On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:09:52 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:36cic.8703$0u6.1628422@attbi_s03...
On 22 Apr 2004 23:55:55 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 4/22/04 1:45 PM, in article LwThc.3949$YP5.359523@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:11:27 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I maintain that my ability to hear differences has increased over the years.

And your *evidence* for this is what, exactly?

I would figure that this person is perfectly capable of judging. No need to
be a curmudgeon on this! I have found that with some experience I can be
better at things than without. Why should listening be any different?

I am not being curmudgeonly (that was JJ's specialist field!), I am
simply pointing out that Scarpitti has made numerous claims, but has
offered *zero* reliable and repeatable evidence for any of them.

What kind of 'evidence' is possible for descriptions of my experience?

Check your experience under controlled conditions.

How old are you? I am 54. I have owned stereo equipment for more than
30 years.

56, and I've owned and built hi-fi gear for about 40 years.

During that time I have made many upgrades. I have also
spent a lot of time listening in audio salons, educating my ear by
listening to some of the very best stuff out there. My current
'system' is the result of rutheless and uncompromising auditions.
Nothing in it is for show. Everything has earned its way in.

Me too, and I'm sure the same is true of most of the regular
contributors here. Did you have a point?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"What kind of 'evidence' is possible for descriptions of my experience?
How old are you? I am 54. I have owned stereo equipment for more than
30 years. During that time I have made many upgrades. I have also
spent a lot of time listening in audio salons, educating my ear by
listening to some of the very best stuff out there. My current
'system' is the result of rutheless and uncompromising auditions.
Nothing in it is for show. Everything has earned its way in."

All of the above bears not in the least on reports of being an exception
to the benchmark which shows that difference in amps and wire result in
levels close to the random guess level, using listening alone with a broad
range of listening experience and gear ownership. Such reported
exceptions can now be gauged against the benchmark. If one such would be
found it would be all the better because it would allow us to see if the
kind of above midigating factors are the basis for exceptions.

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:KBiic.13512$w96.1245040@attbi_s54...


In the end no subject was able to reliablt identify either of the two systems
in spite of the radical differences between them. My conclusion is that the
serial tweak idea hasn't been validated.

In this test subjects were encouraged to be as "evaluative" as they wanted.
But, quite frankly, the idea that several up-grades work in concert has never
been shown to happen. IOW the idea that several factors with "just below" JND
will combine to produce above threshold effect simply has never been shown to
be true even when subjected to a radically high-level comparison.

I can assure you that the sum of all the improvements I have made is
greater than any single one, and that it is observable. Each
independently may not be 'obvious', but together they certainly are.
You may not notice one penny in your pocket, but 200, certainly.

On 4/24/04 7:02 PM, in article %lCic.23081$w96.1764690@attbi_s54, "Michael
Scarpitti" wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
news:KBiic.13512$w96.1245040@attbi_s54...


In the end no subject was able to reliablt identify either of the two systems
in spite of the radical differences between them. My conclusion is that the
serial tweak idea hasn't been validated.

In this test subjects were encouraged to be as "evaluative" as they wanted.
But, quite frankly, the idea that several up-grades work in concert has never
been shown to happen. IOW the idea that several factors with "just below" JND
will combine to produce above threshold effect simply has never been shown to
be true even when subjected to a radically high-level comparison.

I can assure you that the sum of all the improvements I have made is
greater than any single one, and that it is observable. Each
independently may not be 'obvious', but together they certainly are.
You may not notice one penny in your pocket, but 200, certainly.


I would have to agree, to illustrate how aboutt he following 2 systems:

Compare a c.1985 CD Magnavox player played through a Yamaha amp into
inexpensive Klipsch bookshelf speakers in a live undamped room with a c.2003
NAD C540i played through a NAD S100/200 preamp/amp pair into 2 Thiel 2.4
speakers in a room with acoustic treatments.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Ffxic.14414$cF6.592486@attbi_s04...
On 23 Apr 2004 13:47:52 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Upgrading several things often shows a cumulative effect that cannot
be pinned down to just one piece. I can tell you that since I changed
speaker cables, interconnect, and added RF traps, these steps together
have made a noticeable difference.

I can tell you that this will have made no audible difference
whatever, but that would simply bring us right back to square one,
where you will claim that because you hear it, it *must* have real
existence. We have attempted to explain to you why this isn't so, but
to no avail.

There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by
itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a
dsicernible difference. Elementary.

On 4/25/04 2:44 PM, in article UFTic.33324$_L6.1850070@attbi_s53, "Michael
Scarpitti" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:Ffxic.14414$cF6.592486@attbi_s04...
On 23 Apr 2004 13:47:52 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Upgrading several things often shows a cumulative effect that cannot
be pinned down to just one piece. I can tell you that since I changed
speaker cables, interconnect, and added RF traps, these steps together
have made a noticeable difference.

I can tell you that this will have made no audible difference
whatever, but that would simply bring us right back to square one,
where you will claim that because you hear it, it *must* have real
existence. We have attempted to explain to you why this isn't so, but
to no avail.

There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by
itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a
dsicernible difference. Elementary.


I have fought RFI and 60Hz hum almost as long as I have been an engineer.
Grounding and shielding I am sure made a difference if he had a rat's nest
of wires like I do.

Right now I am noticing a slight hum from my amp (louder when you turn it
on, settling down when the amp finishes the soft start) - definite
microphonics. Does anyone know of some easy ways I can reduce this hum?

On 25 Apr 2004 14:18:04 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 4/24/04 7:02 PM, in article %lCic.23081$w96.1764690@attbi_s54, "Michael
Scarpitti" wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
news:KBiic.13512$w96.1245040@attbi_s54...


In the end no subject was able to reliablt identify either of the two systems
in spite of the radical differences between them. My conclusion is that the
serial tweak idea hasn't been validated.

In this test subjects were encouraged to be as "evaluative" as they wanted.
But, quite frankly, the idea that several up-grades work in concert has never
been shown to happen. IOW the idea that several factors with "just below" JND
will combine to produce above threshold effect simply has never been shown to
be true even when subjected to a radically high-level comparison.

I can assure you that the sum of all the improvements I have made is
greater than any single one, and that it is observable. Each
independently may not be 'obvious', but together they certainly are.
You may not notice one penny in your pocket, but 200, certainly.

I would have to agree, to illustrate how aboutt he following 2 systems:

Compare a c.1985 CD Magnavox player played through a Yamaha amp into
inexpensive Klipsch bookshelf speakers in a live undamped room with a c.2003
NAD C540i played through a NAD S100/200 preamp/amp pair into 2 Thiel 2.4
speakers in a room with acoustic treatments.

To be a relevant comparison, you'd need to compare the two systems in
the same room. To be a truly relevant comparison in the context of the
thread, you'd have to use the same speakers. Now consider what would
be the audible differences...........................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:Ffxic.14414$cF6.592486@attbi_s04...
On 23 Apr 2004 13:47:52 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Upgrading several things often shows a cumulative effect that cannot
be pinned down to just one piece. I can tell you that since I changed
speaker cables, interconnect, and added RF traps, these steps together
have made a noticeable difference.

I can tell you that this will have made no audible difference
whatever, but that would simply bring us right back to square one,
where you will claim that because you hear it, it *must* have real
existence. We have attempted to explain to you why this isn't so, but
to no avail.

There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by
itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a
dsicernible difference. Elementary.

So you say. OTOH I made two systems using the same speakers with the Tweak
system having high-end interconnects and speaker wires, vacumn tubes, outboard
DAC, high-end power amp, vibration dampers and careful wire dress. All these
I've heard would be successful 'tweaks.'

But even when used in the same system it was not sonically different from a
system with a 25-year old $99 solid state pre-amp, mid-fi power amp, junk box
rcas, 16-guage autosound speaker cables with differeing lengths for each
channel and with wire dress intentionally made to be 'sub-standard' to 10
subjects listening in isolation in the sweetest of sweet spots.

My conclusion is that when someone tells me with 'assurance' that such and so
'sounds' are being made I just don't accept it without more definitive
evidence.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:44:04 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Ffxic.14414$cF6.592486@attbi_s04...
On 23 Apr 2004 13:47:52 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Upgrading several things often shows a cumulative effect that cannot
be pinned down to just one piece. I can tell you that since I changed
speaker cables, interconnect, and added RF traps, these steps together
have made a noticeable difference.

I can tell you that this will have made no audible difference
whatever, but that would simply bring us right back to square one,
where you will claim that because you hear it, it *must* have real
existence. We have attempted to explain to you why this isn't so, but
to no avail.

There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by
itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a
dsicernible difference. Elementary.

Who mentioned synergy? I simply tell you that there will be no audible
difference (because your numbers are imaginary, and several orders of
magnitude too large), and I'll back my opinion with $10,000 in cold
hard cash. Does your wallet match your ego?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:02:19 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:KBiic.13512$w96.1245040@attbi_s54...


In the end no subject was able to reliablt identify either of the two systems
in spite of the radical differences between them. My conclusion is that the
serial tweak idea hasn't been validated.

In this test subjects were encouraged to be as "evaluative" as they wanted.
But, quite frankly, the idea that several up-grades work in concert has never
been shown to happen. IOW the idea that several factors with "just below" JND
will combine to produce above threshold effect simply has never been shown to
be true even when subjected to a radically high-level comparison.

I can assure you that the sum of all the improvements I have made is
greater than any single one, and that it is observable. Each
independently may not be 'obvious', but together they certainly are.
You may not notice one penny in your pocket, but 200, certainly.

