[Jenn[_2_]]

If not, are they all worthless?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 5, 6:11*pm, Jenn wrote:
If not, are they all worthless?

Magazine reviews not using DBTs as a part of their review process
include:

Automobile
Food and beverage
Travel
Movie and TV
Architectural
Photography

Not to mention specific magazines like Consumer Reports.

All reviews of anything are therefore useless and money-driven. The
best we can do is buy things we've never heard, like 2pid did with his
speakers, and then rave about how "accurate" they are, whatever that
means.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

If not, are they all worthless?

I believe you've missed the point of Scottie's diatribes. The salient
part of the hypothetical aBxism rituals is that the "tests" reveal that
everything sounds the same. If you accept that everything sounds the
same, or at least that expensive stuff doesn't sound better than cheap
stuff, you can skip the actual DBT part of the testing and still get
duh-Scottie's Seal of Disapproval.

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Mai, 19:35, George M. Middius wrote:
Jenn said:

If not, are they all worthless?

I believe you've missed the point of Scottie's diatribes. The salient
part of the hypothetical aBxism rituals is that the "tests" reveal that
everything sounds the same. If you accept that everything sounds the
same, or at least that expensive stuff doesn't sound better than cheap
stuff, you can skip the actual DBT part of the testing and still get
duh-Scottie's Seal of Disapproval.

But non DBT subjectiv evaluation always
reveals that everything sounds the same, too!!!!
All the manufactureres are advertisers, no one advertiser
can be treated any better than any other advertiser,
therefore all of their stuff sounds just the same

$$$$ TALKS!!!!

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:11:55 -0700, Jenn wrote:
If not, are they all worthless?

Oh no. They're just wonderful for rationalizing spending two thousand
dollars too much on gear that is mostly an empty box with engineering
quality like that of a high school student science fair project.

I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
clock really worked.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message


If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a laugh, and not much
else.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a laugh, and not much
else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful at times.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Irrelavant.™ All properly-proctored, levelly-matched, doubly-blind
"tests" are equally and inevitably reveal the trVth. It therefore goes
without saying that if you admit your results are invalid in the face of
the "tests" you didn't actually perform, then you get full credit from
the Hive regardless.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful
at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and Audio.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Big **** drops a trail of dingleberries.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and Audio.

S&V has done exactly one DBT, and they were testing bookshelf speakers.
How many times have you, the Right Rev. Arnii Kroo****, klaimed that
doing DBTs on speakers is pointless?

So the answer to Jenn's question, as far as the previously established
domain of aBxism rituals goes, is No.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
net

If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful
at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and Audio.

So only one that is in business, it seems.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net

If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful
at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and
Audio.

So only one that is in business, it seems.

Oh, its all been reduced to a popularity contest?

How high school! ;-(

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful
at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and Audio.

I am sorry, but I read Stereo Review and Audio every issue every year from
the early '60's onward and I don't ever recall them using DBT's for
testing/reviews. They may have run a feature on it from time to time, but
that is hardly the same thing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful
at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and
Audio.

I am sorry, but I read Stereo Review and Audio every
issue every year from the early '60's onward and I don't
ever recall them using DBT's for testing/reviews.

Then your memory is just as selective as I thought, Harry.

Check your Audio Magazine index for equipment tests that were co-authored by
Clark and Greenhill.

They may have run a feature on it from time to time, but that
is hardly the same thing.

Besides being flat out wrong Harry, you also seem to be willing to split any
hair to avoid giving DBT tests the credit they are due. Sure, most of the
equipment tests in SR that were based on DBTs were feature articles, but
that just shows the editorial staff's appropriately high opinion of the
technology.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 13:47:34 -0400, Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful
at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and Audio.

I am sorry, but I read Stereo Review and Audio every issue every year from
the early '60's onward and I don't ever recall them using DBT's for
testing/reviews. They may have run a feature on it from time to time, but
that is hardly the same thing.

agreed. They used DBT a few times for testing speaker wire and signal cables and for nothing else.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Harry Lavo said:

I am sorry, but I read Stereo Review and Audio every issue every year from
the early '60's onward and I don't ever recall them using DBT's for
testing/reviews. They may have run a feature on it from time to time, but
that is hardly the same thing.

S&V's worshipping of "DBTs" is as hollow as the that of the 'borgs:
Writers and editors drop the term reverentially from time to time,
casting it as some sort of panacea for finding "trVth". But they can't
be bothered to learn enough about them in order to set them up on a
regular basis.

One thing Mister Krooger is unable to do is put himself in the position
of a reviewer. They are individuals who get paid by the word, not by the
hour. Where would the money come from to schlep them to a "laboratory"
(i.e. a torture chamber) with all necessary controls in place to conduct
"tests" with some semblance of scientific accuracy?

What Krooger refuses to admit is that Normals do NOT WANT to participate
in blinding rituals. They don't relish the punishment, the abnegation of
their souls. On top of that, DBTs in some bizarre laboratory setting
have no meaning for Normals. Their only value is as an R&D tool. A
reviewer can describe what he hears in relation to what he's accustomed
to experiencing in his accustomed listening area. This is exactly
parallel to what every Normal audiophile does. But all that is beyond
Krooger's komprehension because, presumably, he suffered brain damage
during his indoctrination into the aBxism religion.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
: "Jenn" wrote in message
:

:
: If not, are they all worthless?
:
: The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful at
times.
:
: But as a rule, Any Krueger is good for a laugh and snot
throwing but not much
: else.
:
Hi Arny, I have taken the liberty to correct your statement
above.

