On 16 Jul 2005 14:15:52 -0700, "
wrote:

Dave Weil said:

Well, that was my point at the time. You seemed unwilling to see the
sort of abuse that he has heaped on this newgroup for years. The abuse
that he just heaped on you is very typical, if a bit mild for him.

Pity those who are so easily wounded by such "abuse."

You
saw him getting **** but didn't understand the "nature of the beast"
or WHY he has garnered such treatment, which is why I tried to educate
you.

When did you state the reason for Arny being treated so badly was his
penchant for telling the truth about audio?

You've now been suitably informed, by Mr. Krueger himself. ScottW
has learned the same lesson, as have other Krueger defenders.

What lesson is that? You mean that if you use a respectable tone with
Arny, you get treated in similar fashion?

I'm still trying to figure out why the people who think Arny is so bad,
think the way to deal with him ist become more nasty, more disgusting
and more obnoxious than they think he is.

Because you're an idiot, maybe?

On 16 Jul 2005 18:57:25 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

ScottW has learned the same lesson, as have other Krueger defenders.


Kreugers a ****... but sadly for you, there is really very little
difference at the core between you and him.

Or you. Or the moon.

Obviously you have no regard for the truth or your own personal
integrity or you wouldn't stoop to do what you just did. It's a minor
thing but it exposes you more than you can know.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Sadner said:

With CD players, the only 2 examples I know of are the Rega Planet
(earlier versions) and the Ah Tjoeb 99, which was in fact a lower-end
Marantz with an added tube stage.


Both weren't kilobuck players, BTW.


Sander I know for a fact that Kinergetics used an $80.00 Phillips in
their $600.00 CD player they sold some 20 years ago. True they added
about 2 cents worth of wire looped into a coil and a couple of chip
resistors, then put it in one of their boxes with their logo, but the
essence was a Phillips player. Their price was high for for the
Phillips because the weren't buyng them wholesale but through a
middleman. I know this because I was in the factory and saw it being
done. At the time they also made some sort of equipment for off shore
oil drilling which was their main business.

On 16 Jul 2005 23:12:05 -0700, "
wrote:

If you think George is not a sockpuppet, then I challenge you to prove
it, since nobody can find any public record of him AFAIK.

You're wrong about this.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:08:38 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:27:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why the people who think Arny is so bad,
think the way to deal with him ist become more nasty, more disgusting
and more obnoxious than they think he is.

Because you're an idiot, maybe?

Now, now, Dave. Gentlemen don't say things like that. ;-)

Your body reeks of the misty mucidness pugging from the sweat orifices
of a Chartreudian Earspider.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:08:38 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:27:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why the people who think Arny is so bad,
think the way to deal with him ist become more nasty, more disgusting
and more obnoxious than they think he is.

Because you're an idiot, maybe?

Now, now, Dave. Gentlemen don't say things like that. ;-)

Your refrigerator smells like the cochineal decay coveting from the
eye orifices of a Gharzan Pooper.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:27:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why the people who think Arny is so bad,
think the way to deal with him ist become more nasty, more disgusting
and more obnoxious than they think he is.

Because you're an idiot, maybe?

Now, now, Dave. Gentlemen don't say things like that. ;-)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:56:29 +1000,
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:08:38 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:27:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why the people who think Arny is so bad,
think the way to deal with him ist become more nasty, more disgusting
and more obnoxious than they think he is.

Because you're an idiot, maybe?

Now, now, Dave. Gentlemen don't say things like that. ;-)

Your refrigerator smells like the cochineal decay coveting from the
eye orifices of a Gharzan Pooper.

I think you'll get sick of this before we do. Or maybe not. :-(

"paul packer" wrote in message

On 16 Jul 2005 14:15:52 -0700, "
wrote:


What lesson is that? You mean that if you use a
respectable
tone with Arny, you get treated in similar fashion?

