James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that."

[Fella]

I sent this email to: '

"Greetings,

I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic differences
between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire. Is your
challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables? The self made
speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to measure and examine
these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting them to the test) against
radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I can hear the difference as
to which is employed each and every time. Since "wire is wire" this must
fall into the realm of your challenge.

I do have my reservations though:

!) A revealing amplifier (densen beat b 100 mk5, for instance), high
quality speakers (sonus faber cremona floorstanders for instance) and a
decent CD player will be used to conduct the test.

!!) No abx comparator boxes in between, the wires should be interchanged
manually.

!!!) Someone I trust (but of course I will not have any sort of eye
contact, or any form of other contact with him/her duration of the test)
to actually observe that the wires are being changed (or not) and the
data recorded"


James Randi replied that:

"There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable.
That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that."

More on "challenging the million dollar challenge" later. :) This post,
on a FYI basis. :)

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> I sent this email to: '
>
> "Greetings,
>
> I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic
> differences between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire.
> Is your challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables? The
> self made speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to
> measure and examine these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting
> them to the test) against radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I
> can hear the difference as to which is employed each and every time.

> Since "wire is wire" this must fall into the realm of your challenge.


Shows how little you understand about the "wire is wire" claim, Fella.
Nobody is saying that 36 gauge magnet wire when used as speaker cable will
sound just like 12 gauge heavy speaker wire. Well, apparently nobody but
you!

> James Randi replied that:
>
> "There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable.
> That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that."

Randi obviously knows that the "wire is wire" claim relates to wire of
similar size and length. But, it's quite clear that you don't, Fella.

So consider this a little friendly advice. "Wire is wire" applies to wires
of similar size and length.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>I sent this email to: '
>>
>>"Greetings,
>>
>>I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic
>>differences between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire.
>>Is your challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables? The
>>self made speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to
>>measure and examine these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting
>>them to the test) against radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I
>>can hear the difference as to which is employed each and every time.
>
>
>>Since "wire is wire" this must fall into the realm of your challenge.
>
>
>
> Shows how little you understand about the "wire is wire" claim, Fella.

None of that cocky attitude now you cockhead ****! If you are going to
addrss me you better mind your manners or I will beat the living ****
out of that soulless ****borg existence of yours (virtualy that is :)
just as before so watch it.

> Nobody is saying that 36 gauge magnet wire when used as speaker cable will
> sound just like 12 gauge heavy speaker wire.

He never asked anything about gauge or length, or any magnets therein. I
can also hear the HUUUUUUGE difference between stock rca connectors and
audioquest anacondas, for instance, both of them being one meter in
length. So could you, if you would teach yourself to listen.


> Well, apparently nobody but
> you!

Mind your manners you **** of a dumbduck. Besides, why the anger? Why
the exclamation marks?? If I am missing some obvious point that
everybody else knows shouldn't you be sneering and making jackal
hounding laughing noises, making fun of me?? WHY THE ANGER YOU ****!?!?!

>
>
>>James Randi replied that:
>>
>>"There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable.
>>That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that."
>
>
> Randi obviously knows that the "wire is wire" claim relates to wire of
> similar size and length.


You are full of horse**** you ****. Size or length was not mentioned
there! How do you know, or Randi for that matter, what is the "gauge" of
my speaker wire that I am putting up against radio shack lamp cord? HOW
THE F.CK DO YOU KNOW THAT FROM THE TRANSACTION QUOTED ABOVE!!!

Insulation, the material used for insulation, strand interaction is hell
of a lot important with speaker wire.

I just debunked the "wire is wire" bull****, that's it. The reason for
your chihuahua anger.

> But, it's quite clear that you don't, Fella.
>

You have the credibility of a cockroach, now more then ever, you know
that don't you?


> So consider this a little friendly advice. "Wire is wire" applies to wires
> of similar size and length.
>

LOL! When the "challenge" is challenged there seems to be no end in
excuses. :)

"Wire is wire when both wires are same gauge radio shack lamp cords
fellaaaaa, you should know that fellaaaaaa" LOL! What a load of bull****!

Yeah, this is only the beginning. The "wire is wire" borg notion is
hereby DEBUNKED! As Randi says: "Wire is not wire. I accept that."

Ok, ferstler, cockroach of a krueger, the terrosists or whatever
terrorist brown shirts, start barking y'all. :=)


NOTE: I have asked and received full confirmation from James Randi that
I can quote him. Examining what the challenge is about, even some
aspects that touch the audio scene, I am fully supportive of it, the
million dollar challenge, the idea behind it. Used against TV
evangelists, for instance, or the likes of the ****borg, it is a
worthwhile endeavour.

My only aim is to debunk some borgs lurking around here who think that
with a pink noise generator, a misunderstanding of what psychoacustics
is all about, a db meter, or whatever primitive lab-rat device they can
pre-determine what my ears can or cannot hear, remotely. LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I sent this email to: '
>>>
>>> "Greetings,
>>>
>>> I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic
>>> differences between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire.
>>> Is your challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables? The
>>> self made speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to
>>> measure and examine these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting
>>> them to the test) against radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that
>>> I can hear the difference as to which is employed each and every
>>> time.
>>
>>
>>> Since "wire is wire" this must fall into the realm of your
>>> challenge.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shows how little you understand about the "wire is wire" claim,
>> Fella.

<gratuitous profanity, namecalling and posturing deleted>

>> Nobody is saying that 36 gauge magnet wire when used as speaker
>> cable will sound just like 12 gauge heavy speaker wire.

> He never asked anything about gauge or length, or any magnets
> therein.

He made the mistake of presuming that you had a brain, Fella.

<irrelevant boasting and posturing deleted>

>> Well, apparently nobody but
>> you!

<gratuitous profanity, namecalling and posturing deleted>


>>> James Randi replied that:

>>> "There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable.
>>> That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that."
>
>> Randi obviously knows that the "wire is wire" claim relates to wire
>> of similar size and length.

<gratuitous profanity, namecalling and posturing deleted>

> Size or length was not mentioned there!

He made the mistake of presuming that you had a drop of common sense, Fella.

>How do you know, or Randi for that matter, what is the "gauge"
> of my speaker wire that I am putting up against radio shack lamp
> cord?

<gratuitous profanity, namecalling and posturing deleted>

He made the mistake of presuming that you had a brain, Fella.

> Insulation, the material used for insulation, strand interaction is
> hell of a lot important with speaker wire.

Really?

> I just debunked the "wire is wire" bull****, that's it.

>The reason for your chihuahua anger.

What anger?

>> But, it's quite clear that you don't, Fella.

<gratuitous namecalling and posturing deleted>

>> So consider this a little friendly advice. "Wire is wire" applies to
>> wires of similar size and length.

> LOL! When the "challenge" is challenged there seems to be no end in
> excuses. :)

Whatever.

> "Wire is wire when both wires are same gauge radio shack lamp cords
> fellaaaaa, you should know that fellaaaaaa" LOL! What a load of
> bull****!

> Yeah, this is only the beginning. The "wire is wire" borg notion is
> hereby DEBUNKED! As Randi says: "Wire is not wire. I accept that."

Yawn

<gratuitous namecalling and posturing deleted>

> My only aim is to debunk some borgs lurking around here who think that
> with a pink noise generator, a misunderstanding of what psychoacustics
> is all about, a db meter, or whatever primitive lab-rat device they
> can pre-determine what my ears can or cannot hear, remotely. LOL!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
>
> <gratuitous profanity, namecalling and posturing deleted>



The ****borg calls this (for instance) : "I can also hear the HUUUUUUGE
difference between stock rca connectors and audioquest anacondas, for
instance, both of them being one meter in length. So could you, if you
would teach yourself to listen."

"gratuitous profanity, namecalling and posturing"


I think the "audioquest" bit was the profanity part, yes? :)

>
>
>>Insulation, the material used for insulation, strand interaction is
>>hell of a lot important with speaker wire.
>
>
> Really?
>

Really. Live and learn ****borg.

>
>
>
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
>
>

That's right, go to sleep, you haven't been debunked, it's all a bad
dream, everything will be as same when you wake up tomorrow. :)

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>I sent this email to: '
>>>
>>>"Greetings,
>>>
>>>I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic
>>>differences between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire.
>>>Is your challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables? The
>>>self made speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to
>>>measure and examine these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting
>>>them to the test) against radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I
>>>can hear the difference as to which is employed each and every time.
>>
>>
>>>Since "wire is wire" this must fall into the realm of your challenge.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shows how little you understand about the "wire is wire" claim, Fella.
>
> None of that cocky attitude now you cockhead ****! If you are going to
> addrss me you better mind your manners or I will beat the living **** out
> of that soulless ****borg existence of yours (virtualy that is :) just as
> before so watch it.
>
>> Nobody is saying that 36 gauge magnet wire when used as speaker cable
>> will sound just like 12 gauge heavy speaker wire.
>
> He never asked anything about gauge or length, or any magnets therein. I
> can also hear the HUUUUUUGE difference between stock rca connectors and
> audioquest anacondas, for instance, both of them being one meter in
> length. So could you, if you would teach yourself to listen.
>
>
>> Well, apparently nobody but you!
>
> Mind your manners you **** of a dumbduck. Besides, why the anger? Why the
> exclamation marks?? If I am missing some obvious point that everybody else
> knows shouldn't you be sneering and making jackal hounding laughing
> noises, making fun of me?? WHY THE ANGER YOU ****!?!?!
>
>>
>>
>>>James Randi replied that:
>>>
>>>"There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable.
>>>That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that."
>>
>>
>> Randi obviously knows that the "wire is wire" claim relates to wire of
>> similar size and length.
>
>
> You are full of horse**** you ****. Size or length was not mentioned
> there! How do you know, or Randi for that matter, what is the "gauge" of
> my speaker wire that I am putting up against radio shack lamp cord? HOW
> THE F.CK DO YOU KNOW THAT FROM THE TRANSACTION QUOTED ABOVE!!!
>
> Insulation, the material used for insulation, strand interaction is hell
> of a lot important with speaker wire.
>
> I just debunked the "wire is wire" bull****, that's it. The reason for
> your chihuahua anger.
>

No you only said you did. You could listen to all the wire you want to
through any speakers you want to and if you do it without kowing which is
which at any given moment, Randi is going to keep his money.

>> But, it's quite clear that you don't, Fella.
>>
>
> You have the credibility of a cockroach, now more then ever, you know that
> don't you?
>
And your credibilty is established where, aside from profanity and name
calling.
>
>> So consider this a little friendly advice. "Wire is wire" applies to
>> wires of similar size and length.
>>
>
> LOL! When the "challenge" is challenged there seems to be no end in
> excuses. :)
>
Bull****, you do a wire test at home with a friend, as long as it's actually
blind, you'll find you're a whole lot deafer than you thought.

> "Wire is wire when both wires are same gauge radio shack lamp cords
> fellaaaaa, you should know that fellaaaaaa" LOL! What a load of bull****!
>
> Yeah, this is only the beginning. The "wire is wire" borg notion is hereby
> DEBUNKED! As Randi says: "Wire is not wire. I accept that."
>
>
> NOTE: I have asked and received full confirmation from James Randi that I
> can quote him. Examining what the challenge is about, even some aspects
> that touch the audio scene, I am fully supportive of it, the million
> dollar challenge, the idea behind it. Used against TV evangelists, for
> instance, or the likes of the ****borg, it is a worthwhile endeavour.
>
> My only aim is to debunk some borgs lurking around here who think that
> with a pink noise generator, a misunderstanding of what psychoacustics is
> all about, a db meter, or whatever primitive lab-rat device they can
> pre-determine what my ears can or cannot hear, remotely. LOL!

Good luck, you'll need it.

[Fella]

Michael McKelvy wrote:


> You could listen to all the wire you want to
> through any speakers you want to and if you do it without kowing which is
> which at any given moment, Randi is going to keep his money.
>

Anybody know mickeymcmcish? Need some translation here. :)



> Bull****, you do a wire test at home with a friend, as long as it's actually
> blind, you'll find you're a whole lot deafer than you thought.
>

Mcmickey predicts the future. :)

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>
>> You could listen to all the wire you want to through any speakers you
>> want to and if you do it without kowing which is which at any given
>> moment, Randi is going to keep his money.
>>
>
> Anybody know mickeymcmcish? Need some translation here. :)
>
>
>
>> Bull****, you do a wire test at home with a friend, as long as it's
>> actually blind, you'll find you're a whole lot deafer than you thought.
>>
>
> Mcmickey predicts the future. :)
>
>
Wire is wire.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Michael McKelvy wrote:

>> You could listen to all the wire you want to
>> through any speakers you want to and if you do it without kowing
>> which is which at any given moment, Randi is going to keep his money.

> Anybody know mickeymcmcish? Need some translation here. :)

Typical *Normal* BS - either they are dumber than fence posts, or they
pretend they can't read things that say things they don't like to hear.

>> Bull****, you do a wire test at home with a friend, as long as it's
>> actually blind, you'll find you're a whole lot deafer than you
>> thought.

> Mcmickey predicts the future. :)

It's a prediction of the obvious. BTW Fella, I predict that if you jump off
a Freeway bridge, you'll probably not improve your health. Sue me for
predicting the future!

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Fella" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You could listen to all the wire you want to through any speakers you
>>> want to and if you do it without kowing which is which at any given
>>> moment, Randi is going to keep his money.
>>>
>>
>> Anybody know mickeymcmcish? Need some translation here. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bull****, you do a wire test at home with a friend, as long as it's
>>> actually blind, you'll find you're a whole lot deafer than you thought.
>>>
>>
>> Mcmickey predicts the future. :)
>>
>>
> Wire is wire.

Bugs are bugs.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> It's a prediction of the obvious. BTW Fella, I predict that if you jump
> off a Freeway bridge, you'll probably not improve your health. Sue me for
> predicting the future!
>

I'll probably sue you.

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>
>
>Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > Sue me
>
>> I'll probably sue you.
>
>That may not be necessary. Once the King Kong Toilet is delivered, we'll be
>able to try flushing him away.

Thank's Messiaen for admittiong you're fecal obsession, LoT;^ S!

If iron turds killed, LOL!

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Fella]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Fella" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You could listen to all the wire you want to through any speakers you
>>>want to and if you do it without kowing which is which at any given
>>>moment, Randi is going to keep his money.
>>>
>>
>>Anybody know mickeymcmcish? Need some translation here. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bull****, you do a wire test at home with a friend, as long as it's
>>>actually blind, you'll find you're a whole lot deafer than you thought.
>>>
>>
>>Mcmickey predicts the future. :)
>>
>>
>
> Wire is wire.
>
>

Mmmmmmmmm... me so angry now. :)

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>
>>> You could listen to all the wire you want to
>>>through any speakers you want to and if you do it without kowing
>>>which is which at any given moment, Randi is going to keep his money.
>
>
>>Anybody know mickeymcmcish? Need some translation here. :)
>
>
> Typical *Normal* BS - either they are dumber than fence posts, or they
> pretend they can't read things that say things they don't like to hear..

Translate it then you ****. Break the sentence into some logical
components. If I listen to speakers and wires without knowing if a
speaker is a wire or wire a speaker randi keeps his money. Tell me ****,
what the **** did mickeymickey the resident dumdum say.

THE MAN HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE CHALLENGE DOESN'T INVOLVE
WIREEEEEEEE!!!!!!

You ****. :)

Ok, now go look up some syndrome from google, there, some mental
masturbation, go for it, the third link, copy-paste, that a boy. :)

>
>
>>>Bull****, you do a wire test at home with a friend, as long as it's
>>>actually blind, you'll find you're a whole lot deafer than you
>>>thought.
>
>
>>Mcmickey predicts the future. :)
>
>
> It's a prediction of the obvious. BTW Fella, I predict that if you jump off
> a Freeway bridge, you'll probably not improve your health.

We'll see. I *will* admit it here, without *any* reservations if I am
not able to hear *every single time*!! the difference between radioshack
lamp cord and my speaker cables.

> Sue me for
> predicting the future!
>

I am gonna sue you for the mere fact that you exist you ****. Everything
has a price. You *will* eventually pay the price of all this pollution. :)

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

>
> THE MAN HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE CHALLENGE DOESN'T INVOLVE
> WIREEEEEEEE!!!!!!

Yes Fella, your command of the intensely obvious is at least profoundly
backward instead of its usual total irrelevancy. The original Randi
challenge was about Shatki devices, to bring you back up to your usual
half-wit half-speed.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Yes Fella, your command of the intensely obvious is at least profoundly
>backward instead of its usual total irrelevancy.

In English please?

>The original Randi
>challenge was about Shatki devices, to bring you back up to your usual
>half-wit half-speed.

I did a Google about "Shatki devices", and came up empty.
We can therefor conclude that your claim is false.

;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>>>The original Randi
>>>challenge was about Shatki devices, to bring you back up to your usual
>>>half-wit half-speed.

>> I did a Google about "Shatki devices", and came up empty.
>> We can therefor conclude that your claim is false.

>> ;-)


>Google lies!!


Not to me.

BTW it's Goggle in Arnold-speak.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>Yes Fella, your command of the intensely obvious is at least profoundly
>>backward instead of its usual total irrelevancy.
>
> In English please?
>
>>The original Randi
>>challenge was about Shatki devices, to bring you back up to your usual
>>half-wit half-speed.
>
> I did a Google about "Shatki devices", and came up empty.
> We can therefor conclude that your claim is false.
>
> ;-)
>

Google lies!!

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>THE MAN HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE CHALLENGE DOESN'T INVOLVE
>>WIREEEEEEEE!!!!!!
>
>
> Yes Fella, your command of the intensely obvious is at least profoundly
> backward instead of its usual total irrelevancy.


Ok, mcmickey, here boy, since the ****borg understands you, it might be
so that you understand the ****borg. Translate boy... But wait, then I'd
need the ****borg to translate what you translate from the ****borg.
Hmmm.. Nevermind.

> The original Randi
> challenge was about Shatki devices, to bring you back up to your usual
> half-wit half-speed.


Well since wire is wire I thought I'd give it a shot now.


Shatki you say, google says "did you mean shakti devices" .. And
"devices" you say ... What is it that makes a piece of stone not able to
do anyting else but have weight, be called a "device". Magic bricks you
say!

We'll see. :)

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> THE MAN HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE CHALLENGE DOESN'T INVOLVE
>>> WIREEEEEEEE!!!!!!
>>
>>
>> Yes Fella, your command of the intensely obvious is at least
>> profoundly backward instead of its usual total irrelevancy.
>
>
> Ok, mcmickey, here boy, since the ****borg understands you, it might
> be so that you understand the ****borg. Translate boy... But wait,
> then I'd need the ****borg to translate what you translate from the
> ****borg. Hmmm.. Nevermind.

Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part dos.

Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part uno.

>> The original Randi
>> challenge was about Shatki devices, to bring you back up to your
>> usual half-wit half-speed.
>
>
> Well since wire is wire I thought I'd give it a shot now.
>
>
> Shatki you say, google says "did you mean shakti devices" .. And
> "devices" you say ... What is it that makes a piece of stone not able
> to do anyting else but have weight, be called a "device". Magic
> bricks you say!

Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part tres.

> We'll see. :)

See what? Ya ain't said nuttin' yet, bozo!

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
>
> Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part dos.
>
> Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part uno.
>
>
> Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part tres.
>

Ok, the ****borg counts from one -> to -> three : he says : two .. one
... three! :)

The ****borg wanted to show us his language skills. :) But the google
copy-paste squence went wrong. :)

>
>>We'll see. :)
>
>
> See what? Ya ain't said nuttin' yet, bozo!
>

We'll see; Keep that gaping wIIIIde open asshole of yours gaping, stay
tuned, that is, I'm gonna send you the same horse I sent to mickmickey
down to his gloryhole post. :)

Yea yea, I know, you will note something about now. Ok, noted. :)

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
>
> BTW it's Goggle in Arnold-speak.
>
> --

Cause it keeps the **** out of his eyes.

[Clyde Slick]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok, the ****borg counts from one -> to -> three : he says : two .. one ..
> three! :)
>

Kroomath is a valid subset of Krooligic.
Krooger scored 800/800 on his Krap (Krooger Religious Aptitude Profile),
note.

[[email protected]]

It's my experience that there are slight audible differences between
speaker wires of sufficiently hefty gauge, or ampacity, and of commonly
used lengths, but that those differences have no connection to price
whatever and that products available from electrical supply stores are
as good, overall, as products specifically marketed for high end audio
use.

In the field of interconnects there is IMO more variability, but
again, there is no benefit from using more than modestly priced
products. In particular RCA connectors, of any price or construction,
are a bigger "choke point" than any wire of reasonable construction and
getting rid of them in favor of any of several alternatives is the
first step to sonic improvement.

These are things I have observed in many years of experimentation and
evaluation, some of it in "informal blind" settings, and I believe they
will stand up to the most rigorous double-blind evaluation. However,
final proof of this will only be when it's done. I believe it sould be
done, although I'm not inclined to finance the testing.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:01:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Fella" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> THE MAN HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE CHALLENGE DOESN'T INVOLVE
>>>> WIREEEEEEEE!!!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes Fella, your command of the intensely obvious is at least
>>> profoundly backward instead of its usual total irrelevancy.
>>
>>
>> Ok, mcmickey, here boy, since the ****borg understands you, it might
>> be so that you understand the ****borg. Translate boy... But wait,
>> then I'd need the ****borg to translate what you translate from the
>> ****borg. Hmmm.. Nevermind.
>
>Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part dos.
>
>Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part uno.
>
>>> The original Randi
>>> challenge was about Shatki devices, to bring you back up to your
>>> usual half-wit half-speed.
>>
>>
>> Well since wire is wire I thought I'd give it a shot now.
>>
>>
>> Shatki you say, google says "did you mean shakti devices" .. And
>> "devices" you say ... What is it that makes a piece of stone not able
>> to do anyting else but have weight, be called a "device". Magic
>> bricks you say!
>
>Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part tres.
>
>> We'll see. :)
>
>See what? Ya ain't said nuttin' yet, bozo!

Notice how much trouble Arnold has simply counting to three.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:58:20 +0200, Fella > wrote:

>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part dos.
>>
>> Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part uno.
>>
>>
>> Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part tres.
>>
>
>Ok, the ****borg counts from one -> to -> three : he says : two .. one
>.. three! :)

Ooops, beaten to the punch.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You could listen to all the wire you want to through any speakers you
>>>> want to and if you do it without kowing which is which at any given
>>>> moment, Randi is going to keep his money.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Anybody know mickeymcmcish? Need some translation here. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bull****, you do a wire test at home with a friend, as long as it's
>>>>actually blind, you'll find you're a whole lot deafer than you thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Mcmickey predicts the future. :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wire is wire.
>
> Mmmmmmmmm... me so angry now. :)

Why, you will eventually prove what I said to yourself, if you're honest.

[JBorg]

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> It's my experience that there are slight audible differences between
> speaker wires of sufficiently hefty gauge, or ampacity, and of commonly
> used lengths, but that those differences have no connection to price
> whatever and that products available from electrical supply stores are
> as good, overall, as products specifically marketed for high end audio
> use.

I once use speaker wires from Radio Shack, and then later on I replace
it with Midnight cables from Audioquest. The most immediate improvement
I noticed was in midrange which become more involving to listen to, with
more presence in vocals and less harshness overall. Midbass became
more solid and well define, the lower bass went deeper with better
articulation-- I easily felt that difference.


> In the field of interconnects there is IMO more variability, but
> again, there is no benefit from using more than modestly priced
> products. In particular RCA connectors, of any price or construction,
> are a bigger "choke point" than any wire of reasonable construction and
> getting rid of them in favor of any of several alternatives is the
> first step to sonic improvement.

In the real world, hobbyist have to choose from rca or xlr connectors.
Comparing modestly priced interconnects from RS or Home Depot,
I heard great sonic improvements in my system having tried and use
interconnects from Audioquest, Wireworld, Cardas, etc. Among the
improvements were the qualities I mentioned above.


> These are things I have observed in many years of experimentation and
> evaluation, some of it in "informal blind" settings, and I believe they
> will stand up to the most rigorous double-blind evaluation. However,
> final proof of this will only be when it's done. I believe it sould be
> done, although I'm not inclined to finance the testing.


Double blind again? You seem to believe they're effective, do you really?
How so?

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m

> Double blind again? You seem to believe they're effective, do you
> really? How so?

It's obvious to just about everybody with a brain, which is why you can't
see this obvious point, Borgma.

Obviously, he hasn't yet been brainwashed by the *Normals*. I predict that
it will happen.

[Fella]

JBorg wrote:

>
> Double blind again? You seem to believe they're effective, do you really?
> How so?
>

We did a double-blind test on audioquest 3.3 ac power cord attached to
the densen amp as against a stock power cord, just yesterday evening. I
was the test subject. A friend helped.

While I was away from the hifi room the friend changed, or not, the cord
employed (all during the amp volume was not touched, the amp is always
on a ready to use state, the only on-off switch with it is in the back)
and wrote what he did to his paper, as in, 1: AQ käytössä (finnish for
"AQ in use") He then leaved the room and went to the adjacent room,
closed the door. We had agreed that he makes always sounds of plugging
and unplugging from wall outlet regardles of changing or not. Also, he
takes exactly one minute to do so, then leaves the room. I never saw his
face all during the test (lest I sense what he did :) ) I came over from
the living room to the hifi room and pressed play (the number 7 on the
remote to be exact). I could not see the outlet or the cord in between
because we covered it all up with the gigantic pillows from the living
room couch (yes yes, I have an understanding wife :) ) ...

Now what the AQ power cord does to the densen is that it makes it a
rock-n-roll jukebox bass thumping and pumping machine, as opposed to it
being this fluid, sweet midrange romantic type of amp otherwise. So for
all practical purposes my friend could have left the light on in the
room, or off, and I was to determine that. :)

We did the experiment 15 times, I new all without a mistake. It was
enough that I listened to the first ten seconds or so of song number 7
of buena vista social club with ry cooder disk. The bass there is
normally soft, very much in the background with a good system, but with
the AQ attached to the densen it is almost boomy and compressed (the AQ
also gives extra shine to the tweeters, all in all, almost a cheap
loudness effect to an amp that doesn't even have tone controls!).

So yes, double blind or not, if the differences are there they will be
there at any given time. The key is that the test should not intimidate.