Your assurances have no value until you *test* your claims by trying a
comparison in which you don't already *know* what's connected.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 4/25/04 7:27 PM, in article EPXic.35016$aQ6.1882164@attbi_s51, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Who mentioned synergy? I simply tell you that there will be no audible
difference (because your numbers are imaginary, and several orders of
magnitude too large), and I'll back my opinion with $10,000 in cold
hard cash. Does your wallet match your ego?

You might want to pick up the latest issue of Audio Express - they have an
interesting article about speaker cables ...

(BTW, they do all kind of measurements, find differences, but so small it is
hard to tell if the reviewers have "Golden Ears" or there is something)

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
Timothy A. Seufert wrote:

Same thing applies to sound perception. You might want to think about
that a little.

It's because of how our mind processes data.

Take you driving down the road - you see a stopsign. Now,
our minds are too slow to process every single thing. It
cheats by not "scanning" the entire image in real-time,
but doing what your video game does - textures and geomerty.

It sees:
octagon
red
"stop"
adjust for size.

This way it doesn't store individual images for the most
part, but merely does pattern matching with the millions of
pieces of data in its visual memory.

Our brain then stores the information as a pattern/algorythm.
Remember pattern and not the raw data. Also, this explains why
our memories are "fuzzy" at times - when it doubt, it matches
the closest pattern and does very little error checking.

Specific memories are remembered, but these usually are special
(stressful)events - maybe a few thousand in our lifetime. The
memory requirements are too severe.

What happens with optical illusions is that our minds, even
when we know how it works, still want to default to the easy
setting. It takes lots of concentration or a second look
to double-check if the expected data isn't what we actually
are seeing.

Our hearing works the same - it's able to handle hundreds of
things at once, but it gets sloppy in order to save time and
space. It's easily tricked and overloaded as well.

IE - if we expect a certain sound or think something is better,
it usually is processed as such unless there are glaring
problems.

I would suggest that this also works in reverse. We can hear "sound
thresholds". We can hear individual sounds. Until the brain processes, we
don't know if these are an auto wreck or a discordant note in an Ives
symphony. And anything that interferes with our brain's ability to perceive
the "music" distorts response. Accordingly, I postulate that if
quick-switch a-b testing without focus (in other words, without knowing
*what* we are listening for), the brain gets confused. Normally,
audiophiles listen open-ended (remember we are supposed to be having this
discussion in the context of open-ended comparison of components ability to
play music) and then hone in to do a comparison on one simple artifact
*after* they have identified (e.g. "I think amp A has more rounded and
dynamic bass"). Then they A-B listening to that one single thing. After
reconciling that, they listen open ended again. They hear something else.
They zero in on that. That is how a-b testing should be used and is of
value. That is how Harmon uses it when they train listeners to listen for
certain artifacts. It is *very* different than having somebody listen to
two components playing music not having any idea how to place what they hear
quickly into some context, or even what to listen for, before they have to
listen to the other piece of equipment. And if they are normally pretty
astute listeners, this inability to hear and make sense of *anything*
creates anxiety and it becomes a self completing circle. But it doesn't
mean that there aren't differences. It means it is the wrong test for that
purpose, or perhaps more accurately, an okay test used for the wrong
purpose.

On 4/25/04 7:21 PM, in article iKXic.34840$_L6.1985446@attbi_s53, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Compare a c.1985 CD Magnavox player played through a Yamaha amp into
inexpensive Klipsch bookshelf speakers in a live undamped room with a c.2003
NAD C540i played through a NAD S100/200 preamp/amp pair into 2 Thiel 2.4
speakers in a room with acoustic treatments.

To be a relevant comparison, you'd need to compare the two systems in
the same room. To be a truly relevant comparison in the context of the
thread, you'd have to use the same speakers. Now consider what would
be the audible differences...........................

Well, they were in the same room - and there is such a large difference, the
Yamaha based system is in the upstairs exercise room.

Bus still - there is a large difference, so in the extreme, what the
previous gentleman was saying *is* true - the only question is what exact
shade of gray is he operating under ... ?

Bromo wrote:


I have fought RFI and 60Hz hum almost as long as I have been an engineer.
Grounding and shielding I am sure made a difference if he had a rat's nest
of wires like I do.

Right now I am noticing a slight hum from my amp (louder when you turn it
on, settling down when the amp finishes the soft start) - definite
microphonics. Does anyone know of some easy ways I can reduce this hum?


Well, if you as someone who has been fighting 60 Hz hum as long as you
have been an engineer, and supposedly one who is familiar with your amp,
can't figure out how to reduce this hum, what are the chances of the
rest of us being able to help? .

Having said that, I would follow the usual trouble-shooting procedures.
Disconnect everything except the speakers. Is there still hum? Short the
inputs to ground. Is there still hum? Report results and we can take the
next steps.

On 26 Apr 2004 02:01:55 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 4/25/04 7:21 PM, in article iKXic.34840$_L6.1985446@attbi_s53, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Compare a c.1985 CD Magnavox player played through a Yamaha amp into
inexpensive Klipsch bookshelf speakers in a live undamped room with a c.2003
NAD C540i played through a NAD S100/200 preamp/amp pair into 2 Thiel 2.4
speakers in a room with acoustic treatments.

To be a relevant comparison, you'd need to compare the two systems in
the same room. To be a truly relevant comparison in the context of the
thread, you'd have to use the same speakers. Now consider what would
be the audible differences...........................

Well, they were in the same room - and there is such a large difference, the
Yamaha based system is in the upstairs exercise room.

Bus still - there is a large difference, so in the extreme, what the
previous gentleman was saying *is* true - the only question is what exact
shade of gray is he operating under ... ?

When played at a level where the Yamaha is not clipping, there will
almost certainly be *no* audible difference into the Thiels. Try it
and see.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
Timothy A. Seufert wrote:

Same thing applies to sound perception. You might want to think about
that a little.

.... snips.......

Our hearing works the same - it's able to handle hundreds of
things at once, but it gets sloppy in order to save time and
space. It's easily tricked and overloaded as well.

IE - if we expect a certain sound or think something is better,
it usually is processed as such unless there are glaring
problems.

I would suggest that this also works in reverse. We can hear "sound
thresholds". We can hear individual sounds. Until the brain processes, we
don't know if these are an auto wreck or a discordant note in an Ives
symphony.

Oh so context doesn't count? When was the last time you "heard" an auto wreck
in the concert hall or in your listening room!

And anything that interferes with our brain's ability to perceive
the "music" distorts response.

Which would be what? And what response? And why the snobbish "music" only
perception? All this stage-setting trys to accord music a special acoustic
profile when, in fact, music provides an easy case compared to many
environmental sounds recorded in nature.

Not that there's anything wrong with recorded music as a source but, by and
large, acoustically its not that challenging compared to basshead cds, loons on
the lake, radial engined aircraft, many cinema soundtracks, steam locomotives
and space craft lift-offnot to mention test signals.

Sure its the most common source used (even if you count bluegrass as music and
not concentrated boredom) but in terms of acoustical playback timbral and
dynamics challenge its not the most difficult challenge to any given playback
system. Call to higher authority notwithstanding.

Accordingly, I postulate that if
quick-switch a-b testing without focus (in other words, without knowing
*what* we are listening for), the brain gets confused.

What would anybody listen-for except those orthogonal sound quality categories?
And how would one fail to hear them with a shortened clip? Do they disappear on
everything except full-length classicall music?

In my opinion, what gets 'confused' in bais-controlled listening tests is the
subject who has convinced himself that psychosomatic "differences" have an
acoustical cause because the answer is withheld before the decision is made.

The music is in another class altogether. For example I'm listening to the WEMU
Sunday Blues radio shows, as I type, and the recent tunes (Lou Ann Barton
"Maybe" and Irma Thomas ("It's Raining written by Naomi Neville) are spectcalar
on my M-Audio 24/96 and Monsoon speaker system. The "music" is great but the
songs would sound less impressive on my main system because the music is great
but the production is a function of its time and location.

Normally,
audiophiles listen open-ended (remember we are supposed to be having this
discussion in the context of open-ended comparison of components ability to
play music) and then hone in to do a comparison on one simple artifact
*after* they have identified (e.g. "I think amp A has more rounded and
dynamic bass").

The "conditions" and context are your own Mr Lavo. The typical a/b/x context is
one of identification. But even so; why are we required to limit ourselves to
your gross conditions when there are more specific and detailed methods for
specifying subtle sonic differences?

Then they A-B listening to that one single thing. After
reconciling that, they listen open ended again. They hear something else.

So in the "evaluation" mode one has to listen to one particular sonic category
on each pass? How many categories do you have? Does one have to listen all the
way through every selection to form an answer? I'm hoping that you choose
shorter pieces then. Elsewise one might spend several days to find even a
substandered piece of equipment.

They zero in on that.

So what else is there to "hear" if one can't identify once source from the
other? Perhaps we've covered this already.

That is how a-b testing should be used and is of
value. That is how Harmon uses it when they train listeners to listen for
certain artifacts.

BTW that's Harman. How long is their test? How long are the segments?

It is *very* different than having somebody listen to
two components playing music not having any idea how to place what they hear
quickly into some context, or even what to listen for, before they have to
listen to the other piece of equipment.

Help me here. Don't you have a set of recordings (including challenging
segments) that you think provide specific acoustical challenges to audio
equipment? I do and I have those pieces and those segments which highlight
'differences' all congregated on a single CD-R so I can use the same material
for every evaluation and in the same 1st repeat order.

It also enables me to repeat segments with certain challenges as many times as
necssary to gain a firm grasp on the level of competence.

And if they are normally pretty
astute listeners, this inability to hear and make sense of *anything*
creates anxiety and it becomes a self completing circle. But it doesn't
mean that there aren't differences. It means it is the wrong test for that
purpose, or perhaps more accurately, an okay test used for the wrong
purpose.

