| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
"JBorg" wrote in message
om If our empirical senses are faulty, That's a scientific fact, which is well known. If our senses were not faulty there would be no need for microscopes or telephones. what would be an example of a properly controlled listening "test" which would circumvent this problem ? Please see www.pcabx.com for examples. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote JBorg" wrote If our empirical senses are faulty, That's a scientific fact, which is well known. If our senses were not faulty there would be no need for microscopes or telephones. what would be an example of a properly controlled listening "test" which would circumvent this problem ? Please see www.pcabx.com for examples. Please see Dr. Corbett's commentary about pcabx dated 11/27/04, RAO Thread Title: Let's do some "scieenccece" in the Hive http://tinyurl.com/4kkxa ************** I had someone do an experiment for me using PCABX. As soon as I saw the data, I knew something was wrong, as the numbers from PCABX could not possibly be right. It took only a few minutes to find these errors in Arny's code: ... ptable(12, 1) = 1.642 ptable(12, 2) = 0.2 ptable(13, 1) = 2.072 ptable(13, 2) = 0.25 should be 0.15 ptable(14, 1) = 2.706 ^ ptable(14, 2) = 0.2 should be 0.1 ptable(15, 1) = 3.17 ^ ptable(15, 2) = 0.075 ... I sent Arny an e-mail reporting this, but I never got a reply to that e-mail. (He had replied to other e-mail I had sent to that address before that.) Those typos are only part of the problem with PCABX. I've been teaching college and university math classes for over thirty years, so my BS detector is well calibrated. But its meter pegs when I read what Arny says about scientific and technical issues involving mathematics, statistics, and design of experiments. You know the feeling when you are in a store and you overhear the salesman unloading a pile of BS on an unsuspecting customer? It's pretty much the same whether it is Radio Shack, or Best Buy, or Lafayette Radio, or an audiophile salon, and Arny brings it to the Internet. When someone follows Arny's advice on statistical design or analysis, you know it is a double blind experiment---it's a case of the blind leading the blind. (1) What Arny calls the "probability you were guessing" is apparently what the rest of the world calls a "p-value". I wrote "apparently" because PCABX cannot even calculate those numbers correctly; even if he had the right numbers, Arny obviously does not understand what they mean. In an ABX experiment, a p-value is calculated under the assumption that the subject is guessing. For instance, if a subject gets 14 correct in 16 trials, we say p = .002 because IF someone is guessing (with 50% chance of a correct answer on each trial) THEN the probability that he will get 14, or 15, or 16 correct in 16 trials is approximately .002. Arny has this bass-ackwards. He claims that IF someone gets 14 correct THEN the probability is .002 that the person was guessing. Of course there is absolutely NO logical or scientific support for that---it is entirely a result of Arny's failure to comprehend what the calculations are about. The fact that Arny refers to a p-value as a probability that the test subject was guessing is a dead giveaway that he has no clue about how statistical science works. (2) There are several reasons why PCABX reports bogus numbers for p-values: One reason is the typos I already mentioned. Another is the fact that Arny based his calculations on part of what David Carlstrom presented as the statistical basis for the original ABX comparator. Carlstrom mentioned two tests---one was based on a binomial distibution and a second was based on a chi-squared distribution. The binomial approach leads to an exact solution for testing H_0: theta = .5 vs H_1: theta .5 where theta is the single-trial probability of a correct answer. Thus theta = .5 means the subject is guessing with the same chance of success as flipping a fair coin, and theta .5 means he is doing better than that. That is an appropriate test if you want to see if a subject is doing *better* than chance would cause him to do. But Carlstrom made an error when he proposed the other test. He described a chi-squared procedure that tests H_0: theta = .5 vs H_1: theta not equal to .5. Now this compares chance behavior to *dfferent-from-chance* performance. Since that includes theta .5 as well as theta .5, the numbers generated this way are off by a factor of two from what would be comparable to the binomial test. This is obvious to anyone with real statistical training, but not to someone who naively copied a formula out of a book and coded it into a computer program. Of course a competent statistician would know how to adapt that chi-squared procedure to the sort of test that Carlstrom described with his binomial plan. Arny's PCABX uses the flawed chi-squared approach, so his calculations are biased; PCABX reports larger p-values (hence less-significant results) than it should. (That error is not quite as far off as a factor of two because there are other errors from approximating a discrete distribution by a continuous one; since they are in the opposite directions, the errors partially cancel.) To see this effect search Google Groups for the Usenet article with Subject: Statistics and PCABX (was weakest Link in the Chain) Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2004-01-13 (3) Yet another issue is that some of the numbers PCABX returns are not calculated by standard procedures at all. Although Arny claims that PCABX follows recognized scientific practice, the fact is that some of the numbers PCABX returns are pure fabrication. Maybe because Arny did not understand what a p-value is, or maybe because he did not realize that he based his calculations on an inappropriate method, PCABX reports p-values of 1 when the observed data show less than half