More on this later, as I will be contacting, hopefully, Mr Randi for one
other type of component also. :)

[Fella]

Fella wrote:

> JBorg wrote:
>
>>
>> Double blind again? You seem to believe they're effective, do you
>> really?
>> How so?
>
>
> We did a double-blind test on audioquest 3.3 ac power cord attached to
> the densen amp as against a stock power cord, just yesterday evening. I
> was the test subject. A friend helped.
>
> While I was away from the hifi room the friend changed, or not, the cord
> employed (all during the amp volume was not touched, the amp is always
> on a ready to use state, the only on-off switch with it is in the back)
> and wrote what he did to his paper, as in, 1: AQ käytössä (finnish for
> "AQ in use") He then leaved the room and went to the adjacent room,
> closed the door. We had agreed that he makes always sounds of plugging
> and unplugging from wall outlet regardles of changing or not. Also, he
> takes exactly one minute to do so, then leaves the room. I never saw his
> face all during the test (lest I sense what he did :) ) I came over from
> the living room to the hifi room and pressed play (the number 7 on the
> remote to be exact). I could not see the outlet or the cord in between
> because we covered it all up with the gigantic pillows from the living
> room couch (yes yes, I have an understanding wife :) ) ...
>
> Now what the AQ power cord does to the densen is that it makes it a
> rock-n-roll jukebox bass thumping and pumping machine, as opposed to it
> being this fluid, sweet midrange romantic type of amp otherwise. So for
> all practical purposes my friend could have left the light on in the
> room, or off, and I was to determine that. :)
>
> We did the experiment 15 times, I new all without a mistake. It was
> enough that I listened to the first ten seconds or so of song number 7
> of buena vista social club with ry cooder disk. The bass there is
> normally soft, very much in the background with a good system, but with
> the AQ attached to the densen it is almost boomy and compressed (the AQ
> also gives extra shine to the tweeters, all in all, almost a cheap
> loudness effect to an amp that doesn't even have tone controls!).
>
> So yes, double blind or not, if the differences are there they will be
> there at any given time. The key is that the test should not intimidate.
>
> More on this later, as I will be contacting, hopefully, Mr Randi for one
> other type of component also. :)
>
I should add that I had a paper of my own, I wrote my observations, as
in 1: AQ, yes, 2: AQ, yes, etc.. At the end of 15 sessions we simply
matched the papers.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger" > wrote
>> JBorg" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>> Double blind again? You seem to believe they're effective, do you
>> really? How so?
>
> It's obvious to just about everybody with a brain, which is why you can't see
> this obvious point, Borgma.
>
> Obviously, he hasn't yet been brainwashed by the *Normals*. I predict that it
> will happen.


Normals don't brainwash anybody. If I try a pair of interconnects and didn't
like it, it goes back.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Fella wrote:
>
>> JBorg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Double blind again? You seem to believe they're effective, do you
>>> really?
>>> How so?
>>
>>
>> We did a double-blind test on audioquest 3.3 ac power cord attached
>> to the densen amp as against a stock power cord, just yesterday
>> evening. I was the test subject. A friend helped.
>>
>> While I was away from the hifi room the friend changed, or not, the
>> cord employed (all during the amp volume was not touched, the amp is
>> always on a ready to use state, the only on-off switch with it is in
>> the back) and wrote what he did to his paper, as in, 1: AQ käytössä
>> (finnish for "AQ in use") He then leaved the room and went to the
>> adjacent room, closed the door. We had agreed that he makes always
>> sounds of plugging and unplugging from wall outlet regardles of
>> changing or not. Also, he takes exactly one minute to do so, then
>> leaves the room. I never saw his face all during the test (lest I
>> sense what he did :) ) I came over from the living room to the hifi
>> room and pressed play (the number 7 on the remote to be exact). I
>> could not see the outlet or the cord in between because we covered
>> it all up with the gigantic pillows from the living room couch (yes
>> yes, I have an understanding wife :) ) ... Now what the AQ power cord
>> does to the densen is that it makes it a
>> rock-n-roll jukebox bass thumping and pumping machine, as opposed to
>> it being this fluid, sweet midrange romantic type of amp otherwise.
>> So for all practical purposes my friend could have left the light on
>> in the room, or off, and I was to determine that. :)
>>
>> We did the experiment 15 times, I new all without a mistake. It was
>> enough that I listened to the first ten seconds or so of song number
>> 7 of buena vista social club with ry cooder disk. The bass there is
>> normally soft, very much in the background with a good system, but
>> with the AQ attached to the densen it is almost boomy and compressed
>> (the AQ also gives extra shine to the tweeters, all in all, almost a
>> cheap loudness effect to an amp that doesn't even have tone
>> controls!). So yes, double blind or not, if the differences are there
>> they will
>> be there at any given time. The key is that the test should not
>> intimidate. More on this later, as I will be contacting, hopefully, Mr
>> Randi for
>> one other type of component also. :)
>>
> I should add that I had a paper of my own, I wrote my observations, as
> in 1: AQ, yes, 2: AQ, yes, etc.. At the end of 15 sessions we simply
> matched the papers.

OK, so the stock power cord was broken.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m
>> Arny Krueger" > wrote
>>> JBorg" > wrote

>>> Double blind again? You seem to believe they're effective, do you
>>> really? How so?

>> It's obvious to just about everybody with a brain, which is why you
>> can't see this obvious point, Borgma.

>> Obviously, he hasn't yet been brainwashed by the *Normals*. I
>> predict that it will happen.

> Normals don't brainwash anybody.

Middius' unending hateful posting, private email and phone calls isn't
brainwashing?

LOL!

> If I try a pair of interconnects and didn't like it, it goes back.

Same for me only usually, I'm smart enough to leave the bad ones in the
store.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Fella wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JBorg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Double blind again? You seem to believe they're effective, do you
>>>>really?
>>>>How so?
>>>
>>>
>>>We did a double-blind test on audioquest 3.3 ac power cord attached
>>>to the densen amp as against a stock power cord, just yesterday
>>>evening. I was the test subject. A friend helped.
>>>
>>>While I was away from the hifi room the friend changed, or not, the
>>>cord employed (all during the amp volume was not touched, the amp is
>>>always on a ready to use state, the only on-off switch with it is in
>>>the back) and wrote what he did to his paper, as in, 1: AQ käytössä
>>>(finnish for "AQ in use") He then leaved the room and went to the
>>>adjacent room, closed the door. We had agreed that he makes always
>>>sounds of plugging and unplugging from wall outlet regardles of
>>>changing or not. Also, he takes exactly one minute to do so, then
>>>leaves the room. I never saw his face all during the test (lest I
>>>sense what he did :) ) I came over from the living room to the hifi
>>>room and pressed play (the number 7 on the remote to be exact). I
>>>could not see the outlet or the cord in between because we covered
>>>it all up with the gigantic pillows from the living room couch (yes
>>>yes, I have an understanding wife :) ) ... Now what the AQ power cord
>>>does to the densen is that it makes it a
>>>rock-n-roll jukebox bass thumping and pumping machine, as opposed to
>>>it being this fluid, sweet midrange romantic type of amp otherwise.
>>>So for all practical purposes my friend could have left the light on
>>>in the room, or off, and I was to determine that. :)
>>>
>>>We did the experiment 15 times, I new all without a mistake. It was
>>>enough that I listened to the first ten seconds or so of song number
>>>7 of buena vista social club with ry cooder disk. The bass there is
>>>normally soft, very much in the background with a good system, but
>>>with the AQ attached to the densen it is almost boomy and compressed
>>>(the AQ also gives extra shine to the tweeters, all in all, almost a
>>>cheap loudness effect to an amp that doesn't even have tone
>>>controls!). So yes, double blind or not, if the differences are there
>>>they will
>>>be there at any given time. The key is that the test should not
>>>intimidate. More on this later, as I will be contacting, hopefully, Mr
>>>Randi for
>>>one other type of component also. :)
>>>
>>
>>I should add that I had a paper of my own, I wrote my observations, as
>>in 1: AQ, yes, 2: AQ, yes, etc.. At the end of 15 sessions we simply
>>matched the papers.
>
>
> OK, so the stock power cord was broken.
>
>

Ok, remote diagnosis. I see.

How can a power cord be "broken" and relay the power at the same time?
Shuko, or something or other, it's just the standart cord that cam with
the densen on first purchase.

Besides, I am using the "broken" cord since I totaly dislike what the AQ
cord does to an otherwise sweet amp (it turns it into some classe type
of a beast, though it does wonders for the cambridge CD, but, that's
another story.).

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> OK, so the stock power cord was broken.

> Ok, remote diagnosis. I see.

> How can a power cord be "broken" and relay the power at the same time?

I believe you said that the stock power cord made the amplifier sound bad.

Normally, the Densen amp you were listening sounds pretty good. You said it
sounded bad with the stock power cord, ergo the stock power cord was
defective.

> Shuko, or something or other, it's just the standart cord that cam
> with the densen on first purchase.

Power cords can be a little bad or a lot bad. A high-resistance failure can
vastly reduce, but not eliminate the power available to the unit.

> Besides, I am using the "broken" cord since I totaly dislike what the
> AQ cord does to an otherwise sweet amp (it turns it into some classe
> type of a beast, though it does wonders for the cambridge CD, but,
> that's another story.).

You said:

" Now what the AQ power cord does to the densen is that it makes it a
rock-n-roll jukebox bass thumping and pumping machine, as opposed to it
being this fluid, sweet midrange romantic type of amp otherwise."

Actually, I interpret this as suggesting that in fact both power cords may
be defective. Or, depending on what one thinks about "rock-n-roll jukebox
bass" (preferences are personal, right?) that might be a good thing.

Since you tried to do a DBT, I think you ought to follow "Ten (10)
Requirements For Sensitive and Reliable Listening Tests" as posted at
http://www.pcabx.com/ . Pay special attention to item 5, and this applies to
both power cords.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>
>
>
>
>> If I try a pair of interconnects and didn't like it, it goes back.
>
> Same for me only usually, I'm smart enough to leave the bad ones in the store.


Since you didn't had a chance to audition it, did you leave it behind 'cause
you can't afford it ?

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>>OK, so the stock power cord was broken.
>
>
>>Ok, remote diagnosis. I see.
>
>
>>How can a power cord be "broken" and relay the power at the same time?
>
>
> I believe you said that the stock power cord made the amplifier sound bad.

No I didn't. With stock cord the amp is balanced, wide, detailed, sweet
midrange (where music happens). With the AQ the loudness effect, yuck.

>
> Normally, the Densen amp you were listening sounds pretty good.


> You said it
> sounded bad with the stock power cord,

No I didn't.

> ergo the stock power cord was
> defective.

No it isn't. It's still shiny new as the densen is, mickeymckmickey type
of a person never swung it in air, for instance, to hear what it sounds
like. :)

>
>
>>Shuko, or something or other, it's just the standart cord that cam
>>with the densen on first purchase.
>
>
> You said:
>
> " Now what the AQ power cord does to the densen is that it makes it a
> rock-n-roll jukebox bass thumping and pumping machine, as opposed to it
> being this fluid, sweet midrange romantic type of amp otherwise."
>
> Actually, I interpret this as suggesting that in fact both power cords may
> be defective.

Your interpretation is wrong. The AQ is just a mismatch with the densen,
that's all. It does wonders to the midrange detail when applied to the
Cambridge audio azur 640c CD player, for instance.

> Or, depending on what one thinks about "rock-n-roll jukebox
> bass" (preferences are personal, right?) that might be a good thing.

Maybe for some, I personally do not like bass detached from the rest of
the music, ie, too powerfull, booming.

>
> Since you tried to do a DBT, I think you ought to follow "Ten (10)
> Requirements For Sensitive and Reliable Listening Tests" as posted at
> http://www.pcabx.com/ . Pay special attention to item 5, and this applies to
> both power cords.
>
>

Quite a primitive website there, yuck, hurt my eyes. But in anycase, no
one modified or did anything to those power cords in any way.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m
>> Arny Krueger wrote

>>> If I try a pair of interconnects and didn't like it, it goes back.

>> Same for me only usually, I'm smart enough to leave the bad ones in
>> the store.

> Since you didn't had a chance to audition it, did you leave it
> behind 'cause you can't afford it ?

No Borgma, unlike you I can often identify garbage when I see it.

[JBorg]

> Fella" > wrote
>> JBorg wrote:
>
>>
>> Double blind again? You seem to believe they're effective, do you really?
>> How so?
>
> We did a double-blind test on audioquest 3.3 ac power cord attached to the
> densen amp as against a stock power cord, just yesterday evening. I was the test
> subject. A friend helped.
>
> While I was away from the hifi room the friend changed, or not, the cord
> employed (all during the amp volume was not touched, the amp is always on a
> ready to use state, the only on-off switch with it is in the back) and wrote
> what he did to his paper, as in, 1: AQ käytössä (finnish for "AQ in use") He
> then leaved the room and went to the adjacent room, closed the door. We had
> agreed that he makes always sounds of plugging and unplugging from wall outlet
> regardles of changing or not. Also, he takes exactly one minute to do so, then
> leaves the room. I never saw his face all during the test (lest I sense what he
> did :) ) I came over from the living room to the hifi room and pressed play (the
> number 7 on the remote to be exact). I could not see the outlet or the cord in
> between because we covered it all up with the gigantic pillows from the living
> room couch (yes yes, I have an understanding wife :) ) ...
>
> Now what the AQ power cord does to the densen is that it makes it a rock-n-roll
> jukebox bass thumping and pumping machine, as opposed to it being this fluid,
> sweet midrange romantic type of amp otherwise. So for all practical purposes my
> friend could have left the light on in the room, or off, and I was to determine
> that. :)
>
> We did the experiment 15 times, I new all without a mistake.

Hi Fella, so you did 15 times without a mistake! I'm not familiar with
the DBT protocols for power cords, are length and gauge the same?


> It was enough that I listened to the first ten seconds or so of song number 7 of
> buena vista social club with ry cooder disk. The bass there is normally soft,
> very much in the background with a good system, but with the AQ attached to the
> densen it is almost boomy and compressed (the AQ also gives extra shine to the
> tweeters, all in all, almost a cheap loudness effect to an amp that doesn't even
> have tone controls!).
>
> So yes, double blind or not, if the differences are there they will be there at
> any given time. The key is that the test should not intimidate.
>
> More on this later, as I will be contacting, hopefully, Mr Randi for one other
> type of component also. :)

Alright, I been reading about your dbt thread before.

[Fella]

JBorg wrote:

>>Fella" > wrote
>>
>>>JBorg wrote:
>>
>>>Double blind again? You seem to believe they're effective, do you really?
>>>How so?
>>
>>We did a double-blind test on audioquest 3.3 ac power cord attached to the
>>densen amp as against a stock power cord, just yesterday evening. I was the test
>>subject. A friend helped.
>>
>>While I was away from the hifi room the friend changed, or not, the cord
>>employed (all during the amp volume was not touched, the amp is always on a
>>ready to use state, the only on-off switch with it is in the back) and wrote
>>what he did to his paper, as in, 1: AQ käytössä (finnish for "AQ in use") He
>>then leaved the room and went to the adjacent room, closed the door. We had
>>agreed that he makes always sounds of plugging and unplugging from wall outlet
>>regardles of changing or not. Also, he takes exactly one minute to do so, then
>>leaves the room. I never saw his face all during the test (lest I sense what he
>>did :) ) I came over from the living room to the hifi room and pressed play (the
>>number 7 on the remote to be exact). I could not see the outlet or the cord in
>>between because we covered it all up with the gigantic pillows from the living
>>room couch (yes yes, I have an understanding wife :) ) ...
>>
>>Now what the AQ power cord does to the densen is that it makes it a rock-n-roll
>>jukebox bass thumping and pumping machine, as opposed to it being this fluid,
>>sweet midrange romantic type of amp otherwise. So for all practical purposes my
>>friend could have left the light on in the room, or off, and I was to determine
>>that. :)
>>
>>We did the experiment 15 times, I new all without a mistake.
>
>
> Hi Fella, so you did 15 times without a mistake!

Well the differences were so obvious that, after the whole thing was
over, even my wife listening from another room all the whilst said she
heard them when I was playing that song over and over again..


> I'm not familiar with
> the DBT protocols for power cords,

Neither am I. :) This is just pre-excercise for the friend and I, as we
will be matching amps in an ABX test for another freind soon. Plus, I am
thinking of challenging the million dollar challenge some more, but more
on that later.

> are length and gauge the same?

No, the stock cord is shorter, while the AQ is much thicker, longer, has
an integrated RF stopper and much thicker and stiffer.

[Fella]

wrote:

> It's my experience that there are slight audible differences between
> speaker wires of sufficiently hefty gauge, or ampacity, and of commonly
> used lengths, but that those differences have no connection to price
> whatever and that products available from electrical supply stores are
> as good, overall, as products specifically marketed for high end audio
> use.

Generally, what you say above is true. Except that if a given product is
sold in some fancy high-end boutique with an astronomical price tag it
doesn't necessarily mean that it is some bogus product trying to cash in
on some imaginative placebo effect of looks and price that people are
hooked on. I just don't think that sane people would get together and
establish a business based on the sole unproven premise that people have
developed an "imaginative placebo effect of looks and hig price" that is
even able to override what their ears hear. Just think of a bunch of
people basing their livelihood on such shaky ground. Pretty risky stuff,
I'd say.

In short, behind most of the high end expensive gear there really is
lots of research (or maybe even trial and error guesswork) and effort.
And some of the technology that they come up with will trickle down to
the onkyo's and yamaha's of the world, eventually.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message


> I give it 24 hours till the Kroo**** starts flying.

Fecal obsession noted. I guess you're getting itchy Art, since its probably
been at least 8 hours since they changed your Depends.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>
>
>
>>>> If I try a pair of interconnects and didn't like it, it goes back.
>
>>> Same for me only usually, I'm smart enough to leave the bad ones in
>>> the store.
>
>> Since you didn't had a chance to audition it, did you leave it
>> behind 'cause you can't afford it ?
>
> No Borgma, unlike you I can often identify garbage when I see it.


Maybe it's time you place a full size mirror down there in your basement.
Computer monitors aren't all that reflective you see.

[JBorg]

> Fella wrote
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> Fella wrote
>
>
>snip
>
>>>Now what the AQ power cord does to the densen is that it makes it a rock-n-roll
>>>jukebox bass thumping and pumping machine, as opposed to it being this fluid,
>>>sweet midrange romantic type of amp otherwise. So for all practical purposes my
>>>friend could have left the light on in the room, or off, and I was to determine
>>>that. :)
>>>
>>>We did the experiment 15 times, I new all without a mistake.
>>
>>
>> Hi Fella, so you did 15 times without a mistake!
>
> Well the differences were so obvious that, after the whole thing was over, even
> my wife listening from another room all the whilst said she heard them when I
> was playing that song over and over again..

I once plug an AQ power cord in my pwr amp many years ago and as I remember,
the sound became too soft, less dynamic, and uninvolving so I return it after 3
days.
Then I tried another one made by WireWorld and kept it.

>> I'm not familiar with
>> the DBT protocols for power cords,
>
> Neither am I. :) This is just pre-excercise for the friend and I, as we will be
> matching amps in an ABX test for another freind soon. Plus, I am thinking of
> challenging the million dollar challenge some more, but more on that later.

I think this guy Randi is all talk, no balls, and not willing to depart with his
money
'cause he knows that dbt/abx is a sham. He's making potshots at highend tweak
mfr just so to keep his own agenda rolling. He should post at newsgroups and see
what he's made of. I wonder what he looks like without a skin.


>> are length and gauge the same?
>
> No, the stock cord is shorter, while the AQ is much thicker, longer, has an
> integrated RF stopper and much thicker and stiffer.

In all fairness, Fella, this things need to maintain some equality

[JBorg]

> Fella" > wrote
>
>
> Poor old ****borg, back to his ****borg manners when debunked, yet once again.
>
> When will you learn, ****borg?


Well Fella, do keep us updated on your homestyle dbt. I'm sure Ferstler,
malicious as he is, is interested. Are you using your favorite and familiar
music? You mentioned using a 7 sec. excerpt of a particular song, what
happen if you listen much longer than that particularly next when you begin
comparing amps or interconnects (of equal competents, of course.)?

[Fella]

JBorg wrote:

>>Fella wrote
>>No, the stock cord is shorter, while the AQ is much thicker, longer, has an
>>integrated RF stopper and much thicker and stiffer.
>
>
> In all fairness, Fella, this things need to maintain some equality

Well, I disagree there with you. Should we request AQ to make cords that
are just like stock power cords, flimsy, thin, same material used for
isolation and insulation, etc, but still have them sound different?
Obviously, that's not at all possible. The issue is that these things,
for whatever the reason, be it length, gauge, rf stoppers, strand
interraction, resistance values, whatever, make a difference in sound.
So the "wire is wire" claim is absolute bul****. Just like "amp is amp"
bul****. Silly old ferstler would say that a mark levinson amp would
sound the same as an off the shelf yamaha if it did not have an
oversized power supply, huge rectifiers, etc, which is just silly stuff.

Whatever the reason, in terms of design, materials used, corners cut,
priorities taken/given, etc, equipment will vary from one another.

[Fella]

JBorg wrote:

>>Fella" > wrote
>>
>>
>>Poor old ****borg, back to his ****borg manners when debunked, yet once again.
>>
>>When will you learn, ****borg?
>
>
>
> Well Fella, do keep us updated on your homestyle dbt.

Sure. :) We will go into a lab soon with amps, the results will end up
in a thesis, etc, too, so I'll keep you guys posted.

I will though, eventually move on with this ABX, etc, stuff, as it seems
silly that one should prove the existence of differences between given
equipment. Trucks are different then each other, cars are, speakers are,
paper, pens, computers, shoes, you anme it, just about ANYTHING, so why
not amps, cd players, etc. :)

> I'm sure Ferstler,
> malicious as he is, is interested. Are you using your favorite and familiar
> music?

Yes ofcourse. Since I wouldn't be listening pink noise from any
component at anytime.

> You mentioned using a 7 sec. excerpt of a particular song, what
> happen if you listen much longer than that particularly next when you begin
> comparing amps or interconnects

Well there are occasions when I am auditioning a piece of equipment and
I start listening with an investigative approach but find myself lost in
music for hours on end. :)

> (of equal competents, of course.)?
>

Did you components? Why should I test equal (same?) components? Besides,
if the make and/or model are different, I doubt any two component would
be equal.

[JBorg]

> Fella" > wrote
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> Fella" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Poor old ****borg, back to his ****borg manners when debunked, yet once again.
>>>
>>>When will you learn, ****borg?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well Fella, do keep us updated on your homestyle dbt.
>
> Sure. :) We will go into a lab soon with amps, the results will end up in a
> thesis, etc, too, so I'll keep you guys posted.
>
> I will though, eventually move on with this ABX, etc, stuff, as it seems silly
> that one should prove the existence of differences between given equipment.
> Trucks are different then each other, cars are, speakers are, paper, pens,
> computers, shoes, you anme it, just about ANYTHING, so why not amps, cd players,
> etc. :)
>
>> I'm sure Ferstler,
>> malicious as he is, is interested. Are you using your favorite and familiar
>> music?
>
> Yes ofcourse. Since I wouldn't be listening [to]pink noise from any component at
> anytime.


Oh yes, and we remember that we don't usually use pink noise to discern subtle
sound differences in sighted listening. Lol!



>> You mentioned using a 7 sec. excerpt of a particular song, what
>> happen if you listen much longer than that particularly next when you begin
>> comparing amps or interconnects
>
> Well there are occasions when I am auditioning a piece of equipment and I start
> listening with an investigative approach but find myself lost in music for hours
> on end. :)


Oh no, the music is emotionally distracting you. That cannot be.


>> (of equal competents, of course.)?
>
> Did you [mean] components? Why should I test equal (same?) components? Besides,
> if the make and/or model are different, I doubt any two component would be
> equal.


Oh I meant equally competent. That is, comparing components in the same
class.

[JBorg]

> Fella wrote
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> Fella wrote
>
>
>
>
>>>No, the stock cord is shorter, while the AQ is much thicker, longer, has an
>>>integrated RF stopper and much thicker and stiffer.
>>
>>
>> In all fairness, Fella, this things need to maintain some equality
>
> Well, I disagree there with you. Should we request AQ to make cords that are
> just like stock power cords, flimsy, thin, same material used for isolation and
> insulation, etc, but still have them sound different? Obviously, that's not at
> all possible. The issue is that these things, for whatever the reason, be it
> length, gauge, rf stoppers, strand interraction, resistance values, whatever,
> make a difference in sound.

Well I meant that the gauge and length should be the same. Otherwise,
you get ticketed by Krooborg. Hahaha.


> So the "wire is wire" claim is absolute bul****. Just like "amp is amp" bul****.
> Silly old ferstler would say that a mark levinson amp would sound the same as an
> off the shelf yamaha if it did not have an oversized power supply, huge
> rectifiers, etc, which is just silly stuff.
>
> Whatever the reason, in terms of design, materials used, corners cut, priorities
> taken/given, etc, equipment will vary from one another.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>OK, so the stock power cord was broken.

OK, so you have no answer.

I can live with that, note.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> I give it 24 hours till the Kroo**** starts flying.

>Fecal obsession noted. I guess you're getting itchy Art, since its probably
>been at least 8 hours since they changed your Depends.

Arnold,
Just a friendly advice: the first rule of being witty is to never use
an old joke twice on the same day.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

>I recently asked Nousaine to give me a example of the practical worth
>of double blind tests by asking him which of three nominated
>amplifiers would work best with my speakers (a DBT is impractical for
>me to do myself). Seeing as he is such a font of knowledge, I expected
>a snappy answer... he vamoosed as quickly as you can say "****in'
>coward!!"

You should've asked more politely ;-)

>A few days ago, I again asked about an amplifier to use with my
>speakers.. the Marantz PM7200 to be specific. The retarded ABX
>contingent once again had naff all productive things to say, busy as
>they were discussing their fecal obsessions etc, proving once again
>the lack of *practical* worth of these supposed "tests". Where are the
>results when you need them?

I warned you.

Have one of mine, if you dare!

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I give it 24 hours till the Kroo**** starts flying.
>
> Fecal obsession noted. I guess you're getting itchy Art, since its
> probably been at least 8 hours since they changed your Depends.
>

I see it only took you six minutes to unload a bowel movement upon Fella.