Oh sure "anxiety" is the root of all evil. You know if "anxiety" were the
"cause" of the high-end community failure to produce even the smallest quantity
of evidence for amp/wire sound they might not have to "argue" and "debate" so
hard and use anxiety as the main excuse.

wrote in message ...
"What kind of 'evidence' is possible for descriptions of my experience?
How old are you? I am 54. I have owned stereo equipment for more than
30 years. During that time I have made many upgrades. I have also
spent a lot of time listening in audio salons, educating my ear by
listening to some of the very best stuff out there. My current
'system' is the result of rutheless and uncompromising auditions.
Nothing in it is for show. Everything has earned its way in."

All of the above bears not in the least on reports of being an exception
to the benchmark which shows that difference in amps and wire result in
levels close to the random guess level, using listening alone with a broad
range of listening experience and gear ownership. Such reported
exceptions can now be gauged against the benchmark. If one such would be
found it would be all the better because it would allow us to see if the
kind of above midigating factors are the basis for exceptions.

It does if I'm right about 'experience'. You're begging the question.
You're saying 'this cannot be an exception to the rule because there
is a rule and here are no exceptions', and the existence of such a
'rule' is precisely the issue. I am certain that what I can now hear
as far as differences between various components would not have been
so obvious to me when I started out.

Secondly, you have not provided sufficient evidence for a 'rule' to
which I am some sort of 'exception'. Every day in audio shops (and
homes) throughout the world people are auditioning audio equipment and
making purchasing decisions based on what they hear or don't hear. You
are not in a position to make such a sweeping generalization about
what people can or cannot hear. I know ONLY what I can hear. I neither
know nor care what others can or cannot hear. I have not invested
significantly in 'tweaks': only in a few RF traps and good quality
interconnect, which is far being from top-end stuff.

I know that some people have bought all kinds of 'tweaks', whose value
to me is not established. That does not bother me in the slightest.
It's their money, after all.

Nothing so simple as the tautology you want to impart. There is a
benchmark of a test and results thereof showing resuots close to random
guessing. Any claims reported by you and others are by definition a claim
to being an exception to the results, no matter how many or how often such
reports are made. It is obvious how anyone can test to see if they are an
exception, to see if the content of their reports are the product of the
perception process or reside in the gear. Using the bit of gear in
question and comparing it to another will show or not a difference of
rising above the theshold of audibility. The basis or traditions related
to purchases is not relevant. The collective of the results underlying
the benchmark is a failure to disprove that amps/wire sound different. It
is the reports to the contrary that are of interest. As to forming a
benchmark, if the one in question doesn't suffice for some reasone, then
an alternative can be created; but should have similar minimal guidelines
for blinding. I think it would be very interesting for someone who thinks
a seperate series of tests might provide other results to do so. In
science when test results are contrary to commonly held ideas, duplication
of tests is a normal step.

It does if I'm right about 'experience'. You're begging the question.
You're saying 'this cannot be an exception to the rule because there
is a rule and here are no exceptions', and the existence of such a
'rule' is precisely the issue. I am certain that what I can now hear
as far as differences between various components would not have been
so obvious to me when I started out.

Secondly, you have not provided sufficient evidence for a 'rule' to
which I am some sort of 'exception'. Every day in audio shops (and
homes) throughout the world people are auditioning audio equipment and
making purchasing decisions based on what they hear or don't hear. You
are not in a position to make such a sweeping generalization about
what people can or cannot hear. I know ONLY what I can hear. I neither
know nor care what others can or cannot hear. I have not invested
significantly in 'tweaks': only in a few RF traps and good quality
interconnect, which is far being from top-end stuff.

I know that some people have bought all kinds of 'tweaks', whose value
to me is not established. That does not bother me in the slightest.
It's their money, after all.

"Oh sure "anxiety" is the root of all evil. You know if "anxiety" were the
"cause" of the high-end community failure to produce even the smallest
quantity
of evidence for amp/wire sound they might not have to "argue" and "debate"
so
hard and use anxiety as the main excuse."

I think it the other way round. They use it as a marketing tool by wich
in ads and "audition" articles the latest wiz bang red hot "night and day"
item is revealed, heightening anxiety that one's current gear is getting
hopelessly out of date and not up to snuff. Having raised the level, they
offer "advice" as to how the new thing solves problems one might not have
known existed or is suddenly discovered at root of all manner of causes
for current gear to not be state of the art and offer/facilatate one being
able to resolve one's "problems".

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:PMbjc.42446$aQ6.2505359@attbi_s51...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
Timothy A. Seufert wrote:

Same thing applies to sound perception. You might want to think
about
that a little.

... snips.......

Our hearing works the same - it's able to handle hundreds of
things at once, but it gets sloppy in order to save time and
space. It's easily tricked and overloaded as well.

IE - if we expect a certain sound or think something is better,
it usually is processed as such unless there are glaring
problems.

I would suggest that this also works in reverse. We can hear "sound
thresholds". We can hear individual sounds. Until the brain processes,
we
don't know if these are an auto wreck or a discordant note in an Ives
symphony.

Oh so context doesn't count? When was the last time you "heard" an auto
wreck
in the concert hall or in your listening room!


Actually, I've had three car crashes withing 50 yards of my living room over
the years. So my analagy isn't so far fetched, is it? :-)

And anything that interferes with our brain's ability to perceive
the "music" distorts response.

Which would be what? And what response? And why the snobbish "music" only
perception? All this stage-setting trys to accord music a special acoustic
profile when, in fact, music provides an easy case compared to many
environmental sounds recorded in nature.


Test conditions for one.
Poor performing audio equipment for another.
And this "snobbish attitude" is based on the fact that science (yes science)
is finding that music is hardwired into the brain in ways we don't yet fully
understand. One of the things apparently that makes us uniquely human. I'm
not sure radial plane engines hold the same place of honor, although I do
agree they make a demanding test.

Not that there's anything wrong with recorded music as a source but, by
and
large, acoustically its not that challenging compared to basshead cds,
loons on
the lake, radial engined aircraft, many cinema soundtracks, steam
locomotives
and space craft lift-offnot to mention test signals.

Sure its the most common source used (even if you count bluegrass as music
and
not concentrated boredom) but in terms of acoustical playback timbral and
dynamics challenge its not the most difficult challenge to any given
playback
system. Call to higher authority notwithstanding.


Well, to tell you the truth, Tom I also have used natural sounds
(particularly the Crown SASS P demo disk) to test things...but funny thing
is, I evaluate them the same way as I do music...do they sound "right", do
they sound "real". And I can tell you some components do, and some don't.

Accordingly, I postulate that if
quick-switch a-b testing without focus (in other words, without knowing
*what* we are listening for), the brain gets confused.

What would anybody listen-for except those orthogonal sound quality
categories?
And how would one fail to hear them with a shortened clip? Do they
disappear on
everything except full-length classicall music?


Strawmen marching in a row. Did I say anything about classical music? And
on a shortened clip, you have not established any context. The ear-brain,
hearing a whole piece of music absorbs the pattern...the reflections,
ambience, apparent depth and placement, the weight of timbre in that
environment, etc. This establishes a context for determining, say, if the
bass sounds "right". Then one can zero in on the bass. Just zeroing in on
the bass by itself provides no context.

In my opinion, what gets 'confused' in bais-controlled listening tests is
the
subject who has convinced himself that psychosomatic "differences" have an
acoustical cause because the answer is withheld before the decision is
made.


Gosh we never would have guessed your opinion without that explanation! :-)

The music is in another class altogether. For example I'm listening to the
WEMU
Sunday Blues radio shows, as I type, and the recent tunes (Lou Ann Barton
"Maybe" and Irma Thomas ("It's Raining written by Naomi Neville) are
spectcalar
on my M-Audio 24/96 and Monsoon speaker system. The "music" is great but
the
songs would sound less impressive on my main system because the music is
great
but the production is a function of its time and location.


I wouldn't know. I listen to FM over two very good systems and a set of
very good headphones, so sound limitations never intrude..it simply isn't an
issue.

Normally,
audiophiles listen open-ended (remember we are supposed to be having this
discussion in the context of open-ended comparison of components ability
to
play music) and then hone in to do a comparison on one simple artifact
*after* they have identified (e.g. "I think amp A has more rounded and
dynamic bass").

The "conditions" and context are your own Mr Lavo. The typical a/b/x
context is
one of identification. But even so; why are we required to limit ourselves
to
your gross conditions when there are more specific and detailed methods
for
specifying subtle sonic differences?


Because dozens of subjectivists on this forum over the years have tried to
tell you the same thing in their own way...only to be dismissed out of hand
as you try to do with my arguments. With nothing but your own beliefs in
opposition....and tests flawed for the purpose that you refuse to validate
but promote heartily.


Then they A-B listening to that one single thing. After
reconciling that, they listen open ended again. They hear something
else.

So in the "evaluation" mode one has to listen to one particular sonic
category
on each pass? How many categories do you have? Does one have to listen all
the
way through every selection to form an answer? I'm hoping that you choose
shorter pieces then. Elsewise one might spend several days to find even a
substandered piece of equipment.


Are you deliberately being provacative, or is it you just don't listen or
grasp? Open ended listening is just that...the music and its sonic
reproduction presents itself to you without foreplan...then you hear
things...things that may or may not sound "right"...then you
investigate...then your return to open-ended until/unless something else
"presents itself". With a new component, you have no way of knowing going
in what is going to present itself. That is the purpose of home trial of a
new component in your own system. And when you are finished, you have a
pretty good idea of the units sonic strengths and weakness in an absolute
sense, in your system, playing the music you enjoy. And you decide if it is
an improvement over what you had before, and if so, whether it is worth the
money to make the change. If not, you keep looking, or you retire back to
what you had and be happy.