the trials with correct answers. This is NOT a standard calculation based on techniques in any textbook I'm aware of. It also does not agree with the methods described in http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_p9.htm which Arny cited earlier in this thread as an authoritative reference. If Arny has a specific citation of a reference showing how someone with pencil and paper (and perhaps a simple calculator) can duplicate the numbers PCABX comes up with, I'd like to see it. So it's clear that the analysis side of PCABX is broken in many ways. It is also the case that he experimental design part has problems. Although much effort went into refining experimental technique, there appears to be very little awareness of the rest of experimental design. Arny's Ten Commandments^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HRequirements are NOT sufficient to make a good listening experiment. No matter how well you try, the reality is that if a test has only one trial, there is a 50% type I error risk. The ONLY way to reduce that is statistical---you need more trials. Once you do that, there is the issue of how many trials to do, and how many of those are needed to pass the test. PCABX suggests 14 correct in 16 trials, even though that is a really bad choice. If the effect being tested is small, say near threshold, then the 14/16 test will usually (80% of the time) _fail_ to detect a real effect. If the effect is large, then 16 trials is wasteful. A test with far fewer trials may be adequate then. There are plenty of designs that are better than 14/16, but it would be hard to find one that is worse. Once again, Arny gets it bacwards. He starts with 16 trials, then picks 14 (it used to be 12) as a passing score. Of course a rational design might start with specified levels for type I and type II error risks, and then determine a sample size to achieve that performance. For a graduated collection of tests, such as would be the case if the links in the table near the bottom of http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm actually worked, we would need only a few trials for the easy samples but many more for the harder ones if we wanted comparable sensitivity of the tests. Using the same number of trials for different levels means that the tests do not have the same power (sensitivity); the result is that subjects will seem to have a threshold-style respnse even if their true response were a linear function of stimulus level. If the true response has a threshold then it is confounded with the test's power function, making interpretation of the results difficult. This is analagous to measuring a decreasing signal with a meter. As the signal level drops, the meter needs to be adjusted to read on a lower range (more sensitive) scale. If that is not done, a naive user may "see" that below some point there is apparently no response when actually there is some response below the current meter range. Using a fixed size of 16 trials over a broad range of stimulus levels will cause that sort of error, yet that is precisely what PCABX says to do. The statistical science in PCABX is Completely Ridiculous & Absolutely Preposterous, which we can abbreviate as CRAP. Lest anyone get the wrong imnpression, I want to be clear that I am in favor of properly-done scientific tests. ABX and similar tests can be properly done, but merely using an ABX data collection plan is no guarantee of a worthwhile experiment. A worthwhile experiment requires competent statistical design and analysis along with good experimental technique. No part is sufficient---all these are necessary. No matter how good the other parts are, if the statistical aspects are bungled, the experiment is ruined. Now I do not claim that good statistical practice is enough to make a successful experiment, but I do argue that failing to get the statistical stuff right is enough to botch the experiment. It is much the same as noting that neither level matching nor time-synchronizing nor blinding alone will make a good experiment, but missing any one can esily ruin on otherwise-okay experiment. ************************************* End report. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
"JBorg" wrote in message
. com Arny Krueger wrote JBorg" wrote If our empirical senses are faulty, That's a scientific fact, which is well known. If our senses were not faulty there would be no need for microscopes or telephones. what would be an example of a properly controlled listening "test" which would circumvent this problem ? Please see www.pcabx.com for examples. Please see Dr. Corbett's commentary about pcabx dated 11/27/04, RAO Good idea. It shows what happens if one becomes obsessed with details, and loses the ability to figuratively see the forest for the trees. I see that none of the RAO trolls are bright enough to see the rather gross flaws in Corbett's little study. Let me also recommend the following: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...534735-0115334 |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:59:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Cal Cerise" wrote in message . com Just guessing here, but all 3 dealers probably carried tubed equipment. Just for reference, there are at least 10 stores in my area that are arguably selling high end audio. Only one of them carries tubes and he has the smallest store of the bunch. Our definitions of High End audio are very different probably. Classic response of a high end snob. Basically, its the old "your high end isn't high end enough for me". What Cal no doubt wants to say is that these retailers can't be high end enough for him because they don't carry tubes. IOW, Cal wants to define the criteria so he can't possibly lose the discussion. Since *you* attempted to "define the criteria", isn't that *exactly* what you were doing, trying desperately not to "lose the