[Fella]

Paul Dormer wrote:

> I recently asked Nousaine to give me a example of the practical worth
> of double blind tests by asking him which of three nominated
> amplifiers would work best with my speakers (a DBT is impractical for
> me to do myself).

I wonder why you would ask a borg such a thing. Not familiar with your
speakers, but I'd say always go with the low wattage high current type
of an amp. 60 watts per channel at most. :) But OverSized output stage.

IMHO, best way to find YOUR amplifier would be to take home all possible
candidates and audition for a week at a time. Listen all your favorite
music. And when you find that you are not paying attention to the this
and that of the amp anymore, then it's time to pay up.


> Anyway.. the Marantz is technically a very good amp, it should sound
> identical to the similarly competent Audiolab 8000A it was replacing
> ... right?? Wrong. The Marantz sounds completely different. Suddenly
> I'm rewarded with prodigious amounts of (not the tightest) bass. That
> I did not expect. I didn't know these JM Labs were capable of going so
> low. And playing the remastered "On Land" by Brian Eno... with the
> Audiolab you can hear the tape tracks 'unfolding' into the mix on the
> first cut. With the Marantz that detail is severely diminished.
>

Never heard a marantz before, though I am guessing what you mean. My pre
highend amp was an onkyo integrated. Integra 9711 to be exact. It had,
yes, bass. :)

> Rotel 1070 pre/power might be just the ticket.

May I give you an IMHO advice again? Ok, so here it is: Generally rotel
makes dull, even, polite sounding stuff, which doesn't get you involved.
For whatever it might be worth, take it as a friendly opinion.

Try these, for instance;

threshold
krell
densen :)
sonus faber musica
bladelius


Good luck.

[Lionel]

Paul Dormer a écrit :
> "Sander deWaal" emitted :
>
>
>>>I recently asked Nousaine to give me a example of the practical worth
>>>of double blind tests by asking him which of three nominated
>>>amplifiers would work best with my speakers (a DBT is impractical for
>>>me to do myself). Seeing as he is such a font of knowledge, I expected
>>>a snappy answer... he vamoosed as quickly as you can say "****in'
>>>coward!!"
>>
>>You should've asked more politely ;-)
>
>
> I did.
>
> OK.. sure.. I have treated Tommy like something off the bottom of my
> shoe for a few years but a) he should be used to that by now and b) he
> can and does rise for the bait. Anyway, it was a chance for him to
> proove himself. A chance to shine.
>
>
>>>A few days ago, I again asked about an amplifier to use with my
>>>speakers.. the Marantz PM7200 to be specific. The retarded ABX
>>>contingent once again had naff all productive things to say, busy as
>>>they were discussing their fecal obsessions etc, proving once again
>>>the lack of *practical* worth of these supposed "tests". Where are the
>>>results when you need them?
>>
>>I warned you.


Blind tests and other DBTs are *totally* imcompatible with pleasure.
Analytic description doesn't mobilize the same human resources than the
quest of pleasure...
You and Mr. Nousaine aren't looking in the same direction.


> Against that amp? I was waiting for your advice!! It's actually OK.
> Something a bit velvety happens when you flick into Class A.
>
>
>>Have one of mine, if you dare!
>
>
> Go on then.. what you got? ;-)
>
> Do I have to keep it?
>
> BTW I thought you were ****ting me about the JM Lab clones.. then I
> discovered there *are* people out there cloning JM Labs! Was that for
> real? Do you have any pics of it (in the nude preferably)?

http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/

[JBorg]

> Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>> Whatever the reason, in terms of design, materials used, corners cut,
>> priorities taken/given, etc, equipment will vary from one another.
>
> I agree with you. This is a consumer decision whether to purchase
> a new cord to replace the stock cord. All that matters is if you hear a
> difference you like, and if you think the price is worth it.


Full point.

With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m
>> Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> "Fella" > wrote in message


>>> Whatever the reason, in terms of design, materials used, corners
>>> cut, priorities taken/given, etc, equipment will vary from one
>>> another.

>> I agree with you. This is a consumer decision whether to purchase
>> a new cord to replace the stock cord. All that matters is if you
>> hear a difference you like, and if you think the price is worth it.

> Full point.

Full o'crap.

> With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
> would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.

Art, Borg and Fella, one of two most important things that all three of
you bozos seem to show zero understanding of is the fact that power is not
distributed to the piece of equipment by just a power cord. Power comes to
the equipment via an integrated system stretching all the way back to the
power plant. Changing the last 4 or six feet of this system is like spitting
in the wind unless that last few feet is really horrific.

The other thing you three zombies seem to show zero understanding of is that
resistance to various characteristics of the power system is a feature of
all audio gear, electronic equipment, and electrical equipment. A piece of
equipment that is adversely audibly affected by small changes in the power
system is a low quality piece of equipment.

Most of the differences between a high end power cord and a regular power
cord are eyewash. Art, Borg and Fella are like race car drivers who obsess
over paint color as a means for improving handling. By wasting their time
and effort on this trivia, they miss out on making substantial changes that
might actually improve sound quality.

[Clyde Slick]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m...
>
>> Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Whatever the reason, in terms of design, materials used, corners cut,
>>> priorities taken/given, etc, equipment will vary from one another.
>>
>> I agree with you. This is a consumer decision whether to purchase
>> a new cord to replace the stock cord. All that matters is if you hear a
>> difference you like, and if you think the price is worth it.
>
>
> Full point.
>
> With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
> would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.
>

Fine for you, but often the question is whether to spend money to
upgrade a cord, so the comparison would be between
the standard cord provided with the unit and an upgraded cord.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>>> Clyde wrote
>>>> "Fella wrote
>
>
>>>> Whatever the reason, in terms of design, materials used, corners
>>>> cut, priorities taken/given, etc, equipment will vary from one
>>>> another.
>
>>> I agree with you. This is a consumer decision whether to purchase
>>> a new cord to replace the stock cord. All that matters is if you
>>> hear a difference you like, and if you think the price is worth it.
>
>> Full point.
>
> Full o'crap.
>
>> With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
>> would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.
>
>
> Art, Borg and Fella, one of two most important things that all three of you
> bozos


I was referring to the requirement if homestyle dbt is done for the cords.
You are the one who always say that when in doubt, you have to dbt this
and dbt that.

> seem to show zero understanding of is the fact that power is not distributed to
> the piece of equipment by just a power cord. Power comes to the equipment via an
> integrated system stretching all the way back to the power plant. Changing the
> last 4 or six feet of this system is like spitting in the wind unless that last
> few feet is really horrific.
>
> The other thing you three zombies seem to show zero understanding of is that
> resistance to various characteristics of the power system is a feature of all
> audio gear, electronic equipment, and electrical equipment. A piece of equipment
> that is adversely audibly affected by small changes in the power system is a low
> quality piece of equipment.
>
> Most of the differences between a high end power cord and a regular power cord
> are eyewash. Art, Borg and Fella are like race car drivers who obsess over paint
> color as a means for improving handling. By wasting their time and effort on
> this trivia, they miss out on making substantial changes that might actually
> improve sound quality.


Fortunately, this is not about what your eyes see like you think it should. It's
about what your ears hear. I never bought cables or inteconnects because of
their looks (or brand).

[JBorg]

> Clyde Slick wrote in message
>>JBorg wrote in message
>>> Clyde Slick wrote in message
>>>> "Fella wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Whatever the reason, in terms of design, materials used, corners cut,
>>>> priorities taken/given, etc, equipment will vary from one another.
>>>
>>> I agree with you. This is a consumer decision whether to purchase
>>> a new cord to replace the stock cord. All that matters is if you hear a
>>> difference you like, and if you think the price is worth it.
>>
>>
>> Full point.
>>
>> With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
>> would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.
>>
>
> Fine for you, [...]


No. By comparing, I was relating to what would be the min req. under
homestyle dbt which Fella is doing. This was a comment in line with his.


> but often the question is whether to spend money to
> upgrade a cord, [...]


No, often the question is if there's sonic improvement otherwise...


> so the comparison would be between
> the standard cord provided with the unit and an upgraded cord.


.... are they making comparison to see if the standard cord provided is
broken?

[[email protected]]

What I have found with power cords is that more is better, i.e. the
heavier gauge wire is the best. As a general rule if the power cord
makes a difference, there is something wrong with the wall socket, the
wiring to it, or the (usually) IEC socket on the unit.

Spending a great deal on the power cord is always a mistake, with
high end power cords costing more than the cost to call out the pros
and have your wall socket redone properly from the fuse box. Putting in
a better-than-code ground is always a good move, also.

[JBorg]

> wrote
>
>
>
>
> What I have found with power cords is that more is better, i.e. the
> heavier gauge wire is the best. As a general rule if the power cord
> makes a difference, there is something wrong with the wall socket, the
> wiring to it, or the (usually) IEC socket on the unit.


What if there isn't anything wrong with the orig. pwr cord or the wall socket
and the IEC socket on the unit and yet, the upgraded HE cord with same
gauge provided sonic improvements ?



> Spending a great deal on the power cord is always a mistake, with
> high end power cords costing more than the cost to call out the pros
> and have your wall socket redone properly from the fuse box. Putting in
> a better-than-code ground is always a good move, also.


Realistically now, my upgraded cord cost considerably less than
calling in the pros.

[[email protected]]

Well if you like it better, fine, but in most cases it won't. I am not
saying never, I am saying usually.

If you are a DIYer (or willing to mod and thereby devalue your
vintage/boooteek piece) using something besides an IEC for your power
amp has many advantages. There are several alternatives, mostly you
want more contact area and more mechanical interface reliability. As
with human genitalia, the idea that IEC male and female parts are
universally interchangeable with satisfactory and safe results is the
doctrine of reality-challenged fundamentalists rather than an
observation based on any statistically credible experience. When I was
a factory test tech using almost nothing but HP (this was before the
Broad Restructuring a/k/a Agilent) and Tek test equipment-management
didn't like buying 'third tier' vendor equipment-we had a pile of power
cords and some cords would not stay plugged inside some instruments'
IEC recessed males whereas others could be inserted only with force and
silicone spray. And it had nothing to do with brand,i.e. HP or Tek. On
more than one occasion I swapped power cords out with a PC or 3270
to get one that would fit.

That, right there, is 75% of the variation in IEC power cable
subjective audio performance, and if you need any other reason to look
at some alternative-whether a PowerCon, a recessed male NEMA
connector (i.e. like a wall plug), or any of the old appliance plugs
still available from niche vendors-you aren't paying attention or don't
really care.

[JBorg]

> wrote in message
>
>
>
> Well if you like it better, fine, but in most cases it won't. I am not
> saying never, I am saying usually.
>
> If you are a DIYer (or willing to mod and thereby devalue your
> vintage/boooteek piece) using something besides an IEC for your power
> amp has many advantages. There are several alternatives, mostly you
> want more contact area and more mechanical interface reliability. As
> with human genitalia, the idea that IEC male and female parts are
> universally interchangeable with satisfactory and safe results is the
> doctrine of reality-challenged fundamentalists rather than an
> observation based on any statistically credible experience. When I was
> a factory test tech using almost nothing but HP (this was before the
> Broad Restructuring a/k/a Agilent) and Tek test equipment-management
> didn't like buying 'third tier' vendor equipment-we had a pile of power
> cords and some cords would not stay plugged inside some instruments'
> IEC recessed males whereas others could be inserted only with force and
> silicone spray. And it had nothing to do with brand,i.e. HP or Tek. On
> more than one occasion I swapped power cords out with a PC or 3270
> to get one that would fit.
>
> That, right there, is 75% of the variation in IEC power cable
> subjective audio performance, and if you need any other reason to look
> at some alternative-whether a PowerCon, a recessed male NEMA
> connector (i.e. like a wall plug), or any of the old appliance plugs
> still available from niche vendors-you aren't paying attention or don't
> really care.

Well first, the sonic improvements with cords which I neglected to explain
with Fella earlier was that this improvement I noticed only with the overall
sound becoming bigger-- as with the soundstaging. The bass remain fuller
even more without any noticeable haziness or additional background noises
in sound, if you will. As far as changes in midrange character, tonality, or
articulation of musical passages -- I absolutely didn't see any differences at
all.

Comments I'd like to add to your derisive post above is that you seem to
miss the part where critical listening in front of the stereo comes into to play.
And no, I'm not a DIYer yet.

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

>>I warned you.

>Against that amp? I was waiting for your advice!! It's actually OK.
>Something a bit velvety happens when you flick into Class A.

You then emailed me about another amp, a Primare.
I then told you that based on what information was there, that amp
would probably be a better proposition.

I never cared much for Marantz, except the '60 tube models.

>>Have one of mine, if you dare!

>Go on then.. what you got? ;-)

I have only power amps left, but I can easily built in a volume
control and source select switches.
It is the prototype of my hybrid design.

>Do I have to keep it?

You may have it on loan, if you like it you can buy it :-)

>BTW I thought you were ****ting me about the JM Lab clones.. then I
>discovered there *are* people out there cloning JM Labs! Was that for
>real? Do you have any pics of it (in the nude preferably)?

They're knock-offs of the Utopia, being a bit different styled.
They're at my father's house, got to take my camera with me next time
we're there .

I'll try to remember!

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

>Yes, and as always I appreciated your advice.. but you didn't say
>*why* you thought the Primare would be better, except that they quote
>an output rating into 4ohm and Marantz doesn't. The Marantz puts 155w
>into 4ohm, regardless of that, so I wasn't sure what to make of your
>comment.

Power ratings are meaningless.
Power reserve, however, is one importnat property of a SS amp.

>>I never cared much for Marantz, except the '60 tube models.

>Why?

Dull, boring, you name it.

>>I have only power amps left, but I can easily built in a volume
>>control and source select switches.
>>It is the prototype of my hybrid design.

>It got toobs!!

The hybrid prototype only has 2 ECC88s, the rest is SS, even the HV
rectifier.

Still scared of vacuum? ;-)

>>>Do I have to keep it?

>>You may have it on loan, if you like it you can buy it :-)

>I am interested, not least because I'd like to hear one of your
>designs (OK.. a prototype) for myself. Might give me a handle on some
>of the discussions you've been having here with Graham.. or not as the
>case may be :). Thanks for the offer. I'll have a think about it and
>email you.

This amp has nothing to do with our KT88 PP in triode discussions.
The only thing they have in common is the heater voltage ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Paul Dormer > said:

>>Power ratings are meaningless.
>>Power reserve, however, is one importnat property of a SS amp.

>Please excuse my ignorance, but I'm still not sure what you're getting
>at. The Marantz "..offers spare voltage on a transient basis, making
>the momentary peak output of the amp more like 160watts." [Courtesy of
>Hifi Choice]. I never thought it would be a Krell killer, but I'm not
>sure what you're driving at here?

I'm throwing pearls of wisdom your way, and all you do is asking why
I'm targeting you ;-)

What I'm driving at (pun intended) is adequate control of the speaker.
155 watts, no, make that 160 watts. How important is that?
Even if it will be delivered in a flat resistor of 4 ohms, all you
will gain is a lot of smoke.

Current, my dear.
That, and the ability to handle complex loads.

No more, lest I alert the Borgs.

>>>>I never cared much for Marantz, except the '60 tube models.

>>>Why?

>>Dull, boring, you name it.

>OK. Fury muff.

Domrer, its like, some Marantz's sound more alike than other's, NOT!

;-)

>>Still scared of vacuum? ;-)

>Petrified! I often leave my gear on and listen to it when I go to
>sleep. Would that be a problem? Is it likely to blow up in my face
>when I switch it on? :-)

With my contraptions, you'll never know for sure.
This amp is so overspecced, even NASA and the JPL thought of it as
overkill. Does that help?

It is a class A design, always on, (you can't turn it off even if you
wanted it to), and when idle, it turns to class B.

BTW you'll save a lot on your heating bills when playing music ;-)

>>This amp has nothing to do with our KT88 PP in triode discussions.
>>The only thing they have in common is the heater voltage ;-)

>Boo. I want KT88. Gimme!!

Currently, all tube amps are decomposed into loose parts, until I'm
ready to build something new.

Which will be after the move, so no KTs for a few months. Sorry.

Try Graham.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Ruud Broens]

"Paul Dormer" > wrote in message
...
: "Sander deWaal" emitted :
:
: >Paul Dormer > said:
: >Still scared of vacuum? ;-)
:
: Boo. I want KT88. Gimme!!
:
Yeah, the bohemian blue one's, on a steel chassis, TiN on top
golden blue, ..
Rudy

: S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
: -----------------------------------
: It's Grim down south..

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> Paul Dormer > said:
>
>> Yes, and as always I appreciated your advice.. but you didn't say
>> *why* you thought the Primare would be better, except that they quote
>> an output rating into 4ohm and Marantz doesn't. The Marantz puts 155w
>> into 4ohm, regardless of that, so I wasn't sure what to make of your
>> comment.

> Power ratings are meaningless.

Tell that to someone that is listening to an amp that is clipping because it
simply ran out of power.

> Power reserve, however, is one importnat property of a SS amp.

Not really. SS amps are typically sonically very clean right up to and
actually slightly past clipping.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> Power ratings are meaningless.

>Tell that to someone that is listening to an amp that is clipping because it
>simply ran out of power.

500 watts PMPO, anyone? ;-)

>> Power reserve, however, is one importnat property of a SS amp.

>Not really. SS amps are typically sonically very clean right up to and
>actually slightly past clipping.

Thanks Arnold, now we all know for sure I was right.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> Power ratings are meaningless.
>
>> Tell that to someone that is listening to an amp that is clipping
>> because it simply ran out of power.
>
> 500 watts PMPO, anyone? ;-)

End of discussion due to your inability to say something relevant, Sander.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>> Power ratings are meaningless.

>>> Tell that to someone that is listening to an amp that is clipping
>>> because it simply ran out of power.

>> 500 watts PMPO, anyone? ;-)

>End of discussion due to your inability to say something relevant, Sander.

But Arny, I was only "having fun ;-)"......
Besides, end of discussion because I was right.

Again.

Or is "500 watts PMPO" not a power rating? ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>>>> Power ratings are meaningless.
>
>>>> Tell that to someone that is listening to an amp that is clipping
>>>> because it simply ran out of power.
>
>>> 500 watts PMPO, anyone? ;-)
>
>>End of discussion due to your inability to say something relevant, Sander.
>
> But Arny, I was only "having fun ;-)"......
> Besides, end of discussion because I was right.
>

A victory best to have been taken quietly.
There was no need to reawaken the Beast..

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>> But Arny, I was only "having fun ;-)"......
>> Besides, end of discussion because I was right.


>A victory best to have been taken quietly.
>There was no need to reawaken the Beast..

Arnold a Beast?
In his own mind, obviously.

My 2 cats are more dangerous.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
> power is not
> distributed to the piece of equipment by just a power cord. Power comes to
> the equipment via an integrated system stretching all the way back to the
> power plant.


Now who would have thought of that!? My my, what insight! What
investigative genius, awesome! Are you sure that the "system" really is
"integrated" there now? Maybe it's a system with no integration? Maybe
it's an integrated network but not a system? You just have to check this
one out. Take a fork for instance, go to the nearest wall socket do some
investigative researh for us, won't you?

In anycase, that you figured that one out, I repeat, awesome,
flabbergasting. And to think that all this time I thought that each
outlet in my house had a little power plant behind it. That that's the
way we got electricity. "Power comes to the equipment via an integrated
system stretching all the way back to the power plant." He says!

Had anyone else figured this one out? Torresits ..err..
, azmacowagowan perhaps? How about mickeymcmickey?

> Changing the last 4 or six feet of this system is like spitting
> in the wind unless that last few feet is really horrific.

Ehm, mister genius, please enlighten us, is it so that water comes to
our homes also "via an integrated system stretching all the way back to
the" reservoir??? That there are np lakes just behind our kitchen walls?
And just think, some silly folks put on a filter at the end of their
tap. To clean up the impurities. The water comes to their taps ALLLLLL
THE WAY back from the plant, travels ALLLL them pipes and they think
they can clean it up in the last few inches!

> A piece of
> equipment that is adversely audibly affected by small changes in the power
> system is a low quality piece of equipment.

This is law no:12341 of borg audio, thus spake the ****borg.

> Art, Borg and Fella are like race car drivers who obsess
> over paint color as a means for improving handling.

My my, what an applicable, impeccable analogy, what insight, yet again!
Endless genius ..

[JBorg]

> Fella" > wrote
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>> power is not distributed to the piece of equipment by just a power cord. Power
>> comes to the equipment via an integrated system stretching all the way back to
>> the power plant.
>
>
> Now who would have thought of that!? My my, what insight! What investigative
> genius, awesome! Are you sure that the "system" really is "integrated" there
> now? Maybe it's a system with no integration? Maybe it's an integrated network
> but not a system? You just have to check this one out. Take a fork for instance,
> go to the nearest wall socket do some investigative researh for us, won't you?

Excellent idea.



>> Changing the last 4 or six feet of this system is like spitting in the wind
>> unless that last few feet is really horrific.
>
> Ehm, mister genius, please enlighten us, is it so that water comes to our homes
> also "via an integrated system stretching all the way back to the" reservoir???
> That there are np lakes just behind our kitchen walls? And just think, some
> silly folks put on a filter at the end of their tap. To clean up the impurities.
> The water comes to their taps ALLLLLL THE WAY back from the plant, travels ALLLL
> them pipes and they think they can clean it up in the last few inches!

Yeah, cords could probably act like filter to limit the impurities.


>
>> Art, Borg and Fella are like race car drivers who obsess over paint color as a
>> means for improving handling.
>
> My my, what an applicable, impeccable analogy, what insight, yet again! Endless
> genius ..


lol! Fella, I just remember that it was the AQ pwr cord that I tried before.
A 10 awg (not sure) 1 meter long, just like yours I think. I was thrilled to
find out what deal with cords was about. But after listening for the next
2-3 days, that cord actually made the sound soft and less punchy so, back
it went. Maybe you should also try using pwr conditioner on your system
if you haven't already.

I still have, and still using the orig. Power Wedge with 8 outlet along with
the PE-1 which is also plug next to it in the wall socket. I'll be very surprise
if you don't discern sound differences.

How's Finland today !

[Fella]

JBorg wrote:

> Maybe you should also try using pwr conditioner on your system
> if you haven't already.

I have tried the PSaudio ultimate outlet and transparent XL something
something or other but they all increased bass with the amplifier so
back they went.

I do admit that I have outlet problems, my system was in the big living
room before meshed with the HT system and I had recently extended a
grounded source to it but the little toddler we have grew up in the past
months and now is very much interested with everything that I touch,
etc, so we had to move the highend system to a back room away from the
little bugger and there is no grounded outlet there! In a way your were
right, (or was it some other poster) that instead of paying 2000 euros
for a transparet conditioner I should call in some electrician and have
him do something about the outlet in the hifi room. Might cost less,
though around these parts of the woods it is not a given.

>
> How's Finland today !
>
>

-5! Lot's o snow from the weekend.


>
>
>
>
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>> power is not
>> distributed to the piece of equipment by just a power cord. Power
>> comes to the equipment via an integrated system stretching all the
>> way back to the power plant.
>
>
> Now who would have thought of that!?

Just about everybody with a brain, Fella. Obviously, this is a new one on
you!

>My my, what insight! What
> investigative genius, awesome! Are you sure that the "system" really
> is "integrated" there now? Maybe it's a system with no integration?
> Maybe it's an integrated network but not a system? You just have to
> check this one out. Take a fork for instance, go to the nearest wall
> socket do some investigative researh for us, won't you?

It seems like the thought unhinged you, Fella.


> In anycase, that you figured that one out, I repeat, awesome,
> flabbergasting. And to think that all this time I thought that each
> outlet in my house had a little power plant behind it. That that's the
> way we got electricity. "Power comes to the equipment via an
> integrated system stretching all the way back to the power plant." He
> says!

And your point is???????


> Had anyone else figured this one out? Torresits ..err..
> , azmacowagowan perhaps? How about mickeymcmickey?

Lots of people have made this point. Wanna finally deal with it, Fellla?

>> Changing the last 4 or six feet of this system is like spitting
>> in the wind unless that last few feet is really horrific.

> Ehm, mister genius, please enlighten us, is it so that water comes to
> our homes also "via an integrated system stretching all the way back
> to the" reservoir??? That there are np lakes just behind our kitchen
> walls? And just think, some silly folks put on a filter at the end of
> their tap. To clean up the impurities. The water comes to their taps
> ALLLLLL THE WAY back from the plant, travels ALLLL them pipes and
> they think they can clean it up in the last few inches!

Not a bad metaphor.

Can you make sense out of your own metaphor Fella?

>> A piece of
>> equipment that is adversely audibly affected by small changes in the
>> power system is a low quality piece of equipment.

> This is law no:12341 of borg audio, thus spake the ****borg.

Are you just going to posture away this whole post, Fella?

>> Art, Borg and Fella are like race car drivers who obsess
>> over paint color as a means for improving handling.

> My my, what an applicable, impeccable analogy, what insight, yet
> again! Endless genius ..

Seems like you have been cornered and you have nothing cogent to say, Fella.
Sad.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>power is not
>>>distributed to the piece of equipment by just a power cord. Power
>>>comes to the equipment via an integrated system stretching all the
>>>way back to the power plant.
>>
>>
>>Now who would have thought of that!?
>
>
> Just about everybody with a brain, Fella. Obviously, this is a new one on
> you!

Yea, I was thinkin, like, how'd them plastic outlets make electricity?
So there are things called "power plants" and they send the electricity
there? Woow ****borg, there seems to be no end to your knowledge in audio.

>
>
>>My my, what insight! What
>>investigative genius, awesome! Are you sure that the "system" really
>>is "integrated" there now? Maybe it's a system with no integration?
>>Maybe it's an integrated network but not a system? You just have to
>>check this one out. Take a fork for instance, go to the nearest wall
>>socket do some investigative researh for us, won't you?
>
>
> It seems like the thought unhinged you, Fella.

No-no, by all means, do investigate more arny (make sure the fork you do
the investigations with does not have a plastic keep, etc, that it is
bare metal also where you hold it) and come back to us with your
findings. "Integrated system" you say.. Are you sure?

>
>
>
>>In anycase, that you figured that one out, I repeat, awesome,
>>flabbergasting. And to think that all this time I thought that each
>>outlet in my house had a little power plant behind it. That that's the
>>way we got electricity. "Power comes to the equipment via an
>>integrated system stretching all the way back to the power plant." He
>>says!
>
>
> And your point is???????