They zero in on that.

So what else is there to "hear" if one can't identify once source from the
other? Perhaps we've covered this already.

That is how a-b testing should be used and is of
value. That is how Harmon uses it when they train listeners to listen
for
certain artifacts.

BTW that's Harman. How long is their test? How long are the segments?


Ask Steven, not me. But they do train to hear specific things and to
evaluate on those things.

It is *very* different than having somebody listen to
two components playing music not having any idea how to place what they
hear
quickly into some context, or even what to listen for, before they have
to
listen to the other piece of equipment.

Help me here. Don't you have a set of recordings (including challenging
segments) that you think provide specific acoustical challenges to audio
equipment? I do and I have those pieces and those segments which highlight
'differences' all congregated on a single CD-R so I can use the same
material
for every evaluation and in the same 1st repeat order.

It also enables me to repeat segments with certain challenges as many
times as
necssary to gain a firm grasp on the level of competence.


I don't plan "challenges". I have typical music of the type I regularly
enjoy, and I listen to it. I have enough of it that I don't always have to
use the same music. With extended, evaluative listening you are able to
establish the context from the music itself. If the substitute improves or
deteriorates the sense of "rightness" that I have already in the system,
then I try to investigate what and how and why that is happening.

And if they are normally pretty
astute listeners, this inability to hear and make sense of *anything*
creates anxiety and it becomes a self completing circle. But it doesn't
mean that there aren't differences. It means it is the wrong test for
that
purpose, or perhaps more accurately, an okay test used for the wrong
purpose.

Oh sure "anxiety" is the root of all evil. You know if "anxiety" were the
"cause" of the high-end community failure to produce even the smallest
quantity
of evidence for amp/wire sound they might not have to "argue" and "debate"
so
hard and use anxiety as the main excuse.

And so another dismissal. Why not instead try to fathom what lies behind
the argument, and hold your own biases at bay for awhile.

On 4/26/04 1:32 PM, in article 4Jbjc.42424$aQ6.2503864@attbi_s51, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On 26 Apr 2004 02:01:55 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 4/25/04 7:21 PM, in article iKXic.34840$_L6.1985446@attbi_s53, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Compare a c.1985 CD Magnavox player played through a Yamaha amp into
inexpensive Klipsch bookshelf speakers in a live undamped room with a
c.2003
NAD C540i played through a NAD S100/200 preamp/amp pair into 2 Thiel 2.4
speakers in a room with acoustic treatments.

To be a relevant comparison, you'd need to compare the two systems in
the same room. To be a truly relevant comparison in the context of the
thread, you'd have to use the same speakers. Now consider what would
be the audible differences...........................

Well, they were in the same room - and there is such a large difference, the
Yamaha based system is in the upstairs exercise room.

Bus still - there is a large difference, so in the extreme, what the
previous gentleman was saying *is* true - the only question is what exact
shade of gray is he operating under ... ?

When played at a level where the Yamaha is not clipping, there will
almost certainly be *no* audible difference into the Thiels. Try it
and see.

Already did and heard a big difference, actually - the Yamaha sounded less
bass-y than the NAD at low levels - and there was very little low end at
even tiny levels of volume when driving the Thiels. Sorry - I suppose it is
possible that they were overdriven even at low levels? The Yamaha is rated
to 30W or 40W/1kHz.

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:HOXic.34672$IW1.1564265@attbi_s52...

There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by
itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a
dsicernible difference. Elementary.

So you say. OTOH I made two systems using the same speakers with the Tweak
system having high-end interconnects and speaker wires, vacumn tubes, outboard
DAC, high-end power amp, vibration dampers and careful wire dress. All these
I've heard would be successful 'tweaks.'

But even when used in the same system it was not sonically different from a
system with a 25-year old $99 solid state pre-amp, mid-fi power amp, junk box
rcas, 16-guage autosound speaker cables with differeing lengths for each
channel and with wire dress intentionally made to be 'sub-standard' to 10
subjects listening in isolation in the sweetest of sweet spots.

My conclusion is that when someone tells me with 'assurance' that such and so
'sounds' are being made I just don't accept it without more definitive
evidence.

The problem is obviously the transparency of the speakers. Most
speakers are not that good. Stax electrostatic headphones are much
more revealing than ANY speakers in a highly reverberant room.

Either that, or your 'test subjects' are insufficiently experienced.

I repeat: It takes experience to become good at listening. Most
'average listeners' don't know what to listen for.

I have been in audio shops where there was a fellow listening to
records on a high-end turntable, and who went wild at the conclusion
of a side of classical music. (This was about 4 years ago). I heard
the inner-groove distortion, which was to me almost unbearable. I
could not believe what I was seeing. This man was completely unaware of
to the (to me) clearly audible distortion.

On 4/25/04 10:04 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:


I have fought RFI and 60Hz hum almost as long as I have been an engineer.
Grounding and shielding I am sure made a difference if he had a rat's nest
of wires like I do.

Right now I am noticing a slight hum from my amp (louder when you turn it
on, settling down when the amp finishes the soft start) - definite
microphonics. Does anyone know of some easy ways I can reduce this hum?


Well, if you as someone who has been fighting 60 Hz hum as long as you
have been an engineer, and supposedly one who is familiar with your amp,
can't figure out how to reduce this hum, what are the chances of the
rest of us being able to help? .

Having said that, I would follow the usual trouble-shooting procedures.
Disconnect everything except the speakers. Is there still hum? Short the
inputs to ground. Is there still hum? Report results and we can take the
next steps.

It seems to be microphonics from the toroid transformer in the power supply
(I was afraid of that) - not from the speakers. Not sure if anything can be
done..... :-(

Good news is that it can be heard from behind the amp, not so well in front
of it!

"Nousaine"
The "conditions" and context are your own Mr Lavo. The typical a/b/x
context is
one of identification. But even so; why are we required to limit ourselves
to
your gross conditions when there are more specific and detailed methods
for
specifying subtle sonic differences?


"Harry Lavo"
Because dozens of subjectivists on this forum over the years have tried to
tell you the same thing in their own way...only to be dismissed out of hand
as you try to do with my arguments. With nothing but your own beliefs in
opposition....and tests flawed for the purpose that you refuse to validate
but promote heartily.


It should be obvious by now that if any of the so-called objectivists really
wanted to establish the value of the dbt as they advocate it for audio use,
once and for all, they would be working with you to help devise a 'validation
test'. Instead all you are getting is criticism and arguements.

This never-ending dbt debate is not about truth - it's about winning and being
superior - in debating, nothing else. It is not likely you will change their
strong opinions, no matter what you do.

This is the only newsgroup I've seen which allows this sort of behavior. All
of the objectivist-debaters seem to hang out here to reinforce each other.
Even though we all know you're right, Harry, you can never win the debate here
under these conditions.
Regards,
Mike

"I used to beat my head against the wall because it feels so good when I stop."

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
news:HOXic.34672$IW1.1564265@attbi_s52...

There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by
itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a
dsicernible difference. Elementary.

So you say. OTOH I made two systems using the same speakers with the Tweak
system having high-end interconnects and speaker wires, vacumn tubes,
outboard
DAC, high-end power amp, vibration dampers and careful wire dress. All
these
I've heard would be successful 'tweaks.'

But even when used in the same system it was not sonically different from a
system with a 25-year old $99 solid state pre-amp, mid-fi power amp, junk
box
rcas, 16-guage autosound speaker cables with differeing lengths for each
channel and with wire dress intentionally made to be 'sub-standard' to 10
subjects listening in isolation in the sweetest of sweet spots.

My conclusion is that when someone tells me with 'assurance' that such and
so
'sounds' are being made I just don't accept it without more definitive
evidence.

The problem is obviously the transparency of the speakers. Most
speakers are not that good.

OK; open acoustic loudspeakers aren't "good" enough.

Stax electrostatic headphones are much
more revealing than ANY speakers in a highly reverberant room.

The room was not "highly reverberant" but even so the poster is telling us that
some, as yet undefined, "might" be audible under headset conditions.

Which of us are willing to use headphones to find "small" audible differences
(not confirmed) that would be 'masked' by normally reverberant conditions?

This follows the absolute polarity thread. No one has ever shown an ability to
"hear" absolute polarity under normally reverberant playback conditions (
loudspeaker in a room.) So exactly why would any enthusiast care on eway or
another?


Either that, or your 'test subjects' are insufficiently experienced.

So sure. Your "listeners" are the limitation. You can guarantee that any set of
listeners
under any set of conditions where the desired result isn't obtained will be
judged as "insufficiently experienced".

I intentionally recruited hardened enthusiasts and even an audio salesman for
the test.

I repeat: It takes experience to become good at listening. Most
'average listeners' don't know what to listen for.

No "average" listeners here except fo the single junior high-school teacher.
No, her score wasn't significantly different from the hardened enthusiasts.

But basically the idea that " Most
'average listeners' don't know what to listen for." walks in the face of what
every audio salesman will tell you when you walk into the store "trust your
ears" and then demonstrate products that sound exactly alike and then asks you
"which one did your prefer?"

You can see the merchandising brilliance here. Has nothing to do with real
audio performance.


I have been in audio shops where there was a fellow listening to
records on a high-end turntable, and who went wild at the conclusion
of a side of classical music. (This was about 4 years ago). I heard
the inner-groove distortion, which was to me almost unbearable. I
could not believe what I was seeing. This man was completely unaware of
to the (to me) clearly audible distortion.