discussion"? |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:23:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "JBorg" wrote in message .com Arny Krueger wrote JBorg" wrote If our empirical senses are faulty, That's a scientific fact, which is well known. If our senses were not faulty there would be no need for microscopes or telephones. what would be an example of a properly controlled listening "test" which would circumvent this problem ? Please see www.pcabx.com for examples. Please see Dr. Corbett's commentary about pcabx dated 11/27/04, RAO Good idea. It shows what happens if one becomes obsessed with details, and loses the ability to figuratively see the forest for the trees. I see that none of the RAO trolls are bright enough to see the rather gross flaws in Corbett's little study. Let me also recommend the following: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...534735-0115334 Thanks for the recommendation. Looks like a great read. BTW, god lies in the details, right? Or are you saying the God is just lying? |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:23:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "JBorg" wrote in message . com Arny Krueger wrote JBorg" wrote If our empirical senses are faulty, That's a scientific fact, which is well known. If our senses were not faulty there would be no need for microscopes or telephones. what would be an example of a properly controlled listening "test" which would circumvent this problem ? Please see www.pcabx.com for examples. Please see Dr. Corbett's commentary about pcabx dated 11/27/04, RAO Good idea. It shows what happens if one becomes obsessed with details, and loses the ability to figuratively see the forest for the trees. I see that none of the RAO trolls are bright enough to see the rather gross flaws in Corbett's little study. Let me also recommend the following: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...534735-0115334 Thanks for the recommendation. Looks like a great read. I admit it, I immediately saw you in its target audience, Weil. Enjoy! |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:29:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:23:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "JBorg" wrote in message . com Arny Krueger wrote JBorg" wrote If our empirical senses are faulty, That's a scientific fact, which is well known. If our senses were not faulty there would be no need for microscopes or telephones. what would be an example of a properly controlled listening "test" which would circumvent this problem ? Please see www.pcabx.com for examples. Please see Dr. Corbett's commentary about pcabx dated 11/27/04, RAO Good idea. It shows what happens if one becomes obsessed with details, and loses the ability to figuratively see the forest for the trees. I see that none of the RAO trolls are bright enough to see the rather gross flaws in Corbett's little study. Let me also recommend the following: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...534735-0115334 Thanks for the recommendation. Looks like a great read. I admit it, I immediately saw you in its target audience, Weil. Enjoy! Thanks, I will. Nice deceptive editing, BTW. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:59:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" reminded us why he's so often thought a dork: Our definitions of High End audio are very different probably. Classic response of a high end snob. Basically, its the old "your high end isn't high end enough for me". What Cal no doubt wants to say is that these retailers can't be high end enough for him because they don't carry tubes. IOW, Cal wants to define the criteria so he can't possibly lose the discussion. Since *you* attempted to "define the criteria", isn't that *exactly* what you were doing, trying desperately not to "lose the discussion"? My earlier definition of High End said nothing of tubes per se. You in essence proved that you knew what I was saying and that you had to accept it implicitly. Because, it's obvious. A look through the dealer ads in Stereophile will show that of those dealers advertising therein, they will generally name several lines they carry. Few will list more than four or five without any of them being tube and some list primarily tube lines. Of those companies "perceived as" being the big names in High End electronics (vis-a-vis speakers, stands, cartridges, tables) half or more are selling tubes. Even McIntosh, who for thirty years maintained with a straight face that solid state was wholly superior and that they would never again (shades of a semiconductor holocaust!) make a tube box, had to make a Kornblumed MC275 (bifilar EI lam OPT, everything on a PCB, just as if St. Louis Music made it!) to generate a cash flow stick thermal to keep afloat. To the extent that High End is an industry-however large or small, however much you like or dislike its implicit premise(s)-it is an industry heavily dependent on vacuum tubes. As is the pro recording industry (leaving out guitar amps and Hammond/Leslies altogether!). Even classical music is often recorded with tube mics and mic pre's. Last time I checked the classic Fairchild mastering compressors-made while JFK was nailing Marilyn Monroe-were going for somewhere around thirty thousand dollars, not to collectors or hobbyists with too much money but working commercial facilities. So, and to put it bluntly, Krooborg, you are full of ****. You and David Rich and Randy Slone and all of you other ****heads. The continuing -professional- preference in many cases for the evil obsolete vacuum tube is a thorn that is going to stick in your ass cheeks until you concede there is a legitimate issue there, and fix it, acknowledge it, or die having lived with a swollen ass cheek for forty years. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cal Cerise said: To the extent that High End is an industry-however large or small, however much you like or dislike its implicit premise(s)-it is an industry heavily dependent on vacuum tubes. That seems true. I'd add that high end is the *only* segment of the merchandising system that offers tubed gear. So, and to put it bluntly, Krooborg, you are full of ****. This is indisputably true. In fact, the latest assays reveal that Mr. **** is closing in on 98% purity. You and David Rich and Randy Slone and all of you other ****heads. The continuing -professional- preference in many cases for the evil obsolete vacuum tube is a thorn that is going to stick in your ass cheeks until you concede there is a legitimate issue there, and fix it, acknowledge it, or die having lived with a swollen ass cheek for forty years. Krooger's irrational fear and loathing of tubes is not based on auditory preference. He's krazy as a loon. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cal Cerise" wrote in message
om dave weil wrote in message . .. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:59:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" Cal shows us why he is often thought of as an illiterate - given that he clearly can't understand the phrase "end of discussion". pages of irrelevant pontification and personal attacks snipped |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "JBorg" wrote in message om If our empirical senses are faulty, That's a scientific fact, which is well known. If our senses were not faulty there would be no need for microscopes or telephones. In your case, its your so-called intellect that is faulty. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:23:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "JBorg" wrote in message y.com Arny Krueger wrote JBorg" wrote If our empirical senses are faulty, That's a scientific fact, which is well known. If our senses were not faulty there would be no need for microscopes or telephones. what would be an example of a properly controlled listening "test" which would circumvent this problem ? Please see www.pcabx.com for examples. Please see Dr. Corbett's commentary about pcabx dated 11/27/04, RAO Good idea. It shows what happens if one becomes obsessed with details, and loses the ability to figuratively see the forest for the trees. I see that none of the RAO trolls are bright enough to see the rather gross flaws in Corbett's little study. Let me also recommend the following: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...534735-0115334 Thanks for the recommendation. Looks like a great read. BTW, god lies in the details, right? Or are you saying the God is just lying? Who lies more, God or Google? |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cal Cerise" wrote in message om... dave weil wrote in message . .. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:59:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" reminded us why he's so often thought a dork: Our definitions of High End audio are very different probably. Classic response of a high end snob. Basically, its the old "your high end isn't high end enough for me". What Cal no doubt wants to say is that these retailers can't be high end enough for him because they don't carry tubes. IOW, Cal wants to define the criteria so he can't possibly lose the discussion. Since *you* attempted to "define the criteria", isn't that *exactly* what you were doing, trying desperately not to "lose the discussion"? My earlier definition of High End said nothing of tubes per se. You in essence proved that you knew what I was saying and that you had to accept it implicitly. Because, it's obvious. A look through the dealer ads in Stereophile will show that of those dealers advertising therein, they will generally name several lines they carry. Few will list more than four or five without any of them being tube and some list primarily tube lines. Of those companies "perceived as" being the big names in High End electronics (vis-a-vis speakers, stands, cartridges, tables) half or more are selling tubes. Even McIntosh, who for thirty years maintained with a straight face that solid state was wholly superior and that they would never again (shades of a semiconductor holocaust!) make a tube box, had to make a Kornblumed MC275 (bifilar EI lam OPT, everything on a PCB, just as if St. Louis Music made it!) to generate a cash flow stick thermal to keep afloat. To the extent that High End is an industry-however large or small, however much you like or dislike its implicit premise(s)-it is an industry heavily dependent on vacuum tubes. As is the pro recording industry (leaving out guitar amps and Hammond/Leslies altogether!). Even classical music is often recorded with tube mics and mic pre's. Last time I checked the classic Fairchild mastering compressors-made while JFK was nailing Marilyn Monroe-were going for somewhere around thirty thousand dollars, not to collectors or hobbyists with too much money but working commercial facilities. So, and to put it bluntly, Krooborg, you are full of ****. You and David Rich and Randy Slone and all of you other ****heads. The continuing -professional- preference in many cases for the evil obsolete vacuum tube is a thorn that is going to stick in your ass cheeks until you concede there is a legitimate issue there, and fix it, acknowledge it, or die having lived with a swollen ass cheek for forty years. Its not the thorn, but the ****s that irritates him. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Let me also recommend the following: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...534735-0115334 Mr. Krueger having not addressed any of the specific points raised in my earlier post now tries misdirection. The above link actually has nothing to do with the current discussion. I am not the author of that work. But if you follow that link, you might as well search for "Arnold Krueger" on the Amazon site while you are there. Here's what you'll find (at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...976328-1126447 ) The blurb there says: "Over twenty years, a lawyer, a photograther and an artist pair-off with a pair of students, a pair of Frenchmen, a pair of twins and a horny married guy from New Jersey, never imagining they are fodder for a fond friend's fiction. Milt has his lover out, Rod has his feelers out, Jean has his leathers out and Sam has his lenses out!" Folks, I am not making this up! I'm not saying this is our Arny, but "photograther" kinda makes you wonder. ;-) |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny, it isn't over until I say it's over. You aren't the only one on