The point is that you must be genius to have figured this one out, oo
Arny the great.

>
>
>
>>Had anyone else figured this one out? Torresits ..err..
, azmacowagowan perhaps? How about mickeymcmickey?
>
>
> Lots of people have made this point.

Naaa, they can't have been *that* smart.

> Wanna finally deal with it, Fellla?

I'm tryin to all the time.

>
>
>>>Changing the last 4 or six feet of this system is like spitting
>>>in the wind unless that last few feet is really horrific.
>
>
>>Ehm, mister genius, please enlighten us, is it so that water comes to
>>our homes also "via an integrated system stretching all the way back
>>to the" reservoir??? That there are np lakes just behind our kitchen
>>walls? And just think, some silly folks put on a filter at the end of
>>their tap. To clean up the impurities. The water comes to their taps
>>ALLLLLL THE WAY back from the plant, travels ALLLL them pipes and
>>they think they can clean it up in the last few inches!
>
>
> Not a bad metaphor.
>
> Can you make sense out of your own metaphor Fella?

Yes in as much as you can make sense of yours. Magic bricks! you say?
We'll see. :)

>
> Are you just going to posture away this whole post, Fella?
>

Can I arny? Pretty please, can I?

>
>>>Art, Borg and Fella are like race car drivers who obsess
>>>over paint color as a means for improving handling.
>
>
>>My my, what an applicable, impeccable analogy, what insight, yet
>>again! Endless genius ..
>
>
> Seems like you have been cornered and you have nothing cogent to say, Fella.

Sure does seem so. Ok, but you get to your investigations now, chop
chop. Remember, the fork, outlet bit. Is it really an "integrated system" ??


> Sad.
>
>

[JBorg]

> Fella" > wrote
>> JBorg wrote:
>
>
>
>> Maybe you should also try using pwr conditioner on your system
>> if you haven't already.
>
> I have tried the PSaudio ultimate outlet and transparent XL something something
> or other but they all increased bass with the amplifier so back they went.


That's an interesting decision, ah I mean -- situation.



> I do admit that I have outlet problems, my system was in the big living room
> before meshed with the HT system and I had recently extended a grounded source
> to it but the little toddler we have grew up in the past months and now is very
> much interested with everything that I touch, etc, so we had to move the highend
> system to a back room away from the little bugger and there is no grounded
> outlet there! In a way your were right, (or was it some other poster) that
> instead of paying 2000 euros for a transparet conditioner I should call in some
> electrician and have him do something about the outlet in the hifi room. Might
> cost less, though around these parts of the woods it is not a given.
>
>>
>> How's Finland today !
>>
>
> -5! Lot's o snow from the weekend.


Thanks Fella and drive careful...........

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> JBorg wrote:
>
>>>Fella" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>Poor old ****borg, back to his ****borg manners when debunked, yet once
>>>again.
>>>
>>>When will you learn, ****borg?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well Fella, do keep us updated on your homestyle dbt.
>
> Sure. :) We will go into a lab soon with amps, the results will end up in
> a thesis, etc, too, so I'll keep you guys posted.
>
> I will though, eventually move on with this ABX, etc, stuff, as it seems
> silly that one should prove the existence of differences between given
> equipment. Trucks are different then each other, cars are, speakers are,
> paper, pens, computers, shoes, you anme it, just about ANYTHING, so why
> not amps, cd players, etc. :)
>
Because they all have one job, to convey an audio signal without audible
distortion. IN the case of SS amps this has been a trivial matter for
decades, despite what the chartlatans tell you. In the case of CD players
since they are deoding digital information, they have been able to
accomplish that with absolute precision for decades.

>> I'm sure Ferstler,
>> malicious as he is, is interested. Are you using your favorite and
>> familiar
>> music?
>
> Yes ofcourse. Since I wouldn't be listening pink noise from any component
> at anytime.
>
>> You mentioned using a 7 sec. excerpt of a particular song, what
>> happen if you listen much longer than that particularly next when you
>> begin
>> comparing amps or interconnects
>
> Well there are occasions when I am auditioning a piece of equipment and I
> start listening with an investigative approach but find myself lost in
> music for hours on end. :)
>
>> (of equal competents, of course.)?
>
> Did you components? Why should I test equal (same?) components? Besides,
> if the make and/or model are different, I doubt any two component would be
> equal.
>
Doubt all you want. The DBT's that have been done in the past show that
properly functioning amps and CD players sound the same, when using only
one's ears. That you doubt this is evidence that the charlatans and
advertising people have found another pigeon.

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:

>I do admit that I have outlet problems, my system was in the big living
>room before meshed with the HT system and I had recently extended a
>grounded source to it but the little toddler we have grew up in the past
>months and now is very much interested with everything that I touch,
>etc, so we had to move the highend system to a back room away from the
>little bugger and there is no grounded outlet there! In a way your were
>right, (or was it some other poster) that instead of paying 2000 euros
>for a transparet conditioner I should call in some electrician and have
>him do something about the outlet in the hifi room. Might cost less,
>though around these parts of the woods it is not a given.

I made a dedicated group especially for audio.
Made a remarkable difference. Sighted, not blind.
You don't suppose I'm foolish enough to work on 230V Ac blindly?

;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>"Fella" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> power is not
>>> distributed to the piece of equipment by just a power cord. Power
>>> comes to the equipment via an integrated system stretching all the
>>> way back to the power plant.
>>
>>
>> Now who would have thought of that!?
>
>Just about everybody with a brain, Fella. Obviously, this is a new one on
>you!
>
>>My my, what insight! What
>> investigative genius, awesome! Are you sure that the "system" really
>> is "integrated" there now? Maybe it's a system with no integration?
>> Maybe it's an integrated network but not a system? You just have to
>> check this one out. Take a fork for instance, go to the nearest wall
>> socket do some investigative researh for us, won't you?
>
>It seems like the thought unhinged you, Fella.
>
>
>> In anycase, that you figured that one out, I repeat, awesome,
>> flabbergasting. And to think that all this time I thought that each
>> outlet in my house had a little power plant behind it. That that's the
>> way we got electricity. "Power comes to the equipment via an
>> integrated system stretching all the way back to the power plant." He
>> says!
>
>And your point is???????
>
>
>> Had anyone else figured this one out? Torresits ..err..
>> , azmacowagowan perhaps? How about mickeymcmickey?
>
>Lots of people have made this point. Wanna finally deal with it, Fellla?
>
>>> Changing the last 4 or six feet of this system is like spitting
>>> in the wind unless that last few feet is really horrific.
>
>> Ehm, mister genius, please enlighten us, is it so that water comes to
>> our homes also "via an integrated system stretching all the way back
>> to the" reservoir??? That there are np lakes just behind our kitchen
>> walls? And just think, some silly folks put on a filter at the end of
>> their tap. To clean up the impurities. The water comes to their taps
>> ALLLLLL THE WAY back from the plant, travels ALLLL them pipes and
>> they think they can clean it up in the last few inches!
>
>Not a bad metaphor.
>
>Can you make sense out of your own metaphor Fella?
>
>>> A piece of
>>> equipment that is adversely audibly affected by small changes in the
>>> power system is a low quality piece of equipment.
>
>> This is law no:12341 of borg audio, thus spake the ****borg.
>
>Are you just going to posture away this whole post, Fella?
>
>>> Art, Borg and Fella are like race car drivers who obsess
>>> over paint color as a means for improving handling.
>
>> My my, what an applicable, impeccable analogy, what insight, yet
>> again! Endless genius ..
>
>Seems like you have been cornered and you have nothing cogent to say, Fella.
>Sad.

Thanks for admitting you don't have any answer, Arnold.

BTW you lost.

Again.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> :
> ...or take an Audio Quattro with spiked wheels...really works :-)
> Rudy
>
>

Is that an integrated system?

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Fella" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JBorg wrote:
>>
>>>>Fella" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Poor old ****borg, back to his ****borg manners when debunked, yet once
>>>>again.
>>>>
>>>>When will you learn, ****borg?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well Fella, do keep us updated on your homestyle dbt.
>>
>> Sure. :) We will go into a lab soon with amps, the results will end up in
>> a thesis, etc, too, so I'll keep you guys posted.
>>
>> I will though, eventually move on with this ABX, etc, stuff, as it seems
>> silly that one should prove the existence of differences between given
>> equipment. Trucks are different then each other, cars are, speakers are,
>> paper, pens, computers, shoes, you anme it, just about ANYTHING, so why
>> not amps, cd players, etc. :)
>>
> Because they all have one job, to convey an audio signal without audible
> distortion. IN the case of SS amps this has been a trivial matter for
> decades, despite what the chartlatans tell you. In the case of CD players
> since they are deoding digital information, they have been able to
> accomplish that with absolute precision for decades.
>
>>> I'm sure Ferstler,
>>> malicious as he is, is interested. Are you using your favorite and
>>> familiar
>>> music?
>>
>> Yes ofcourse. Since I wouldn't be listening pink noise from any component
>> at anytime.
>>
>>> You mentioned using a 7 sec. excerpt of a particular song, what
>>> happen if you listen much longer than that particularly next when you
>>> begin
>>> comparing amps or interconnects
>>
>> Well there are occasions when I am auditioning a piece of equipment and I
>> start listening with an investigative approach but find myself lost in
>> music for hours on end. :)
>>
>>> (of equal competents, of course.)?
>>
>> Did you components? Why should I test equal (same?) components? Besides,
>> if the make and/or model are different, I doubt any two component would
>> be equal.
>>
> Doubt all you want. The DBT's that have been done in the past show that
> properly functioning amps and CD players sound the same, when using only
> one's ears. That you doubt this is evidence that the charlatans and
> advertising people have found another pigeon.
>

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>>
> Doubt all you want. The DBT's that have been done in the past show that
> properly functioning amps and CD players sound the same, when using only
> one's ears.

An absolutely false statement. The DBT's in the past used someone
else's ears.

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > :
: > ...or take an Audio Quattro with spiked wheels...really works :-)
: > Rudy
: >
: >
:
: Is that an integrated system?
:
It's a tunable system .. take out the traction control .. well, it's still a fine
car..
.. on -> snow ??, what snow?? hehe
Rudy
on the road
sometimes

[JBorg]

>Ruud Broens" > wrote
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote > : >
> : > :
> : > ...or take an Audio Quattro with spiked wheels...really works :-)
> : > Rudy
> : >
> : >
> :
> : Is that an integrated system?
> :
> It's a tunable system .. take out the traction control .. well, it's still a
> fine
> car..
> .. on -> snow ??, what snow?? hehe
> Rudy
> on the road
> sometimes


I used to live in WA (2 yrs) where the snow would get up to knee
level. Three times on a busy winter days, I had my old beat up
car ( a Caddie) spun on me on a deserted intersection several
times. I felt like a helpless poodle inside. The more I did, the
worst it got. I haven't return since.

[Ruud Broens]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
om...
:
: >Ruud Broens" > wrote
: > "Clyde Slick" > wrote
: > : "Ruud Broens" > wrote > : >
: > : > :
: > : > ...or take an Audio Quattro with spiked wheels...really works :-)
: > : > Rudy
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > : Is that an integrated system?
: > :
: > It's a tunable system .. take out the traction control .. well, it's still a
: > fine
: > car..
: > .. on -> snow ??, what snow?? hehe
: > Rudy
: > on the road
: > sometimes
:
:
: I used to live in WA (2 yrs) where the snow would get up to knee
: level. Three times on a busy winter days, I had my old beat up
: car ( a Caddie) spun on me on a deserted intersection several
: times. I felt like a helpless poodle inside. The more I did, the
: worst it got. I haven't return since.
:
Parked in a 20 cm of snow/water sludge - that *is* a problem !
No traction at all, even the Audi would have problems, there :)
The solution in Sweden: go to the nearest bar, explain your problem,
3 or 4 guys will sit on the hood of your car (frontwheel drive)
....and away you go :)
arctic adv. inc,
Rudy

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part dos.
>>
>> Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part uno.
>>
>>
>> Fella uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing part tres.
>>
>
> Ok, the ****borg counts from one -> to -> three : he says : two .. one ..
> three! :)
>
> The ****borg wanted to show us his language skills. :) But the google
> copy-paste squence went wrong. :)
>
>>
>>>We'll see. :)
>>
>>
>> See what? Ya ain't said nuttin' yet, bozo!
>
> We'll see; Keep that gaping wIIIIde open asshole of yours gaping, stay
> tuned, that is, I'm gonna send you the same horse I sent to mickmickey
> down to his gloryhole post. :)

Delusions of granduer noted. BTW I just got my December issue of
Stereophile today and on page 41 is a picture of a Trad speaker using Scan
Speak woofers that look exactly like those in those second rate Sonus
Faber's you get such a bunny in your pants over. They also use the top of
the line Scan Speak ring radiator.

>
> Yea yea, I know, you will note something about now. Ok, noted. :)

I note you are ignorant and boastful about audio.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Dormer a écrit :
>> BTW I thought you were ****ting me about the JM Lab clones.. then I
>> discovered there *are* people out there cloning JM Labs! Was that for
>> real? Do you have any pics of it (in the nude preferably)?
>
> http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/

Now Lionel, you know the DIYer can't possibly recreate the design of a big
time speaker company like JM Lab or Sonus Faber. Fella told us so.

[Fella]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Fella > said:
>
>
>>I do admit that I have outlet problems, my system was in the big living
>>room before meshed with the HT system and I had recently extended a
>>grounded source to it but the little toddler we have grew up in the past
>>months and now is very much interested with everything that I touch,
>>etc, so we had to move the highend system to a back room away from the
>>little bugger and there is no grounded outlet there! In a way your were
>>right, (or was it some other poster) that instead of paying 2000 euros
>>for a transparet conditioner I should call in some electrician and have
>>him do something about the outlet in the hifi room. Might cost less,
>>though around these parts of the woods it is not a given.
>
>
> I made a dedicated group especially for audio.
> Made a remarkable difference. Sighted, not blind.
> You don't suppose I'm foolish enough to work on 230V Ac blindly?
>
> ;-)
>

When's the next time you are due in helsinkin finland? :)

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul Dormer a écrit :
>>> BTW I thought you were ****ting me about the JM Lab clones.. then I
>>> discovered there *are* people out there cloning JM Labs! Was that for
>>> real? Do you have any pics of it (in the nude preferably)?
>>
>> http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/
>
> Now Lionel, you know the DIYer can't possibly recreate the design of a big
> time speaker company like JM Lab or Sonus Faber. Fella told us so.

Perhaps hes hasn't spent enough time on DIYers' NGs.

I have copied a JMLab design : the "Daline"... But with 4 cheap chinese
drivers and 2 mid-priced Norwegian tweeters.
I will *never* pretend that they sound like the original but Scott LaFaro's
bass have nearly the timber of a real double-bass. :-D

Thank you Mr Mahul. ;-)

[JBorg]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>> I give it 24 hours till the Kroo**** starts flying.
>
>
> I'm 98% Fecal matter, note. I guess I'm about to explode Art, since its
> probably been at least 8 hours since they changed my Depends. ;-)



Get the **** outta here now !!

[Fella]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Paul Dormer a écrit :
>>
>>>BTW I thought you were ****ting me about the JM Lab clones.. then I
>>>discovered there *are* people out there cloning JM Labs! Was that for
>>>real? Do you have any pics of it (in the nude preferably)?
>>
>>http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/
>
>
> Now Lionel, you know the DIYer can't possibly recreate the design of a big
> time speaker company like JM Lab or Sonus Faber. Fella told us so.
>
>

And you eventually agreed. :) This was your first position, that a DIYer
*can* recreate an amati homage, for instance (big time LOL!). And then
you admitted that yourself that that it was not possible:

Taken for the thread: "Krueger's Attempt to Trash & Distort Legitimate
Posts" :

> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>> Besides, in the same thread you pollute: "I stand by my statement
that a
>> knowledgeable person could replicate the sound of SF." Yet AGAIN you
>> contradict yourself. You dumdum baffoon.

>So? You never thought about something and revised your position
slightly?"

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Paul Dormer a écrit :
>>>
>>>>BTW I thought you were ****ting me about the JM Lab clones.. then I
>>>>discovered there *are* people out there cloning JM Labs! Was that for
>>>>real? Do you have any pics of it (in the nude preferably)?
>>>
>>>http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/
>>
>>
>> Now Lionel, you know the DIYer can't possibly recreate the design of a
>> big time speaker company like JM Lab or Sonus Faber. Fella told us so.
>
> And you eventually agreed. :)

Not exactly. I was talking about one specific instance where the drivers
were propriatary.

This was your first position, that a DIYer
> *can* recreate an amati homage, for instance (big time LOL!).

Having seen Stereophile's reviews of some of the SF systems, it should not
be that hard to equal or exceed in some cases the designs of some big time
companies. It would take someone with better than average skill and better
than average test equipment.

And then
> you admitted that yourself that that it was not possible:
>
Due to one specific driver used in one of their designs.

> Taken for the thread: "Krueger's Attempt to Trash & Distort Legitimate
> Posts" :
>
> > Michael McKelvy wrote:
> >
> >
> >> "Fella" > wrote in message
> >> Besides, in the same thread you pollute: "I stand by my statement
> that a
> >> knowledgeable person could replicate the sound of SF." Yet AGAIN you
> >> contradict yourself. You dumdum baffoon.
>
> >So? You never thought about something and revised your position
> slightly?"
>
Inability to understand the word "slightly" noted.

The fact is, that there are DIY systems that equal or rival some of the best
systems from the companies that do not make their own drivers.

There are kits, that if the designs are done exactly as the designer
intended, can easily equal finished systems.

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m...
>
>> Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Whatever the reason, in terms of design, materials used, corners cut,
>>> priorities taken/given, etc, equipment will vary from one another.
>>
>> I agree with you. This is a consumer decision whether to purchase
>> a new cord to replace the stock cord. All that matters is if you hear a
>> difference you like, and if you think the price is worth it.
>
>
> Full point.
>
> With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
> would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.
The length is not really an issue, the extra circuit is. For the lengths
that are common for power cords, unless there is gross mismatch in gauge,
which is highly unlikely, then a few extra inches is not going to make any
difference.

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m...
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>> JBorg wrote
>>>> Clyde wrote
>>>>> "Fella wrote
>>
>>
>>>>> Whatever the reason, in terms of design, materials used, corners
>>>>> cut, priorities taken/given, etc, equipment will vary from one
>>>>> another.
>>
>>>> I agree with you. This is a consumer decision whether to purchase
>>>> a new cord to replace the stock cord. All that matters is if you
>>>> hear a difference you like, and if you think the price is worth it.
>>
>>> Full point.
>>
>> Full o'crap.
>>
>>> With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
>>> would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.
>>
>>
>> Art, Borg and Fella, one of two most important things that all three of
>> you bozos
>
>
> I was referring to the requirement if homestyle dbt is done for the cords.
> You are the one who always say that when in doubt, you have to dbt this
> and dbt that.
>
>> seem to show zero understanding of is the fact that power is not
>> distributed to the piece of equipment by just a power cord. Power comes
>> to the equipment via an integrated system stretching all the way back to
>> the power plant. Changing the last 4 or six feet of this system is like
>> spitting in the wind unless that last few feet is really horrific.
>>
>> The other thing you three zombies seem to show zero understanding of is
>> that resistance to various characteristics of the power system is a
>> feature of all audio gear, electronic equipment, and electrical
>> equipment. A piece of equipment that is adversely audibly affected by
>> small changes in the power system is a low quality piece of equipment.
>>
>> Most of the differences between a high end power cord and a regular power
>> cord are eyewash. Art, Borg and Fella are like race car drivers who
>> obsess over paint color as a means for improving handling. By wasting
>> their time and effort on this trivia, they miss out on making substantial
>> changes that might actually improve sound quality.
>
>
> Fortunately, this is not about what your eyes see like you think it
> should. It's
> about what your ears hear. I never bought cables or inteconnects because
> of
> their looks (or brand).
>
>
Then the objections of those who don't like doing comparisons where they
can't see what the DUT is are invalid. All you need is your ears.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net

> Then the objections of those who don't like doing comparisons where
> they can't see what the DUT is are invalid. All you need is your
> ears.

Here's how these *normals* work.

First they say that its all about listening and listening pleasure.

So we suggest they do tests based on just listening.

Then they tell us that just listening is very unnatural and uncomfortable to
them.

But, didn't they just say that its all about listening and listening
pleasure?

Go figure!

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>
>>Then the objections of those who don't like doing comparisons where
>>they can't see what the DUT is are invalid. All you need is your
>>ears.
>
>
> Here's how these *normals* work.
>
> First they say that its all about listening and listening pleasure.
>
> So we suggest they do tests based on just listening.
>
> Then they tell us that just listening is very unnatural and uncomfortable to
> them.
>
> But, didn't they just say that its all about listening and listening
> pleasure?
>
> Go figure!
>
>

So how does the borg logic work then, ****borg? I test two power cords:
"Noooooooooo fellaaaaaa, they must have same gauge, same length, same
coloooooooooor, same design, no circuits, you should know that by now
fellaaaaaaaa, yer test is invaaalid fellaaaa" :) Same with speaker
cables. :) Amps. :)

Anyways, during the dbt test with power cords I noticed that the act of
participating in such a test is a source of anxiety, stresssssss. That's
what you are trying to twist about the observation of the "normals". In
fact the stress factor is alone is a sufficient factor to negate the
results of any testing with sensitive people. I am doing these tests to
see if I can beat some people at their own game (more on this later :) )
but I would never base my decision of purchase on such tests, the
pleasure factor is much more important.

Now mcmickey, the one who reads about sonus faber in stereophile reviews
and on this information alone condemns the brand as "second rate" will
of course agree with you. But that doesn't add anything positive to your
cockroach credibility.

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>Parked in a 20 cm of snow/water sludge - that *is* a problem !
>No traction at all, even the Audi would have problems, there :)
>The solution in Sweden: go to the nearest bar, explain your problem,
>3 or 4 guys will sit on the hood of your car (frontwheel drive)
>...and away you go :)
>arctic adv. inc,

Solution in Scotland: go to the nearest pub, explain your problem,
prepare for homeric laughter, and have some with the lads until the
wee hours.

Problem solved (at least temporarily)

;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:

>> I made a dedicated group especially for audio.
>> Made a remarkable difference. Sighted, not blind.
>> You don't suppose I'm foolish enough to work on 230V Ac blindly?

>When's the next time you are due in helsinkin finland? :)

I hope never, but I can send you a schematic (=:>

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Fella]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Fella > said:
>
>
>>>I made a dedicated group especially for audio.
>>>Made a remarkable difference. Sighted, not blind.
>>>You don't suppose I'm foolish enough to work on 230V Ac blindly?
>
>
>>When's the next time you are due in helsinkin finland? :)
>
>
> I hope never,


Why do you say that? At certain (though unpredictable) windows in time
helsinki and finland in general is quite beautiful. It is so that this
place has an untouched, clean sort of a beauty of its own. I have been
to so many places in the world and have found that almost every place
has it's own flavours, colors, tastes to intake and learn to appreciate.

> but I can send you a schematic (=:>
>

Please do so if you have something ready. Here is the email:
.. For now. Thank you very many in advance! :)

Just as a reminder: The outlet I am forced to use is not grounded. In
fact, the speakers have this electrical buzz coming from them (that does
not increase or decrease with volume at all) because of this. And
touching the amp or cd player always gives one a snap! These were solved
in the big room but it is not practical for me to extend any of the
grounded outlets all the way to this room.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> Then the objections of those who don't like doing comparisons where
>> they can't see what the DUT is are invalid. All you need is your
>> ears.

>Here's how these *normals* work.

>First they say that its all about listening and listening pleasure.

If I may speak for the so-called "normals" :
That's correct.
Listening to music is a pastime, for pleasure indeed.
Add a glass of wine/beer/cognac/Jolt Cola.

>So we suggest they do tests based on just listening.

"We"??

In my lab, I do tests.
In my living room, I listen for pleasure.

Get the difference?

>Then they tell us that just listening is very unnatural and uncomfortable to
>them.

No, doing DBTs is very unnatural and uncomfortable.
Do you listen with an ABX box in your hand to sound snippets, jotting
down the results, for pleasure?

Oh well, I guess you do.

>But, didn't they just say that its all about listening and listening
>pleasure?

Yep. Don't see any contradiction here.

Listening is not "doing tests based on listening" .

>Go figure!

Couldn't have said it any better myself. ;-)


--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:

>>>When's the next time you are due in helsinkin finland? :)

>> I hope never,

>Why do you say that?

I don't like to travel and I don't like snow.
Watching pictures from others that went there on holidayis enough
excitement for me ;-)

Finland *is* beautiful, I agree.


> > but I can send you a schematic (=:>

>Please do so if you have something ready. Here is the email:
.. For now. Thank you very many in advance! :)

That was actually a joke.
A schematic for a dedicated audio power line is exactly the same as
for any other power line.
Find a good electrician (they must be around, even in Finland *grin*
), and ask him to do it.
Make sure he uses the right cabling (we call it "VMVK" cable, a
shielded ground cable with grey insulation), and make sure the socket
is connected to ground.
If he's any good at this, you'll end up with the same thing I did.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>> Couldn't have said it any better myself. ;-)

>Maybe you couldn't, but being a Normal, you would have flushed afterward.

Isn't the ";-)" the international symbol for flushing then?

>;-) <== This is for Krooger, who is no doubt weeping at the thought of
>all that wasted food.

I think not, he has too mUcH "fun ;-)", LoT;'S !

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Michael McKelvy]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> Then the objections of those who don't like doing comparisons where
>>> they can't see what the DUT is are invalid. All you need is your
>>> ears.
>
>>Here's how these *normals* work.
>
>>First they say that its all about listening and listening pleasure.
>
> If I may speak for the so-called "normals" :
> That's correct.
> Listening to music is a pastime, for pleasure indeed.
> Add a glass of wine/beer/cognac/Jolt Cola.
>
>>So we suggest they do tests based on just listening.
>
> "We"??
>
Those of who think that listening comparisons ought to be as bias free as
possible.

> In my lab, I do tests.
> In my living room, I listen for pleasure.
>
> Get the difference?
>
Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
differences.

