| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#241
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:36:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message Well, you do, anyway. My point was that it's impossible not to be influenced by others. Right, people like Middius write thousands of posts for RAO, with absolutely zero expectation of influencing anybody. Putting Middius aside, if that's possible, what it your reaction to the proposition? If you believe that... There's a saying: "Any conviction gains infinitely the moment another begins to believe in it." The infinitely part is obviously hyperbole, but large and finite is more accurate and significant. Too literal, Arnie. It's not a measurement of capacitance. George claims a negative review wouldn't affect his listening pleasure. George makes many improbable claims, this is just one more. I don't believe it, but I'd like to hear other input. I don't know if I can influence you, Paul. ;-) Here's your chance to find out. :-) |
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:42:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message Very good. But I wonder if you object as strongly to the claims made by mini and micro systems manufacturers and retailers that these systems are true hi-fi, sound brilliant and will fulfil all your expectations about sound reproduction forever. These claims are probably relevant for certain people. Certain people? Most people seeking a "hi-fi system" who don't bother to acquaint themselves with what hi-fi means. And that means nearly everybody. OK, those claims are relevant for lots of people. Surely if you're looking for charlatans in the audio industry this where most of them hang out. I don't know if that is a slam dunk. Explanation? I don't think that it is necessarily true that people selling $100, $200, $300 mini-systems are charlatans. Personally I don't believe that expensive cables make much if any difference, Notice the hedge, apparently faith springs eternal. I fear this says something important about you, Arnie. Most people like to leave room for a doubt. Remember what I said (or rather, Mr. Ustinov said) about the inability to have a doubt? Believe it or not Paul, you may not always find the best information about technology in the popular media. Its not about an inability to have a doubt about *everything*, its about knowing what can and cannot be done. Expensive cable *can't* make a difference because commodity cables are already do such a complete job of meeting the need. The essence of believing in the possible need for expensive cable is ignorance about the goodness of comodity cables. but they do after all appeal to the well heeled afficianado, not the first time buyer unable to make an informed decision. I don't know about your neck of the woods, but high priced cables can be found in just about every audio retail store in the US, including electronics stores and appliance stores. Are you suggesting that the average buyer of a mini system is likely to purchase Monster cable to go with it? Mini systems are generally self-contained. They are not likely to purchase any cable to go with it. But, if you go to Best Buy or Circuit City and pick up a receiver, a DVD player, and some speakers you are likely to get a pitch for upscale cables from Monster or a competitor. What galls me about the marketing of micros, midis & minis is that it effectively syphons off all the potential customers for real hi-fi People who buy this stuff are looking for a packaged solution. Where they fade out, HTIB systems pick up. They're looking for a packaged solution because they've been convinced the package will supply their need. This is called marketing. It may also be a reasonble offering. (or at least it did, until HT began to do that even more effectively). Higher-end HT seems to be shaping up as being like a better set of speakers for that shiney new HDTV. HT is swallowing hi-fi whole. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys, but you're wrong. HT + portable A/V + HTPC are swallowing hi-fi. For example, I think there were at least three major HTPC or HTPC-related exhibits (not hotel rooms but large exhibit halls) at HE2005. Given the size of the market, it was amazing to me how little portable A/V was in evidence. I can only think of a small booth by Shure that was getting pretty heavy traffic. Few people care to have two systems, one for HT and one for audio. Ergo, the HT has to do for both. And in the minds of most punters, why should it not? I'm not sure they are punters. You're way behind, Paul. Many people don't have any serious HT at all. Instead, they put their time and money into portable A/V. Some of the most serious HT advocates I know are actually doing HTPC. I wonder how many innocents have listened to their first mini system plastered with the word "Hi-Fi" and thought, "Well if that's hi-fi it's waaaay overrated. I thought it was s'posed to sound like a real band." Probably not many at all. Who would be that naive? Get into the real world, Arnie. I suspect that the US is a little more mainstream than Aussie-land. As I said before, you've been slaving over that hot test bench too long. The fact is Paul, you simply don't know me. I don't even have a audio-related test bench right now due to home (re)construction. I spend most of my audio prime time doing live sound and recording. About 8 hours a week. I do almost all my listening with portable systems or a production system. My major project at this time has almost nothing to do with audio test bench work. The little technical testing I do is almost all in-situ and on-site, and in support of system construction and reconstruction. My major project for the last 3 years has been: (1) Learn and provide live sound, both leadership of the service team, and hands-on. (2) Catch up with live recording technology and do it weekly. (3) Help revitalize the worship music program at my church which implies revitalizing a 100 year old church in a 50 year old building. This will hopefully provide quality acoustic input for (1) and (2). (4) Dramatically modernize the acoustics and lighting (architectural and theatrical) of the two largest performance spaces in said church. The larger room has about 113,000 cubic feet. This is a major component of (3) At the same time I've been supervising the refurbishment of my 70-year old house - a project that is already way into the six figures. About a year ago I demolished my test bench to make way for the refurbishment project. It had become pretty idle for several years due to the above-mentioned activities. |
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said to La Salope: You are kindly credulous. I appreciate. "Kindly credulous"? Interesting use of English. Lewis Carroll may have anticipated Lionella's assaults on the language. But at the last minute, his editor persuaded him to call the beast Jabberwocky instead of Gibberwocky. |
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... What gets me is why you think I should give a **** what you think. If you don't give a ****, stop responding to me. That's on Arny's low level. You are not just his apologist, now you are becoming more and more like him. I prefer that to your choice of becoming more like Middius. Thanks for admitting that you aspire to falsely accuse others of sending you kiddie porn and/or you have storied kiddy porn on your hard drive for a number of years. Thanks for demonstrating you will resort to the behavior you claim to abhor from others. I think the word falsely should be replaced with erroneously. Wrong, it was a willful act of deception on Arny's part. Even granting the assumption that someone did send it to him, he accused at least ten different people of being that person, without ANY evidence at all. And it wasn't kiddie porn anyway, according to Arnir. you would think he would know the difference between waht a child and waht an adult looks like. Obviously it was all a lie anyway,. His story is so full of holes and contradictions. Maybe someday you will wake up and see that. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#245