And? So what? Wasn't he "hearing" what it would take for a sale? Maybe he was
experiencing some "musical magic" that YOU were missing.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:37:19 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I know ONLY what I can hear.

Well now, that's the problem, isn't it? You actually have absolutely
*no* idea what you can hear, and what you can't, because you have
never trusted *only* your ears.

I neither
know nor care what others can or cannot hear. I have not invested
significantly in 'tweaks': only in a few RF traps and good quality
interconnect, which is far being from top-end stuff.

While RF traps *may* have value if you live in a particularly 'dirty'
area, your 'good quality' interconnects are not of any sonic value
whatever. You could easily prove this to yourself, if you had any real
interest in knowing what works - and what doesn't.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 4/27/2004 9:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: sawjc.51401$_L6.4111700@attbi_s53

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
news:HOXic.34672$IW1.1564265@attbi_s52...

There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by
itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a
dsicernible difference. Elementary.

So you say. OTOH I made two systems using the same speakers with the Tweak
system having high-end interconnects and speaker wires, vacumn tubes,
outboard
DAC, high-end power amp, vibration dampers and careful wire dress. All
these
I've heard would be successful 'tweaks.'

But even when used in the same system it was not sonically different from
a
system with a 25-year old $99 solid state pre-amp, mid-fi power amp, junk
box
rcas, 16-guage autosound speaker cables with differeing lengths for each
channel and with wire dress intentionally made to be 'sub-standard' to 10
subjects listening in isolation in the sweetest of sweet spots.

My conclusion is that when someone tells me with 'assurance' that such and
so
'sounds' are being made I just don't accept it without more definitive
evidence.

The problem is obviously the transparency of the speakers. Most
speakers are not that good.

OK; open acoustic loudspeakers aren't "good" enough.

Stax electrostatic headphones are much
more revealing than ANY speakers in a highly reverberant room.

The room was not "highly reverberant" but even so the poster is telling us
that
some, as yet undefined, "might" be audible under headset conditions.

Which of us are willing to use headphones to find "small" audible differences
(not confirmed) that would be 'masked' by normally reverberant conditions?


Some of us do use Stax headphones to listen to some music sometimes. So for
those of us who do, there would be nothing unusual or outrageous about
listening for small differnces on Stax headphones if it is a point of interest.

This follows the absolute polarity thread. No one has ever shown an ability
to
"hear" absolute polarity under normally reverberant playback conditions (
loudspeaker in a room.) So exactly why would any enthusiast care on eway or
another?


Motivations are personal in nature. I wonder why some one would purchase High
end equipment only to argue that it isn't really all that good. I see that as a
waste of money or a commitment to arguing. To each his own.


Either that, or your 'test subjects' are insufficiently experienced.

So sure. Your "listeners" are the limitation. You can guarantee that any set
of
listeners
under any set of conditions where the desired result isn't obtained will be
judged as "insufficiently experienced".


One could be scientific about things and actually measure the listeners and the
equipment and the test protocols for sensitivity to known subtle differences.
Not to do so makes for sloppy, unscientific tests with multiple variables.

I intentionally recruited hardened enthusiasts and even an audio salesman for
the test.

That doesn't prove anything about the sensitivity of your tests.


I repeat: It takes experience to become good at listening. Most
'average listeners' don't know what to listen for.

No "average" listeners here except fo the single junior high-school teacher.
No, her score wasn't significantly different from the hardened enthusiasts.

But basically the idea that " Most
'average listeners' don't know what to listen for." walks in the face of what
every audio salesman will tell you when you walk into the store "trust your
ears" and then demonstrate products that sound exactly alike and then asks
you
"which one did your prefer?"

Most audiophiles, subjectivists included, are aware of the nature of sales
pitches. Listening to music and discerning what one is hearing is a learned
skill to a large degree.


You can see the merchandising brilliance here. Has nothing to do with real
audio performance.

Such is the nature of marketing in general. Welcome to capitalism.



I have been in audio shops where there was a fellow listening to
records on a high-end turntable, and who went wild at the conclusion
of a side of classical music. (This was about 4 years ago). I heard
the inner-groove distortion, which was to me almost unbearable. I
could not believe what I was seeing. This man was completely unaware of
to the (to me) clearly audible distortion.

And? So what? Wasn't he "hearing" what it would take for a sale? Maybe he was
experiencing some "musical magic" that YOU were missing.








Maybe taste is personal.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine)
This follows the absolute polarity thread. No one has ever shown an ability
to
"hear" absolute polarity under normally reverberant playback conditions (
loudspeaker in a room.) So exactly why would any enthusiast care on eway or
another?


Motivations are personal in nature. I wonder why some one would purchase High
end equipment only to argue that it isn't really all that good. I see that as a
waste of money or a commitment to arguing. To each his own.

I'd wonder about that too. I haven't seen anyone do it here, though.
I haven't seen anyone who owns 'high end ' equipment say that taht the unit
they own 'isn't really all that good'. I have seen them say they own such
devices because 1) they got a good deal on them 2)
their system has special requirements 3) they wanted certain
features such as connectibility, DSPs , etc., that the particular brand
had, or 4) they routinely do comparisons in a professional or hobbyist
capacity and need to have a variety of units on hand. Note that for any of these,
it is quite possible to also maintain that amps, cables, transports etc
running within their design spec will likely sound the same, without
it being a contradiction.

As for 'committment to arguing' I wonder how one suhc as yourself who
gives all the signs of having that very quality, presumes to question
it in others.


So sure. Your "listeners" are the limitation. You can guarantee that any set
of
listeners
under any set of conditions where the desired result isn't obtained will be
judged as "insufficiently experienced".


One could be scientific about things and actually measure the listeners and the
equipment and the test protocols for sensitivity to known subtle differences.
Not to do so makes for sloppy, unscientific tests with multiple variables.

I presume your critique of Harry's multi-variable 'evaluative validation test'
of DBT is in the works, then?

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

On 26 Apr 2004 23:49:21 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:HOXic.34672$IW1.1564265@attbi_s52...

My conclusion is that when someone tells me with 'assurance' that such and so
'sounds' are being made I just don't accept it without more definitive
evidence.

The problem is obviously the transparency of the speakers.

There is nothing 'obvious' about it - this is just another baseless
assertion.

Most
speakers are not that good.

But many are - including those used for several of the tests which
have been covered in this thread.

Stax electrostatic headphones are much
more revealing than ANY speakers in a highly reverberant room.

But not any more revealing than many good speakers used in
well-designed listening rooms. You have no real argument here, you are
simply setting up another strawman.

Either that, or your 'test subjects' are insufficiently experienced.

Rubbish, and explained several times. We repeat, your claims are
perverse and extraordinary, and you offer *no* evidence for them. Many
highly experienced audiophiles (and high-end dealers) have made the
same claims, and have been found wanting. Your claims are baseless
until you offer *evidence*, not mere repetition.

I repeat: It takes experience to become good at listening. Most
'average listeners' don't know what to listen for.

However, several people here who have as much or more experience than
you, and as much or more experience with high-end equipment, keep
telling you that you are wrong, and have on many occasions even tried
to explain to you *why* you are wrong.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(Mkuller) wrote:

"Nousaine"

"Harry Lavo"

....many snips.....This is the only newsgroup I've seen which allows this sort
of behavior. All
of the objectivist-debaters seem to hang out here to reinforce each other.
Even though we all know you're right, Harry, you can never win the debate
here
under these conditions.
Regards,

Harry doesn't need to win any debate. What he, and you, should do is supply
some evidence that amps and wires contribute anything to sound reproduction
that is not dependent upon the internal bias of any individual "listener."

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Either that, or your 'test subjects' are insufficiently experienced.

I repeat: It takes experience to become good at listening. Most
'average listeners' don't know what to listen for.

That's funny. Mr. Lavo says that it's best if you don't know what to listen
for. Which is it?


I have been in audio shops where there was a fellow listening to
records on a high-end turntable, and who went wild at the conclusion
of a side of classical music. (This was about 4 years ago). I heard
the inner-groove distortion, which was to me almost unbearable. I
could not believe what I was seeing. This man was completely unaware of
to the (to me) clearly audible distortion.

Maybe he was just enjoying the music itself. Horrors!

wrote:




"Oh sure "anxiety" is the root of all evil. You know if "anxiety" were the
"cause" of the high-end community failure to produce even the smallest
quantity
of evidence for amp/wire sound they might not have to "argue" and "debate"
so
hard and use anxiety as the main excuse."

I think it the other way round. They use it as a marketing tool by wich
in ads and "audition" articles the latest wiz bang red hot "night and day"
item is revealed, heightening anxiety that one's current gear is getting
hopelessly out of date and not up to snuff. Having raised the level, they
offer "advice" as to how the new thing solves problems one might not have
known existed or is suddenly discovered at root of all manner of causes
for current gear to not be state of the art and offer/facilatate one being
able to resolve one's "problems".

I have another take on this. Few high-end manufactuers make out-rageous claims.
They rely on testimonials from "customers" and "reviewers." Check the
advertisments.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

Nousaine" wrote in message
news:PMbjc.42446$aQ6.2505359@attbi_s51...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
Timothy A. Seufert wrote:

Same thing applies to sound perception. You might want to think
about
that a little.

... snips.......

Our hearing works the same - it's able to handle hundreds of
things at once, but it gets sloppy in order to save time and
space. It's easily tricked and overloaded as well.

IE - if we expect a certain sound or think something is better,
it usually is processed as such unless there are glaring
problems.

I would suggest that this also works in reverse. We can hear "sound
thresholds". We can hear individual sounds. Until the brain
processes,
we
don't know if these are an auto wreck or a discordant note in an Ives
symphony.