>>Then they tell us that just listening is very unnatural and uncomfortable
>>to
>>them.
>
> No, doing DBTs is very unnatural and uncomfortable.
> Do you listen with an ABX box in your hand to sound snippets, jotting
> down the results, for pleasure?
>
Only when trying to determine subtle differences.

>
>>But, didn't they just say that its all about listening and listening
>>pleasure?
>
> Yep. Don't see any contradiction here.
>
> Listening is not "doing tests based on listening" .
>
Comparisons are though.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Paul Dormer" > wrote in message
...
> "Fella" emitted :
>
>>We did a double-blind test on audioquest 3.3 ac power cord attached to
>>the densen amp as against a stock power cord, just yesterday evening. I
>>was the test subject. A friend helped.
>>
>>While I was away from the hifi room the friend changed, or not, the cord
>>employed (all during the amp volume was not touched, the amp is always
>>on a ready to use state, the only on-off switch with it is in the back)
>>and wrote what he did to his paper, as in, 1: AQ käytössä (finnish for
>>"AQ in use") He then leaved the room and went to the adjacent room,
>>closed the door. We had agreed that he makes always sounds of plugging
>>and unplugging from wall outlet regardles of changing or not. Also, he
>>takes exactly one minute to do so, then leaves the room. I never saw his
>>face all during the test (lest I sense what he did :) ) I came over from
>>the living room to the hifi room and pressed play (the number 7 on the
>>remote to be exact). I could not see the outlet or the cord in between
>>because we covered it all up with the gigantic pillows from the living
>>room couch (yes yes, I have an understanding wife :) ) ...
>>
>>Now what the AQ power cord does to the densen is that it makes it a
>>rock-n-roll jukebox bass thumping and pumping machine, as opposed to it
>>being this fluid, sweet midrange romantic type of amp otherwise. So for
>>all practical purposes my friend could have left the light on in the
>>room, or off, and I was to determine that. :)
>>
>>We did the experiment 15 times, I new all without a mistake.
>
> I believe you... a million (well... three or four) Borgs wouldn't.
>

I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was because of
a power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly flawed or the
circuit on the other one made a differnce.

> I recently asked Nousaine to give me a example of the practical worth
> of double blind tests by asking him which of three nominated
> amplifiers would work best with my speakers (a DBT is impractical for
> me to do myself). Seeing as he is such a font of knowledge, I expected
> a snappy answer... he vamoosed as quickly as you can say "****in'
> coward!!"
>
> A few days ago, I again asked about an amplifier to use with my
> speakers.. the Marantz PM7200 to be specific. The retarded ABX
> contingent once again had naff all productive things to say, busy as
> they were discussing their fecal obsessions etc, proving once again
> the lack of *practical* worth of these supposed "tests". Where are the
> results when you need them?
>

Inability to use your own means to conduct what is a fairly easy comparison,
noted.

> Anyway.. the Marantz is technically a very good amp, it should sound
> identical to the similarly competent Audiolab 8000A it was replacing
> ... right?? Wrong. The Marantz sounds completely different. Suddenly
> I'm rewarded with prodigious amounts of (not the tightest) bass. That
> I did not expect. I didn't know these JM Labs were capable of going so
> low. And playing the remastered "On Land" by Brian Eno... with the
> Audiolab you can hear the tape tracks 'unfolding' into the mix on the
> first cut. With the Marantz that detail is severely diminished.
>

Were the levels matched?
How do the frequency responses compare?

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >Parked in a 20 cm of snow/water sludge - that *is* a problem !
: >No traction at all, even the Audi would have problems, there :)
: >The solution in Sweden: go to the nearest bar, explain your problem,
: >3 or 4 guys will sit on the hood of your car (frontwheel drive)
: >...and away you go :)
: >arctic adv. inc,
:
: Solution in Scotland: go to the nearest pub, explain your problem,
: prepare for homeric laughter, and have some with the lads until the
: wee hours.
:
: Problem solved (at least temporarily)
:
: ;-)
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Yeah, Audio Q, just like that, eh, the Pinkerton tales :)
cfs
Rudy

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> Then the objections of those who don't like doing comparisons where
>>> they can't see what the DUT is are invalid. All you need is your
>>> ears.
>
>> Here's how these *normals* work.
>
>> First they say that its all about listening and listening pleasure.
>> So we suggest they do tests based on just listening.

> "We"??

Inability to perceive popular support for reliable listening tests noted.

> In my lab, I do tests.

Nahh, you just fiddle.

> In my living room, I listen for pleasure.

Inability to make a room serve more than one purpose noted.

> Get the difference?

Your lack of ability to do simple things is well known, Sander.

>> Then they tell us that just listening is very unnatural and
>> uncomfortable to them.

> No, doing DBTs is very unnatural and uncomfortable.

Right, because you fear they tell you things you don't want to know.

> Do you listen with an ABX box in your hand to sound snippets, jotting
> down the results, for pleasure?

Inability to perceive how PCABX works despite free software downloads noted.

> Oh well, I guess you do.

Sander, I get great pleasure from finding out reliable information. If it
means that I have to do some tests that are a little work, so be it.

>> But, didn't they just say that its all about listening and listening
>> pleasure?

> Yep. Don't see any contradiction here.

That's because you are congenitally unable to think deeply, Sander.

> Listening is not "doing tests based on listening" .

Seeing isn't the same thing as doing tests based on seeing, either.
Obviously Sander, you can't figure out the reason for that, either.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>>In my living room, I listen for pleasure.
>
>
> Inability to make a room serve more than one purpose noted.


Seriously now, do you really expect to get anywhere with this kind of
bull****?

>
>
> Sander, I get great pleasure from finding out reliable information.


The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they
impose upon humans.

Krueger, seems you have dedicated your life to this borg cause, but you
will NEVER accomplish anything. It is way too obvious from your
noted-noted-noted crap stupidity, from your disorganized, malfunctional,
neglected and UGLY website, from your anti-social hate mongering
attitude and from your irrelevant approach to the subject matter at hand
in the first place. You are a bitter, dull, dumb borg, a ****borg, and
you will always be that. Sad.

[Lionel]

Paul Dormer wrote:

> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
>>>> BTW I thought you were ****ting me about the JM Lab clones.. then I
>>>> discovered there *are* people out there cloning JM Labs! Was that for
>>>> real? Do you have any pics of it (in the nude preferably)?
>>>
>>> http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/
>>
>>Now Lionel, you know the DIYer can't possibly recreate the design of a big
>>time speaker company like JM Lab or Sonus Faber. Fella told us so.
>
> Assuming you had the Focal JM Lab designs in your hands including
> crossover, can you buy the matched W-sandwich drivers and inverted
> tweeters (Be and regular flavour) required to build them?

Yes it was possible up to this summer when JMLab stopped to supply DIY
market (like other famous manufacturers : Audax, Cabasse, Dynaudio...) :-(

[Fella]

Paul Dormer wrote:

> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
>
>>>>BTW I thought you were ****ting me about the JM Lab clones.. then I
>>>>discovered there *are* people out there cloning JM Labs! Was that for
>>>>real? Do you have any pics of it (in the nude preferably)?
>>>
>>>http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/
>>
>>Now Lionel, you know the DIYer can't possibly recreate the design of a big
>>time speaker company like JM Lab or Sonus Faber. Fella told us so.
>
>
> Assuming you had the Focal JM Lab designs in your hands including
> crossover, can you buy the matched W-sandwich drivers and inverted
> tweeters (Be and regular flavour) required to build them?


I'll answer that for mcmickey: Yes, exact copies can be built. No
problem. Even better speakers can be built. No sweat.


>
>
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
> -----------------------------------
> It's Grim down south..

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>>> In my living room, I listen for pleasure.

>> Inability to make a room serve more than one purpose noted.

> Seriously now, do you really expect to get anywhere with this kind of
> bull****?

It points out how rigid you *normals* seem to be.

Sander has explicitly claimed that a listening test can never be done in a
living room.

This is of course totally ludicrous. More than half of all the ABX tests
I've participated in were done in living rooms.

>> Sander, I get great pleasure from finding out reliable information.

> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they
> impose upon humans.

Inability to notice that any listening test introduces a similar or
identical stress factor noted.

> Krueger, seems you have dedicated your life to this borg cause, but
> you will NEVER accomplish anything.

Except of course I have already accomplished a great deal.

>It is way too obvious from your
> noted-noted-noted crap stupidity, from your disorganized,
> malfunctional, neglected and UGLY website,

I never promised you a rose garden, Fella. BTW where can we see your
exquisitely beautiful personal web site(s)?

> from your anti-social hate mongering attitude

That's something that you perceive all by your sweet little self, Fella.

Let's talk about your disgusting behavior Fella, such as your inabiltiy to
express yourself without gratuitous profanity.

> and from your irrelevant approach to the subject matter at hand in the
> first place.

Just because you can't see obvious connections Fella, isn't my problem.

> You are a bitter, dull, dumb borg,

Fella, you are a childish and profane name-caller who has obviously
exhausted his mental capacity long ago.

> a ****borg, and you will always be that. Sad.

Your own words condemn you, Fella.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>In my living room, I listen for pleasure.
>
>
>>>Inability to make a room serve more than one purpose noted.
>
>
>>Seriously now, do you really expect to get anywhere with this kind of
>>bull****?
>
>
> It points out how rigid you *normals* seem to be.
>
> Sander has explicitly claimed that a listening test can never be done in a
> living room.
>
> This is of course totally ludicrous. More than half of all the ABX tests
> I've participated in were done in living rooms.
>
>
>>>Sander, I get great pleasure from finding out reliable information.
>
>
>>The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they
>>impose upon humans.
>
>
> Inability to notice that any listening test introduces a similar or
> identical stress factor noted.


When I was choosing my current amp I listened and tested 4 other makes.
Primare, krell, etc. I auditioned them for weeks and listened to them
casually, without any "test" in mind. It was only with the densen that I
started digging into the cd collection with "wonder how *this* sounds
with it!" kind of a *positive* excitement in mind. Again, no stress
whatsoever.

Try it sometimes, you might get an understanding of what recreational
home audiophile type of hobbying is all about.

>
>
>
> Fella, you are a childish and profane name-caller

If I call you a ****borg it's because you are a ****borg, that you are a
****borg is not my fault. You were a ****borg even before I was born, it
seems. So, if you are butt-ugly, don't go acusing the mirror, try to
shape up. In other words, don't shoot the messenger.

> who has obviously
> exhausted his mental capacity long ago.
>

Ok, shall I start taking notes too? :)


And forget that debating trade ****e, it's all so obvious. You are
digging even deeper then cockroach credibility here. Shape up, a 60 year
old senile oldfart like you.. Your biggest accomplishment is that pcabx
website. You call yourself a computer consultant word has it. Yet you
don't even have the basic functionality of server-side-includes in that
stinking website of yours where copyrights are one saying 2001, the
other 2003, etc, for example. These are basic, elementary things, and
cutting pasting google based knowledge does nothing to cover them up.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sander deWaal said:
>
>> >> Couldn't have said it any better myself. ;-)
>>
>> >Maybe you couldn't, but being a Normal, you would have flushed
>> >afterward.
>>
>> Isn't the ";-)" the international symbol for flushing then?
>
> Current theory connotes a different activity, at least within the Hive.
>
>
>> >;-) <== This is for Krooger, who is no doubt weeping at the thought of
>> >all that wasted food.
>>
>> I think not, he has too mUcH "fun ;-)", LoT;'S !
>
> Yes, but isn't Krooger RAO's numero uno masochist? He enjoys being
> miserable.
>

and his misery is robust!

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>

>> In my living room, I listen for pleasure.
>
> Inability to make a room serve more than one purpose noted.
>

Arny's main listening room is his bathroom. It is also his recording
studio, where he records a chorus of flushes.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message


> Yes, but isn't Krooger RAO's numero uno masochist? He enjoys being
> miserable.

Middius, you've been so fearful of me that you had me killfiled for weeks if
not months. And, you're so afraid of being sued for libel that won't spell
my name properly.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message
ne
> Your biggest accomplishment is that pcabx website.

Delusions of omniscience noted. www.pcabx.com is just a hobby of mine.

>You call yourself a computer consultant word has
> it. Yet you don't even have the basic functionality of
> server-side-includes in that stinking website of yours where
> copyrights are one saying 2001, the other 2003, etc, for example.

I properly manually update the copyright date list to correspond to the
actual years in which I have updated each page.

Thanks for not noticing the automated means I use to upate the date of last
update, Fella. Some web page authoring egggsphert you are!

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
> ne
>
>> Your biggest accomplishment is that pcabx website.
>
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted. www.pcabx.com is just a hobby of mine.
>

Yea, pcavtech is even worse. Though I must admit, it *does* take some
talent to achieve an even worse site then the first.

>
>>You call yourself a computer consultant word has
>>it. Yet you don't even have the basic functionality of
>>server-side-includes in that stinking website of yours where
>>copyrights are one saying 2001, the other 2003, etc, for example.
>
>
> I properly manually update the copyright date list to correspond to the
> actual years in which I have updated each page.

As usual, you are lying.

At page: http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

you say:

"This page was created on 06/25/2000.

This page was last updated on 05/03/2002 .

(c) Copyright 2000 Arnold B. Krueger, All rights reserved"


Run along now, chop chop, do some manual notepad html work. :) You can
deny later. You kompuuvtah konsahltaant you. :)

Besides, copyrighting must be for the ongoing year, it is not
professional at all to say that "I copyright my content for the year I
created them." Kafka, for instance, wrote his stuff ages ago, but it is
copyrighted even for today, etc, what am I doing, a senile old fart
lying nutjob like you wouldn't understand professionalism if it hit you
in the head.


>
> Thanks for not noticing the automated means I use to upate the date of last
> update, Fella.


You are a lying, senile, old, hopeless fart ****borg. You will *never*
amount to anything else.

> Some web page authoring egggsphert you are!
>


Yeah, I am not the expert, you seem to be.

http://www.pcabx.com/

Nuff said. :)

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>
>
>snip
>
>
>
>>> Most of the differences between a high end power cord and a regular power cord
>>> are eyewash. Art, Borg and Fella are like race car drivers who obsess over
>>> paint color as a means for improving handling. By wasting their time and
>>> effort on this trivia, they miss out on making substantial changes that might
>>> actually improve sound quality.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately, this is not about what your eyes see like you think it should.
>> It's about what your ears hear. I never bought cables or inteconnects because
>> of their looks (or brand).
>
>
>
> Then the objections of those who don't like doing comparisons where they can't
> see what the DUT is are invalid. All you need is your ears.



I am talking about my decision in buying cables & wires base on what my
ears had heard.

You are talkin about the validity of the complaint of what the eyes won't
see when comparing components in a test.

Please help me.

[JBorg]

Michael McKelvy wrote


> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
> differences.




If a 200 lbs iron fell from the sky and landed on your head while looking
under the bed






<if your listening for pleasure, why would you look for...>

[JBorg]

> Fella wrote:



> If I call you a ****borg it's because you are a ****borg, that you are a
> ****borg is not my fault. You were a ****borg even before I was born, it seems.
> So, if you are butt-ugly, don't go acusing the mirror, try to shape up. In other
> words, don't shoot the messenger.




He don't trust mirrors.

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>
>
>
>
>> With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
>> would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.
>
>
> The length is not really an issue, the extra circuit is. For the lengths that
> are common for power cords, unless there is gross mismatch in gauge, which is
> highly unlikely, then a few extra inches is not going to make any difference.


Allright.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net


> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
> differences.

Well, its a kind of conundrum. Listening for pleasure tends to be
non-critical of the detailed aspects of sound quality.

In some sense, if you start listening critically, you stop listening for
just pleasure. You start listening for subtle aspects of sound quality.

What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and all
of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back and
listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:47:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net
>
>
>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>> differences.
>
>Well, its a kind of conundrum. Listening for pleasure tends to be
>non-critical of the detailed aspects of sound quality.
>
>In some sense, if you start listening critically, you stop listening for
>just pleasure. You start listening for subtle aspects of sound quality.
>
>What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and all
>of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back and
>listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.

This is a sensible set of statements.

[Sander deWaal]

"Michael McKelvy" > said:

>>>First they say that its all about listening and listening pleasure.

>> If I may speak for the so-called "normals" :
>> That's correct.
>> Listening to music is a pastime, for pleasure indeed.
>> Add a glass of wine/beer/cognac/Jolt Cola.

>>>So we suggest they do tests based on just listening.

>> "We"??

>Those of who think that listening comparisons ought to be as bias free as
>possible.


Agreed.
I don't believe in listening comparisons per se.
Just keep a certain component connected for a longer period of time
and listen for and with pleasure.
After some time, if there are readily discernable audible artifacts,
you'll notice them.

It is exactly as Fella said: with certain components you feel the urge
to keep on feeding your player with CDs for hours and hours to come.
Leaning backwards and enjoying the music, the emotion it brings you.


Even Arny admitted to this:
>What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and all
>of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back and
>listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.


This is exactly how I do my listening.
No tests, no stress.


>> In my lab, I do tests.
>> In my living room, I listen for pleasure.

>> Get the difference?

>Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>differences.


I don't agree.
And even if differences detected via casual listening are unreliable,
because they might be caused by other things than just technical
reasons, who cares?
As long as the DUT is preferred sighted, that's all that matters.
At least to me.


>> No, doing DBTs is very unnatural and uncomfortable.
>> Do you listen with an ABX box in your hand to sound snippets, jotting
>> down the results, for pleasure?

>Only when trying to determine subtle differences.


There's no *need* to do that to determine subtle differences.
Just listening is enough. No need for tests.


>> Listening is not "doing tests based on listening" .


>Comparisons are though.


They can be, that's why I don't compare.
I build something, put it in the room and listen to it for a longer
period of time, in various moods, with various temperatures and
humidity levels.

Then, and only then, I decide whether a certain component or change in
design has the desirable effect.

Perhaps ABX-ing would yield a quicker and more reliable result. Soit.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> In my lab, I do tests.

>Nahh, you just fiddle.


OK, you're right.
But I'm having fun with it.


>> In my living room, I listen for pleasure.

>Inability to make a room serve more than one purpose noted.


A stroke? Is this my fault?
If so, I'm very sorry Arnold.
I hope you'll recover quickly.


>Your lack of ability to do simple things is well known, Sander.


Au contraire, mon premier Borg.
I prefer to keep and do things as simple as possible, but no simpler.


>>> Then they tell us that just listening is very unnatural and
>>> uncomfortable to them.

>> No, doing DBTs is very unnatural and uncomfortable.

>Right, because you fear they tell you things you don't want to know.


As you probably know, I'm a very patient person.
I'll explain it one more time.

DBTs are unnatural and unconfortable because they don't resemble my
normal listening habits in any way.

It was a certain Arnold B. Krueger who said earlier today:
>What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and all
>of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back and
>listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.

That's exactly how it goes. So you *do* get the point, after all ;-)


>> Do you listen with an ABX box in your hand to sound snippets, jotting
>> down the results, for pleasure?

>Inability to perceive how PCABX works despite free software downloads noted.


There's tons of free software around that I don't need.
I know *exactly* how ABX and PCABX works.
Just like I know *exactly* how a combine harvester works.
Doesn't mean I have any need for it ;-)


>> Oh well, I guess you do.

>Sander, I get great pleasure from finding out reliable information. If it
>means that I have to do some tests that are a little work, so be it.


Good for you. My methods are different.
It would look good on you if you respected that fact.
Go read McKelvy's post in this very thread and my response to that in
order to learn how adults discuss things.


>>> But, didn't they just say that its all about listening and listening
>>> pleasure?

>> Yep. Don't see any contradiction here.

>That's because you are congenitally unable to think deeply, Sander.


If you say so, Arnold.
BTW gratuitous personal attack noted.


>> Listening is not "doing tests based on listening" .

>Seeing isn't the same thing as doing tests based on seeing, either.
>Obviously Sander, you can't figure out the reason for that, either.


Unability to discern between hearing and seeing, noted.

Earlier, a certain Arnold B. Krueger said:
>> First they say that its all about listening and listening pleasure.
>> So we suggest they do tests based on just listening.

Can we assume that he meant "listening isn't the same as doing tests
based on listening"?

If he did so, we agree.
If he didn't, he's contradicting himself in the above.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> Your biggest accomplishment is that pcabx website.

>Delusions of omniscience noted. www.pcabx.com is just a hobby of mine.


Enjoy!

Just like tube audio and audio in general is just a hobby of mine.
Old Citroens is another.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Well, its a kind of conundrum. Listening for pleasure tends to be
>non-critical of the detailed aspects of sound quality.


Not really.
In the last paragraph below, you explain yourself why it is not.


>In some sense, if you start listening critically, you stop listening for
>just pleasure. You start listening for subtle aspects of sound quality.


In the paragraph below, you explain yourself why it is not.
Listening critically and listening for pleasure isn't mutually
exclusive (IMHO, of course).


>What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and all
>of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back and
>listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.


I entirely agree with this.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[JBorg]

Michael McKelvy wrote


> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
> differences.



Could you give just one example how you ascertain that listening
for pleasure is going to be an unreliable way to determine subtle
differences. Thanks.

[JBorg]

> Ruud Broens wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>
>
>
> :
> : I used to live in WA (2 yrs) where the snow would get up to knee
> : level. Three times on a busy winter days, I had my old beat up
> : car ( a Caddie) spun on me on a deserted intersection several
> : times. I felt like a helpless poodle inside. The more I did, the
> : worst it got. I haven't return since.


Hi Ruud, I should have said that the more I tried to control the car,
the worst it really got. I never did get the hang of driving in the snow
with traction and all, and even after the car went out of control on
me 3 times. Luckily nobody got hurt


> Parked in a 20 cm of snow/water sludge - that *is* a problem !
> No traction at all, even the Audi would have problems, there :)
> The solution in Sweden: go to the nearest bar, explain your problem,
> 3 or 4 guys will sit on the hood of your car (frontwheel drive)
> ...and away you go :)
> arctic adv. inc,
> Rudy


I'm not famiar with snowy condition anymore but that's a good idea.

[Lionel]

JBorg wrote:

>
>> Ruud Broens wrote
>>> JBorg wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> :
>> : I used to live in WA (2 yrs) where the snow would get up to knee
>> : level. Three times on a busy winter days, I had my old beat up
>> : car ( a Caddie) spun on me on a deserted intersection several
>> : times. I felt like a helpless poodle inside. The more I did, the
>> : worst it got. I haven't return since.
>
>
> Hi Ruud, I should have said that the more I tried to control the car,
> the worst it really got. I never did get the hang of driving in the snow
> with traction and all, and even after the car went out of control on
> me 3 times. Luckily nobody got hurt
>
>
>> Parked in a 20 cm of snow/water sludge - that *is* a problem !
>> No traction at all, even the Audi would have problems, there :)
>> The solution in Sweden: go to the nearest bar, explain your problem,
>> 3 or 4 guys will sit on the hood of your car (frontwheel drive)
>> ...and away you go :)
>> arctic adv. inc,
>> Rudy
>
>
> I'm not famiar with snowy condition anymore but that's a good idea.


I know some places where Rudy's method is more expensive than to call a for
a serviceman ! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Michael McKelvy" > said:
>
>>>> First they say that its all about listening and listening pleasure.

>>> If I may speak for the so-called "normals" :
>>> That's correct.
>>> Listening to music is a pastime, for pleasure indeed.
>>> Add a glass of wine/beer/cognac/Jolt Cola.

Listening to music can also be a means for improving sound quality.

>>>> So we suggest they do tests based on just listening.

>>> "We"??

>> Those of who think that listening comparisons ought to be as bias
>> free as possible.

> Agreed.

Interestingly enough Sander you seem to have missed the part where you might
also want your listening tests to be a sensitive as possible.

I want my listening tests to be as sensitive and reliable as possible. I
consider bias to be something that reduces reliability.

> I don't believe in listening comparisons per se.
> Just keep a certain component connected for a longer period of time
> and listen for and with pleasure.

> After some time, if there are readily discernable audible artifacts,
> you'll notice them.

But, there's also the subtle differences that can't be heard so easily.

> It is exactly as Fella said: with certain components you feel the urge
> to keep on feeding your player with CDs for hours and hours to come.
> Leaning backwards and enjoying the music, the emotion it brings you.

I'm sorry that you listen to so much crappy gear, Sander. It isn't
*certain* components that make me want to keep loading music. Among the
equipment that I choose, its a rare situation where I don't want to keep
playing more music.

> Even Arny admitted to this:

>> What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure
>> and all of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I
>> go back and listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible
>> flaw.

I would class this as a very real-world experience, but one that is both
unreliable and less than optimially sensitiive.

> This is exactly how I do my listening.

That means that you are not experiencing the best possible reliability and
sensitivity. Given how bigoted the *normals* are against alternative means,
this means that it is unlikely they have ever heard small differences like
many ABX-ers have.

> No tests, no stress.

Stress isn't the end of life. Far from it. Most of the best human
achievements have been accomplished by people who were under stress.

>>> In my lab, I do tests.
>>> In my living room, I listen for pleasure.

>>> Get the difference?

>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>> differences.

> I don't agree.

Based on your statements Sander, it seems that you've never actually had a
highly sensitive, reliable listening experience. You're like a runner who
has never given the race his all.

> And even if differences detected via casual listening are unreliable,
> because they might be caused by other things than just technical
> reasons, who cares?

A technical problem that is resolved this way has lasting benefits, benefits
that can have benefits for a larger group of people.

> As long as the DUT is preferred sighted, that's all that matters.
> At least to me.

OK Sander, if you want to be happy with less than the best, so be it.

>>> No, doing DBTs is very unnatural and uncomfortable.
>>> Do you listen with an ABX box in your hand to sound snippets,
>>> jotting down the results, for pleasure?

>> Only when trying to determine subtle differences.

> There's no *need* to do that to determine subtle differences.

The alternative is to not determine subtle differences.

> Just listening is enough. No need for tests.

OK Sander, if you want to be happy with less than the best, so be it.

>>> Listening is not "doing tests based on listening" .

>> Comparisons are tough.

> They can be, that's why I don't compare.

OK Sander, if you want to be happy with less than the best, so be it.

> I build something, put it in the room and listen to it for a longer
> period of time, in various moods, with various temperatures and
> humidity levels.

> Then, and only then, I decide whether a certain component or change in
> design has the desirable effect.

If you use structured listening techniques you can get the answers you want
about sound quality in less time and with less total effort.