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:6M9Re.99621$Ep.62290@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner. Giving ones' opinions is not unethical. How about giving ones' opinion for money? Still ethical? I think so. How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something for money? Still ethical? I think so. How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something for money while taking advertising money from somethings maker? Still ethical? Ouch.... getting a little hairy. Conflicts of interest rearing their heads. I'd suggest a means of protecting oneself from improper influence. A consumer magazine that sells advertising to equipment manufacturers is the norm, for hobby magazines. No problem, but endorsing snake oil is a problem. How about giving ones' opinion that people should buy something for money that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing what is claims to do and everyone with a lick of technical understanding knows it while taking advertising money from somethings maker? Crucify them, crucify them. Deciding whether its something one would want to buy is something best left to the the indiviual, rather than to a self proclaimed nanny. Revealing the efficacy of products is something people expect from hobby mags. People have a reasonable expectation that reviews will be honest and in line with the known science of the product and it's application. When a hobby mag endorses something that can't possibly work, it's no longer a help to the reader, it's a accomplice to fraud. My main complaint, though, is not that the reviewer has opinions, but that the reviewer might have little concept of the value of money. Shoouldn't they have a concept of the value of the product and the possibility of it actually working? Sure they should have a concept of the relative value of the product. That is part of what I have been saying. Then why would something like CD stoplight make the RCL? It has no value at all, in fact the whole green ink thing was the result of an April Fools Day prank. Well, I tried it on a number of cd's, and it made most of those a little worse sounding. Why would they ever endorse a product of any kind that is fraudulent on its face, such as the Bedini Clarifier? You don't see me buying one. Or high price power cords? nor that. Or Mpingo disks? nor that. but to each his own. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables. Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables. It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying, mindless posts, Art stumbles into cogency. Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about, buying things related to the hobby. You seem to have a problem with that. No problem with discussing things related to the hobby, it's the outright fraud that they promote, that's the problem. Well, go out and buy some of that fraudulently recommended equipment, and sue SP for damages for recommending it. Do you have the balls? They'd just claim ignorance. So, you have no case. I'm not being taken in by fraudulent claims, so I'm not a victim. I also don't have the kind of resources one would need to fight and win such a case. It might be interesting to see if there's a firm that would consider a pro bono case, perhaps a class action suit against Atkinson, et al. Surely there must be such a law firm as Class Envy and Borg If you think my disdain for SP and their delude believers has to with class envy, you are most assuredly wrong. I just don't like trying to decieve people. I think the best thing for audio magazines or any hobby magazine is to maximize the enjoyment by giving recomendations that will actually improve performance. If there were something besides loudspeakers, room treatment and EQ that would likely improve the sound of a system, I'd be all for it. The simple fact is there aren't. I certainly don't begrudge anyone spending as much as they can afford on whatever they want for whatever reason they want, but I do think they ought to be getting the best possible advice before they make the purchase. Whatever advances that might be possible will most likely come from somewhere other than the ultra expensive, small volume manufacturers, since they don't have the resources for the research that would produce such improvements. When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty? It's not about envy, it's always been about the truth of the claims. if not class envy, it is about hearing caability envy. Sorry for your misfortune. "At least" it saves you a good bit of money. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is within probablitity", that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are claiming only 5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling. My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in each of six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out of 90). I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think it is in the 85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he heard a difference than that the result was by chance But, I know that you won't except that. u r kerect, i wont except that. Even if the confidence level were 80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the ability to discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance. Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up the $5000.00 challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire people have let it sit for years, obviously their confidence level is somewhat lower than 95%. The results of the six tests on the subject were reportedly 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 12/15, and 10/15. Scott W. accepted that as statistically significant. Do you? Yes, but I'd want to know more about the wire being compared, since no one is arguing that wire can't affect the sound, only that 2 different wires of simialr construction can't. There are still people claiming that there is a problem with skin effect in audio cables, do you think they have a case? High end wire is not of similar construction to mass market wire. Aside from possible differences in durability, if they are audibly identical, who cares? "if" they are. My experience in sighted evaluation is that there are differences for some of them, but not substantial differences, and the it is not cost effective for me to deal with it. I just buy better sounding equipment, it makes a more substantial difference. I fel the same way about most of what the borgs call tweak equipment like poweer line conditioners, etc. But I reserve to others to find for themselves what they will. I've always said that the piece of equipment that improves my sound the most is my record cleaner. BOB MOREIN, where is your condemnation of Arts' posts and attacks on his IQ? This post of his is full of errors. Aren't you going to tell him how low his IQ is. Its about content. Yours is woefully lacking ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29) "But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire." But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled' (his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything else in audio. I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think. Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some other method is better or even as good? He was challenged twice for a reference to a published report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only to reemerge after a suitable interval. Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is my personal preference. It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that ABX is the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny. Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your "test" work? Ludovic Mirabel P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83) Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX obstacle race. So much for "anyone,ever" You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that while it might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to insure they weren't just lucky guesses. You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE" No one has. We just showed you, SOMEONE HAD. 90 trials, 81% What you showed was that people can sometimes guess well. The odds are much higher that the result was not guesswork than that the results were guesswork. Its so much fun watching you cling to your religious beliefs. Wrong again, but thanks for admitting you're as desparate as Ludo. The wire being compared was sufficiently different in construction that differences would be expected. Ok, So, high end wire can sound different. Thanks It sounds different from 24 AWG wire, but not from wire OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION AND GAUGE. I've said this repeatedly. High price wire of 12, 14, or 16 AWG does not sound different than 12,14, or 16 AWG that can be bought at Home Depot for a few cents per foot. Most high prioce wire is so different from what you are talking about. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
I think the word falsely should be replaced with erroneously. Wrong, it was a willful act of deception on Arny's part. Delusions of omniscience and all that noted. Even granting the assumption that someone did send it to him, he accused at least ten different people of being that person, without ANY evidence at all. There was plenty of evidence - the nature of the attack, the past attacks of a similar nature that were tracable, the technical skills it took to launch it, the people who tried to cover it up. You're as dirty as anybody, Art. And it wasn't kiddie porn anyway, according to Arnir. you would think he would know the difference between waht a child and what an adult looks like. The legal definition of kiddie porn is quite exact. A person changes from an illegal subject to a legal subject in one day. Obviously it was all a lie anyway, His story is so full of holes and contradictions. Not at all. Furthermore the attempts to show that I made the story up had plenty of holes in them. Two words: Jamie Benchimol. Maybe someday you will wake up and see that. Given all the Middius lies you've swallowed Art, if anybody needs to wake up, its you. Remember, you've already publicly accepted all of Middius' most reprehensible posts including his pedophile fantasies, his forgeries and his outright lies. |
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:36:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message Well, you do, anyway. My point was that it's impossible not to be influenced by others. Right, people like Middius write thousands of posts for RAO, with absolutely zero expectation of influencing anybody. Putting Middius aside, if that's possible, Sigh, I was just turning his argument back at him. what it your reaction to the proposition? I agree that its impossible to not be influenced by others, one way or the other, to a large degree or small degree. Furthermore, I brought the issue of influences on listeners up during the HE2005 debate, now about 4 months ago. If you believe that... There's a saying: "Any conviction gains infinitely the moment another begins to believe in it." The infinitely part is obviously hyperbole, but large and finite is more accurate and significant. Too literal, Arnie. It's not a measurement of capacitance. Any serious claim should be credible. |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
It's not about envy, it's always been about the truth of the claims. if not class envy, Art, you're of a lower class than many of the people you accuse of class envy. Why make yourself look bad by bringing this issue up? it is about hearing caability envy. Art, you're of an age that puts your hearing abilities below many of the people you accuse of class envy. Why make yourself look bad by bringing this issue up? |
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
Its about content. Yours is woefully lacking If irony killed. |
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
High price wire of 12, 14, or 16 AWG does not sound different than 12,14, or 16 AWG that can be bought at Home Depot for a few cents per foot. Most high price wire is so different from what you are talking about. Nope. Since when have you been qualified to make technical judgements about wire, Art? |
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:6M9Re.99621$Ep.62290@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner. Giving ones' opinions is not unethical. How about giving ones' opinion for money? Still ethical? I think so. How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something for money? Still ethical? I think so. How about giving ones' opinion for money that people should buy something for money while taking advertising money from somethings maker? Still ethical? Ouch.... getting a little hairy. Conflicts of interest rearing their heads. I'd suggest a means of protecting oneself from improper influence. A consumer magazine that sells advertising to equipment manufacturers is the norm, for hobby magazines. No problem, but endorsing snake oil is a problem. How about giving ones' opinion that people should buy something for money that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing what is claims to do and everyone with a lick of technical understanding knows it while taking advertising money from somethings maker? Crucify them, crucify them. Deciding whether its something one would want to buy is something best left to the the indiviual, rather than to a self proclaimed nanny. Revealing the efficacy of products is something people expect from hobby mags. People have a reasonable expectation that reviews will be honest and in line with the known science of the product and it's application. When a hobby mag endorses something that can't possibly work, it's no longer a help to the reader, it's a accomplice to fraud. My main complaint, though, is not that the reviewer has opinions, but that the reviewer might have little concept of the value of money. Shoouldn't they have a concept of the value of the product and the possibility of it actually working? Sure they should have a concept of the relative value of the product. That is part of what I have been saying. Then why would something like CD stoplight make the RCL? It has no value at all, in fact the whole green ink thing was the result of an April Fools Day prank. Well, I tried it on a number of cd's, and it made most of those a little worse sounding. You didn't answer the question. Why would they ever endorse a product of any kind that is fraudulent on its face, such as the Bedini Clarifier? You don't see me buying one. Not answering the question. Or high price power cords? nor that. Or Mpingo disks? nor that. but to each his own. Why would they recommend something that doesn't work? |
|
#255