Usenet. You want to take your ball and go home in defeat, fine, but others have more to say. The fact is, Wal-Mart and Best Buy may define audio for you, but they don't define serious audio for me. Never have. Never will. |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny, it isn't over until I say it's over. You aren't the only one on
Usenet. You want to take your ball and go home in defeat, fine, but others have more to say. The fact is, Wal-Mart and Best Buy may define audio for you, but they don't define serious audio for me. Never have. Never will. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com Arny, it isn't over until I say it's over. You aren't the only one on Usenet. You want to take your ball and go home in defeat, fine, but others have more to say. It would cool if you said something worth hearing. The fact is, Wal-Mart and Best Buy may define audio for you, but they don't define serious audio for me. Never have. Never will. Nor I. Have a nice day! |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:14:48 -0500, Jon Yaeger
wrote: in article , Arny Krueger at wrote on 11/23/04 6:31 AM: "JBorg" wrote in message om I sense that some, if not, most serious audiophiles do agree about many things in high-end audio. Exactly. Other than a tiny retrograde luantic fringe, serious audiophiles avoid tubed equipment. **** What, exactly, is a "serious" audiophile? It's anyone that agrees with your ideas. All others belong in the not so tiny 'retrograde lunatic' group. I came to like tubed gear only after personally auditioning a wide variety of SS & valved amps over many years. This doesn't mean that tubes are superiour; rather, that you prefer a specific, highly inaccurate, type of sund. I didn't start out saying, "well, I want to be part of an exclusive and esoteric minority, and spend a small fortune in the process." I have a number of like-minded electronic hobbyist friends who also just happen to enjoy listening to music. A lot. One thing that distinguishes me from my immediate family is the pleasure I derive listening to instrumental works. For example, my wife and daughter have no patience with music that lacks vocals. I also play, or attempt to play, a few instruments. So I am not entirely tone deaf. To me and my lunatic music-o-phile friends, in general, good tube designs sound more open and realistic. Most SS amps, even "good" ones, sound sterile to my ears . . . like pushing music through grains of sand. For a valid comparison, the auditioned SS and tube gear should be of comparable cost. Then, tube amps sound 'warm' and 'bloated', while the SS sound is more accurate; indeed, 'analytical' and 'sterile', just like the original was. At that point, each listener makes his own choice; but those that prefer tubed amps should realize they have opted for inaccurate, warm sound. From a scientific point of view, I'll allow that I might be deluded. So I'll just leave science out of it and say that it's a matter of taste. Some like chiantis; others chablis. Their subtleties are really incomparable. I disagree that my interest in tube gear makes me part of a small lunatic fringe. OTOH, I'm aware of postings on the NGs from people who claim that you, Arny, have a certain predilection to minors for carnal purposes. I don't believe most of the personal attacks appearing in NGs, and I hope that all that is fiction and that you are unfortunately a victim of slander. But if true, surely you might appreciate the irony that it would make you a member of a "retrograde lunatic fringe," or worse . . . ? It's amazing, is it not, that subjectivists in general and tube afficionados in particular are prone to personal attacks of the lowest, vilest kind. Perhaps it says something about the validity of your other choices in life? -- Ron Keeping irony alive, - J |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" wrote in message
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:14:48 -0500, Jon Yaeger wrote: in article , Arny Krueger at wrote on 11/23/04 6:31 AM: "JBorg" wrote in message om I sense that some, if not, most serious audiophiles do agree about many things in high-end audio. Exactly. Other than a tiny retrograde luantic fringe, serious audiophiles avoid tubed equipment. **** What, exactly, is a "serious" audiophile? It's anyone that agrees with your ideas. All others belong in the not so tiny 'retrograde lunatic' group. So what are the official statistics about numbers of serious audiophiles versus tubophiles. How many tubophiles have tubes in their systems simply because they never upgraded their audio systems from the days of? How many tubophiles have tubes in their systems as EFX devices? How may tubophiles have tubes for sentimental, not sound accuracy reasons? I came to like tubed gear only after personally auditioning a wide variety of SS & valved amps over many years. This doesn't mean that tubes are superiour; rather, that you prefer a specific, highly inaccurate, type of sund. Or are simply fond of the concept. For a valid comparison, the auditioned SS and tube gear should be of comparable cost. Then, tube amps sound 'warm' and 'bloated', while the SS sound is more accurate; indeed, 'analytical' and 'sterile', just like the original was. At that point, each