> Perhaps ABX-ing would yield a quicker and more reliable result.

For sure. But fine Sander, if you want to be happy with less than the best,
so be it.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
. com

> Hi Ruud, I should have said that the more I tried to control the car,
> the worst it really got. I never did get the hang of driving in the
> snow with traction and all, and even after the car went out of
> control on me 3 times. Luckily nobody got hurt

Borg if lived where I do in Michigan, you'd probably already be dead for
years.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>> If I may speak for the so-called "normals" :
>>>> That's correct.
>>>> Listening to music is a pastime, for pleasure indeed.
>>>> Add a glass of wine/beer/cognac/Jolt Cola.

>Listening to music can also be a means for improving sound quality.


It improves my quality of life. YMMV.


>I want my listening tests to be as sensitive and reliable as possible. I
>consider bias to be something that reduces reliability.


That's your prerogative.
I do things my way.


>> After some time, if there are readily discernable audible artifacts,
>> you'll notice them.

>But, there's also the subtle differences that can't be heard so easily.


If they're too subtle to be heard in a time span of say a month, I
don't worry about them.


>I'm sorry that you listen to so much crappy gear, Sander. It isn't
>*certain* components that make me want to keep loading music. Among the
>equipment that I choose, its a rare situation where I don't want to keep
>playing more music.


Don't feel sorry for me, Arnold.
I'm as happy as I can be, especially right now (playing Weather Report
and lying in bed with the laptop) ;-)


>> No tests, no stress.


No nuts, no glory.


>Stress isn't the end of life. Far from it. Most of the best human
>achievements have been accomplished by people who were under stress.


I prefer not to have any at home, thank you.


>A technical problem that is resolved this way has lasting benefits, benefits
>that can have benefits for a larger group of people.


Funny you mention that.
I've made and sold some amplifiers in the past, so far I haven't had
any complaints.
Must be all "normals" ;-)

<snip repetitive comments in which Arny shows his unability to
understand how most of the world listens and selects its components>


--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
. com...
> Michael McKelvy wrote
>
>
>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>> differences.
>
>
>
> Could you give just one example how you ascertain that listening
> for pleasure is going to be an unreliable way to determine subtle
> differences. Thanks.
>
>
>
Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources, you can't
make any sort of comparison. I f you listen for pleasure, one assumes you
are listening to the music and not the system performance, at least that's
what I do.

If you want to check for subtle difference, you need something to compare,
and you need to switch quickly to something that is level matched.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>
>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>> differences.
>
> Well, its a kind of conundrum. Listening for pleasure tends to be
> non-critical of the detailed aspects of sound quality.
>
> In some sense, if you start listening critically, you stop listening for
> just pleasure. You start listening for subtle aspects of sound quality.
>
> What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and
> all of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back
> and listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.
>
Exactly.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "JBorg" > wrote in message
: . com
:
: > Hi Ruud, I should have said that the more I tried to control the car,
: > the worst it really got. I never did get the hang of driving in the
: > snow with traction and all, and even after the car went out of
: > control on me 3 times. Luckily nobody got hurt
:
: Borg if lived where I do in Michigan, you'd probably already be dead for
: years.
:
....more goodness of Arny Krueger

...counting..

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "JBorg" > wrote in message
>> . com
>>
>>> Hi Ruud, I should have said that the more I tried to control the
>>> car, the worst it really got. I never did get the hang of driving
>>> in the snow with traction and all, and even after the car went out
>>> of control on me 3 times. Luckily nobody got hurt
>>
>> Borg if lived where I do in Michigan, you'd probably already be dead
>> for years.
>>
> ...more goodness of Arny Krueger

Merely friendly advice, Rudy. For a person with your driving skills (not!!)
Michigan could be a bad place to live.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >> "JBorg" > wrote in message
: >> . com
: >>
: >>> Hi Ruud, I should have said that the more I tried to control the
: >>> car, the worst it really got. I never did get the hang of driving
: >>> in the snow with traction and all, and even after the car went out
: >>> of control on me 3 times. Luckily nobody got hurt
: >>
: >> Borg if lived where I do in Michigan, you'd probably already be dead
: >> for years.
: >>
: > ...more goodness of Arny Krueger
:
: Merely friendly advice, Rudy. For a person with your driving skills (not!!)
: Michigan could be a bad place to live.
:
This could be fun!! Arny, can you arrange some souped up subaru impreza
rallycars, let's see if ya can race me, baby :-))

Rudy

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "JBorg" > wrote in message
> . com
>
>> Hi Ruud, I should have said that the more I tried to control the car,
>> the worst it really got. I never did get the hang of driving in the
>> snow with traction and all, and even after the car went out of
>> control on me 3 times. Luckily nobody got hurt
>
> Borg if lived where I do in Michigan, you'd probably already be dead for
> years.

Dead from the stench of ****, no doubt.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>>>> If I may speak for the so-called "normals" :
>>>>> That's correct.
>>>>> Listening to music is a pastime, for pleasure indeed.
>>>>> Add a glass of wine/beer/cognac/Jolt Cola.
>
>>Listening to music can also be a means for improving sound quality.
>
>
> It improves my quality of life. YMMV.
>
>
>>I want my listening tests to be as sensitive and reliable as possible. I
>>consider bias to be something that reduces reliability.
>
>
> That's your prerogative.
> I do things my way.
>
>
Your way is less likely to reveal anything useful that could translate into
an improvement.

>>> After some time, if there are readily discernable audible artifacts,
>>> you'll notice them.
>
>>But, there's also the subtle differences that can't be heard so easily.
>
>
> If they're too subtle to be heard in a time span of say a month, I
> don't worry about them.
>
I prefer to get to the source of any problems as qickly as possible. If you
listen to something for a month, you just start getting used to something.
It is unlikely to reveal anything.
>
>>I'm sorry that you listen to so much crappy gear, Sander. It isn't
>>*certain* components that make me want to keep loading music. Among the
>>equipment that I choose, its a rare situation where I don't want to keep
>>playing more music.
>
>
> Don't feel sorry for me, Arnold.
> I'm as happy as I can be, especially right now (playing Weather Report
> and lying in bed with the laptop) ;-)
>
>
>>> No tests, no stress.
>
>
> No nuts, no glory.
>
>
>>Stress isn't the end of life. Far from it. Most of the best human
>>achievements have been accomplished by people who were under stress.
>
>
> I prefer not to have any at home, thank you.
>
I find that a little stress involved in finding differences is worthwhile
if it helps me make imporvements.
>
>>A technical problem that is resolved this way has lasting benefits,
>>benefits
>>that can have benefits for a larger group of people.
>
>
> Funny you mention that.
> I've made and sold some amplifiers in the past, so far I haven't had
> any complaints.
> Must be all "normals" ;-)
>
Once most people buy something, they usually don't spend any time comparing
it to something else. They've made up their mind it's what they want and
that's the end of it.

> <snip repetitive comments in which Arny shows his unability to
> understand how most of the world listens and selects its components>
>
You should also understnd that most people don't have the abiltity to
anything about it if they find something subtly different.
>
> --
> Sander de Waal
> " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>>>In my living room, I listen for pleasure.
>>
>>
>> Inability to make a room serve more than one purpose noted.
>
>
> Seriously now, do you really expect to get anywhere with this kind of
> bull****?
>
>>
>>
>> Sander, I get great pleasure from finding out reliable information.
>
>
> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they
> impose upon humans.

Complete bull****.

>
> Krueger, seems you have dedicated your life to this borg cause, but you
> will NEVER accomplish anything. It is way too obvious from your
> noted-noted-noted crap stupidity, from your disorganized, malfunctional,
> neglected and UGLY website, from your anti-social hate mongering attitude
> and from your irrelevant approach to the subject matter at hand in the
> first place. You are a bitter, dull, dumb borg, a ****borg, and you will
> always be that. Sad.

You are a foul mouthed know nothing.

Critical listening using DBT's is how a major portion of the audio
improvements have come into being.

The BBC used them to come up with their choices for speakers. They had to
do something to get rid of those bloated LS systems they had been using.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > said:
>
>>>>First they say that its all about listening and listening pleasure.
>
>>> If I may speak for the so-called "normals" :
>>> That's correct.
>>> Listening to music is a pastime, for pleasure indeed.
>>> Add a glass of wine/beer/cognac/Jolt Cola.
>
>>>>So we suggest they do tests based on just listening.
>
>>> "We"??
>
>>Those of who think that listening comparisons ought to be as bias free as
>>possible.
>
>
> Agreed.
> I don't believe in listening comparisons per se.
> Just keep a certain component connected for a longer period of time
> and listen for and with pleasure.
> After some time, if there are readily discernable audible artifacts,
> you'll notice them.
>

What about the not so noticable artifacts?

> It is exactly as Fella said: with certain components you feel the urge
> to keep on feeding your player with CDs for hours and hours to come.
> Leaning backwards and enjoying the music, the emotion it brings you.
>
>
> Even Arny admitted to this:
>>What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and
>>all
>>of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back and
>>listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.
>
>
> This is exactly how I do my listening.
> No tests, no stress.
>
>
>>> In my lab, I do tests.
>>> In my living room, I listen for pleasure.
>
>>> Get the difference?
>
>>Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>differences.
>
>
> I don't agree.
> And even if differences detected via casual listening are unreliable,
> because they might be caused by other things than just technical
> reasons, who cares?

People who want to see wha the best is. People who want to know if there's
a reason for spending more or less money. If something is more expensive
and no different in it's sound, you don't buy the more expensive one. If
there's a difference, then you find out if it's an improvement or not.

> As long as the DUT is preferred sighted, that's all that matters.
> At least to me.
>

And you are obviously free to employ that method. There is ample evidence
however, that your method won't get the most revealing results.
>
>>> No, doing DBTs is very unnatural and uncomfortable.
>>> Do you listen with an ABX box in your hand to sound snippets, jotting
>>> down the results, for pleasure?
>
>>Only when trying to determine subtle differences.
>
>
> There's no *need* to do that to determine subtle differences.
> Just listening is enough. No need for tests.
>
If there's no need for it, then why do so many organizations from Harman to
the BBC employ them?
>
>>> Listening is not "doing tests based on listening" .
>
>
>>Comparisons are though.
>
>
> They can be, that's why I don't compare.
> I build something, put it in the room and listen to it for a longer
> period of time, in various moods, with various temperatures and
> humidity levels.
>
> Then, and only then, I decide whether a certain component or change in
> design has the desirable effect.
>
> Perhaps ABX-ing would yield a quicker and more reliable result. Soit.
>
>
Not only faster, but more reliable.

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>> JBorg wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
>>> would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.
>>
>>
>> The length is not really an issue, the extra circuit is. For the lengths
>> that are common for power cords, unless there is gross mismatch in gauge,
>> which is highly unlikely, then a few extra inches is not going to make
>> any difference.
>
>
> Allright.
We are still talking about power cords, right? :-)

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>> differences.
>>
>>
>> Could you give just one example how you ascertain that listening
>> for pleasure is going to be an unreliable way to determine subtle
>> differences. Thanks.
>
>
> Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources, you can't make
> any sort of comparison. [...]

Ahh. At the rate of, say, 20, 40, 60 switch/sec that is, very rapid, there will
be distraction due to confusion that begin to affect "and/or" impinge your
preference. A dilemma.

All these my opinion. Thanks for the example.

> If you listen for pleasure, one assumes you are listening to the music and not
> the system performance, at least that's what I do.
>
> If you want to check for subtle difference, you need something to compare, and
> you need to switch quickly to something that is level matched.

See above.




Btw, the said iron disintegrated in upper atmosphere.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> "Michael McKelvy wrote
>
>
>
>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>> differences.
>
> Well, its a kind of conundrum. Listening for pleasure tends to be non-critical
> of the detailed aspects of sound quality.
>
> In some sense, if you start listening critically, you stop listening for just
> pleasure. You start listening for subtle aspects of sound quality.
>
> What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and all of
> a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back and listen
> critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.



Detecting sound differences while critically listening for subtle aspects of
sound quality is not commensurable to the joy you get when listening
for pleasure.

Yes, I comply. That's why you need to learn the importance of cleaning the
terminals of cables & wires to prevent rust, for example.

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>> JBorg wrote in message
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>> JBorg wrote
>
>
>
>>>> With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
>>>> would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.
>>>
>>>
>>> The length is not really an issue, the extra circuit is. For the lengths that
>>> are common for power cords, unless there is gross mismatch in gauge, which is
>>> highly unlikely, then a few extra inches is not going to make any difference.
>>
>>
>> Allright.
>
> We are still talking about power cords, right? :-)


Yes we are. And I hope that Fella consider my appeal and accept
these nominal requirement of equality for his test.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Paul Dormer" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
>>>> BTW I thought you were ****ting me about the JM Lab clones.. then I
>>>> discovered there *are* people out there cloning JM Labs! Was that for
>>>> real? Do you have any pics of it (in the nude preferably)?
>>>
>>> http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/
>>
>>Now Lionel, you know the DIYer can't possibly recreate the design of a big
>>time speaker company like JM Lab or Sonus Faber. Fella told us so.
>
> Assuming you had the Focal JM Lab designs in your hands including
> crossover, can you buy the matched W-sandwich drivers and inverted
> tweeters (Be and regular flavour) required to build them?
>
>
IIRC those drivers were not for sale to the DIY market. This doesn't mean
there aren't other speaker designs that can't be "cloned" or duplicated.

Totem's, ProAc, or any other design that uses the same drivers that are
available to the DIY market can be. In the case of Linkwitz Labs Orion kit,
they are strictly a DIY project designed by a world class engineer. The
same system if sold as a finished system would go for around 16K as opposed
to the 6.5K that Linkwitz sells it for.

While Fella may get all goofy over the Sonus Faber line, every review of
them I've seen shows they have ****ed up bass response. Even worse is the
Innervision Kaya I just saw reviewed in SP. Sells for 20 thousand and has
the worst FR I can remember seeing.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Dormer wrote:
>
>> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>>
>>
>>>>>BTW I thought you were ****ting me about the JM Lab clones.. then I
>>>>>discovered there *are* people out there cloning JM Labs! Was that for
>>>>>real? Do you have any pics of it (in the nude preferably)?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/
>>>
>>>Now Lionel, you know the DIYer can't possibly recreate the design of a
>>>big time speaker company like JM Lab or Sonus Faber. Fella told us so.
>>
>>
>> Assuming you had the Focal JM Lab designs in your hands including
>> crossover, can you buy the matched W-sandwich drivers and inverted
>> tweeters (Be and regular flavour) required to build them?
>
>
> I'll answer that for mcmickey: Yes, exact copies can be built. No problem.
> Even better speakers can be built. No sweat.
>
>
>>
>>
Exact copies can be built if the drivers are available. In the case of
proprietary drivers, it would be highly unlikely, unless you have
connections.

In the case of the Sonus Faber's I wouldn't want an exact copy, since I
prefer speakers that have accurate bass response, not just good looks.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:49:07 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Fella" > wrote in message
...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>In my living room, I listen for pleasure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Inability to make a room serve more than one purpose noted.
>>
>>
>> Seriously now, do you really expect to get anywhere with this kind of
>> bull****?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sander, I get great pleasure from finding out reliable information.
>>
>>
>> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they
>> impose upon humans.
>
>Complete bull****.

Do you find the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle "bull****" as well?

Just taking the test influences the perception, don't ya know?

[dave weil]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:42:27 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>>> No, one is a power cord the other is a power cord plus an additional
>>> circuit.
>>
>> An rf stopper is not a circuit you dumdum. It's just a ring of ferrite
>
>That is a circuit. A very simple one, but a circuit nonetheless.

What's your point?

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>> Fella wrote
>>> JBorg wrote:
>>>> Fella wrote
>
>
>
>
>>>>No, the stock cord is shorter, while the AQ is much thicker, longer, has an
>>>>integrated RF stopper and much thicker and stiffer.
>>>
>>>
>>> In all fairness, Fella, this things need to maintain some equality
>>
>> Well, I disagree there with you. Should we request AQ to make cords that are
>> just like stock power cords, flimsy, thin, same material used for isolation and
>> insulation, etc, but still have them sound different?
>
> How about trying it again with a stock power cord that is not likely to have a
> wear related problem like the one you used in the first experiment?
>
> Anytime there is something more than a cord, in this case you describe an RF
> stopper) then the comparison becomes dubious.
>
>
>> Obviously, that's not at all possible. The issue is that these things, for
>> whatever the reason, be it length, gauge, rf stoppers, strand interraction,
>> resistance values, whatever, make a difference in sound.
>
> Which is why I suspect that the extra circuit, the RF stopper, is suspect.
> Compare any other power cord that doesn't have the extra circuit and see if
> there's a difference.
>
>> So the "wire is wire" claim is absolute bul****. Just like "amp is amp"
>> bul****.
>
>
> You didn't compare wire to wire, you compared wire to wire with an added
> circuit.


If the RF stopper is built-in in the upgraded HE pwr cords, that should be Ok.
The nominal requirement only is that both length and gauge are equal or
near approximate when comparing both cords -- as you said.

So I agree with Fella in this regard.

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>> Fella wrote
>
>
>
>> A more fitting analogy would have been that I would be comparing two different
>> apple kinds, like washington red and the green apple, etc. But even *that*
>> analogy would not have been applicable in this case since there are no dumdum
>> borgs in the apple-phile world claiming that all apples taste the same, etc, so
>> why would anyone do a dbt on apples in the first place! ...
>>
> There are none here either, just a few folks who understand why the results you
> claim are extraordinary.
>
>> In short, don't have sex with apples when you serve in that gloryhole. Apples
>> are for eating. You must have some money, go get your self a baseball bat, a
>> flag pole, whatever, and shove that up your ass.
>>
>> There now, you happy?
>
>
>
>
> Anytime I make you look like a fool, which is pretty easy to do.



<Fella wants to replace his stock cord>

[Fella]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>
> I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was because of
> a power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly flawed or the
> circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>

Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays the
dang power, or not.

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy a écrit :

>>The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they
>>impose upon humans.
>
>
> Complete bull****.

I'm not sure you are right here.
IMOH in the years to come the neurology research will prove that you are
wrong. "Stress" is perhaps not the pertinent word but it seems to be
prove that different "intents" mobilize different neurologic processes.

[Fella]

JBorg wrote:

>>Michael McKelvy wrote
>>
>>>Fella wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>>A more fitting analogy would have been that I would be comparing two different
>>>apple kinds, like washington red and the green apple, etc. But even *that*
>>>analogy would not have been applicable in this case since there are no dumdum
>>>borgs in the apple-phile world claiming that all apples taste the same, etc, so
>>>why would anyone do a dbt on apples in the first place! ...
>>>
>>
>>There are none here either, just a few folks who understand why the results you
>>claim are extraordinary.
>>
>>
>>>In short, don't have sex with apples when you serve in that gloryhole. Apples
>>>are for eating. You must have some money, go get your self a baseball bat, a
>>>flag pole, whatever, and shove that up your ass.
>>>
>>>There now, you happy?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Anytime I make you look like a fool, which is pretty easy to do.
>
>
>
>
> <Fella wants to replace his stock cord>
>

No, the stock cord that came with the densen works fine, it's just a
cord with an rf snapped on it just few inches before the termination to
device. A friend just gave me the AQ HE cord as a gift and it increases
bass and somehow polishes the treble- ie, the loudness effect I was
talking about. I heard each and every time in the home made dbt of ours
this difference. Now, the reasons why we did the dbt in the first place
were:

1) Getting used to such annoying stuff since we will go into a dbt with
amps in the near future as a favor to a friend which will include the
results in his thesis
2) finding out if there was any sense to dbt's in the first place, as
in, was it really the thickness and the color etc, of the HE cord that
made us hear those gross differences in the amp sound (LOL!)..


So, really, I don't care about being "fair" to the stock cord, gauge,
length, same rf stopper, etc, these are NOT the issues, they are
irrelevant. The fact of the matter is down to the power cords,
*everything* effects sound, forget about amps sounding the same.

[Fella]

Lionel wrote:

> Michael McKelvy a écrit :
>
>>> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they
>>> impose upon humans.
>>
>>
>>
>> Complete bull****.
>
>
> I'm not sure you are right here.

Mickmickey just takes comfort in rebuffing whatever I say in a rude
manner, it's a lifestyle thingy with him.

> IMOH in the years to come the neurology research will prove that you are
> wrong.

Agreed. In fact, in the years to come (say 30 years from now) much of
the stuff done today will be considered "guesswork" just as much of the
speaker designs, for instance, is so considered from the sixties and
seventies.

Some borg think that equipped with a pink noise generator and a db meter
they are at the apex of the science *and art* of home audio, and that no
evolution or advancement is ever possible anymore. That would be true if
the world would be left to their devices.

They are actually trying to hinder, arrest advancement. Lab rats' and
engineers' measurements and specs have been alienated to the human ear
(the ultimate goal of AUDIO IN THE FIRST PLACE!) for too long and the
importance of understanding *HUMAN PERCEPTION* is slowly showing itself
in the audio scene.

Time will completely and unequivocally debunk the DBT/ABX bull****
because of the EFFECTS of the mere fact of exercising such tests have on
human perception, the *main* factor that determine the outcome of such
tests in the first place!

[Fella]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>
> In the case of the Sonus Faber's I wouldn't want an exact copy, since I
> prefer speakers that have accurate bass response, not just good looks.
>
>

Did you ever hear a sonus faber? Oh wait, hearing the thing is of
secondary importance to you, right, you have your measurements and
graphs to look at. Ok. :)

[JBorg]

> Fella wrote
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>> Fella wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>> <Fella wants to replace his stock cord>
>>
>
> No, the stock cord that came with the densen works fine, it's just a cord with
> an rf snapped on it just few inches before the termination to device. A friend
> just gave me the AQ HE cord as a gift and it increases bass and somehow polishes
> the treble- ie, the loudness effect I was talking about. I heard each and every
> time in the home made dbt of ours this difference. Now, the reasons why we did
> the dbt in the first place were:

Hi Fella, I'm familiar with these ferrite cores. I have plenty of them in diff.
size and shape including some from AQ. Unfortunately, none of which I
use for my system at this time.



> 1) Getting used to such annoying stuff since we will go into a dbt with amps in
> the near future as a favor to a friend which will include the results in his
> thesis
> 2) finding out if there was any sense to dbt's in the first place, as in, was it
> really the thickness and the color etc, of the HE cord that made us hear those
> gross differences in the amp sound (LOL!)..

lol!

> So, really, I don't care about being "fair" to the stock cord, gauge, length,
> same rf stopper, etc, these are NOT the issues, they are irrelevant. The fact of
> the matter is down to the power cords, *everything* effects sound, forget about
> amps sounding the same.



Fella, if you do test and make claims, the Hives will be mad if you don't
follow protocols. So I began to think you just want to do test to replace
your stock cord.

[Fella]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message

>>Anyways, apples and oranges are different in that when you actually eat
>>them they taste really different, one is juicy, is already sliced, citrus
>>etc, you wouldn't know, since you shove such stuff up your ass when
>>servicing in that seedy gloryhole.
>
>
> Projecting again?

*You* were the one talking about my "small dick", yes? Only in them
gloryholes people like you suck anonymous dicks, you must have sucked
someones dick whilst not knowing who that exact someone is, to say that
I jave a small dick.. So it was just an inevitable deduction that you
service gloryholes. Just as the fact that ferstler, krueger, etc, are
borgs. Am I projecting when I call them (me and a gazillion others) them
borgs?

No need to deny and accuse mickmickey, if you get your kicks doing that,
it's ok, don't be ashamed.

>
> There are none here either, just a few folks who understand why the results
> you claim are extraordinary.
>

Why don't you just caugh it up, you don't believe me, you think (now
*there* is an oxymoron) I am lying. In fact, no, I don't believe that
you believe me.

>
>>In short, don't have sex with apples when you serve in that gloryhole.
>>Apples are for eating. You must have some money, go get your self a
>>baseball bat, a flag pole, whatever, and shove that up your ass.
>>
>>There now, you happy?
>>
>
>
> Anytime I make you look like a fool, which is pretty easy to do.


Yeah sure, whatever. :)

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>> JBorg wrote in message
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>> JBorg wrote
>
>
>
>>>> With regard to comparing cords, among the minimum req. I assume
>>>> would be that they'd be of the same gauge and length.
>>>
>>>
>>> The length is not really an issue, the extra circuit is. For the lengths that
>>> are common for power cords, unless there is gross mismatch in gauge, which is
>>> highly unlikely, then a few extra inches is not going to make any difference.
>>
>>
>> Allright.
>
> We are still talking about power cords, right? :-)


Yes we are. And I hope that Fella consider my appeal and accept
these nominal requirement of equality for his test.


Also, you need to clarify your provision for extra circuit.

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>> Paul Dormer wrote
>>> Fella" emitted :
>
>
>
>
>
>>>We did the experiment 15 times, I new all without a mistake.
>>
>> I believe you... a million (well... three or four) Borgs wouldn't.
>
>
> I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was because of a
> power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly flawed or the circuit on
> the other one made a differnce.


....................noted.

[Fella]

JBorg wrote:

>
> Yes we are. And I hope that Fella consider my appeal and accept
> these nominal requirement of equality for his test.


Hi Jborg,

The power cord issue is closed as far as I am concerned nowadays. The
stock cord works perfectly well with the amp, while the AQ does wonders
to the CD player. Even if I hadn't had that cord as a gift, I would have
bought it, it does *that much* good.

My aim with the test was NOT to put various cords in order of
performance, etc, I just wanted to hear if what the two cords I have at
hand are really that much different sounding that even under the
conditions of a dbt I hear the difference.

The issue is thus closed as far as I am concerned.

[JBorg]

> Fella wrote
>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was because of a
>> power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly flawed or the circuit on
>> the other one made a differnce.
>>
>
> Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays the dang power,
> or not.



Fella, he was referring to the possible "flaws'" of the cord in meeting the
nominal requirement for a test. Not the flaws in relaying the power.

[JBorg]

> Fella wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they impose upon
> humans.


Stress at its minimum levels keeps you alert.

[JBorg]

> Fella" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> Mickmickey just takes comfort in rebuffing whatever I say in a rude manner, it's
> a lifestyle thingy with him.


Fella, it's about claim and they will get mad if there's no back up sample
for the claim.