Oh so context doesn't count? When was the last time you "heard" an
auto
wreck
in the concert hall or in your listening room!


Actually, I've had three car crashes withing 50 yards of my living
room over
the years. So my analagy isn't so far fetched, is it? :-)

Sure it is. When was the last time you heard a car crash in your room
or where
you were in the direct acoustic field?
We've ALL heard car crashes from an acoustically distant perspective.
"The
schreeching tires, the bustin' glass the woeful cries that I heard last
....oh
where oh where could my baby be...?"

Bu tif my listening room were within 50 yards of where woulld be likely
to
occur ...I'd move.... most likely because the ambient noise level would
be too
high for anything but a sound-resistent construction. The latter is
unacceptable to me because it costs too much and it tends to accentuate
room
mode peaks.

And anything that interferes with our brain's ability to perceive
the "music" distorts response.

Which would be what? And what response? And why the snobbish "music"
only
perception? All this stage-setting trys to accord music a special
acoustic
profile when, in fact, music provides an easy case compared to many
environmental sounds recorded in nature.


Test conditions for one.
Poor performing audio equipment for another.

This always eventually comes back to this. If you "don't" hear amp
differences
it's because your equipment isn't good enough.

I'm in a position that I can evaluate all minds of audio equipment as
it passes
my test lab. I also get to hear all kinds of equipment at audio shows
and a
dozen times a year at audio-club meetings ay enthusiasts homes.

The electronics and loudspeakers in my home system are the best
measuring and
the best sounding I've ever "heard."

I'd guess that you'd say the same thing about your equipment; to which
I'd
reply that it's most likely the best you can "imagine" and if its
reasonably
competent most likely the best you've ever heard.

The difference between you and me is that I have evidence that my rca
speaker
cables (yes, I use active speakers) sound exactly like any other
reasonably
competent cabling. And that the acoustical output from the speakes is
the
"most" accurate to the input signal under anechoic conditions and at the
listening position as I've yet found. Yes, I use EQ.

And this "snobbish attitude" is based on the fact that science (yes
science)
is finding that music is hardwired into the brain in ways we don't yet
fully
understand.

But the sound at a Drag Strip isn't? That's the thing that bothers me.
We've
always had thunderstorms and soft rain..... well before anybody
'hardwired' our
brains to music.

One of the things apparently that makes us uniquely human. I'm
not sure radial plane engines hold the same place of honor, although I
do
agree they make a demanding test.

A demanding test for audio systems that is at low frequencies much more
challenging than any music other than those already specified. IMO if a
low
frequency speaker system can do justice to "Round Sounds" (Aircraft
Music) it
can handle any other source with no sweat no matter what the program
type.

Not that there's anything wrong with recorded music as a source but,
by
and
large, acoustically its not that challenging compared to basshead cds,
loons on
the lake, radial engined aircraft, many cinema soundtracks, steam
locomotives
and space craft lift-offnot to mention test signals.

Sure its the most common source used (even if you count bluegrass as
music
and
not concentrated boredom) but in terms of acoustical playback timbral
and
dynamics challenge its not the most difficult challenge to any given
playback
system. Call to higher authority notwithstanding.


Well, to tell you the truth, Tom I also have used natural sounds
(particularly the Crown SASS P demo disk) to test things...but funny
thing
is, I evaluate them the same way as I do music...do they sound
"right", do
they sound "real". And I can tell you some components do, and some
don't.

Sure; and so what? That's what I do. But I also need a reference. I've
never
been on the tarmac when a radial engined aircraft was running. But I
have been
at the station when a locomotive or a jet aircraft has been approaching
or
leaving. I've also been the sole party in a small vessell (canoe) when
loons
were calling at dusk.



Accordingly, I postulate that if
quick-switch a-b testing without focus (in other words, without
knowing
*what* we are listening for), the brain gets confused.

What would anybody listen-for except those orthogonal sound quality
categories?
And how would one fail to hear them with a shortened clip? Do they
disappear on
everything except full-length classicall music?


Strawmen marching in a row. Did I say anything about classical music?

Did I say anything about classical music?

And
on a shortened clip, you have not established any context. The
ear-brain,
hearing a whole piece of music absorbs the pattern...the reflections,
ambience, apparent depth and placement, the weight of timbre in that
environment, etc. This establishes a context for determining, say,
if the
bass sounds "right".

Using your word ....Hogwash. If you are familiar with the whole piece
there is
plenty of "context". Even when you aren't an organ recording placed in a
cathedral that's self-evident when listening


Then one can zero in on the bass. Just zeroing in on
the bass by itself provides no context.

Again ... your word.... rhetorical hogwash. If you've heard the
recording
before you already "know" the environment. It's not like one would
choose
recordings that one would not already auditioned before.

Your line of argument seems to think that other people hadn't already
thought
of your line of reasoning.


In my opinion, what gets 'confused' in bais-controlled listening
tests is
the
subject who has convinced himself that psychosomatic "differences"
have an
acoustical cause because the answer is withheld before the decision is
made.


Gosh we never would have guessed your opinion without that
explanation! :-)

The music is in another class altogether. For example I'm listening
to the
WEMU
Sunday Blues radio shows, as I type, and the recent tunes (Lou Ann
Barton
"Maybe" and Irma Thomas ("It's Raining written by Naomi Neville) are
spectcalar
on my M-Audio 24/96 and Monsoon speaker system. The "music" is great
but
the
songs would sound less impressive on my main system because the music
is
great
but the production is a function of its time and location.


I wouldn't know. I listen to FM over two very good systems and a set
of
very good headphones, so sound limitations never intrude..it simply
isn't an
issue.

So your line is just "dismissal." I have 2 sets of high quality
headphones but
I choose not to use them for radio because the tiny artifacts are
annoying.

But thank you for making my point ....it's the "music" and not the
production
or the playback system that's the most important factor.

As opposed to environmental sound where 'realism' is the main quality
definer.


Normally,
audiophiles listen open-ended (remember we are supposed to be having
this
discussion in the context of open-ended comparison of components
ability
to
play music) and then hone in to do a comparison on one simple
artifact
*after* they have identified (e.g. "I think amp A has more rounded
and
dynamic bass").

The "conditions" and context are your own Mr Lavo. The typical a/b/x
context is
one of identification. But even so; why are we required to limit
ourselves
to
your gross conditions when there are more specific and detailed
methods
for
specifying subtle sonic differences?


Because dozens of subjectivists on this forum over the years have
tried to
tell you the same thing in their own way...only to be dismissed out of
hand
as you try to do with my arguments.

Actually I've never "dismissed out of hand" any of your arguments.
Indeed I've
thought of all of them that have a possible acoustical or perceptual
effect
well before you invented your obfuscatory comparative/evaluative theory.

With nothing but your own beliefs in
opposition....and tests flawed for the purpose that you refuse to
validate
but promote heartily.

So exactly when are you going to provide any rational evidence that
open-ended
listening has any relevance to acoustical sound quality?

I refuse to "validate" nothing. I validate everything I do. Indeed my
refusal
to accept open-ended evaluation when even inadvertant bias controls
showed it
to be wrong led me to this point.

I been an ardent shepard chasing amp/wire/tweak sound at my own
expense. And
I've not found a single individual that could demonstrate an ability to
"hear"
any of the above under any circumstance when even the most modest of
bias
controls were implemented ( opague cloth draped over I/O terminals.)

So exactly when will you be able to validate your "beliefs"?

Then they A-B listening to that one single thing. After
reconciling that, they listen open ended again. They hear something
else.

So do they listen to the whole piece for every "something else"?

So in the "evaluation" mode one has to listen to one particular sonic
category
on each pass? How many categories do you have? Does one have to
listen all
the
way through every selection to form an answer? I'm hoping that you
choose
shorter pieces then. Elsewise one might spend several days to find
even a
substandered piece of equipment.


Are you deliberately being provacative, or is it you just don't listen
or
grasp?

I "grasp" everything and I "listen" to everything. You are being
provoacative.

Open ended listening is just that...the music and its sonic
reproduction presents itself to you without foreplan...then you hear
things...things that may or may not sound "right"...then you
investigate...then your return to open-ended until/unless something
else
"presents itself". With a new component, you have no way of knowing
going
in what is going to present itself. That is the purpose of home trial
of a
new component in your own system. And when you are finished, you have
a
pretty good idea of the units sonic strengths and weakness in an
absolute
sense, in your system, playing the music you enjoy. And you decide if
it is
an improvement over what you had before, and if so, whether it is
worth the
money to make the change. If not, you keep looking, or you retire
back to
what you had and be happy.


Ohhhh; yes we listen to everyting ....but we do not need many long
repeats of
music to figure out what's wrong and what's not.

Steely strings are immediately apparent. Diminshed envelopment only
requires a
suitable recording. Stuffy or nasal female vocals need only a proper
recording.
Uneven bass only need a single recording. Inermodulation distortion
needs only
1 or 2 recording segments to discover.

With a focused method and a set of program segments that highlight
performance
errors one simply does NOT need to LISTEN to every product for extended
periods
to make good decisions.

And for products that have no sonic impact (amps, wires, tweaks,
accessories)
one has no need to "listen" to anything.

They zero in on that.

So what else is there to "hear" if one can't identify once source
from the
other? Perhaps we've covered this already.

That is how a-b testing should be used and is of
value. That is how Harmon uses it when they train listeners to
listen
for
certain artifacts.

BTW that's Harman. How long is their test? How long are the segments?


Ask Steven, not me. But they do train to hear specific things and to
evaluate on those things.

YOU brought it up. Answer the question.

It is *very* different than having somebody listen to
two components playing music not having any idea how to place what
they
hear
quickly into some context, or even what to listen for, before they
have
to
listen to the other piece of equipment.