listener makes his own choice; but those that prefer tubed amps should realize they have opted for inaccurate, warm sound. It is true that cheap-ass tubed equipment is far more technically deficient than some of the expensive stuff. There's no reason why a price-is-no-object tubed amp can't sound good and accurate when that high price is invested in a technically sophisticated way. From a scientific point of view, I'll allow that I might be deluded. So I'll just leave science out of it and say that it's a matter of taste. Some like chiantis; others chablis. Their subtleties are really incomparable. When I see tubophiles obsesse over some the the butt-cheap tubed gear I used to sell at Lafayette, I have to smile. That stuff sounded like crap on the first day of its life. Lafayette had some good stuff, but the volume sales were in bottom-priced crap. I disagree that my interest in tube gear makes me part of a small lunatic fringe. Saying it doesn't make it so. OTOH, I'm aware of postings on the NGs from people who claim that you, Arny, have a certain predilection to minors for carnal purposes. I don't believe most of the personal attacks appearing in NGs, and I hope that all that is fiction and that you are unfortunately a victim of slander. But if true, surely you might appreciate the irony that it would make you a member of a "retrograde lunatic fringe," or worse . . . ? It's amazing, is it not, that subjectivists in general and tube afficionados in particular are prone to personal attacks of the lowest, vilest kind. Perhaps it says something about the validity of your other choices in life? I used to use a phrase around here - "The prerequisite radical subjectivist personal attack". It still fits. Weigh the ratio of personal attack posts to solid audio tech posts from the radical subjectivist leaders around here. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Emily said: I came to like tubed gear only after personally auditioning a wide variety of SS & valved amps over many years. This doesn't mean that tubes are superiour[sic]; rather, that you prefer a specific, highly inaccurate, type of sund[sic]. Snot alert! "inaccurate" is a code word from Hivespeak. Emily is too much of a chicken**** to tell the truth, which is that s/he is intimidated by the entire high end experience. Also, he/she can't bear the thought of spending a grand on a single piece of equipment. With all that baggage, is it any wonder this emotional cripple feels compelled to snot on a Normal audio preference? |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:56:06 -0500, Jon Yaeger
wrote: in article , Ron at wrote on 12/8/04 9:31 AM: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:14:48 -0500, Jon Yaeger wrote: in article , Arny Krueger at wrote on 11/23/04 6:31 AM: "JBorg" wrote in message om I sense that some, if not, most serious audiophiles do agree about many things in high-end audio. Exactly. Other than a tiny retrograde luantic fringe, serious audiophiles avoid tubed equipment. **** What, exactly, is a "serious" audiophile? It's anyone that agrees with your ideas. All others belong in the not so tiny 'retrograde lunatic' group. I came to like tubed gear only after personally auditioning a wide variety of SS & valved amps over many years. This doesn't mean that tubes are superiour; rather, that you prefer a specific, highly inaccurate, type of sund. I didn't start out saying, "well, I want to be part of an exclusive and esoteric minority, and spend a small fortune in the process." I have a number of like-minded electronic hobbyist friends who also just happen to enjoy listening to music. A lot. One thing that distinguishes me from my immediate family is the pleasure I derive listening to instrumental works. For example, my wife and daughter have no patience with music that lacks vocals. I also play, or attempt to play, a few instruments. So I am not entirely tone deaf. To me and my lunatic music-o-phile friends, in general, good tube designs sound more open and realistic. Most SS amps, even "good" ones, sound sterile to my ears . . . like pushing music through grains of sand. For a valid comparison, the auditioned SS and tube gear should be of comparable cost. Then, tube amps sound 'warm' and 'bloated', while the SS sound is more accurate; indeed, 'analytical' and 'sterile', just like the original was. At that point, each listener makes his own choice; but those that prefer tubed amps should realize they have opted for inaccurate, warm sound. From a scientific point of view, I'll allow that I might be deluded. So I'll just leave science out of it and say that it's a matter of taste. Some like chiantis; others chablis. Their subtleties are really incomparable. I disagree that my interest in tube gear makes me part of a small lunatic fringe. OTOH, I'm aware of postings on the NGs from people who claim that you, Arny, have a certain predilection to minors for carnal purposes. I don't believe most of the personal attacks appearing in NGs, and I hope that all that is fiction and that you are unfortunately a victim of slander. But if true, surely you might appreciate the irony that it would make you a member of a "retrograde lunatic fringe," or worse . . . ? It's amazing, is it not, that subjectivists in general and tube afficionados in particular are prone to personal attacks of the lowest, vilest kind. Perhaps it says something about the validity of your other choices in life? -- Ron You seem unable to grasp any points of my reply. First, I generally like the sound of tubes over SS. That's my choice and taste. I don't need a scientific endorsement or a "valid" reason for my preferences. If it's "bloated" sound (Note: your SUBJECTIVE assessment) then so what? So, nothing. I was not discussing of your oh-so-difficult-to-grasp personal preferances, but the objective characteristics of tube vs. SS reproduction equipment and why subjetivists still prefer