[JBorg]

> Fella wrote
>> JBorg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Yes we are. And I hope that Fella consider my appeal and accept
>> these nominal requirement of equality for his test.
>
>
> Hi Jborg,
>
> The power cord issue is closed as far as I am concerned nowadays. The stock cord
> works perfectly well with the amp, while the AQ does wonders to the CD player.
> Even if I hadn't had that cord as a gift, I would have bought it, it does *that
> much* good.
>
> My aim with the test was NOT to put various cords in order of performance, etc,
> I just wanted to hear if what the two cords I have at hand are really that much
> different sounding that even under the conditions of a dbt I hear the
> difference.
>
> The issue is thus closed as far as I am concerned.



............................. noted.

[JBorg]

> JBorg wrote
>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>> JBorg wrote
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>
>>
>>snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Most of the differences between a high end power cord and a regular power
>>>> cord are eyewash. Art, Borg and Fella are like race car drivers who obsess
>>>> over paint color as a means for improving handling. By wasting their time and
>>>> effort on this trivia, they miss out on making substantial changes that might
>>>> actually improve sound quality.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fortunately, this is not about what your eyes see like you think it should.
>>> It's about what your ears hear. I never bought cables or inteconnects because
>>> of their looks (or brand).
>>
>>
>>
>> Then the objections of those who don't like doing comparisons where they can't
>> see what the DUT is are invalid. All you need is your ears.
>
>
>
> I am talking about my decision in buying cables & wires base on what my
> ears had heard.
>
> You are talkin about the validity of the complaint of what the eyes won't
> see when comparing components in a test.
>
> Please help me.


******

A point has been taken off your jar for the reason of: Failure to Elucidate

Another two point is a taken off for the reason of: Failure to Appear

********


(signed)

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>
>
>
>
>> Hi Ruud, I should have said that the more I tried to control the car,
>> the worst it really got. I never did get the hang of driving in the
>> snow with traction and all, and even after the car went out of
>> control on me 3 times. Luckily nobody got hurt
>
>
>
> Borg if lived where I do in Michigan, you'd probably already be dead for years.




Learn to write.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
. com
>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>> JBorg wrote
>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine
>>>> subtle differences.
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you give just one example how you ascertain that listening
>>> for pleasure is going to be an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>> differences. Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources, you
>> can't make any sort of comparison. [...]

Rapid switching is well-known to involve switch-overs in less than a few
tenths of second. Each listening opportunity will be far longer.

> Ahh. At the rate of, say, 20, 40, 60 switch/sec that is, very
> rapid, there will be distraction due to confusion that begin to
> affect "and/or" impinge your preference. A dilemma.

Hyberbole noted and ignored

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
. com


> Detecting sound differences while critically listening for subtle
> aspects of sound quality is not commensurable to the joy you get
> when listening for pleasure.

Once imaginary differences are eliminated via DBT procedures, one often
quickly learns that listening for joy and listening for subtle differences
are two different things.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message


> <snip repetitive comments in which Arny shows his unability to
> understand how most of the world listens and selects its components>

Sander again discredits himself by presuming that other people are as
imperceptive as he is.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
.net

> Not only faster, but more reliable.

The real problem is that sighted listening is so grotesquely unreliable due
to its immense susceptibility to false positives.

If more people did blind comparisons of audio components, ragazines like
Stereophile would be in serious trouble due to lack of credibility.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message


> Some borg think that equipped with a pink noise generator and a db
> meter they are at the apex of the science *and art* of home audio,
> and that no evolution or advancement is ever possible anymore. That
> would be true if the world would be left to their devices.

This is such a grotesque distortion of reality that it makes a joke out of
its author.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m
>> JBorg wrote
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>> JBorg wrote
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote

>>>>> Most of the differences between a high end power cord and a
>>>>> regular power cord are eyewash. Art, Borg and Fella are like race
>>>>> car drivers who obsess over paint color as a means for improving
>>>>> handling. By wasting their time and effort on this trivia, they
>>>>> miss out on making substantial changes that might actually
>>>>> improve sound quality.

>>>> Fortunately, this is not about what your eyes see like you think
>>>> it should. It's about what your ears hear. I never bought cables
>>>> or inteconnects because of their looks (or brand).

>>> Then the objections of those who don't like doing comparisons where
>>> they can't see what the DUT is are invalid. All you need is your
>>> ears.

Point well taken.

>> I am talking about my decision in buying cables & wires base on what
>> my ears had heard.

"Normals" debating trade trick - don't answer the question, just repeat the
assertion that was just shot down.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>>
>> I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was
>> because of a power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly
>> flawed or the circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>
>
> Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays the
> dang power, or not.

If that were exactly true, then there would be no audible difference between
power cords.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was
>>>because of a power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly
>>>flawed or the circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>>
>>
>>Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays the
>>dang power, or not.
>
>
> If that were exactly true, then there would be no audible difference between
> power cords.
>
>

See, a borg with his foot in his mouth.

[Ruud Broens]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
...
:
: > Fella wrote
: >> JBorg wrote:
: >>> Michael McKelvy wrote
: >>>> Fella wrote
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >> <Fella wants to replace his stock cord>
: >>
: >
: > No, the stock cord that came with the densen works fine, it's just a cord
with
: > an rf snapped on it just few inches before the termination to device. A
friend
: > just gave me the AQ HE cord as a gift and it increases bass and somehow
polishes
: > the treble- ie, the loudness effect I was talking about. I heard each and
every
: > time in the home made dbt of ours this difference. Now, the reasons why we
did
: > the dbt in the first place were:
:
: Hi Fella, I'm familiar with these ferrite cores. I have plenty of them in
diff.
: size and shape including some from AQ. Unfortunately, none of which I
: use for my system at this time.
:
:
:
: > 1) Getting used to such annoying stuff since we will go into a dbt with amps
in
: > the near future as a favor to a friend which will include the results in his
: > thesis
: > 2) finding out if there was any sense to dbt's in the first place, as in, was
it
: > really the thickness and the color etc, of the HE cord that made us hear
those
: > gross differences in the amp sound (LOL!)..
:
: lol!
:
: > So, really, I don't care about being "fair" to the stock cord, gauge, length,
: > same rf stopper, etc, these are NOT the issues, they are irrelevant. The fact
of
: > the matter is down to the power cords, *everything* effects sound, forget
about
: > amps sounding the same.
:
:
:
: Fella, if you do test and make claims, the Hives will be mad if you don't
: follow protocols. So I began to think you just want to do test to replace
: your stock cord.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
A proper protocol for dbt is no easy feat ! In fact, i've see _no_ such test at
all, yet,
(in audio) that could even begin to claim all parameters *not* tested for
variance
- but of influence -
*are* held constant, that is a well controlled setting :(
Rudy

[Ruud Broens]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: ...
: : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: :
: : > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: : > ...
: : >> "JBorg" > wrote in message
: : >> . com
: : >>
: : >>> Hi Ruud, I should have said that the more I tried to control the
: : >>> car, the worst it really got. I never did get the hang of driving
: : >>> in the snow with traction and all, and even after the car went out
: : >>> of control on me 3 times. Luckily nobody got hurt
: : >>
: : >> Borg if lived where I do in Michigan, you'd probably already be dead
: : >> for years.
: : >>
: : > ...more goodness of Arny Krueger
: :
: : Merely friendly advice, Rudy. For a person with your driving skills (not!!)
: : Michigan could be a bad place to live.
: :
: This could be fun!! Arny, can you arrange some souped up subaru impreza
: rallycars, let's see if ya can race me, baby :-))
:
: Rudy
:

.............no response..... noted.
:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "JBorg" > wrote in message
>>>>> . com
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ruud, I should have said that the more I tried to control the
>>>>>> car, the worst it really got. I never did get the hang of
>>>>>> driving in the snow with traction and all, and even after the
>>>>>> car went out of control on me 3 times. Luckily nobody got hurt
>>>>>
>>>>> Borg if lived where I do in Michigan, you'd probably already be
>>>>> dead for years.
>>>>>
>>>> ...more goodness of Arny Krueger
>>>
>>> Merely friendly advice, Rudy. For a person with your driving skills
>>> (not!!) Michigan could be a bad place to live.
>>>
>> This could be fun!! Arny, can you arrange some souped up subaru
>> impreza rallycars, let's see if ya can race me, baby :-))
>>
>> Rudy
>>
>
> ............no response..... noted.


I have no desire to continue this off-topic posting.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was
>>>> because of a power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly
>>>> flawed or the circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays the
>>> dang power, or not.
>>
>>
>> If that were exactly true, then there would be no audible difference
>> between power cords.

> See, a borg with his foot in his mouth.

See, a *Normal* who is cornered. Notice immediate descent in name-calling.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>> JBorg wrote
>>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine
>>>>> subtle differences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you give just one example how you ascertain that listening
>>>> for pleasure is going to be an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>>> differences. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources, you
>>> can't make any sort of comparison. [...]
>
> Rapid switching is well-known to involve switch-overs in less than a few tenths
> of second. Each listening opportunity will be far longer.


[Rewritten]

At the rate of, say, 20, 40, 60 switch/sec., that is, very rapid, there will
be distraction due to confusion as a result of being affected by "and/or"
impeded by your known listening preference(s). A dilemma.



> Hyberbole noted and ignored


I'm just setting an example. No human I know could make the switches
at this rate.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>
>
>
>
>> Detecting sound differences while critically listening for subtle
>> aspects of sound quality is not commensurable to the joy you get
>> when listening for pleasure.
>
>
> Once imaginary differences are eliminated via DBT procedures, one often quickly
> learns that listening for joy and listening for subtle differences are two
> different things.


I couldn't stop laughing after reading what you wrote above. Perhaps you
might want to consider changing it.


You are fun again!

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m
>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>> JBorg wrote
>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>>> JBorg wrote
>>>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote

>>>>>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine
>>>>>> subtle differences.
>>>>
>>>>> Could you give just one example how you ascertain that listening
>>>>> for pleasure is going to be an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>>>> differences. Thanks.

>>>> Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources,
>>>> you can't make any sort of comparison. [...]

>> Rapid switching is well-known to involve switch-overs in less than a
>> few tenths of second. Each listening opportunity will be far longer.

> [Rewritten]

> At the rate of, say, 20, 40, 60 switch/sec., that is, very rapid, there
> will be distraction due to confusion as a result of being
> affected by "and/or" impeded by your known listening preference(s).
> A dilemma.

>> Hyberbole noted and ignored


> I'm just setting an example. No human I know could make the switches at
> this rate.

No, you're just completely missing the point of quick switching, Borgma.

Your rewrite is as nonsensical as the original.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>> JBorg wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Detecting sound differences while critically listening for subtle
>>> aspects of sound quality is not commensurable to the joy you get
>>> when listening for pleasure.
>>
>>
>> Once imaginary differences are eliminated via DBT procedures, one
>> often quickly learns that listening for joy and listening for subtle
>> differences are two different things.
>
>
> I couldn't stop laughing after reading what you wrote above. Perhaps
> you might want to consider changing it.

Shows how completely you've missed the point, Borgma.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Fella" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was
>>>>>because of a power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly
>>>>>flawed or the circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays the
>>>>dang power, or not.
>>>
>>>
>>>If that were exactly true, then there would be no audible difference
>>>between power cords.
>
>
>>See, a borg with his foot in his mouth.
>
>
> See, a *Normal* who is cornered. Notice immediate descent in name-calling.
>
>

*I* am not claiming that there are no audible difference between power
cords, *you borg* are!

Best you take Middius' advice ****borg: kill yourself before someone
else does it for you, takes a crowbar and turns you into minced meat. At
least, you'll be much gentler on yourself.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was
>>>>>> because of a power cord alone. Either the original one was
>>>>>> grossly flawed or the circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays
>>>>> the dang power, or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If that were exactly true, then there would be no audible
>>>> difference between power cords.
>>
>>
>>> See, a borg with his foot in his mouth.
>>
>>
>> See, a *Normal* who is cornered. Notice immediate descent in
>> name-calling.

> *I* am not claiming that there are no audible difference between power
> cords, *you borg* are!

Where did I claim that?

> Best you take Middius' advice ****borg: kill yourself before someone
> else does it for you, takes a crowbar and turns you into minced meat.

Gosh, that's a friendly thought!

> At least, you'll be much gentler on yourself.

I guess you'll have your chance when I'm in NY.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No, you're just completely missing the point of quick switching, Borgma.
>
> Your rewrite is as nonsensical as the original.



Here's what McKelvy stated:


" Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources, you can't
make any sort of comparison. I f you listen for pleasure, one assumes you
are listening to the music and not the system performance, at least that's
what I do. "

Mode: Listening for Pleasure


I know this is about the testee, why can't we rest his hands and just focus
ahead.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Fella" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Fella" > wrote in message

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was
>>>>>>>because of a power cord alone. Either the original one was
>>>>>>>grossly flawed or the circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays
>>>>>>the dang power, or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If that were exactly true, then there would be no audible
>>>>>difference between power cords.
>>>
>>>
>>>>See, a borg with his foot in his mouth.
>>>
>>>
>>>See, a *Normal* who is cornered. Notice immediate descent in
>>>name-calling.
>
>
>>*I* am not claiming that there are no audible difference between power
>>cords, *you borg* are!
>
>
> Where did I claim that?

Hmmm.. Wasn't you with the power plants, allll the way from the power
plants ... how can the last few inches make a difference ... Hmmm..
Maybe it was some OTHER ARNY KRUEGER!!! DUH! :)

>
>
>>Best you take Middius' advice ****borg: kill yourself before someone
>>else does it for you, takes a crowbar and turns you into minced meat.
>
>
> Gosh, that's a friendly thought!

Just look at the way you argue on and on, all these lies, the demogogy,
the dirty debating tricks. If you are doing this in real life to real
people ...

>
>
>>At least, you'll be much gentler on yourself.
>
>
> I guess you'll have your chance when I'm in NY.
>

Don't be silly.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: >>>
: >>> Merely friendly advice, Rudy. For a person with your driving skills
: >>> (not!!) Michigan could be a bad place to live.
: >>>
: >> This could be fun!! Arny, can you arrange some souped up subaru
: >> impreza rallycars, let's see if ya can race me, baby :-))
: >>
: >> Rudy
: >>
: >
: > ............no response..... noted.
:
:
: I have no desire to continue this off-topic posting.
:
but did you not say you're here for fun ? o, i get it ...
Rudy

[Ruud Broens]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: ...
: : >>>
: : >>> Merely friendly advice, Rudy. For a person with your driving skills
: : >>> (not!!) Michigan could be a bad place to live.
: : >>>
: : >> This could be fun!! Arny, can you arrange some souped up subaru
: : >> impreza rallycars, let's see if ya can race me, baby :-))
: : >>
: : >> Rudy
: : >>
: : >
: : > ............no response..... noted.
: :
: :
: : I have no desire to continue this off-topic posting.
: :
: but did you not say you're here for fun ? o, i get it ...
: Rudy
:
now playing: Duke Ellington - Rain Check :-)

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "Normals" debating trade trick - don't answer the question, just repeat the
> assertion that was just shot down.




I dig this !






aRnii KrOo


My name is Arnii Krooborg
I am a cuckoo, I crack and crackle

In my hive, I reside
With my tribe, I shall thrive

In honeycombs, we all hide
With our honey, we survive
Oh!, it so fine to be confine
When your mind is undefine!


----

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "Normals" debating trade trick - don't answer the question, just repeat the
> assertion that was just shot down.




I dig this !






aRnii KrOo


My name is Arnii Krooborg
I am a cuckoo, I crack and crackle

In my hive, I reside
With my tribe, I shall thrive

In honeycombs, we all hide
With our honey, we survive

Oh!, it so fine to be confine
When your mind is undefine!


----

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Fecesborg said:
>
>>> Detecting sound differences while critically listening for subtle
>>> aspects of sound quality is not commensurable to the joy you get
>>> when listening for pleasure.
>
>> Once imaginary differences are eliminated via DBT procedures, one
>> often quickly learns that listening for joy and listening for subtle
>> differences are two different things.

> A human being would know, and would not forget, the futility of
> "tests" to persuade oneself that the imperceptible is, in fact,
> imperceptible.

George, what's unclear about what I've said? Where have I been talking about
imperceptible differences? Haven't I been talking about subtle differences?
Can you tell the diffference between a subtle difference and an
imperceptible difference?

> A human being would not need a "test" to tell him he
> hadn't experienced a sensation he did not experience.

So where do all these false positives come from in sighted listening tests?

> You claim to need "tests" to tell you things that normal humans already
> know.

What about all those false positives that litter the pages of Stereophile
and the other similar ragazines?

> and that you did not experience artifacts there is no reason to believe
> exist.

George these artifacts often exist. What part of "Test equipment can measure
artifacts that are far smaller than what people can hear" don't you get?

>This is why people liken you to a machine.

Are you taling about people *George*, or a pseudo-person who calls himself
George Middius?

[Ruud Broens]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
: : : >>
: : : >
: : : > ............no response..... noted.
: : :
: : :
: : : I have no desire to continue this off-topic posting.
: : :
: : but did you not say you're here for fun ? o, i get it ...
: : Rudy
: :
: now playing: Duke Ellington - Rain Check :-)
:
More fun! let's play that in reverse !!

CRED
deton es no pser on

yep! reverse engineered Kroologique :-)))
Rudy
engineer;)

[Sander deWaal]

"Michael McKelvy" > said:

>>>A technical problem that is resolved this way has lasting benefits,
>>>benefits
>>>that can have benefits for a larger group of people.

>> Funny you mention that.
>> I've made and sold some amplifiers in the past, so far I haven't had
>> any complaints.
>> Must be all "normals" ;-)

>Once most people buy something, they usually don't spend any time comparing
>it to something else. They've made up their mind it's what they want and
>that's the end of it.


Yes YES YESSS!!!!!!!!

EXACTLY!!!!!!

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Nousaine]

If you think about stress carefully you'll conclude that stress at its maximal
level makes one as good as he can possibly be. Just think of all those stories
about super-human strength and activity ... they all occur in a life or death
(or near life or death) situation. The ONLY times when stress seems to be
disabling is when the task is physically impossible ... such as 'hearing'
inaudible phenomena.

Does the stress of examinations cause students to forget what they 'know?' Of
coiurse not. The only performance 'loss' only occurs for those students who are
unprepared.....those who haven't really acquired the knowldge.

Put another way IF a certain effect were physically or even psychologically
"audible" under what condition would an individual be MOST LIKLEY to reliably
report its presence? I'd say that if IF someone held a gun to a subjects head
threatening to shoot him when he failed to reliably report the presence of a
given sound the subject would be most likely to respond correctly when the
sound was actually a real phenomenon.

On the other hand if the effect does not have a real acoustical cause then
stress may cause the subject to psychologicvally break down but the cause isn't
the "stress" of the experiment but the impossibility of hearing a sound that
doesn't physically exist.

Psychological stress tends to improve physical performance (including hearing)
in every line of activity when humans have a task that can completed.

"JBorg" wrote:

>> Fella wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they impose
>upon
>> humans.
>
>
>Stress at its minimum levels keeps you alert.

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>> JBorg wrote
>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>>> differences.
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you give just one example how you ascertain that listening
>>> for pleasure is going to be an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>> differences. Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources, you
>> can't make any sort of comparison. [...]
>
> Ahh. At the rate of, say, 20, 40, 60 switch/sec that is, very rapid,
> there will
> be distraction due to confusion that begin to affect "and/or" impinge your
> preference. A dilemma.
>
What the **** are you talking about?

> All these my opinion. Thanks for the example.
>
>> If you listen for pleasure, one assumes you are listening to the music
>> and not the system performance, at least that's what I do.
>>
>> If you want to check for subtle difference, you need something to
>> compare, and you need to switch quickly to something that is level
>> matched.
>
> See above.
>
>
The above from you is gibberish. If you want to compare for differences,
you need to switch between two sources quickly so you don't forget what you
heard. You can listen as long as you wish, but to compare, you need to have
the other source available at the flick of a switch.

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m...
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, you're just completely missing the point of quick switching, Borgma.
>>
>> Your rewrite is as nonsensical as the original.
>
>
>
> Here's what McKelvy stated:
>
>
> " Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources, you
> can't
> make any sort of comparison. I f you listen for pleasure, one assumes you
> are listening to the music and not the system performance, at least that's
> what I do. "
>
> Mode: Listening for Pleasure
>
>
> I know this is about the testee, why can't we rest his hands and just
> focus
> ahead.
>
>
>
You can rest you hand as long as you wish until the person making the
comparison decides to switch to the other source. Could be once a minute,
once an hour or whatever, as long as the second source is available in a few
10ths of a second.

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>> "Michael McKelvy wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>> differences.
>>
>> Well, its a kind of conundrum. Listening for pleasure tends to be
>> non-critical of the detailed aspects of sound quality.
>>
>> In some sense, if you start listening critically, you stop listening for
>> just pleasure. You start listening for subtle aspects of sound quality.
>>
>> What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and
>> all of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back
>> and listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.
>
>
>
> Detecting sound differences while critically listening for subtle aspects
> of
> sound quality is not commensurable to the joy you get when listening
> for pleasure.

Who said they were? One you do for pure pleasure, the other you do so that
you can enhance that pleasure.
>

[Ruud Broens]

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
:
: If you think about stress carefully you'll conclude that stress at its maximal
: level makes one as good as he can possibly be.

Howzat ??

Just think of all those stories
: about super-human strength and activity ... they all occur in a life or death
: (or near life or death) situation.

Are we talking physical tasks or 'mental' tasks here ?

The ONLY times when stress seems to be
: disabling is when the task is physically impossible ... such as 'hearing'
: inaudible phenomena.
:
: Does the stress of examinations cause students to forget what they 'know?' Of
: coiurse not. *The only performance 'loss' only occurs for those students who
are
: unprepared.....those who haven't really acquired the knowldge.

* o, but such things do happen, on a regular basis with numerous students

:
: Put another way IF a certain effect were physically or even psychologically
: "audible" under what condition would an individual be MOST LIKLEY to reliably
: report its presence? I'd say that if IF someone held a gun to a subjects head
: threatening to shoot him when he failed to reliably report the presence of a
: given sound the subject would be most likely to respond correctly when the
: sound was actually a real phenomenon.

....wouldn't want to play russian roulette with ya on that theory...

Rudy

:
: On the other hand if the effect does not have a real acoustical cause then
: stress may cause the subject to psychologicvally break down but the cause isn't
: the "stress" of the experiment but the impossibility of hearing a sound that
: doesn't physically exist.
:
: Psychological stress tends to improve physical performance (including hearing)
: in every line of activity when humans have a task that can completed.
:
: "JBorg" wrote:
:
: >> Fella wrote
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they impose
: >upon
: >> humans.
: >
: >
: >Stress at its minimum levels keeps you alert.
:

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Lionel wrote:
>
>> Michael McKelvy a écrit :
>>
>>>> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they
>>>> impose upon humans.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Complete bull****.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure you are right here.
>
> Mickmickey just takes comfort in rebuffing whatever I say in a rude
> manner, it's a lifestyle thingy with him.
>
I talk rudely to rude people.

> > IMOH in the years to come the neurology research will prove that you are
> > wrong.
>
> Agreed. In fact, in the years to come (say 30 years from now) much of the
> stuff done today will be considered "guesswork" just as much of the
> speaker designs, for instance, is so considered from the sixties and
> seventies.
>
> Some borg think that equipped with a pink noise generator and a db meter
> they are at the apex of the science *and art* of home audio, and that no
> evolution or advancement is ever possible anymore.

Utter nonsense.

That would be true if
> the world would be left to their devices.
>
> They are actually trying to hinder, arrest advancement.

More nonsense. Where do you think the advancements come from, it's the
people who use the meters and pink noise generators, doing the research into
how people hear.

Lab rats' and
> engineers' measurements and specs have been alienated to the human ear
> (the ultimate goal of AUDIO IN THE FIRST PLACE!) for too long and the
> importance of understanding *HUMAN PERCEPTION* is slowly showing itself in
> the audio scene.
>
> Time will completely and unequivocally debunk the DBT/ABX bull**** because
> of the EFFECTS of the mere fact of exercising such tests have on human
> perception, the *main* factor that determine the outcome of such tests in
> the first place!

How does enhancing ones chances of hearing differences have a bad effect on
people? That's what ABX does, that's why people like the BBC used DBT's to
choose new speakers.

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>> Fella" > wrote
>>> JBorg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Maybe you should also try using pwr conditioner on your system
>>> if you haven't already.
>>
>> I have tried the PSaudio ultimate outlet and transparent XL something
>> something or other but they all increased bass with the amplifier so back
>> they went.
>
>
> That's an interesting decision, ah I mean -- situation.
>
>
>
>> I do admit that I have outlet problems, my system was in the big living
>> room before meshed with the HT system and I had recently extended a
>> grounded source to it but the little toddler we have grew up in the past
>> months and now is very much interested with everything that I touch, etc,
>> so we had to move the highend system to a back room away from the little
>> bugger and there is no grounded outlet there! In a way your were right,
>> (or was it some other poster) that instead of paying 2000 euros for a
>> transparet conditioner I should call in some electrician and have him do
>> something about the outlet in the hifi room. Might cost less, though
>> around these parts of the woods it is not a given.
>>
>>>
>>> How's Finland today !
>>>
>>
>> -5! Lot's o snow from the weekend.
>
>
> Thanks Fella and drive careful...........
Carefully! It's an adverb.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>>
>> In the case of the Sonus Faber's I wouldn't want an exact copy, since I
>> prefer speakers that have accurate bass response, not just good looks.
>
> Did you ever hear a sonus faber?

Yes.

Have you ever heard a Merlin VSM?

Oh wait, hearing the thing is of
> secondary importance to you, right, you have your measurements and graphs
> to look at. Ok. :)

You think if you repeat a lie often, it will become true?

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>>
>> I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was because
>> of a power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly flawed or the
>> circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>
>
> Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays the dang
> power, or not.

How old was the original cord?

[Sander deWaal]

"Michael McKelvy" > said:

>People who want to see wha the best is. People who want to know if there's
>a reason for spending more or less money. If something is more expensive
>and no different in it's sound, you don't buy the more expensive one. If
>there's a difference, then you find out if it's an improvement or not.


I'm not really a good person to answer this, because I mostly DIY my
stuff.
What I have to buy, I buy second hand and/or broken.


>> There's no *need* to do that to determine subtle differences.
>> Just listening is enough. No need for tests.