Rhetorical hogwash; many blind tests have used equipment well-known to
the
subjects. For example Zipser challenged people to come to his store
where HE
would SHOW that he was able to easily identify amplifiers (19 of 20)
under bias
controlled conditions.

He was unable to do that under the most moderate of bias controls. An
opague
cloth was placed over the amp ouput terminals. This was in his reference
system, mind you.


Help me here. Don't you have a set of recordings (including
challenging
segments) that you think provide specific acoustical challenges to
audio
equipment? I do and I have those pieces and those segments which
highlight
'differences' all congregated on a single CD-R so I can use the same
material
for every evaluation and in the same 1st repeat order.

It also enables me to repeat segments with certain challenges as many
times as
necssary to gain a firm grasp on the level of competence.


I don't plan "challenges". I have typical music of the type I
regularly
enjoy, and I listen to it. I have enough of it that I don't always
have to
use the same music. With extended, evaluative listening you are able
to
establish the context from the music itself.

So you only accidentally use the same recordings for evaluation?

If the substitute improves or
deteriorates the sense of "rightness" that I have already in the
system,
then I try to investigate what and how and why that is happening.

So with "recordings" what is "right" and what is not? I thought you had
a set
of sound quality categories that you rated on a numerical scale?



And if they are normally pretty
astute listeners, this inability to hear and make sense of *anything*
creates anxiety and it becomes a self completing circle. But it
doesn't
mean that there aren't differences. It means it is the wrong test
for
that
purpose, or perhaps more accurately, an okay test used for the wrong
purpose.

Oh sure "anxiety" is the root of all evil. You know if "anxiety" were
the
"cause" of the high-end community failure to produce even the smallest
quantity
of evidence for amp/wire sound they might not have to "argue" and
"debate"
so
hard and use anxiety as the main excuse.

And so another dismissal. Why not instead try to fathom what lies
behind
the argument, and hold your own biases at bay for awhile.


The conditions of Blind and Double Blind have prevented me from
influencing
results based on my personal bias.

Why don't you try to confirm your beliefs under bias controlled
conditions?

Nousaine wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote:

"Nousaine"

"Harry Lavo"

...many snips.....This is the only newsgroup I've seen which allows this sort
of behavior. All
of the objectivist-debaters seem to hang out here to reinforce each other.
Even though we all know you're right, Harry, you can never win the debate
here
under these conditions.
Regards,

Harry doesn't need to win any debate. What he, and you, should do is supply
some evidence that amps and wires contribute anything to sound reproduction
that is not dependent upon the internal bias of any individual "listener."

It's rather ironic for Mr. Kuller to huff about 'this sort of behavior', referring
to sccientifically-minded people 'reinforcing' each other, and then to immediately
refer to a subjectivist 'we', who 'all know' Harry is right.

I don't think Mr. Kuller realizes what he's writing.

Anyone is allowed to 'reinforce' anyone here...as it should be.




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 4/27/2004 11:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1Qxjc.52349$_L6.4139753@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine)
This follows the absolute polarity thread. No one has ever shown an
ability
to
"hear" absolute polarity under normally reverberant playback conditions (
loudspeaker in a room.) So exactly why would any enthusiast care on eway
or
another?


Motivations are personal in nature. I wonder why some one would purchase
High
end equipment only to argue that it isn't really all that good. I see that
as a
waste of money or a commitment to arguing. To each his own.

I'd wonder about that too. I haven't seen anyone do it here, though.

Maybe you missed this....

Stewart said

"To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that
Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired
old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman."

I said

"Really? Seems like a major investment in an argument. Wouldn't it simply be
wiser to buy less expensive equipment if you think it doesn't make any
difference in sound quality? One doesn't have to own highend equipment to hear
it and have an opinion on it. The arguments have gone on for many years. I
would never invest money in equipment so I could agrue about it with people who
have already made up thier minds about things."

No answer was ever given. Now it is entirely possible that Stewart did believe
those components were sonically superior when he bought them and decided to
keep them even after concluding there were not superior and in one case quite
inferior to less expensive equipment.

I haven't seen anyone who owns 'high end ' equipment say that taht the unit
they own 'isn't really all that good'.

Stewart has many times commented on the superiority of any CD player over his
turntable rig which retails for a few thousand dollars plus.

I have seen them say they own such
devices because 1) they got a good deal on them 2)
their system has special requirements 3) they wanted certain
features such as connectibility, DSPs , etc., that the particular brand
had, or 4) they routinely do comparisons in a professional or hobbyist
capacity and need to have a variety of units on hand. Note that for any of
these,
it is quite possible to also maintain that amps, cables, transports etc
running within their design spec will likely sound the same, without
it being a contradiction.

Stewarts comments seem pretty clear to me. He keeps some of his stuff in some
part for the sake of the argument. Like I said, I don't understand that. I
didn't say it was wrong.


As for 'committment to arguing' I wonder how one suhc as yourself who
gives all the signs of having that very quality, presumes to question
it in others.

Maybe you should reread what I said. I have no problem with people who are
committed to arguing. I don't understand the investment in high end audio
products for the sake of argument. I have never purchased or owned any piece of
equipment for the sake of arguing against it's merits so I am clearly not
questioning something in others that I do myself. By the way, I never siad I
have a problem with buying and owning equipment for the sake of arguing against
it's merits, I simply said I don't understand it. I did say "to each his own."



So sure. Your "listeners" are the limitation. You can guarantee that any
set
of
listeners
under any set of conditions where the desired result isn't obtained will
be
judged as "insufficiently experienced".


One could be scientific about things and actually measure the listeners and
the
equipment and the test protocols for sensitivity to known subtle
differences.
Not to do so makes for sloppy, unscientific tests with multiple variables.

I presume your critique of Harry's multi-variable 'evaluative validation
test'
of DBT is in the works, then?


What is there to critique? Is someone actually going to conduct tests as per
his ideas? I must confess, I haven't payed any attention to his proposals. I
assumed they were an exercise of hypatheticals that would never see any real
investigation. It seems that maybe you do see a problem with tests that
needlessly introduce multiple varaibles. Yes? No?

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:sawjc.51401$_L6.4111700@attbi_s53...

The problem is obviously the transparency of the speakers. Most
speakers are not that good.

OK; open acoustic loudspeakers aren't "good" enough.

It depends on what it is that is being tested: Interconnect or speaker
cable.

Stax electrostatic headphones are much
more revealing than ANY speakers in a highly reverberant room.

The room was not "highly reverberant" but even so the poster is telling us that
some, as yet undefined, "might" be audible under headset conditions.

ALL ordinary households are highly reverberant. Unless you stuff them
with tons of furniture and cover the walls, ceilings, and floors with
carpet or tapestries.

Which of us are willing to use headphones to find "small" audible differences
(not confirmed) that would be 'masked' by normally reverberant conditions?

So, if something is good enough to allow the differences to be heard,
you don't want to know? Besides, I listen to music through those
headphones, and if one product does a better job, I want to know!

And certainly not everything will be masked. It is helpful to listen
through the Stax first, and then listen on the loudspeakers after the
differences are isolated.

(snip)

I have been in audio shops where there was a fellow listening to
records on a high-end turntable, and who went wild at the conclusion
of a side of classical music. (This was about 4 years ago). I heard
the inner-groove distortion, which was to me almost unbearable. I
could not believe what I was seeing. This man was completely unaware of
to the (to me) clearly audible distortion.

And? So what? Wasn't he "hearing" what it would take for a sale? Maybe he was
experiencing some "musical magic" that YOU were missing.

I doubt it. The point is that some people are incapable of hearing
differences. I am not one of them.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 4/27/2004 11:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1Qxjc.52349$_L6.4139753@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine)
This follows the absolute polarity thread. No one has ever shown an
ability
to
"hear" absolute polarity under normally reverberant playback conditions (
loudspeaker in a room.) So exactly why would any enthusiast care on eway
or
another?


Motivations are personal in nature. I wonder why some one would purchase
High
end equipment only to argue that it isn't really all that good. I see that
as a
waste of money or a commitment to arguing. To each his own.

I'd wonder about that too. I haven't seen anyone do it here, though.

Maybe you missed this....

Nope.

Stewart said

"To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that
Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired
old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman."

I said

"Really? Seems like a major investment in an argument. Wouldn't it simply be
wiser to buy less expensive equipment if you think it doesn't make any
difference in sound quality? One doesn't have to own highend equipment to hear
it and have an opinion on it. The arguments have gone on for many years. I
would never invest money in equipment so I could agrue about it with people who
have already made up thier minds about things."

No answer was ever given. Now it is entirely possible that Stewart did believe
those components were sonically superior when he bought them and decided to
keep them even after concluding there were not superior and in one case quite
inferior to less expensive equipment.

Two out of those three components are speakers and turntables -- which no one argues
are likely to sound the same. The other is a Krell , ownership of which Stewart
has explained many, if not dozens of times.

I haven't seen anyone who owns 'high end ' equipment say that taht the unit
they own 'isn't really all that good'.

(And this includes Stewart.)

Stewart has many times commented on the superiority of any CD player over his
turntable rig which retails for a few thousand dollars plus.

Indeed. But not everything is out on CD, is it? And not every CD is well mastered,
is it?

I myself keep a Systemdek II TT around for doing LP-to-CDR transfers. IIRC I paid somewhere
in the neighborhood of $600 for it, back in the early 80's -- a considerable sum
for me at the time. For all I know, Stewart keeps 'legacy' devices around
as well, for specialized use.