tubes. Note that by definition, 'accuracy' is not a subjective attribute. Reproduction is accurate if it is identical (or close to) the original, regardless of how one precives it to be. The requirement that SS & tubed gear cost the same for any valid comparison is irrelevant. We're talking about technologies, not relative values. Not so. I do not doubt that a $20,000 tubed amp should sound better than a $300 SS one. However, if you want to evaluate technlogies, then tubes are inferiour to SS on every count. The claimed sonic superiority is purely due to the subjective preferances of a comparatively small group. Second, you might look over the threads on R.A.T. & R.A.O. and notice that tube afficionados don't own the market on nasty posts. Well, they are cerftainly trying to. Case in point, the following response from The Midiot, consisting of zero audio-related content, 100% personal attack. See it for a good laugh, the moron's fit to be tied... Third, I was making the point that this Arny fellow has no business calling other people "lunatics" if a tenth of the stuff written about him is true. Lighten up, fellow. Fourth, some people gauge the ability to perceive irony as a measure of intelligence. Some people "get it", some people don't . . . . True. But if you briefly reflect on it, you may get it, too. -- Ron |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" wrote in message
OTOH, I'm aware of postings on the NGs from people who claim that you, Arny, have a certain predilection to minors for carnal purposes. I don't believe most of the personal attacks appearing in NGs, and I hope that all that is fiction and that you are unfortunately a victim of slander. Libelous personal attacks such as these are not unusual on Usenet. I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:57:08 -0500, Ron wrote:
Note that by definition, 'accuracy' is not a subjective attribute. Reproduction is accurate if it is identical (or close to) the original, regardless of how one precives it to be. I think that you are missing the point. I think that "accuracy" is indeed very subjective. After all, we don't listen to ocilliscope traces, we listen to music and we each have our own hearing curves and listening biases, based on sex and cultural training. Therefore, how "accurate" we find reproduction is based less on an "objective" standard and more on the "subjective" one. You and I can listen to the same orchestra live, and then immediately listen to a recording on the same system and still disagree about how "accurate" the reproduction is. The difference might even be wider if we are from different parts of the globe. I noticed this even between, say British people and German people (in general of course). This isn't to say that objective standards can't help, but to solely rely on them is folly. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Recently you opined that Arnii Kroo**** might participate in Usenet as a source of amusement. Herewith some contradictory evidence that I, for one, find rather compelling. I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. All in fun, you think? And the frequent accusations of scheming and plotting -- that's all said with a big wink, right? |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Ron" wrote in message I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. A curious statement from somone who knowingly kept some on his hard drive for three years. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" wrote in message
Note that by definition, 'accuracy' is not a subjective attribute. Reproduction is accurate if it is identical (or close to) the original, regardless of how one perceives it to be. Note that this concept flies over the pointy little heads of many of our resident radical subjectivists. Note that they wouldn't be the least bit happy if their paychecks were made out in accordance with their definition of accuracy. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Ron" wrote in message I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. A curious statement from somone who knowingly kept some on his hard drive for three years. Except it wasn't knowingly. Delusions of omniscience noted. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick said: I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. A curious statement from somone who knowingly kept some on his hard drive for three years. And who divulged some of his filthier fantasies in public, no less. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news  "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Ron" wrote in message I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. A curious statement from somone who knowingly kept some on his hard drive for three years. Except it wasn't knowingly. That is a bald faced lie. You were the one who claimed it was kiddie porn when you supposedly 'got it', and you were the one who knowingly stored it on your hard drive. on your hard drive |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
George M. Middius wrote: Recently you opined that Arnii Kroo**** might participate in Usenet as a source of amusement. Herewith some contradictory evidence that I, for one, find rather compelling. I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. All in fun, you think? And the frequent accusations of scheming and plotting -- that's all said with a big wink, right? Who knows? Maybe he has some odd desire for amusement from baiting people and watching them go into a frenzy. Most of the people here seem to react pretty well to his posts, btw. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net George M. Middius wrote: Recently you opined that Arnii Kroo**** might participate in Usenet as a source of amusement. Herewith some contradictory evidence that I, for one, find rather compelling. I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. All in fun, you think? And the frequent accusations of scheming and plotting -- that's all said with a big wink, right? Who knows? Maybe he has some odd desire for amusement from baiting people and watching them go into a frenzy. There's nothing odd about this at all. Lots of people go to cock fights and dog fights. Middius and his bunch are just my figurative dogs and chickens. Most of the people here seem to react pretty well to his posts, btw. Other than Middius and his bozos here on RAO, there are few like them in all of the audio groups in Usenet. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Ron" wrote in message I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. A curious statement from someone who knowingly kept some on his hard drive for three years. Except it wasn't knowingly. That is a bald faced lie. Delusions of omniscience noted. You were the one who claimed it was kiddie porn when you supposedly 'got it', Legal point, Art. There never was any kiddie porn in this case, therefore I never stored kiddie porn on my hard drive. and you were the one who knowingly stored it on your hard drive. on your hard drive. Wrong again Art, I thought I deleted it. Hey Art, its alot more fun to catch you in more lies than less lies. Could you make up some more lies about this matter? |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joseph Oberlander said: Recently you opined that Arnii Kroo**** might participate in Usenet as a source of amusement. Herewith some contradictory evidence that I, for one, find rather compelling. I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. All in fun, you think? And the frequent accusations of scheming and plotting -- that's all said with a big wink, right? Who knows? Maybe he has some odd desire for amusement from baiting people and watching them go into a frenzy. Most of the people here seem to react pretty well to his posts, btw. I pity you. |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:32:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Ron" wrote in message Note that by definition, 'accuracy' is not a subjective attribute. Reproduction is accurate if it is identical (or close to) the original, regardless of how one perceives it to be. Note that this concept flies over the pointy little heads of many of our resident radical subjectivists. Note that you completely disregard the imprecise and sometimes arbitrary way that we process audio information (or at least are able to measure *why* someone might prefer one presentation over another). Note that they wouldn't be the least bit happy if their paychecks were made out in accordance with their definition of accuracy. Strawman alert! |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message k.net George M. Middius wrote: Recently you opined that Arnii Kroo**** might participate in Usenet as a source of amusement. Herewith some contradictory evidence that I, for one, find rather compelling. I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. All in fun, you think? And the frequent accusations of scheming and plotting -- that's all said with a big wink, right? Who knows? Maybe he has some odd desire for amusement from baiting people and watching them go into a frenzy. There's nothing odd about this at all. Lots of people go to cock fights and dog fights. Middius and his bunch are just my figurative dogs and chickens. Hah! Sick obsession with illegal activities such as dog fights, cock fights and kiddie porn noted. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick said: Recently you opined that Arnii Kroo**** might participate in Usenet as a source of amusement. Herewith some contradictory evidence that I, for one, find rather compelling. I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie. All in fun, you think? And the frequent accusations of scheming and plotting -- that's all said with a big wink, right? Who knows? Maybe he has some odd desire for amusement from baiting people and watching them go into a frenzy. There's nothing odd about this at all. Lots of people go to cock fights and dog fights. Middius and his bunch are just my figurative dogs and chickens. Hah! Sick obsession with illegal activities such as dog fights, cock fights and kiddie porn noted. Those were just Kroophemisms. He's really talking about **** fights. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:29:17 -0600, dave weil
wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:57:08 -0500, Ron wrote: Note that by definition, 'accuracy' is not a subjective attribute. Reproduction is accurate if it is identical (or close to) the original, regardless of how one precives it to be. I think that you are missing the point. I think that "accuracy" is indeed very subjective. No, I wasn't missing a point, I was making one. I provided the definition for 'accuracy'. Do read again. There is nothing in it about listening or hearing. After all, we don't listen to ocilliscope traces, we listen to music and we each have our own hearing curves and listening biases, based on sex and cultural training. .... which is subjective and has nothing to do with accuracy. Do try to understand that 'accuracy' pertains to comparison of the original to the reproduced *physical sound* and does not apply to what specific listeners are hearing or, indeed, to whether listeners are present at all. -- Ron Therefore, how "accurate" we find reproduction is based less on an "objective" standard and more on the "subjective" one. You and I can listen to the same orchestra live, and then immediately listen to a recording on the same system and still disagree about how "accurate" the reproduction is. The difference might even be wider if we are from different parts of the globe. I noticed this even between, say British people and German people (in general of course). This isn't to say that objective standards can't help, but to solely rely on them is folly. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