I'm still trying to figure out why the people who think
Arny
is so bad, think the way to deal with him ist become more
nasty, more disgusting and more obnoxious than they think
he
is.

There's some truth to this. Arnie's certainly
overly-defensive
(perhaps not altogether surprisingly), and doesn't always
know
who his friends and enemies are, and sometimes even treats
the
same person differently within the same thread, which is
damned confusing.

That's easy to understand if you realize that I'll give
people a polite reply if they make something that shows a
little insight and desire to seriously discuss something.

And yes, he can be very snotty indeed in a debate.

If that were a fatal flaw a lot of people would be dead
including you, Paul.

wrote in message
oups.com
JA said:

No, I said I apologized to her for quoting someone
else's usage. That is not the same as "attacking"
her. As I said, I have never attacked either your
wife or your children. In fact, the only comments
I have made either in public or in private about
your children were to express my genuine sympathy
over the tragic loss of your son.

__________________________________________________ __________
__

John, you should go back and see what sort of things
"people"
kie Middius said, then see if you can figure out why some
here
consider him to be the absolute scum of the earth.

John needs supporters like Middius.

wrote in message
oups.com
JA said:

Why? It seems clear enough to me. It was Mike McKelvy
who triggered my invitation to you, not George Middius.
I fail to comprehend why you could think otherwise.
And regarding earlier suggestions that you and I
debate each other, no, George Middius had nothing to
do with those suggestions either.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


I did indeed say that I thought you should quit dancing
and
get on with it. This was in response to a lot of
misinfornmation being spread about by Middious and others,
that Arny had defaulted ont the original challenge he made
to
you which you danced away from by turning it from a debate
with you and he into a panel moderated by you and pitting
several other hostile wannabe experts against him.

If you think George is not a sockpuppet, then I challenge
you
to prove it, since nobody can find any public record of
him
AFAIK.

Public records of Middius have been found, but they appear
to be purpose-built.

" said:


Sander I know for a fact that Kinergetics used an $80.00 Phillips in
their $600.00 CD player they sold some 20 years ago. True they added
about 2 cents worth of wire looped into a coil and a couple of chip
resistors, then put it in one of their boxes with their logo, but the
essence was a Phillips player. Their price was high for for the
Phillips because the weren't buyng them wholesale but through a
middleman. I know this because I was in the factory and saw it being
done. At the time they also made some sort of equipment for off shore
oil drilling which was their main business.


I'm not familiar with the Synergetics player, but unless there's a
zero too short, I don't think a $80 mechanism in a $600 player is
overkill.........

And in those years, almost any player was based on Philips mechanics,
just because the swing-arm mechanism including electronics happens to
be one of the best.

--

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:17:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On 16 Jul 2005 14:15:52 -0700, "
wrote:


What lesson is that? You mean that if you use a
respectable
tone with Arny, you get treated in similar fashion?

I'm still trying to figure out why the people who think
Arny
is so bad, think the way to deal with him ist become more
nasty, more disgusting and more obnoxious than they think
he
is.

There's some truth to this. Arnie's certainly
overly-defensive
(perhaps not altogether surprisingly), and doesn't always
know
who his friends and enemies are, and sometimes even treats
the
same person differently within the same thread, which is
damned confusing.

That's easy to understand if you realize that I'll give
people a polite reply if they make something that shows a
little insight and desire to seriously discuss something.

And yes, he can be very snotty indeed in a debate.

If that were a fatal flaw a lot of people would be dead
including you, Paul.

Proof that once someone goes on your **** list, the insults never
stop. I love it though that just because I exposed the last name
thing, Arnold needs to change his MO.

I love it when he dances to my tune.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:08:38 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:27:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why the people who think Arny is so bad,
think the way to deal with him ist become more nasty, more disgusting
and more obnoxious than they think he is.

Because you're an idiot, maybe?

Now, now, Dave. Gentlemen don't say things like that. ;-)

It's only a newsgroup remember? Nothing for Mike to get his feathers
ruffled about, according to him.