I have seen them say they own such
devices because 1) they got a good deal on them 2)
their system has special requirements 3) they wanted certain
features such as connectibility, DSPs , etc., that the particular brand
had, or 4) they routinely do comparisons in a professional or hobbyist
capacity and need to have a variety of units on hand. Note that for any of
these,
it is quite possible to also maintain that amps, cables, transports etc
running within their design spec will likely sound the same, without
it being a contradiction.

Stewarts comments seem pretty clear to me. He keeps some of his stuff in some
part for the sake of the argument. Like I said, I don't understand that. I
didn't say it was wrong.

Stewart's reason is covered by #4.


As for 'committment to arguing' I wonder how one suhc as yourself who
gives all the signs of having that very quality, presumes to question
it in others.

Maybe you should reread what I said. I have no problem with people who are
committed to arguing. I don't understand the investment in high end audio
products for the sake of argument.

That much is clear. My question is, will you understand if it's explained
to you?

I have never purchased or owned any piece of
equipment for the sake of arguing against it's merits so I am clearly not
questioning something in others that I do myself. By the way, I never siad I
have a problem with buying and owning equipment for the sake of arguing against
it's merits, I simply said I don't understand it. I did say "to each his own."

Noted. I can think of several reasons why someone might do so.
But feel free to move on...unless you prefer to argue.

So sure. Your "listeners" are the limitation. You can guarantee that any
set
of
listeners
under any set of conditions where the desired result isn't obtained will
be
judged as "insufficiently experienced".


One could be scientific about things and actually measure the listeners and
the
equipment and the test protocols for sensitivity to known subtle
differences.
Not to do so makes for sloppy, unscientific tests with multiple variables.

I presume your critique of Harry's multi-variable 'evaluative validation
test'
of DBT is in the works, then?


What is there to critique?

The protocol.

Is someone actually going to conduct tests as per
his ideas?

"We're" waiting for its proponents to do just that.

I must confess, I haven't payed any attention to his proposals.

Ah.

I
assumed they were an exercise of hypatheticals that would never see any real
investigation.

That looks to be exactly what they were designed to be.

It seems that maybe you do see a problem with tests that
needlessly introduce multiple variables. Yes? No?

Indeed. Which *needless multiple variables* were *you* thinking of?


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 4/28/2004 4:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 4/27/2004 11:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1Qxjc.52349$_L6.4139753@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine)
This follows the absolute polarity thread. No one has ever shown an
ability
to
"hear" absolute polarity under normally reverberant playback conditions
(
loudspeaker in a room.) So exactly why would any enthusiast care on
eway
or
another?


Motivations are personal in nature. I wonder why some one would purchase
High
end equipment only to argue that it isn't really all that good. I see
that
as a
waste of money or a commitment to arguing. To each his own.

I'd wonder about that too. I haven't seen anyone do it here, though.

Maybe you missed this....

Nope.

Stewart said

"To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that
Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired
old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman."

I said

"Really? Seems like a major investment in an argument. Wouldn't it simply
be
wiser to buy less expensive equipment if you think it doesn't make any
difference in sound quality? One doesn't have to own highend equipment to
hear
it and have an opinion on it. The arguments have gone on for many years. I
would never invest money in equipment so I could agrue about it with people
who
have already made up thier minds about things."

No answer was ever given. Now it is entirely possible that Stewart did
believe
those components were sonically superior when he bought them and decided to
keep them even after concluding there were not superior and in one case
quite
inferior to less expensive equipment.

Two out of those three components are speakers and turntables -- which no one
argues
are likely to sound the same.

So? Who said anything about sounding the same or not? I said "I wonder why
someone would purchase high end equipment only to argue that it isn't really
all that good."

The other is a Krell , ownership of which
Stewart
has explained many, if not dozens of times.


Yes and one of his explinations for keeping was clearly "To be fair, that is
certainly one reason why I have always kept that Krell, the Apogee speakers and
the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired old 'you've never heard decent gear'
strawman."

I haven't seen anyone who owns 'high end ' equipment say that taht the
unit
they own 'isn't really all that good'.

(And this includes Stewart.)

Stewart has many times commented on the superiority of any CD player over
his
turntable rig which retails for a few thousand dollars plus.

Indeed. But not everything is out on CD, is it? And not every CD is well
mastered,
is it?

Indeed it isn't and yet Stewart has proclaimed CD superiority ove rhis high end
table for the vast majority of titles. So he does argue that this expensive
piece of equipment is quite inferior to equipment that can be had for a
fraction of the price. Lets not forget what else he said about owning his
turntable. "To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept
that Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired old
'you've never heard decent gear' strawman."


I myself keep a Systemdek II TT around for doing LP-to-CDR transfers. IIRC I
paid somewhere
in the neighborhood of $600 for it, back in the early 80's -- a considerable
sum
for me at the time. For all I know, Stewart keeps 'legacy' devices around
as well, for specialized use.

Well he says one of the reason he keeps it around is "To be fair, that is
certainly one reason why I have always kept that Krell, the Apogee speakers and
the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired old 'you've never heard decent gear'
strawman." We know by his own words that is at least one reason. You can
speculate about other reasons if you wish.



I have seen them say they own such
devices because 1) they got a good deal on them 2)
their system has special requirements 3) they wanted certain
features such as connectibility, DSPs , etc., that the particular brand
had, or 4) they routinely do comparisons in a professional or hobbyist
capacity and need to have a variety of units on hand. Note that for any
of
these,
it is quite possible to also maintain that amps, cables, transports etc
running within their design spec will likely sound the same, without
it being a contradiction.

Stewarts comments seem pretty clear to me. He keeps some of his stuff in
some
part for the sake of the argument. Like I said, I don't understand that. I
didn't say it was wrong.

Stewart's reason is covered by #4.

Unfortunately his words say otherwise.



As for 'committment to arguing' I wonder how one suhc as yourself who
gives all the signs of having that very quality, presumes to question
it in others.

Maybe you should reread what I said. I have no problem with people who are
committed to arguing. I don't understand the investment in high end audio
products for the sake of argument.

That much is clear. My question is, will you understand if it's explained
to you?

Maybe. Please explain why someone would invest so much money in equipment just
to argue that it really isn't all that good.


I have never purchased or owned any piece of
equipment for the sake of arguing against it's merits so I am clearly not
questioning something in others that I do myself. By the way, I never siad
I
have a problem with buying and owning equipment for the sake of arguing
against
it's merits, I simply said I don't understand it. I did say "to each his
own."

Noted. I can think of several reasons why someone might do so.
But feel free to move on...unless you prefer to argue.

Argue about what? If you want to deny Stewart's motivation fine. The record is
clear to me. I suppose we could ask him again if that is why he owns the Krell
and the Gyrodeck. But expressing the fact that I don't understand the
motivation is not an argument. So I am not sure what you are talking about
here.


So sure. Your "listeners" are the limitation. You can guarantee that
any
set
of
listeners
under any set of conditions where the desired result isn't obtained
will
be
judged as "insufficiently experienced".


One could be scientific about things and actually measure the listeners
and
the
equipment and the test protocols for sensitivity to known subtle
differences.
Not to do so makes for sloppy, unscientific tests with multiple
variables.

I presume your critique of Harry's multi-variable 'evaluative validation
test'
of DBT is in the works, then?


What is there to critique?

The protocol.

I suppose I could take a look at it and offer a critique but wouldn't it be
redundant? Has it not already been critiqued?


Is someone actually going to conduct tests as per
his ideas?

"We're" waiting for its proponents to do just that.

I must confess, I haven't payed any attention to his proposals.

Ah.

I
assumed they were an exercise of hypatheticals that would never see any
real
investigation.

That looks to be exactly what they were designed to be.

Not much point in examining a test that will never be conducted.


It seems that maybe you do see a problem with tests that
needlessly introduce multiple variables. Yes? No?

Indeed. Which *needless multiple variables* were *you* thinking of?


--

Listener sensitivity, equipment sensitivty and protocol sensitivity. No reason
not to eliminate them as potential problems.


-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"So, if something is good enough to allow the differences to be heard,
you don't want to know? Besides, I listen to music through those
headphones, and if one product does a better job, I want to know!

And certainly not everything will be masked. It is helpful to listen
through the Stax first, and then listen on the loudspeakers after the
differences are isolated."

Using one's choice of gear is no problem when testing reports of being an
exception to the benchmark of no difference in wire and amps using
listening alone. We can then test if the "differences" reported as
perceptions are a product of the perception process or inherent in the amp
and/orwire.

On 27 Apr 2004 23:22:42 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

Actually, I've had three car crashes withing 50 yards of my living room over
the years. So my analagy isn't so far fetched, is it? :-)

Sure it is. When was the last time you heard a car crash in your room or where
you were in the direct acoustic field?
We've ALL heard car crashes from an acoustically distant perspective. "The
schreeching tires, the bustin' glass the woeful cries that I heard last ...oh
where oh where could my baby be...?"

Bu tif my listening room were within 50 yards of where woulld be likely to
occur ...I'd move.... most likely because the ambient noise level would be too
high for anything but a sound-resistent construction. The latter is
unacceptable to me because it costs too much and it tends to accentuate
room mode peaks.

It depends. My listening room is within 20 yards of a crossroads on
the main Nottingham to Loughborough road, and there have been many
serious crashes over the 14 years we've lived here - but OTOH I have
13" thick brick/block walls, a concrete slab floor and triple glazing
on that room, giving a typical noise floor well below 30dBA. Since the
room is well dimensioned, I find that bass is the most solid I've ever
experienced, but not at all boomy. Large planar dipoles do help in
this regard of course, since the large quasi-line source (with large
variation in the distance to rear wall across the panel in my case)
spreads the resonances quite effectively.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering