fraud. Strong charges IMO and something that needs to be supported with proof. See any cable review. Do you really *believe* all that guff that Kessler, Fremer et al spout every month? Do you believe they are knowingly making stuff up to keep their jobs? It's possible that they carefully avoid situations such as double-blind tests, which would force them to face up to the reality behind all that gushing prose. OTOH, I wouldn't be at all suprised to find that one or two of them, such as KK, are indeed just making it up as they go along. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ALL amps are equal?? | Car Audio | |||
| Light weight system challenge | Car Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
| Mechanic blames amplifier for alternator failing?? Help>>>>>>>>>>> | Car Audio | |||
| Southeast Invitational Sound Challenge | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