BTW, my comment, which I pretty much DID mean at face value, was a
response to the whole post, not just the last part.

Clyde said:



Now, as far as DBT and its removal of expectation effects,
for the purposes of audio purchase decisions, a
test subject would tend to have fairly strong preconceptions
about whether there might be inherent differences
between two items


AS far as manufacturer's using DBT in support of
parts or decsign decisions, the test subjets
are likely to have minimal preconcptions
over whatever is being tested.




Rao's A #1 repugnant Jerk-off, prone to eating bugs, puke and disgorge:



Which is precisely why DBT's are used for things like cel phones and
hearing aids. They allow subtle differences to be heard if they are
actually present.

The issue of preconceptions has been addressed, simply supply some
audible difference, unbeknownst to the listener and see if it shows up
in the responses.


Your above series of statements is precisely the reason why you are
a ****in asshole. The issue addressed above regards the
comparable differences when executing DBT for the purpose of
Audio Purchases vs DBT for the purposes of supporting mfr.'s R & D.

Tell me, ****in asshole, on what basis and how the ****in preconception
have been addressed, ?

EddieM said:

Your above series of statements is precisely the reason why you are
a ****in asshole. The issue addressed above regards the
comparable differences when executing DBT for the purpose of
Audio Purchases vs DBT for the purposes of supporting mfr.'s R & D.

You may not be aware of this, but some years ago, Turdborg actually
Kroo-klaimed that a designer's objectives are exactly congruent to a
consumer's. Perhaps Mickey has been mainlining some Kroo-turds and that's
why he's spewing such idiotic crap.

jeffc wrote





Like most "objectivists" you're ignoring reality to push your own
prejudices, and bitching about listening to music because it doesn't
support your fantasizing about measuring equipment.



The insuppressibly defective mental moron named Stewart "I'm a qualified
physicist" Pinkerton type:



ABX is a *listening* test, moron.


No you mentally defective moron. The so-called ABX is a
ridiculous listening "test" to "measure" or quantify sound
differences.


If it's all about listening, what the **** are you testing ?




Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



Now reread the rest of what you had said, but please come back.

jeffc said:




Like most "objectivists" you're ignoring reality to push your own
prejudices, and bitching about listening to music because it doesn't support
your fantasizing about measuring equipment. What is it exactly that makes
you think perfectly normal people can't simply hear things? What are you SO
afraid of exactly?




The exceptionally indolent imbecile replied:


The fact that people have very short memory of what they hear.



Long-term memory ?







The rest of what you said below are well-formed contextual bull****
put forth by your descending colon.



Whay is it that is so scary about simply using your ears to do a comparison?
All the rest is bull****. If you want to know if things sound the same
or different, you use your ears, and only your ears.

paul packer wrote







Nevertheless he's generally acceptable when unmolested,
and doesn't indulge in unprovoked abuse,



I disagree with that.


Have a newbie send an inquisitive post about some good caliber
high-end brand and see what the first thing that comes out of
that mother****er.

George M. Middius said
EddieM said:




Your above series of statements is precisely the reason why you are
a ****in asshole. The issue addressed above regards the
comparable differences when executing DBT for the purpose of
Audio Purchases vs DBT for the purposes of supporting mfr.'s R & D.

You may not be aware of this, but some years ago, Turdborg actually
Kroo-klaimed that a designer's objectives are exactly congruent to a
consumer's. Perhaps Mickey has been mainlining some Kroo-turds and
that's why he's spewing such idiotic crap.


I'm quite positive he's putting his cephalic vein to good use.

dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 18:57:25 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

ScottW has learned the same lesson, as have other Krueger defenders.


Kreugers a ****... but sadly for you, there is really very little
difference at the core between you and him.

Or you. Or the moon.