BTW formulated my apology yet? How's the hang over? (as if
I really care)

Here's some help to start you off:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=apology

"1. a written or spoken expression of one's regret,
remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or
wronged another "


TT (the real one)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 5, 6:52*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a laugh, and not much
else.

Whose "rule"?

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message

On May 5, 6:52 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Whose "rule"?

Almost all mainstream audio professionals, for openers. I have a lot of
contacts with audio professionals that are involved with audio production
and live sound. I don't know which group has more disdain for audiophiles,
since they both keep trying to up the ante.

There are a few people in audio production who pander to the audiophile
market, and their names are well-known. I don't know of anybody who does
live sound who has even a gram of respect for audio's high end.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 6, 6:31*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

On May 5, 6:52 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.
Whose "rule"?

Almost all mainstream audio professionals, for openers. I have a lot of
contacts with audio professionals that are involved with audio production
and live sound. I don't know which group has more disdain for audiophiles,
since they both keep trying to up the ante.

Are you an "audiophile", GOIA?

I think you fit the definition.

There are a few people in audio production who pander to the audiophile
market, and their names are well-known. I don't know of anybody who does
live sound who has even a gram of respect for audio's high end.

Does everybody have to follow their "rule", GOIA? What happens if
somebody doesn't (aside from the reams of snot from you, of course)?
Does the world stop turning? Do people die?

I think if you directed your energy toward something that actually
mattered, you could even make a difference. ;-)

[BretLudwig]

In my opinion the audio magazines that are most valuable are those with
highly technical information directed at a specific audience, whether
professional (JAES, Voice Coil, the retailer's trade journals) or amateur
(AudioXPress, Vacum Tube Valley, MJ Musen-To-Jikken [Japanese], et al.

Stereop(h)ile, TAS, T$S, et al, have some worth but only when viewed
through the necessary filters.



--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Mai, 21:09, "BretLudwig" wrote:
*In my opinion the audio magazines that are most valuable are those with
highly technical information directed at a specific audience, whether
professional (JAES, Voice Coil, the retailer's trade journals) or amateur
(AudioXPress, Vacum Tube Valley, MJ Musen-To-Jikken [Japanese], et al.

*Stereop(h)ile, TAS, T$S, et al, have some worth but only when viewed
through the necessary filters.


LOL!!!!
Racial filters, no doubt!!!

[BretLudwig]

The filters needed for reading Stereophile do concern race-the race by
advertisers to get the green species out of your wallet.

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[ScottW]

On May 5, 4:11*pm, Jenn wrote:
If not, are they all worthless?

For identifying stuff on the market? no.
For finding equipment in your price range, desired feature set, etc?
no.
For performance evaluations, no, the data fills a gap.
For subjective evaluations? yes.
For pushing snake oil at times? More than worthless, they're damaging
to the hobby and make it appears a fools pursuit. I think in part
this explains why many audio forums are inhabited by lunatics. You
have to be insane to fall for some of the crap the rags push.

ScottW

[TT]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 4:11 pm, Jenn wrote:
If not, are they all worthless?

For identifying stuff on the market? no.
For finding equipment in your price range, desired feature set, etc?
no.
For performance evaluations, no, the data fills a gap.
For subjective evaluations? yes.
For pushing snake oil at times? More than worthless, they're damaging
to the hobby and make it appears a fools pursuit. I think in part
this explains why many audio forums are inhabited by lunatics. You
have to be insane to fall for some of the crap the rags push.

ScottW

You left out the term "very gullible" when referring to readers of audioporn
rags.

Cheers TT

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
Jenn wrote:




If not, are they all worthless?

For identifying stuff on the market? no.
For finding equipment in your price range, desired feature set, etc?
no.
For performance evaluations, no, the data fills a gap.

For subjective evaluations? yes.

Please clarify this comment. As a rule, DBTs are experimental
audio testing with the sole purpose of determining presence or
absence of subtle sound differences. All personal preferences
and subjective *opinions* must be put aside.

Providing the *opinion* that there is NO detectable sound difference
during the test does not and will not proved the absence of positive
sound differences.

So, concerning your comment above, who is, or what is the subject
that is subjected for evaluations ?



For pushing snake oil at times? More than worthless, they're damaging
to the hobby and make it appears a fools pursuit. I think in part
this explains why many audio forums are inhabited by lunatics. You
have to be insane to fall for some of the crap the rags push.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

On 6 Mai, 08:12, Signal wrote:
Jenn wrote:
If not, are they all worthless?

Hifi Choice have blind listening panels for some reviews.


I congratulate them.
Its hard for the blind to find work.
"At least" its better thn selling pencils.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Tue, 06 May 2008 13:12:09 +0100, Signal wrote:
Jenn wrote:

If not, are they all worthless?

Hifi Choice have blind listening panels for some reviews.

Not double-blind, but better than the usual "looks expensive, must sound
better!" approach.




--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t