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 06:40:56 GMT, " wrote: Sure about that? You mean if you just spent 10,000 on an amp and a mag told you it was crap, and backed that conclusion up with figures, and insisted that all the reviewers on the mag were in agreement that it was total feces and sounded nothing like music...you mean that wouldn't have the slightest effect on your post-purchase pleasure? Thankfully, we don't have to worry about such an event becuase we already know that the overwhelming majority of audio equipment sounds alike. Well, you do, anyway. My point was that it's impossible not to be influenced by others. Sure it is, especially if you know they are wrong. There's a saying: "Any conviction gains infinitely the moment another begins to believe in it." Those who beleive that there are gigantic differences in the sound of audio equipment, probably, those who know what the blind comparsions have shown, not so much. You could also say, "Every conviction is subject to doubt the moment someone expresses a contrary opinion." George claims a negative review wouldn't affect his listening pleasure. I don't believe it, but I'd like to hear other input. It wouldn't affect me either, and I suspect it's for the same reason. I stopped caring about audio as a status symbol 25 years ago, when I learned that most of what was being said about sonic differences was bull****. |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 06:59:11 GMT, " wrote: I'm not being taken in by fraudulent claims, so I'm not a victim. I also don't have the kind of resources one would need to fight and win such a case. It might be interesting to see if there's a firm that would consider a pro bono case, perhaps a class action suit against Atkinson, et al. Surely there must be such a law firm as Class Envy and Borg If you think my disdain for SP and their delude believers has to with class envy, you are most assuredly wrong. I just don't like trying to decieve people. I think the best thing for audio magazines or any hobby magazine is to maximize the enjoyment by giving recomendations that will actually improve performance. If there were something besides loudspeakers, room treatment and EQ that would likely improve the sound of a system, I'd be all for it. The simple fact is there aren't. I certainly don't begrudge anyone spending as much as they can afford on whatever they want for whatever reason they want, but I do think they ought to be getting the best possible advice before they make the purchase. Whatever advances that might be possible will most likely come from somewhere other than the ultra expensive, small volume manufacturers, since they don't have the resources for the research that would produce such improvements. When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty? It's not about envy, it's always been about the truth of the claims. Very good. But I wonder if you object as strongly to the claims made by mini and micro systems manufacturers and retailers that these systems are true hi-fi, sound brilliant and will fulfil all your expectations about sound reproduction forever. From what I know about them, ( I don't have any interest in them, so I don't pay any attention) there are 2 classes: 1. I call drug store stereo, that just crap with even worse speakers. 2. Small but real hi-fi components that have limited power and very low end speakers. Take away the crap speakers and connect some good ones not driven to clipping and they can sound as good as any other hi-fi. Surely if you're looking for charlatans in the audio industry this where most of them hang out. Personally I don't believe that expensive cables make much if any difference, but they do after all appeal to the well heeled afficianado, not the first time buyer unable to make an informed decision. What galls me about the marketing of micros, midis & minis is that it effectively syphons off all the potential customers for real hi-fi (or at least it did, until HT began to do that even more effectively). I wonder how many innocents have listened to their first mini system plastered with the word "Hi-Fi" and thought, "Well if that's hi-fi it's waaaay overrated. I thought it was s'posed to sound like a real band." Limitations on placement and price are IMO the main reason anybody buys this kind of stuff. Perhaps if you gave me some brands and models I could give you a better answer. I doubt that most people are gullible enough to beleive that boom boxes and such will give them the same sound as a decent setup with good speakers. |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:YqbRe.99627$Ep.64584@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:EdaRe.99623$Ep.5498@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE" Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the participants over 50%. One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the expected distribution for random responses of 15 participants. Bad work, you fiind one person who can hear, and fourteen who can't, test them, then disregard the result of that one, for the deficiencies of the other fourteen. Back to school you ole fart. Enroll in probability 101  Look at it this way. Test the same guy 15 times. He just might do very well one of those 15 times. Was his hearing better that one time than all the others? That is not the way to look at it. That is one person, he is unique. The question is whether he heard differences. Exactly. And now Ludovic has clarified that there were repeat trials and his 83% number is a composite from all the trials...not just one trial. In the end... he has indicated they did EXACTLY what I said was necessary to provide proof. Although 10 responses per trial is a bit low...being able to respond accurately in repeat trials is definitely significant. Being able to respond accurately in one trial is not. Its really just a matter of binary probability. Give someone enough tries and they will get a decent percentage right. Most tests are done to 90% or 95% confidence. That still means that 1 of 10 or 1 of 20 times the results will be a false positive. So you can see 1 positive subject out of 15 subjects could very well be due to chance. sure, but chances are very substantial that one person heard differences and fourteen did not. the initial 83% number was insufficient data to make that claim and I still can't access the original article. Just cause differences are there, doesn't mean that everyone has the capacity to recognize them. Agreed. chances are one out of fifty that any one person has at least a 132 IQ. Yes... but a single IQ test of 10 questions won't guarantee you found him. chances are pretty good that at least one person in a group of fifty has an IQ of 132. Sure...and probably 3 in 50 will ace a 10 question IQ test. Now what? but those are two different issues. He must be tested again and the odds of him succeeding again due to chance go to 1 in 100 or 1 in 400. Now thats proof. Not everyone is equal. Never said they were. If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but reality is... one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct. It proves it for that one person. Not true. We can actually expect one or even 2 persons to get lucky in a group of 15 with a 90% confidence test. Its the odds. Let him repeat the test. If he is truly gifted he should be able to repeat. If not... then it was probably random chance or luck. even with one run of tests the odds are very substantial that it was not chance. Maybe for 100% correct or even 9 of 10. But for 8 of 10 the numbers don't bear you out. In fact... in one test run... say 10 responses... you have ~4.3% chance of getting 8 of 10 just due to chance. So with 15 subjects we would expect that 64% of the time (more than half) one of the 15 is gonna get 8 right. I'm sorry but you have less than 1 chance in 2 that the 1 person with 8 right (of 15 who were tested) is truly golden eared after a one run of tests. Heres a good tutorial. http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experim...tatistics.html By my math, I get 5.5% chance of getting at least 8 out of 10 right, and the chance that at least one out of 15 will do that well is 57% Norm Strong |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message I think the word falsely should be replaced with erroneously. Wrong, it was a willful act of deception on Arny's part. Delusions of omniscience and all that noted. Even granting the assumption that someone did send it to him, he accused at least ten different people of being that person, without ANY evidence at all. There was plenty of evidence - the nature of the attack, the past attacks of a similar nature that were tracable, the technical skills it took to launch it, the people who tried to cover it up. You're as dirty as anybody, Art. And it wasn't kiddie porn anyway, according to Arnir. you would think he would know the difference between waht a child and what an adult looks like. The legal definition of kiddie porn is quite exact. A person changes from an illegal subject to a legal subject in one day. Obviously it was all a lie anyway, His story is so full of holes and contradictions. Not at all. Furthermore the attempts to show that I made the story up had plenty of holes in them. Two words: Jamie Benchimol. Two more words: "Leon North", the self-appointed, self-proclaimed, uncredentialed "internet expert". Does anyone else find it just a wee bit odd that "Leon North" made his *first ever* Usenet appearance by posting to RAO on September, 11, 2001? |
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:42:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message Very good. But I wonder if you object as strongly to the claims made by mini and micro systems manufacturers and retailers that these systems are true hi-fi, sound brilliant and will fulfil all your expectations about sound reproduction forever. These claims are probably relevant for certain people. Certain people? Most people seeking a "hi-fi system" who don't bother to acquaint themselves with what hi-fi means. And that means nearly everybody. I doubt that there are many people who don't understand that it means faithful to the original. They might have some confusion about which is the original, since there are many people who don't understand it means faithful to the master, not to an actual event, which in many cases never happened. Surely if you're looking for charlatans in the audio industry this where most of them hang out. I don't know if that is a slam dunk. Explanation? Personally I don't believe that expensive cables make much if any difference, Notice the hedge, apparently faith springs eternal. I fear this says something important about you, Arnie. Most people like to leave room for a doubt. Remember what I said (or rather, Mr. Ustinov said) about the inability to have a doubt? There is no real doubt that cables of similar construction have no sonic difference. but they do after all appeal to the well heeled afficianado, not the first time buyer unable to make an informed decision. I don't know about your neck of the woods, but high priced cables can be found in just about every audio retail store in the US, including electronics stores and appliance stores. Are you suggesting that the average buyer of a mini system is likely to purchase Monster cable to go with it? Depends on the salesman and if the customer believes that it would improve the sound. What galls me about the marketing of micros, midis & minis is that it effectively syphons off all the potential customers for real hi-fi People who buy this stuff are looking for a packaged solution. Where they fade out, HTIB systems pick up. They're looking for a packaged solution because they've been convinced the package will supply their need. This is called marketing. Most of the people who buy this sort of stuff are less concerned about ultimate hi-fi, they want something that's better than what they have which is usually nothing. If they care about quality sound they will upgrade to better speakers. (or at least it did, until HT began to do that even more effectively). Higher-end HT seems to be shaping up as being like a better set of speakers for that shiney new HDTV. HT is swallowing hi-fi whole. Not IMO, it's keeping it alive and thriving. It will eventually lead to better sounding, (more realistic presentation) stereo. Few people care to have two systems, one for HT and one for audio. Ergo, the HT has to do for both. And in the minds of most punters, why should it not? Indeed why not? You shut off the speakers that aren't needed and you have a hi-fi that's as good as the speakers connected. I wonder how many innocents have listened to their first mini system plastered with the word "Hi-Fi" and thought, "Well if that's hi-fi it's waaaay overrated. I thought it was s'posed to sound like a real band." Probably not many at all. Who would be that naive? Get into the real world, Arnie. As I said before, you've been slaving over that hot test bench too long. I think you underestimate your fellow humans. |
|
#260
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message I think the word falsely should be replaced with erroneously. Wrong, it was a willful act of deception on Arny's part. Delusions of omniscience and all that noted. Even granting the assumption that someone did send it to him, he accused at least ten different people of being that person, without ANY evidence at all. There was plenty of evidence - the nature of the attack, the past attacks of a similar nature that were tracable, the technical skills it took to launch it, the people who tried to cover it up. You're as dirty as anybody, Art. And it wasn't kiddie porn anyway, according to Arnir. you would think he would know the difference between waht a child and what an adult looks like. The legal definition of kiddie porn is quite exact. A person changes from an illegal subject to a legal subject in one day. Obviously it was all a lie anyway, His story is so full of holes and contradictions. Not at all. Furthermore the attempts to show that I made the story up had plenty of holes in them. Two words: Jamie Benchimol. Two more words: "Leon North", the self-appointed, self-proclaimed, uncredentialed "internet expert". Yes, he was Jamie's right hand boy. Does anyone else find it just a wee bit odd that "Leon North" made his *first ever* Usenet appearance by posting to RAO on September, 11, 2001? Very odd, if he was truely an internet expert. His tone suggested that he had origins similar to that of who, Fear3000? |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is within probablitity", that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You are claiming only 5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling. My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in each of six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75 out of 90). I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would think it is in the 85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he heard a difference than that the result was by chance But, I know that you won't except that. u r kerect, i wont except that. Even if the confidence level were 80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the ability to discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance. Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up the $5000.00 challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire people have let it sit for years, obviously their confidence level is somewhat lower than 95%. The results of the six tests on the subject were reportedly 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 12/15, and 10/15. Scott W. accepted that as statistically significant. Do you? Yes, but I'd want to know more about the wire being compared, since no one is arguing that wire can't affect the sound, only that 2 different wires of simialr construction can't. There are still people claiming that there is a problem with skin effect in audio cables, do you think they have a case? High end wire is not of similar construction to mass market wire. Aside from possible differences in durability, if they are audibly identical, who cares? "if" they are. My experience in sighted evaluation is that there are differences for some of them, but not substantial differences, and the it is not cost effective for me to deal with it. I just buy better sounding equipment, it makes a more substantial difference. I fel the same way about most of what the borgs call tweak equipment like poweer line conditioners, etc. But I reserve to others to find for themselves what they will. I've always said that the piece of equipment that improves my sound the most is my record cleaner. BOB MOREIN, where is your condemnation of Arts' posts and attacks on his IQ? This post of his is full of errors. Aren't you going to tell him how low his IQ is. Its about content. Yours is woefully lacking Bul****, his most recent posts have nothing to with content, he's become Middius without the charisma, just pointing out spelling errors. If I had made the post you made, he would have commented on the errors. And speaking of lacking in content, what are most of your posts? |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in
message nk.net "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message BOB MOREIN, where is your condemnation of Arts' posts and attacks on his IQ? This post of his is full of errors. Aren't you going to tell him how low his IQ is. It's where Bob's ethics are - where the sun shines not. Its about content. Yours is woefully lacking Bul****, his most recent posts have nothing to with content, he's become Middius without the charisma, just pointing out spelling errors. When you're talking less charisma than Middius, you're really scraping the bottom. But you're right. If I had made the post you made, he would have commented on the errors. Yeah, but Art's posts pour healing oil on Bob's vendetta against me. And speaking of lacking in content, what are most of your posts? Let's not go there. Opps, we're there already. Art is getting older and some people become more childish when they are older. I remember Art' posts from years ago, and he used to be able to at least suggest the appearance of content. |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:17:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: " wrote in message link.net... Then why would something like CD stoplight make the RCL? It has no value at all, in fact the whole green ink thing was the result of an April Fools Day prank. Well, I tried it on a number of cd's, and it made most of those a little worse sounding. Bull**** - you always had an overly vivid imagination, sad Sack. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: " wrote in message link.net... When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty? They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car. It's not about envy, it's always been about the truth of the claims. if not class envy, it is about hearing caability envy. Sorry for your misfortune. "At least" it saves you a good bit of money. And your imagination costs you money. Why is it always the clowns like you who claim to have Golden Ears - but cry foul if asked to *prove* their hearing capability? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:17:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: " wrote in message ink.net... Then why would something like CD stoplight make the RCL? It has no value at all, in fact the whole green ink thing was the result of an April Fools Day prank. Well, I tried it on a number of cd's, and it made most of those a little worse sounding. Bull**** - you always had an overly vivid imagination, sad Sack. Based on Sackman's lengthy and volumnous history of over-the-edge postings, maybe he carried that philosoply into his CD treatments. |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: " wrote in message hlink.net... When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty? They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car. Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with "performance". Sorry you know so little about cars. |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil a écrit :
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: " wrote in message thlink.net... When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty? They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car. Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with "performance". Sorry you know so little about cars. LOL I bet that *you* can make the difference between : Porsche Cayenne : Cayenne Turbo 450 ch - 620 Nm. 0 to 100 km/H : 5,6 secondes VW Touareg W12 : 450 ch - 600 Nm 0 to 100 km/H : 5,9 secondes BTW 99% of the drivers would not make any difference between the V10 TDI (313ch) and the W12, so... I'm sorry *you* know so little about cars, Dave. :-) |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:32:04 +0200, Lionel
wrote: dave weil a écrit : On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: " wrote in message rthlink.net... When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty? They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car. Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with "performance". Sorry you know so little about cars. LOL I bet that *you* can make the difference between : Porsche Cayenne : Cayenne Turbo 450 ch - 620 Nm. 0 to 100 km/H : 5,6 secondes VW Touareg W12 : 450 ch - 600 Nm 0 to 100 km/H : 5,9 secondes BTW 99% of the drivers would not make any difference between the V10 TDI (313ch) and the W12, so... I'm sorry *you* know so little about cars, Dave. When you learn the meaning of the English word "exactly", please get back to me. |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil a écrit :
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:32:04 +0200, Lionel wrote: dave weil a écrit : On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: " wrote in message arthlink.net... When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty? They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car. Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with "performance". Sorry you know so little about cars. LOL I bet that *you* can make the difference between : Porsche Cayenne : Cayenne Turbo 450 ch - 620 Nm. 0 to 100 km/H : 5,6 secondes VW Touareg W12 : 450 ch - 600 Nm 0 to 100 km/H : 5,9 secondes BTW 99% of the drivers would not make any difference between the V10 TDI (313ch) and the W12, so... I'm sorry *you* know so little about cars, Dave. When you learn the meaning of the English word "exactly", please get back to me. Oh, oh Dave is vexed. My point was about performance : "That has more than a little to do with "performance". When you learn to read, please get back too me. ;-) |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:06:14 +0200, Lionel
wrote: Porsche Cayenne : Cayenne Turbo 450 ch - 620 Nm. 0 to 100 km/H : 5,6 secondes VW Touareg W12 : 450 ch - 600 Nm 0 to 100 km/H : 5,9 secondes BTW 99% of the drivers would not make any difference between the V10 TDI (313ch) and the W12, so... I'm sorry *you* know so little about cars, Dave. When you learn the meaning of the English word "exactly", please get back to me. Oh, oh Dave is vexed. My point was about performance : "That has more than a little to do with "performance". When you learn to read, please get back too me. ;-) Who cares WHAT your point was about? But since you asked, .3 of a second IS a difference. Whether or not YOU think that a certain percentage of drivers might or might not notice is stupid. That difference could mean the difference between life and death. Now, quit interferring before I DO get "vexed". |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
Your corection is accurate: I was writing from
memory- my memory for figures is just as poor as my arithmetics are in general. My respect for medical research statisticians is theoretical not, God forbids, hands on : If the "golden ear" had really got 15 "hits" four times I should have said that his score was a much better one namely 91% (my calculator tells me) not 83% that I reported. Odd that you did not include this in your account of my perfidy. Or do you make errors as well sometimes?. Here is Greenhill's table. If it is confusing blame Google. I tried to arrange it cleanly but could not. SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 2. Same but levels matched 9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12 3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise 13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7 4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise 15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15 5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music 4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10 6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music 14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10 ______________________________________________ % of "hits" in the total of 6 tests 90 tries: 67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50? 83 50 I am not prepared to lay my life down for Greenhill's "golden ear"- once again the description is Greenhill's not mine. Nor will I comment on your disagreement with his statistics. The entire subject was thrashed out ad nauseam in the RAHE 2 years ago and I regret restarting it. While obviously you're not bending over backwards to make allowances I have no quarrel with your forum manners. I quoted Greenhill only as a bait to someone who pontificated on the subject that he obviously knew little about. But the topic brings out of the woodwork several creatures that I find repulsive. I note that you do not mention any ABX component comparison studies that would meet your statistical standards. Even the negative ones like Greenhill's or- dream on- just one with a POSITIVE outcome. Where is the research to validate the claims? My comments are as follows: 1) Your comment that it is "no proof of exceptional ability" is fair.The "golden ear's" performance may have been sheer one time luck. ABXing I think fox the temporal lobes of the brain. It does it to me. I find it funny that the ABXers are up in arms when someone, just one man, is said to have done well when ABXing. They should be cheering. Of course he inconsiderately did it comparing cables and we know what cables are in the ABXers vocabulary. 2) All the panelists did well comparing uneven diameter cables when pink noise was played to them. The scores were much worse when music was used as a signal and became awful when similar diameters were used. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink noise. 3) I understand that 16 Gauge vs. 24 gauge over 50" means 1,70db volume difference. Six out of eleven panelists failed to hear this difference in 5 (out of fifteen) tries or more. I have, with my elderly ears, no difficulty hearing 1db volume difference between the two speakers when my stepped volume control is moved without my knowledge- but of course I'm not ABXing. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:16:22 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: " wrote in message thlink.net... When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty? They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car. Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with "performance". Sorry you know so little about cars. Sorry you're unaware that the base models use the 3.2 V-6 VW petrol engine, they share the 'stump-pulling' VW 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel, and the W-12 VW has the same power output (but with no turbo lag) as the V-8 Cayenne Turbo S. Shame that you know so little about cars. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message BOB MOREIN, where is your condemnation of Arts' posts and attacks on his IQ? This post of his is full of errors. Aren't you going to tell him how low his IQ is. It's where Bob's ethics are - where the sun shines not. Its about content. Yours is woefully lacking Bull****, his most recent posts have nothing to with content, he's become Middius without the charisma, just pointing out spelling errors. When you're talking less charisma than Middius, you're really scraping the bottom. But you're right. If I had made the post you made, he would have commented on the errors. Yeah, but Art's posts pour healing oil on Bob's vendetta against me. And speaking of lacking in content, what are most of your posts? Let's not go there. Opps, we're there already. Art is getting older and some people become more childish when they are older. I remember Art' posts from years ago, and he used to be able to at least suggest the appearance of content. Maybe he Bob could claim that the posts are forged by Bwian again, to make him look bad, or should I say worse than he already does. It's the only possible way he might extricate himself from the deep doo-doo he has put himself in. Either that, or he just likes doo-doo. |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:17:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: " wrote in message ink.net... Then why would something like CD stoplight make the RCL? It has no value at all, in fact the whole green ink thing was the result of an April Fools Day prank. Well, I tried it on a number of cd's, and it made most of those a little worse sounding. Bull**** - you always had an overly vivid imagination, sad Sack. Based on Sackman's lengthy and volumnous history of over-the-edge postings, maybe he carried that philosoply into his CD treatments. What??? You're not supposed to cover the whole CD with geen ink??? ;-) |
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lionel wrote: dave weil a =E9crit : On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:32:04 +0200, Lionel wrote: dave weil a =E9crit : On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: " wrote in message arthlink.net... When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a p= eice of equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenge= d=2E If manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expe= ct challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as = opposed to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed = to achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's o= f they performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone mad= e a car that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty? They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car. Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with "performance". Sorry you know so little about cars. LOL I bet that *you* can make the difference between : Porsche Cayenne : Cayenne Turbo 450 ch - 620 Nm. 0 to 100 km/H : 5,6 secondes VW Touareg W12 : 450 ch - 600 Nm 0 to 100 km/H : 5,9 secondes BTW 99% of the drivers would not make any difference between the V10 TDI (313ch) and the W12, so... I'm sorry *you* know so little about cars, Dave. When you learn the meaning of the English word "exactly", please get back to me. Oh, oh Dave is vexed. Of course he is, the little back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth session he tried to start with Stewart just blew up in his face. I think he was not aware of the availability of the W12 engine in the Touareg. My point was about performance : "That has more than a little to do with "performance". When you learn to read, please get back too me. ;-) Be nice to dave, Lionel, he's very busy picking the egg off his face. :-D |
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... Your corection is accurate: I was writing from memory- my memory for figures is just as poor as my arithmetics are in general. My respect for medical research statisticians is theoretical not, God forbids, hands on : If the "golden ear" had really got 15 "hits" four times I should have said that his score was a much better one namely 91% (my calculator tells me) not 83% that I reported. Odd that you did not include this in your account of my perfidy. Or do you make errors as well sometimes?. Here is Greenhill's table. If it is confusing blame Google. I tried to arrange it cleanly but could not. SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 2. Same but levels matched 9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12 3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise 13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7 4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise 15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15 5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music 4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10 6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music 14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10 ______________________________________________ % of "hits" in the total of 6 tests 90 tries: 67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50? 83 50 I am not prepared to lay my life down for Greenhill's "golden ear"- once again the description is Greenhill's not mine. Nor will I comment on your disagreement with his statistics. The entire subject was thrashed out ad nauseam in the RAHE 2 years ago and I regret restarting it. While obviously you're not bending over backwards to make allowances I have no quarrel with your forum manners. I quoted Greenhill only as a bait to someone who pontificated on the subject that he obviously knew little about. But the topic brings out of the woodwork several creatures that I find repulsive. The biggest of which is your own lying self. You bring up an article tgat essentially provesthe case for wire being wire. Nothing more than random chance for equal diameter wire, as expected. I note that you do not mention any ABX component comparison studies that would meet your statistical standards. Even the negative ones like Greenhill's or- dream on- just one with a POSITIVE outcome. Where is the research to validate the claims? My comments are as follows: 1) Your comment that it is "no proof of exceptional ability" is fair.The "golden ear's" performance may have been sheer one time luck. ABXing I think fox the temporal lobes of the brain. It does it to me. I find it funny that the ABXers are up in arms when someone, just one man, is said to have done well when ABXing. They should be cheering. For what? The physics of wire don't allow for it to be discerned when compared properly. Of course he inconsiderately did it comparing cables and we know what cables are in the ABXers vocabulary. They are wire, and wire has proerties that are well known, thus when comparing wire of equal gauge, nobody will ever tell one form another. 2) All the panelists did well comparing uneven diameter cables when pink noise was played to them. The scores were much worse when music was used as a signal and became awful when similar diameters were used. As has been said repeatedly, pink noise is better than music for telling differences. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink noise. Nor truth. 3) I understand that 16 Gauge vs. 24 gauge over 50" means 1,70db volume difference. Six out of eleven panelists failed to hear this difference in 5 (out of fifteen) tries or more. I have, with my elderly ears, no difficulty hearing 1db volume difference between the two speakers when my stepped volume control is moved without my knowledge- but of course I'm not ABXing. Ludovic Mirabel Of course not, you prefer to pretend that difference exists wher it does not. |
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
To John Corbett: (See message from him on Sept. 1. Find text below)
Second thoughts: Largely through my fault this debate is completely off the rails. It should not be about the "golden ear". If he indeed performed miracles getting 83% accuracy then there are differences between the wires waiting to be "tested. But three testees ("expert audiophiles all according to Greenhill) had 33% accuracy score. To them wires are totally indistiguishable- their results are worse than random. Let's accept all the criticsms of these 83% results: "nonrepeatable fluke" etc. Perhaps the "golden ear would go down to 33% next time around. Of what use to an ordinary choice- seeking audiophile is a "test" like that? And if you consider that in Sean Olive's careful loudspeaker lab testing ( S. Olive "Differences in performance...." JAES, vol 51, No 8, 2003, 806- 826) the divergencies in performance were nearly just as wide- then it is not only wires that are indistinguishable to many while DBTiing. (Olive felt full ABX was unsuitable. Ask him why) Again and again : a one grand "test" for the varying abilities of millions of individuals to listen and discern is a pipedream of simplistic minds. So simple that they don't even know when they are burying their own darling. Ludovic Mirabel P.S. As recent correspondence (not yours) shows my comment about "repulsive creatures crawling out of the woodwork" was an understatement. _______________________ wrote: I did not invent Greenhill's "Golden Ear" or Greenhill's statistics. I *quoted* from that impeccably objectivist writer who moderated and reported the Stereo Review cable test. Ludovic's *quoted* results are pure fabrications. See below. You are also taking him for a village moron and insulting his statistics' protocol which for an objectivist, with an axe to grind, was quite scrupulous (read it!!!). I suspect that he forgot more statistics than you had ever known. I learnt mine as an employee of the Med. Research Ccil. of U.K. where double blind tests were *first ever* used. If Ludovic understood statistical science, he would recognize that Greenhill's Stereo Review article is not an example of good statistical work. I used to wonder if Greenhill intended that article as a hoax---it's that bad--- but now I am resigned to the idea that he was serious. I must acknowledge that I admire your temerity in- how shall I put it?- shooting your mouth off without first looking up the source (I gave clear reference to it) See below---what more can I say?. Greenhill's "Golden Ear" did not "come at 81% one time" Mr, Scott W. There were six different cable comparison tests consisting of 15 trials each. The "Golden Ear" got 15 out of 15 in four of them, 12 in one, and 10 in one. Hence 83%-get it? Actually the so-called "Golden Ear" got 15 of 15 in _two_ (not four) sets of trials; he got 12 in three sets, and 10 in one. So much for Ludovic's high standards for accurate reporting. Even those two perfect scores are not so impressive. One of the two perfect scores for Listener J (the alleged "Golden Ear") was on the first test (Monster vs 24 awg, pink noise, levels unmatched). Ten of the eleven listeners got 15 of 15 on that, and the other listener got 14 of 15; that was an overall rate of 164/165 (more than 99%). The other perfect score for Listener J was a similar test (16 awg vs 24 awg, pink noise, levels unmatched). Greenhill gave scores for only nine listeners (who all got 14 or 15) for an overall rate exceeding 98%. High scores on such easy tests are not necessarily evidence of exceptional ability. By adding those scores to results from other tests Greenhill inflated the combined score, whether or not it even it made sense to combine the scores in the first place. That's rather weak support for "Golden Ear" status. Reply |
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
I got my own cable theory: WIRE = WIRE !!!
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
| Cable Madness SALE at AudioWaves | Marketplace | |||
| audio coax cable | High End Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
| cabling explained | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