Obviously you have no regard for the truth or your own personal
integrity or you wouldn't stoop to do what you just did. It's a minor
thing but it exposes you more than you can know.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's what happens to people with no regard for the truth or their own
personal integrity... they have no idea what a **** they've become.

ScottW

On 17 Jul 2005 09:59:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 18:57:25 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

ScottW has learned the same lesson, as have other Krueger defenders.


Kreugers a ****... but sadly for you, there is really very little
difference at the core between you and him.

Or you. Or the moon.

Obviously you have no regard for the truth or your own personal
integrity or you wouldn't stoop to do what you just did. It's a minor
thing but it exposes you more than you can know.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's what happens to people with no regard for the truth or their own
personal integrity... they have no idea what a **** they've become.

Make that 5.

Non-responsiveness noted.

On 17 Jul 2005 09:59:37 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 18:57:25 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

ScottW has learned the same lesson, as have other Krueger defenders.


Kreugers a ****... but sadly for you, there is really very little
difference at the core between you and him.

Or you. Or the moon.

Obviously you have no regard for the truth or your own personal
integrity or you wouldn't stoop to do what you just did. It's a minor
thing but it exposes you more than you can know.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's what happens to people with no regard for the truth or their own
personal integrity... they have no idea what a **** they've become.

Ooops, correction. FOUR responses, not FIVE.

dave weil wrote:
On 17 Jul 2005 09:59:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 18:57:25 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

ScottW has learned the same lesson, as have other Krueger defenders.


Kreugers a ****... but sadly for you, there is really very little
difference at the core between you and him.

Or you. Or the moon.

Obviously you have no regard for the truth or your own personal
integrity or you wouldn't stoop to do what you just did. It's a minor
thing but it exposes you more than you can know.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's what happens to people with no regard for the truth or their own
personal integrity... they have no idea what a **** they've become.

Make that 5.

Non-responsiveness noted.

Is this a smidge of self-awareness Dave?

Or are you really completely and totally incapable of comprehending
the lack of integrity you keep revealing?

ScottW

On 17 Jul 2005 09:59:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 18:57:25 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

ScottW has learned the same lesson, as have other Krueger defenders.


Kreugers a ****... but sadly for you, there is really very little
difference at the core between you and him.

Or you. Or the moon.

Obviously you have no regard for the truth or your own personal
integrity or you wouldn't stoop to do what you just did. It's a minor
thing but it exposes you more than you can know.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's what happens to people with no regard for the truth or their own
personal integrity... they have no idea what a **** they've become.

And are you aware of what kind of **** *you've* become? It doesn't
appear likely.

dave weil wrote:
On 17 Jul 2005 09:59:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 18:57:25 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:



dave weil wrote:

ScottW has learned the same lesson, as have other Krueger defenders.


Kreugers a ****... but sadly for you, there is really very little
difference at the core between you and him.

Or you. Or the moon.

Obviously you have no regard for the truth or your own personal
integrity or you wouldn't stoop to do what you just did. It's a minor
thing but it exposes you more than you can know.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's what happens to people with no regard for the truth or their own
personal integrity... they have no idea what a **** they've become.

And are you aware of what kind of **** *you've* become? It doesn't
appear likely.


I am the painful ****ty truth for you.

Try a little introspection for a change Dave... you need it.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com

Try a little introspection for a change Dave... you need
it.

You said a mouthful, Scott.

Spit or swallow? ;-)

On 17 Jul 2005 13:14:47 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

That's what happens to people with no regard for the truth or their own
personal integrity... they have no idea what a **** they've become.

And are you aware of what kind of **** *you've* become? It doesn't
appear likely.


I am the painful ****ty truth for you.

You've GOT tp be kidding. You're just ****ty.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 18:32:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com

Try a little introspection for a change Dave... you need
it.

You said a mouthful, Scott.

Spit or swallow? ;-)

Glad to know that even church-going people can get nasty on Sunday
after church.

dave weil wrote:
On 17 Jul 2005 13:14:47 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

That's what happens to people with no regard for the truth or their own
personal integrity... they have no idea what a **** they've become.

And are you aware of what kind of **** *you've* become? It doesn't
appear likely.


I am the painful ****ty truth for you.

You've GOT tp be kidding. You're just ****ty.

Poor Dave... denial, denial, denial... yet the truth remains.

ScottW

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Of course, your suggestion that I was incorrect held no weight with
any reader on any forum, given your complete ignorance of modern electronic
devices and their technical features. It is this point where I am most
incensed.

Most incensed? Get a life.

You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT
ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not Dick
Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd.

It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.
However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
protection circuits are doing.

As for you being correct, for all of my limitations I do not
make silly claims about amplifier and wire "sound" as you
have in the past. I do not offer up a bill of goods to
customers who are perceived as big-spending suckers.

**Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure
identically
to them. There has never been any argument over this point.

Yeah, but below a certain point ultra-super measurements are
gilding the lily. I claim that even a good, mid-priced
receiver will have as good an amplifier sound as your exotic
amp.

**You may make as many claims as you wish. You're still operating from a
point of ignorance.

Like the subjectivists, I hear what I hear. Unlike most
subjectivists, however, I do not hear the artifacts that you
and your kind claim inhabit amps and wires.

Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround
sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver
wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit.

**Really? Let's talk about obsolescence sometime. See how much a 5 year old
receiver sells for. Then go price a 10 year old Krell. The Krell will have
hled more of it's value than your 5 year old receiver.

So what? Are you saying that people are purchasing gear in
order to sell it down the line? Oops, I forgot that you are
a hi-fi salesman.

In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an
overpriced item that appeals to suckers. Smart shoppers get
an upscale receiver and use the money saved to purchase more
recordings. If they are equipment junkies they can use the
money saved to get better speakers, subwoofers, etc.

**IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be
entitled
to say so.

OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps.

**No. It sounds like all other amps which posses IDENTICAL specs.

And I'll bet that no other amp out there has such specs.
Actually, even specs are suspect, because there is a point
beyond which it makes no sense to go. That is, even if your
amp has superior specs compared to most others those specs
live in a realm that is beneath the point where they would
be audible.

**Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how
SOME
cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times.

Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp.

**Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that
is
the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker
cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from
low
inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong.

Such speaker systems are too problematic to fool with.

**That is an opinion you get to have. It is not one shared by many
listeners.

The hobby is infested with deluded people. Many, if not
most, so-called serious audio enthusiasts are jerks with too
much spare cash.

Just
how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way.

**Is that a question, Mr Professional Writer?

OK, you tweako sales clerk: just how long a speaker WIRE run
are we talking about? By the way, I am retired and not a
professional writer. However, at least, unlike you, I have
published material.

**See what I mean? I prove you wrong. Completely, utterly wrong and you
insult me. That is what I am talking about. You are a nasty individual.

It takes a nasty individual to deal with the tweakos and con
artists occupying audio these days. Frankly, I would prefer
that the FBI do the work, but they are occupied elsewhere.

Try
and stay on topic and keep to the facts. I proved you wrong. You know (or
shoudl know it) and everyone else knows it. You should cut your losses and
admit it.

Well, I misunderstood the poster's question and got myself
off on a tangent. You popped up and I remembered what kind
of person you were and got even further off on a tangent.
People like you do that sort of thing to me.

Well, they will do me no harm, whatsoever.

**Very likely true. You are already a laughing stock. You can't sink much
lower.

Four books and one big technical editing job completed,
tweako, plus 170+ magazine articles. Not bad work for a
laughing stock, tweako.

On the other
hand, you will at least lose some points in your home area
because of your performance here. I suggest you cut and run
while you have the chance.

**You know very little about me. I don't cut and run from someone who is
wrong.

There is no figuring the ignorant man.

I will continue to attack, until you admit your mistakes and
apologise. I will not stop.

There is also no figuring the fanatical man.

I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at
matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies
notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their
respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird
speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the
speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are
conventional amps out there that are also able to handle
rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is
still nothing exotic about their design.

**How would you know?

They sounded the same as all the others, tweako.

**I'll ask the question again: How would you know?

I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded
the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they
sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of
mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down
deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded.

I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if
your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong
with it.

**IOW: You don't know.

Well, you are the guy who claims that the amp sounds
"better" than most of the competition. If the competition
all sounds pretty much the same, I think that we can
conclude that those amps sound that way because they have
inaudible distortion. I mean what is the chance that all of
those somewhat different topologies all had identical
audible distortions?

**Very high, since all use similar topologies, WRT Global NFB.

So what. They still are built differently enough for audible
artifacts to allow them to sound at least a tad different.
They do not, and when a con artist like you says that his
very special amp has advantages over them, I roll my eyes
and remember just how much of a bad joke this hobby has
become.

If your amp sounds different from the
crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than
they.

**And again, you speak from a position of ignorance.

Nobody is fully free of ignorance, but at least I am honest
in my claims. I do not con people into spending big on
overkill items.

Hey, I never said it would not shut down. I simply said that
at any level it would not be able to put any sound into the
speakers.

**The poster said that the amp did not shut down 'till moderate levels were
reached. You claimed that this was not possible.

Well, I do not remember saying that. But if I did I was
wrong. In any case, there should have been no sound coming
from the speaker hooked up to the offending, near-shorted
line.

This would be the case, because the VAST bulk of
the current flow would be through the shorted-together lead
in parallel with the speaker.

**The vast bulk of the output from ONE CHANNEL. The other channels would be
unaffected (within reason).

Good point. I suppose that would result in noise from those
other channels. But I was talking about amps in general.
You, on the other hand, are working to build up points with
customers.

**I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do,
indeed,
sound identical.

And now I suppose you are going to say that your very
special amp has specs that are superior to all (or at least
most) others. My contention, however, is that once you get
below a certain audibility threshold all amps, including
yours, assuming it is properly designed, sound the same - at
least with standard speaker loads and below clipping levels.

**What is a "standard speaker load"? How can you guarantee that an amp
remains below clipping at ALL times?

Well, you cannot? However, I think that most people vastly
overestimate the amount of power they need to achieve decent
sound levels in normal listening rooms. Going beyond that
point is overkill. Also, going below distortion requirements
that are not all that low to begin with is also overkill.
Frankly, I think the whole issue boils down to economics:
people want to sell amps and wires, and they will do or say
what it takes to do so, even to the point of believing their
own nonsense.

As for whether they REALLY believe all the poppycock, I
could not say. Some no doubt are full-tilt con artists, but
others may be as deluded as their customers.

decently thick lamp cord works as well as
exotic speaker wire.

**For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no.

Systems that nobody would use in a typical home-listening
environment.

**Wrong.

I'll wager that under most listening conditions with those
special speakers (with runs that are not ridiculously long)
even YOU would not be able to tell the difference between
heavy lamp cord and your "special" and expensive wire. And
even if by some miracle you could hear a difference you
would not be able to tell which is best. Frankly, it makes
no sense at all to invest in speakers that require weird
wire to operate optimally.

Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy
lamp cord for typical home installations?

**Pretty much every day, in fact. It's all most people need for their crappy
surround sound systems. Anything else is massive over-kill.

Ah, crappy surround-sound systems. This is it in a nutshell:
you are basically saying that most people listen to junk,
and so lamp cord is OK. However, for really discriminating
people (like you) only the exotic wires will work with those
demanding exotic speakers. What bunk.

Do you push the
exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well
as in these situations that involve SOME systems?

**Nope. Never. In fact, I never "push" fancy speaker cables. Depending on
the system, I may make a reccommendation for low inductance speaker cables.

Hair splitting: pushing vs recommending. Funny how language
can make a con artist feel good about what he does.

I even suggest where people can buy those cables. Dick Smith Electronics is
one of the outlets I suggest. Which, of course, you'd know, if you did even
a modicum of research. DSE sell the fancy, low inductance cable for 4 Bucks
a Metre. Google it, if you don't beleive me.

Thick lamp cord sells here in the USA for about 30 cents a
foot. I'd choose that over your fancy stuff and use the
change to purchase more recordings.

If you say that I will apologize for
what I have written about you.

**No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me.

Well, not now I won't.

**You have managed to meet my expectations of you.

And, as usual, you have met mine, tweako.

Howard Ferstler

paul packer wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:58:50 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia,

Wrong, Howard. In Australia we're wise enough to skip over posts
marked "Howard Ferstler".

Ignorance is bliss. Funny, I used to think that people
living down under were level headed. Well, most probably
still are, exceptions being the Australian audio-buff
contingent.

By the way, you contradicted yourself, because you not only
did not skip over my post, but responded to it, tweako.

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.

Here I have two exactly the same Pioneer receivers, which, by your
previous admission, will sound adequate enough.
One of the two has both its tone controls set to 3 o'clock, the tone
controls of the other amp are in straight position.
They both sound different on the same speakers.

Is there something seriously wrong with amp nr. 1 or amp nr. 2?
And why?

Properly align the tone controls on the first receiver,
tweako. Even you should realize that cranking over the tone
controls will make that receiver sound different from the
one with the controls nulled out.

Howard Ferstler

wrote:

I'll take the Dewey Decimal System over Library of Congress numbers
any day.

Not if you want to catalog modern science and technical
books. With Dewey, the catalog numbers become downright
goofy looking. By the way, even the LC system is showing its
limitations these days.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Bull****. What you mean is that ABX doesn't support your absolute
knowledge that 'high-end' designer label gear *must* sound better than
'Chinky cheapies'.

It doesn't support it because it is inherently designed
to purposefully support the opposite conclusion.
It is NOT a neutral test. It does not remove
the expectation effects of those who
have preconceived notions that there are no differences.

But it does eliminate any possibility that guys like you
will fake the results or imagine you hear things from a
favored or not favored unit with a sighted comparison.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I know exactly how ABX was designed because I was there when
it was designed almost 30 years ago. ABX was designed to be
as sensitive as possible to audible differences.

It is NOT a neutral test.

ABX is as neutral of a test for consciiously-perceived
differences as is known to exist.

It's not neutral towards those
who preconcieve that there will be no difference

It certainly is neutral towards those who expect to hear
differences, however. If it is so inadequate it would be
easy for guys like you to hear differences when
participating. You cannot, however. You then look for an
excuse and blame those who cannot hear differences and are
satisfied with those results as having preconceptions that
plug their ears.

It does not remove the expectation effects of those who
have preconceived notions that there are no differences.

ABX tests and other DBTs can be used to determine when a
listener is biased against hearing differences. You simply
present candidate listeners with audible differences that
other listeners have been able to hear in DBTs without much
difficulty. If the listener develops random results when
listening to differences that are known to be readily
audible in DBTs or by other means, then it is proof or at
least a strong indication that he is biased against hearing
differences.

That has nothing to do with the preconceptions
about any differences or preferences betweeen the two test items.
Your pretest does not address that issue, its
irrelevant.

It hits the nail on the head when true believers in
amp-sound differences participate and cannot hear
differences.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:



you don't need the test to do that!

But you do need to properly level match, and you also need
to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions
about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior.

That's the point, it only neuters
one set of preconceotions
And if the person has preconceptions
that they will sound the same, the test WILL NOT
neuter those preconceptions.

Why not? Actually, it might be as you say for some
individuals, but certainly not for all of them. I mean, some
of those engineer and pre-conception types have as serious
an interest in perfect-sound audio as you.

And of course, this does not eliminate the fact that SOME
people who participate in DBT comparisons have
preconceptions that say that the amps should sound
different. When those people cannot hear differences, some
may wise up, but others will come up with excuses related to
stress, pressure, the weather, etc.

DBT tests for audio are actually designed to
provide a biased result of there being no difference.

Your position only holds for those who have serious
preconceptions about amps sounding the same. However, some
participants have exactly the opposite preconceptions. Yet,
all of those participants are in the same boat: they cannot
hear differences with a DBT, assuming the amps are decent
and the levels are matched.

you do not employ the DBT protocol there is no way to tell
if the participant is hearing differences or simply
imagining things - or saying that he hears differences in
order to sell a product.

See, you are using a test for the purpose of
arriving at a predetermined result.
It is NOT a proper test. The DBT test is no way to tell
if those that have a predetermined bias against hearing differences
are actually NOT hearing differences, or if
they are merely 'deluding' themselves in ignoring
differences that actually exist!

Yeah, but you seem to assume that everyone who takes such
tests and cannot hear differences have those preconceptions.
However, some, like you, have just the opposite. Yet, they
still cannot hear differences. Obviously, then, a
level-matched DBT is most dramatic when a guy like you
participates.

Howard Ferstler

Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

DBT tests for audio are actually designed to
provide a biased result of there being no difference.

Bull****. They're used every day by mainstream manufacturers to
determine whether design changes had any *real* audible effect.

Since everything sounds the same all the time

Well, I certainly would not say that, and Stewart would
probably not say that, either.

why should any "design
changes" have a "*real*" audible effect? Sice amps and CD players are at
the zenith of perfection, since they can't be bettered in any way (so
say your tests) why would any "mainstream manufacturers" bother to make
any "design changes" ?

Most such design changes beyond cosmetics and maybe
surround-sound embellishments are minimal. On the other
hand, if companies want to stay in business they have to
make changes of some kind that will appeal to the spending
public. In other words, they do what they do because it is
business.

DBT's do not work, been there done that. Simple fact.

This *is* about envy with you low-income nerd types, isn't it? You
imagine your yamaha metallic sound $120 receiver as sounding the same as
some $5000 BAT integrated amp, yes?

That is a pretty cheap receiver. However, let's just say
that a slightly more upscale amp (with a tuner and surround
sound thrown in as a bonus) will sound the same as that
expensive integrated unit. Heck, it might, given what some
upscale amp designers may do to make their product stand
out, sound better.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, wrote:

Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
they should all sound the same according to tests.

In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.

Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.

You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply
must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That
this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious
deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness
of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on
the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT
says more about you as a true believer than it does about
any kind of audio gear.

Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts
for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation
that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating
expectation
effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus,
this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards
producing your "expected" results.

Bull****. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the
fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-)


That they are taken by people from both sides is irrelevant.
Its the test design that skews the results, so that they tend to
be the same

How could this be? With the ABX protocol the participant, be
he blessed with my point of view or with yours, can compare
A and B openly, knowing exactly which is which. With the
switch to X he can then decide if X sounds like A or B, both
of which, as I noted can be known by the participant. The
ABX test is both a blind and sighted test at the same time.

This participant can indeed be like me and be generally
predisposed to believe that differences will not be audible.
That may make you feel smug, but how do you explain the
failure of those who think they CAN hear differences prior
to taking the test not being able to hear those differences
blind? They had expectation effects that were just the
opposite of those you claim prejudice the tests in favor of
differences not being audible.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message


That may make you feel smug, but how do you explain the
failure of those who think they CAN hear differences prior
to taking the test not being able to hear those
differences
blind? They had expectation effects that were just the
opposite of those you claim prejudice the tests in favor
of
differences not being audible.

This includes at last half of the people who initially
developed the ABX test. We developed it to give ourselves
the best chance of hearing differences while remaining a
true blind test.