W^3
January 4th 14, 02:15 AM
In article >,
Oregonian Haruspex > wrote:
> On 2013-12-14 00:14:01 +0000, W^3 said:
>
> > In article >,
> > Oregonian Haruspex > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2013-12-04 01:07:05 +0000, Arny Krueger said:
> >>
> >>> Daniel J. Shanefield
> >>>
> >>> http://www.towntopics.com/wordpress/2013/11/20/obituaries-112013/
> >>>
> >>> Daniel J. Shanefield, 83, of Honolulu, Hawaii, formerly of Princeton,
> >>> died
> >>> peacefully November 13 in Honolulu. He had lived in Princeton for 40
> >>> years
> >>> with his late wife, Libby, before moving to Hawaii in 2006.
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Shanefield worked at ITT Laboratories in Nutley, N.J. until 1967 and
> >>> then at Western Electric (later Bell Laboratories) in Hopewell. From 1986
> >>> until his retirement in 2001 he was a distinguished professor of ceramic
> >>> engineering at Rutgers. Dr. Shanefield also taught ceramic engineering in
> >>> the Netherlands every summer for 15 years at the Center for Professional
> >>> Advancement. He was associate editor of the Journal of the American
> >>> Ceramic
> >>> Society from 1989 to 1999.
> >>>
> >>> His hobby was writing about audio for popular magazines. Dr. Shanefield
> >>> was
> >>> notable for first describing the "equalized double-blind comparison" of
> >>> audio components in 1974, the cover story of Stereo Review in May 1976.
> >>> This
> >>> showed that some perceived differences in sound were being imagined by
> >>> the
> >>> listeners, especially when expensive equipment was involved. The test is
> >>> now
> >>> used worldwide for determining whether measurable improvements in music
> >>> reproduction equipment are actually audible.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Shanefield
> >>>
> >>> Beginning in the mid-1970s, Shanefield was an early proponent
> >>> ofdouble-blind ABX testing of high-end audio electronics; in 1980 he
> >>> reported in High Fidelity magazine that there were no audible differences
> >>> between several different power amplifiers, setting off what became known
> >>> in
> >>> audiophile circles as "the great debate".[4]
> >>
> >> There really is no debate, is there? I suppose when your magazine is
> >> supported by advertisements for high-end audio equipment there might be.
> >
> > Well there is still no end to this receiver sounds great, that one
> > sounds dark, etc, in today's audio (now usually home theater) reviews.
> >
> > In my own home town, Portland OR, there is a nice high-end audio/home
> > theater store on the East side. I was able to learn a lot about how
> > the wireless section of AVR's actually worked. That was valuable
> > (answer: not like the advertising implied). The sales guy was very
> > forthcoming. Then there was the spiel at the end: Really, you can't
> > get the really good sound until you shell out for a megabucks AVR.
>
> I am also a Portlander. I suppose you're talking about that place on
> Hawthorne, no?
>
> I seem to get by just fine with a mixing board fed by balanced audio
> inputs, and feeding a pair of HS50Ms and a HS10W subwoofer, without any
> receiver whatsoever. Then again, I do not wish to play around with
> surround sound at this time. If I ever decide to, I will probablly buy
> an outboard surround sound decoder such as one of the Dolby units and
> integrate it into my setup that way.
>
> I have read the audiophile rags and they amuse me quite a lot. I
> especially enjoy the vocabulary. You know what they say, writing about
> music (or I guess musical equipment) is like dancing about architecture.
Yes, Fred's Stereo on Hawthorne (sorry for the late response). I do
like Fred's, even with the snake oil, a little bit of old Portland
(rapidly disappearing with the influx of Portlandia watchers and
Chardonnay sippers). Your last sentence, I believe, comes from Frank
Zappa. I do think he was referring to music itself rather than
playback equipment.
Oregonian Haruspex > wrote:
> On 2013-12-14 00:14:01 +0000, W^3 said:
>
> > In article >,
> > Oregonian Haruspex > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2013-12-04 01:07:05 +0000, Arny Krueger said:
> >>
> >>> Daniel J. Shanefield
> >>>
> >>> http://www.towntopics.com/wordpress/2013/11/20/obituaries-112013/
> >>>
> >>> Daniel J. Shanefield, 83, of Honolulu, Hawaii, formerly of Princeton,
> >>> died
> >>> peacefully November 13 in Honolulu. He had lived in Princeton for 40
> >>> years
> >>> with his late wife, Libby, before moving to Hawaii in 2006.
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Shanefield worked at ITT Laboratories in Nutley, N.J. until 1967 and
> >>> then at Western Electric (later Bell Laboratories) in Hopewell. From 1986
> >>> until his retirement in 2001 he was a distinguished professor of ceramic
> >>> engineering at Rutgers. Dr. Shanefield also taught ceramic engineering in
> >>> the Netherlands every summer for 15 years at the Center for Professional
> >>> Advancement. He was associate editor of the Journal of the American
> >>> Ceramic
> >>> Society from 1989 to 1999.
> >>>
> >>> His hobby was writing about audio for popular magazines. Dr. Shanefield
> >>> was
> >>> notable for first describing the "equalized double-blind comparison" of
> >>> audio components in 1974, the cover story of Stereo Review in May 1976.
> >>> This
> >>> showed that some perceived differences in sound were being imagined by
> >>> the
> >>> listeners, especially when expensive equipment was involved. The test is
> >>> now
> >>> used worldwide for determining whether measurable improvements in music
> >>> reproduction equipment are actually audible.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Shanefield
> >>>
> >>> Beginning in the mid-1970s, Shanefield was an early proponent
> >>> ofdouble-blind ABX testing of high-end audio electronics; in 1980 he
> >>> reported in High Fidelity magazine that there were no audible differences
> >>> between several different power amplifiers, setting off what became known
> >>> in
> >>> audiophile circles as "the great debate".[4]
> >>
> >> There really is no debate, is there? I suppose when your magazine is
> >> supported by advertisements for high-end audio equipment there might be.
> >
> > Well there is still no end to this receiver sounds great, that one
> > sounds dark, etc, in today's audio (now usually home theater) reviews.
> >
> > In my own home town, Portland OR, there is a nice high-end audio/home
> > theater store on the East side. I was able to learn a lot about how
> > the wireless section of AVR's actually worked. That was valuable
> > (answer: not like the advertising implied). The sales guy was very
> > forthcoming. Then there was the spiel at the end: Really, you can't
> > get the really good sound until you shell out for a megabucks AVR.
>
> I am also a Portlander. I suppose you're talking about that place on
> Hawthorne, no?
>
> I seem to get by just fine with a mixing board fed by balanced audio
> inputs, and feeding a pair of HS50Ms and a HS10W subwoofer, without any
> receiver whatsoever. Then again, I do not wish to play around with
> surround sound at this time. If I ever decide to, I will probablly buy
> an outboard surround sound decoder such as one of the Dolby units and
> integrate it into my setup that way.
>
> I have read the audiophile rags and they amuse me quite a lot. I
> especially enjoy the vocabulary. You know what they say, writing about
> music (or I guess musical equipment) is like dancing about architecture.
Yes, Fred's Stereo on Hawthorne (sorry for the late response). I do
like Fred's, even with the snake oil, a little bit of old Portland
(rapidly disappearing with the influx of Portlandia watchers and
Chardonnay sippers). Your last sentence, I believe, comes from Frank
Zappa. I do think he was referring to music itself rather than
playback equipment.