>If there's no need for it, then why do so many organizations from Harman to
>the BBC employ them?


Because most individuals are not Harman or the BBC? ;-)
BTW Both Proceed and Mark Levinson are part of the Harman group.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> <snip repetitive comments in which Arny shows his unability to
>> understand how most of the world listens and selects its components>

>Sander again discredits himself by presuming that other people are as
>imperceptive as he is.


Arny again misreads what was written and twists the meaning to suit
his preconceptions.

Nothing new here! ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Lionel]

Nousaine a écrit :
> If you think about stress carefully you'll conclude that stress at its maximal
> level makes one as good as he can possibly be. Just think of all those stories
> about super-human strength and activity ... they all occur in a life or death
> (or near life or death) situation. The ONLY times when stress seems to be
> disabling is when the task is physically impossible ... such as 'hearing'
> inaudible phenomena.
>
> Does the stress of examinations cause students to forget what they 'know?' Of
> coiurse not. The only performance 'loss' only occurs for those students who are
> unprepared.....those who haven't really acquired the knowldge.
>
> Put another way IF a certain effect were physically or even psychologically
> "audible" under what condition would an individual be MOST LIKLEY to reliably
> report its presence? I'd say that if IF someone held a gun to a subjects head
> threatening to shoot him when he failed to reliably report the presence of a
> given sound the subject would be most likely to respond correctly when the
> sound was actually a real phenomenon.
>
> On the other hand if the effect does not have a real acoustical cause then
> stress may cause the subject to psychologicvally break down but the cause isn't
> the "stress" of the experiment but the impossibility of hearing a sound that
> doesn't physically exist.
>
> Psychological stress tends to improve physical performance (including hearing)
> in every line of activity when humans have a task that can completed.


You are right when you say that the stress can stimulate hearing of the
sentinel but are you really sure that is the experience we want to have
when the subject come to audio ? ;-)

Everything you have written above is, IMHO, the contrary of an artistic
experience.



> "JBorg" wrote:
>
>
>>>Fella wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they impose
>>
>>upon
>>
>>>humans.
>>
>>
>>Stress at its minimum levels keeps you alert.
>
>

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>The real problem is that sighted listening is so grotesquely unreliable due
>to its immense susceptibility to false positives.


<NEWSFLASH>

All of the recreational listening *is* done sighted, Arny.
There's *no way* around that.

People *do* get influenced by other factors than just sound quality.


>If more people did blind comparisons of audio components, ragazines like
>Stereophile would be in serious trouble due to lack of credibility.


Tough talk. Just wait until you get to sit at one table with mr. "Evil
High End " Atkinson himself.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was
>>>>because of a power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly
>>>>flawed or the circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays the
>>>dang power, or not.
>>
>>
>> If that were exactly true, then there would be no audible difference
>> between power cords.
>
> See, a borg with his foot in his mouth.

You now call yourself a Borg?

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Fella" > wrote in message

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Fella" > wrote in message

>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was
>>>>>>>>because of a power cord alone. Either the original one was
>>>>>>>>grossly flawed or the circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays
>>>>>>>the dang power, or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If that were exactly true, then there would be no audible
>>>>>>difference between power cords.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>See, a borg with his foot in his mouth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>See, a *Normal* who is cornered. Notice immediate descent in
>>>>name-calling.
>>
>>
>>>*I* am not claiming that there are no audible difference between power
>>>cords, *you borg* are!
>>
>>
>> Where did I claim that?
>
> Hmmm.. Wasn't you with the power plants, allll the way from the power
> plants ... how can the last few inches make a difference ... Hmmm.. Maybe
> it was some OTHER ARNY KRUEGER!!! DUH! :)

Find the quote of him saying audible differences in power cords is
impossible.
After you fail at that, take a reading comprehension course.

The point is and has been, that if there were differences, then there are
reasons. If you know ALL the pertinent information about the 2 cords, tehn
you can determine why the unexpected difference.

>>
>>
>
> Just look at the way you argue on and on, all these lies, the demogogy,
> the dirty debating tricks. If you are doing this in real life to real
> people ...
>
No tricks, you just don't like the answers or the questions. You don't want
t examine the reasons why there could have been a difference and why it is
unexpected.
>>
>
> Don't be silly.
>
Words to live by.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> A human being would not need a "test" to tell him he
>> hadn't experienced a sensation he did not experience.

>So where do all these false positives come from in sighted listening tests?


There are no such things as "false positives".

Perception just *is* .

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Michael McKelvy]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> A human being would not need a "test" to tell him he
>>> hadn't experienced a sensation he did not experience.
>
>>So where do all these false positives come from in sighted listening
>>tests?
>
>
> There are no such things as "false positives".
>
> Perception just *is* .
>
You never saw a mirage?

[Michael McKelvy]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> Fella > said:
>
>>I do admit that I have outlet problems, my system was in the big living
>>room before meshed with the HT system and I had recently extended a
>>grounded source to it but the little toddler we have grew up in the past
>>months and now is very much interested with everything that I touch,
>>etc, so we had to move the highend system to a back room away from the
>>little bugger and there is no grounded outlet there! In a way your were
>>right, (or was it some other poster) that instead of paying 2000 euros
>>for a transparet conditioner I should call in some electrician and have
>>him do something about the outlet in the hifi room. Might cost less,
>>though around these parts of the woods it is not a given.
>
> I made a dedicated group especially for audio.
> Made a remarkable difference. Sighted, not blind.
> You don't suppose I'm foolish enough to work on 230V Ac blindly?
>
> ;-)
Not if you don't want to become toast.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you taling about people *George*, or a pseudo-person who calls himself
> George Middius?
>
>

I know you are not taling to me, but I thougt I would answer anyway.
I didn't feel like waling away from it.

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy" wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>> JBorg wrote
>>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>>>> differences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you give just one example how you ascertain that listening
>>>> for pleasure is going to be an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>>> differences. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources, you can't
>>> make any sort of comparison. [...]
>>

I said:

At the rate of, say, 20, 40, 60 switch/sec., that is, very rapid, there will
be distraction due to confusion as a result of being affected by "and/or"
impeded by your known listening preference(s). A dilemma.

> What the **** are you talking about?

You said below this is gibbirish, of course this is gibberish. I was trying
to find the point just before as you put it, the moment it become gibbirish
to you. I mean, you know, the highest rate of switching, and I was trying to
find what I think would happen. The point were everything would "merge",
so to speak. I think it would be bewt 5 and 20per sec.... 40 and 60 per sec.
is ridiculous.

The switching, of course, has to be swiftly and cleanly done by a source
other done the testee as long as the testee knows that this is taking
place as he listen for "pleasure" through the test-- per your condition.

Remember that the testee is comparing one of the component that he is
familiar, and using sound sources well familiarize to him.



>> All these my opinion. Thanks for the example.
>>
>>> If you listen for pleasure, one assumes you are listening to the music and not
>>> the system performance, at least that's what I do.
>>>
>>> If you want to check for subtle difference, you need something to compare, and
>>> you need to switch quickly to something that is level matched.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>
> The above from you is gibberish. If you want to compare for differences, you
> need to switch between two sources quickly so you don't forget what you heard.
> You can listen as long as you wish, but to compare, you need to have the other
> source available at the flick of a switch.


Very well. The scheme above is still about comparing, and the subject knows
that the two component involve are different.



JBorg

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you're just completely missing the point of quick switching, Borgma.
>>>
>>> Your rewrite is as nonsensical as the original.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's what McKelvy stated:
>>
>>
>> " Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources, you can't
>> make any sort of comparison. I f you listen for pleasure, one assumes you are
>> listening to the music and not the system performance, at least that's what I
>> do. "
>>
>> Mode: Listening for Pleasure
>>
>>
>> I know this is about the testee, why can't we rest his hands and just focus
>> ahead.
>>
>>
>>
> You can rest your hand as long as you wish until the person making the
> comparison decides to switch to the other source. Could be once a minute, once
> an hour or whatever, as long as the second source is available in a few 10ths of
> a second.

My idea was to keep the testee away from this task because of the condition
you place above ie listening for pleasure and rapid switching.





(be back later...)

[Bruce J. Richman]

JBorg wrote:


>> Fella wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they impose
>upon
>> humans.
>
>
>Stress at its minimum levels keeps you alert.
>
>

Yes, it undoubtedly does for most individuals. That said, there is a very fine
line between stress and performance anxiety which, for some individuals, can be
quite debilitating. Some people just don't do well in various kinds of tests,
because of anxiety about performance.



Bruce J. Richman

[Fella]

Nousaine wrote:

> I'd say that if IF someone held a gun to a subjects head
> threatening to shoot him when he failed to reliably report the presence of a
> given sound the subject would be most likely to respond correctly when the
> sound was actually a real phenomenon.

I am just lost for words, completely flabbergasted.


>
> Psychological stress tends to improve physical performance (including hearing)
> in every line of activity when humans have a task that can completed.
>

Really, I am NOT going to take YOU for an expert, or my guiding light,
and THAT you can bet on.

And yea, I'll take that gun and...

[JBorg]

> Nousaine wrote
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> Fella wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they
>>> impose upon humans.
>>
>>
>> Stress at its minimum levels keeps you alert.
>
>
>
> If you think about stress carefully you'll conclude that stress at its maximal
> level makes one as good as he can possibly be. Just think of all those stories
> about super-human strength and activity ... they all occur in a life or death
> (or near life or death) situation. The ONLY times when stress seems to be
> disabling is when the task is physically impossible ... such as 'hearing'
> inaudible phenomena.


I think that the term "inaudible phenomena" should be clarified a little bit
more. It will certainly stress anyone trying to hear something that is
"inaudible."


> Does the stress of examinations cause students to forget what they 'know?' Of
> course not. The only performance 'loss' only occurs for those students who are
> unprepared.....those who haven't really acquired the knowldge.


I agree with Dr. Richman's kind comment on this sub-thread that there's a very
fine line between stress and performance anxiety.


> Put another way IF a certain effect were physically or even psychologically
> "audible" under what condition would an individual be MOST LIKLEY to reliably
> report its presence?

What would be an example this effect that is psychologically audible?

For, something that is physically audible, I cannot tell you that.


> I'd say that if IF someone held a gun to a subjects head
> threatening to shoot him when he failed to reliably report the presence of a
> given sound the subject would be most likely to respond correctly when the
> sound was actually a real phenomenon.


This is nuts !!


> On the other hand if the effect does not have a real acoustical cause then
> stress may cause the subject to psychologicvally break down but the cause isn't
> the "stress" of the experiment but the impossibility of hearing a sound that
> doesn't physically exist.

Well yes! If anyone is trying to hear a sound that doesn't physically exist -- it
will stress them out. A normal person realizes the futility of doing an
experiment
of trying to hear something that doesn't exist.

What is an example of this effect?

> Psychological stress tends to improve physical performance (including hearing)
> in every line of activity when humans have a task that can completed.


I believe that it also depend on the level of stress, and the individual's mental
and physical health.

[JBorg]

> Sander deWaal wrote
>> Arny Krueger said:
>
>
>
>>> <snip repetitive comments in which Arny shows his unability to
>>> understand how most of the world listens and selects its components>
>
>>Sander again discredits himself by presuming that other people are as
>>imperceptive as he is.
>
>
> Arny again misreads what was written and twists the meaning to suit
> his preconceptions.
>
> Nothing new here! ;-)


I so agree even if I didn't read what he said. He's on the roll.



> --
> Sander de Waal
> " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>JBorg wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> "Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>>> differences.
>>>
>>> Well, its a kind of conundrum. Listening for pleasure tends to be
>>> non-critical of the detailed aspects of sound quality.
>>>
>>> In some sense, if you start listening critically, you stop listening for just
>>> pleasure. You start listening for subtle aspects of sound quality.
>>>
>>> What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and all
>>> of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back and
>>> listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.
>>
>>
>>
>> Detecting sound differences while critically listening for subtle aspects of
>> sound quality is not commensurable to the joy you get when listening
>> for pleasure.
>
>
> Who said they were? One you do for pure pleasure, the other you do so that you
> can enhance that pleasure.



Failure to detect a simple misdirection, noted.


You are such an embarrassment for Rao.

[JBorg]

> Ruud Broens wrote
>
>
>
> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
> A proper protocol for dbt is no easy feat ! In fact, i've see _no_ such test at
> all, yet, (in audio) that could even begin to claim all parameters *not*
> tested
> for variance - but of influence - *are* held constant, that is a well
> controlled
> setting :(
>
>
> Rudy


Actually, I'm not really worried, Ruud.

[Fella]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

>
> Yes, it undoubtedly does for most individuals. That said, there is a very fine
> line between stress and performance anxiety

Yes, thank you Mr Richman for the better choice of words. I had actually
meant performance anxiety all along.

[Fella]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was because
>>>of a power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly flawed or the
>>>circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>>
>>
>>Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays the dang
>>power, or not.
>
>
> How old was the original cord?
>
>

How old *is* you should ask, as I am still using it with the densen: 8
months.

[Ruud Broens]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m...
:
: > Ruud Broens wrote
: >
: >
: >
: > : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: > A proper protocol for dbt is no easy feat ! In fact, i've see _no_ such test
at
: > all, yet, (in audio) that could even begin to claim all parameters *not*
: > tested
: > for variance - but of influence - *are* held constant, that is a well
: > controlled
: > setting :(
: >
: >
: > Rudy
:
:
: Actually, I'm not really worried, Ruud.
:
The worry is for those who want to proclaim all sorts of things,
based on such tests (with flawed protocol) as a general statement of fact.

Rudy

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m
>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>> JBorg wrote

>> You can rest your hand as long as you wish until the person making
>> the comparison decides to switch to the other source. Could be once
>> a minute, once an hour or whatever, as long as the second source is
>> available in a few 10ths of a second.

> My idea was to keep the testee away from this task because of the
> condition you place above ie listening for pleasure and rapid
> switching.

As usual Borgma, your idea is counter-productive.

The best person to chose the switching times is generally the well-trained
listener.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> A human being would not need a "test" to tell him he
>>> hadn't experienced a sensation he did not experience.
>
>> So where do all these false positives come from in sighted listening
>> tests?

> There are no such things as "false positives".

Yup, innocent men are never executed.

> Perception just *is* .

That's what all the radical subjectivists say. In fact reliability is often
of paramount importance.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
.net
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>>
>>>> A human being would not need a "test" to tell him he
>>>> hadn't experienced a sensation he did not experience.
>>
>>> So where do all these false positives come from in sighted listening
>>> tests?

>> There are no such things as "false positives".

>> Perception just *is* .

> You never saw a mirage?

You know all those optical and audible illusions that we are all familiar
with? In Sander's world, they don't exist.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Michael McKelvy" > said:
>
>>>> A technical problem that is resolved this way has lasting benefits,
>>>> benefits
>>>> that can have benefits for a larger group of people.
>
>>> Funny you mention that.
>>> I've made and sold some amplifiers in the past, so far I haven't had
>>> any complaints.
>>> Must be all "normals" ;-)

>> Once most people buy something, they usually don't spend any time
>> comparing it to something else. They've made up their mind it's
>> what they want and that's the end of it.

Probably true for most people.

But, not true for everybody, particularly if they become dissatistfied with
their purchase.

> Yes YES YESSS!!!!!!!!

Except for all of the exceptions.

> EXACTLY!!!!!!

Except when it isn't true.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:

>> The real problem is that sighted listening is so grotesquely
>> unreliable due to its immense susceptibility to false positives.

> <NEWSFLASH>

> All of the recreational listening *is* done sighted, Arny.

That's not true at all. People often do recreational listening under
conditions that amount to being double blind.

> There's *no way* around that.

Except in reality. You walk into a hifi store or someone's house and hear
something playing. You can't see which component is playing. There's nobody
around. So far, we're talking double blind listening here.

> People *do* get influenced by other factors than just sound quality.

Of course. I guess you haven't read my posts here for the past six or more
years, Sander.

>> If more people did blind comparisons of audio components, ragazines
>> like Stereophile would be in serious trouble due to lack of
>> credibility.

> Tough talk. Just wait until you get to sit at one table with mr. "Evil
> High End " Atkinson himself.

He set himself up, for this. I wish him the best.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Nousaine" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If you think about stress carefully you'll conclude that stress at
>> its maximal level makes one as good as he can possibly be.
>
> Howzat ??
>
> Just think of all those stories
>> about super-human strength and activity ... they all occur in a life
>> or death (or near life or death) situation.
>
> Are we talking physical tasks or 'mental' tasks here ?

Just try to onece fully separate a physical task from one's mentality. Can't
be done.

>> The ONLY times when stress seems to be
>> disabling is when the task is physically impossible ... such as
>> 'hearing' inaudible phenomena.

>> Does the stress of examinations cause students to forget what they
>> 'know?' Of coiurse not. *The only performance 'loss' only occurs for
>> those students who are unprepared.....those who haven't really
>> acquired the knowldge.

> * o, but such things do happen, on a regular basis with numerous
> students

The solutions to the effects of stress on performance are well-known and
numerous. One of the most generally accepted solution is called practice.

>> Put another way IF a certain effect were physically or even
>> psychologically "audible" under what condition would an individual
>> be MOST LIKLEY to reliably report its presence? I'd say that if IF
>> someone held a gun to a subjects head threatening to shoot him when
>> he failed to reliably report the presence of a given sound the
>> subject would be most likely to respond correctly when the sound was
>> actually a real phenomenon.

> ...wouldn't want to play russian roulette with ya on that theory...

Ludicrous red herring noted.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote in
>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>
>
>
> <his usual uninformed, irrational gibberish>
>
>> The above from you is gibberish.
>
> Agreed. Borgma's posts are usually so bad that they are painful to read, and
> that's just the content, aside from the weird syntax.


Sometimes it is also difficult to ascribe thoughts when your're distracted,
thinking and writing at the same time, at least for me.

I was attempting to discuss with McKelvy about a test where the subject can
positively detect or discern presence of sound difference betw two equally
competent component e.g. amps, in particular, that are in the same class.
I was discussing test scenarios which I think might facilitate the optimum
condition for the subject to discern these differences, if any. I am assuming
that the best manner in which it is done-- is when the subject is listening for
pleasure. McKelvy suggested that in this particular mode, the ability to rapidly
switch will ensure that the subject will have a much better chance to detect
these "subtle" sound differences. So I first started thinking what might the
threshold be for the rate of switching allowable at the upper-end before it
soak the sound althogether. Thank you.

>> If you want to compare for differences, you need to switch between two sources
>> quickly so you don't forget what you heard.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> You can listen as long as you wish, but to compare, you need to have the other
>> source available at the flick of a switch.
>
> Exactly.

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m...
>
>> Michael McKelvy" wrote
>>> JBorg wrote
>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>>> JBorg wrote
>>>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, listening for pleasure is an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>>>>> differences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you give just one example how you ascertain that listening
>>>>> for pleasure is going to be an unreliable way to determine subtle
>>>>> differences. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless you have the ability to rapidly switch between 2 sources, you
>>>> can't make any sort of comparison. [...]
>>>
>
> I said:
>
> At the rate of, say, 20, 40, 60 switch/sec., that is, very rapid, there
> will
> be distraction due to confusion as a result of being affected by "and/or"
> impeded by your known listening preference(s). A dilemma.
>
>> What the **** are you talking about?
>
> You said below this is gibbirish, of course this is gibberish. I was
> trying
> to find the point just before as you put it, the moment it become
> gibbirish
> to you. I mean, you know, the highest rate of switching, and I was trying
> to
> find what I think would happen. The point were everything would "merge",
> so to speak. I think it would be bewt 5 and 20per sec.... 40 and 60 per
> sec.
> is ridiculous.
>
> The switching, of course, has to be swiftly and cleanly done by a source
> other done the testee as long as the testee knows that this is taking
> place as he listen for "pleasure" through the test-- per your condition.
>
> Remember that the testee is comparing one of the component that he is
> familiar, and using sound sources well familiarize to him.
>
>
>
>>> All these my opinion. Thanks for the example.
>>>
>>>> If you listen for pleasure, one assumes you are listening to the music
>>>> and not the system performance, at least that's what I do.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to check for subtle difference, you need something to
>>>> compare, and you need to switch quickly to something that is level
>>>> matched.
>>>
>>> See above.
>>>
>>>
>> The above from you is gibberish. If you want to compare for differences,
>> you need to switch between two sources quickly so you don't forget what
>> you heard. You can listen as long as you wish, but to compare, you need
>> to have the other source available at the flick of a switch.
>
>
> Very well. The scheme above is still about comparing, and the subject
> knows
> that the two component involve are different.
>
>
>
That's the point. The person making the comparisons is trying to determine
what if any difference he or she might be able to detect. See the post
below regarding the BBC's tests for replacement of their LS line of
speakers, in the thread A bit from the BBC.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I believe he heard a difference. I just don't accept that it was because
>>>>of a power cord alone. Either the original one was grossly flawed or
>>>>the circuit on the other one made a differnce.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Pray do tell, how can a power cord be "flawed"? Either it relays the dang
>>>power, or not.
>>
>>
>> How old was the original cord?
>>
>>
>
> How old *is* you should ask, as I am still using it with the densen: 8
> months.

That would seem to eliminate oxidization of the copper, but not necessarily.

If one cord had a difference in it's resistance of 20% or more, it would
then make an audible difference.

Have you ever posted to rec.audio.tech?

There are other EE's who frequently post there, most notably Dick Pierce.
He has been involved in design of audio equipment and is highly regarded.

It is a less inflammatory group than here, but still subject to nonsense
since it is also unmoderated. The major difference being the people who
answer questions, like Arny, have lots of technical expertise.

If you were to post a question such as, "What can make power cords produce
audible changes," you would most likely get a definitive answer. Most
likely it would be the same answer you would get here from Arny had you
asked such a question before you started all the name calling and
boorishness.

[Bruce J. Richman]

JBorg wrote:


> Nousaine wrote
>>> JBorg wrote:
>>>> Fella wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The abx/dbt tests are NOT reliable because of the stress factor they
>>>> impose upon humans.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stress at its minimum levels keeps you alert.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you think about stress carefully you'll conclude that stress at its
>maximal
>> level makes one as good as he can possibly be. Just think of all those
>stories
>> about super-human strength and activity ... they all occur in a life or
>death
>> (or near life or death) situation. The ONLY times when stress seems to be
>> disabling is when the task is physically impossible ... such as 'hearing'
>> inaudible phenomena.
>
>
>I think that the term "inaudible phenomena" should be clarified a little bit
>more. It will certainly stress anyone trying to hear something that is
>"inaudible."
>
>
>> Does the stress of examinations cause students to forget what they 'know?'
>Of
>> course not. The only performance 'loss' only occurs for those students who
>are
>> unprepared.....those who haven't really acquired the knowldge.
>
>
>I agree with Dr. Richman's kind comment on this sub-thread that there's a
>very
>fine line between stress and performance anxiety.
>
>
>> Put another way IF a certain effect were physically or even psychologically
>> "audible" under what condition would an individual be MOST LIKLEY to
>reliably
>> report its presence?
>
>What would be an example this effect that is psychologically audible?
>
>For, something that is physically audible, I cannot tell you that.
>
>
>> I'd say that if IF someone held a gun to a subjects head
>> threatening to shoot him when he failed to reliably report the presence of
>a
>> given sound the subject would be most likely to respond correctly when the
>> sound was actually a real phenomenon.
>
>
>This is nuts !!
>
>
>> On the other hand if the effect does not have a real acoustical cause then
>> stress may cause the subject to psychologicvally break down but the cause
>isn't
>> the "stress" of the experiment but the impossibility of hearing a sound
>that
>> doesn't physically exist.
>
>Well yes! If anyone is trying to hear a sound that doesn't physically exist
>-- it
>will stress them out. A normal person realizes the futility of doing an
>experiment
>of trying to hear something that doesn't exist.
>




>What is an example of this effect?
>
>> Psychological stress tends to improve physical performance (including
>hearing)
>> in every line of activity when humans have a task that can completed.
>
>
>I believe that it also depend on the level of stress, and the individual's
>mental
>and physical health.
>
>
>

That's correct. And this is a much more pragmatic and scientific way of
considerin the effects of stress than simply generalizing about its effects.
Everybody is familiar, for example, with the situation in which some athletes
"choke" under pressure (stress) and perform below the level at which they are
capable. Some people have problems with public speaking in front of groups,
even if they know the topic thoroughly. (That was one of the reaons that
Toastmasters Clubs were developed and why some people get therapy for this
problem). IOW, not everybody handles stress the same way. Some perform
better, but others may indeed perform worse.



Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

"Michael McKelvy" > said:

>> Perception just *is* .

>You never saw a mirage?

AAMOF, no.
But how does that change my statement?
Perceiving something doesn't equal a reality.

EG. look at how people perceive your posts.......or mine.
All different.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> <NEWSFLASH>

>> All of the recreational listening *is* done sighted, Arny.

>That's not true at all. People often do recreational listening under
>conditions that amount to being double blind.


The example you've given below isn't convincing to me.


>> There's *no way* around that.

>Except in reality. You walk into a hifi store or someone's house and hear
>something playing. You can't see which component is playing. There's nobody
>around. So far, we're talking double blind listening here.


I don't consider that "recreational" listening.
For me, that means putting on a CD or whatever medium, sit back on the
couch and enjoy.

So we're just discussing semantics here.


>> People *do* get influenced by other factors than just sound quality.

>Of course. I guess you haven't read my posts here for the past six or more
>years, Sander.


And I guess you haven't read *mine* close enough, Arny.
Maybe our audio views don't differ that much after all...... ;-)


>>> If more people did blind comparisons of audio components, ragazines
>>> like Stereophile would be in serious trouble due to lack of
>>> credibility.

>> Tough talk. Just wait until you get to sit at one table with mr. "Evil
>> High End " Atkinson himself.

>He set himself up, for this. I wish him the best.


LOL!!! You too.
I applaud you for accepting the invitation.
I'm very curious as to what will be discussed, and I'm looking forward
to some kind of synopsis of the meeting.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> Perception just *is* .

>That's what all the radical subjectivists say. In fact reliability is often
>of paramount importance.


I should have amended my statement to "recreational" listening to
music.
However, in some other instances, the same applies IMHO.
Your perception of a Middius post is different from mine.
Which one is "true"?

Can't answer that? Of course not.
Perception is dependent on the person perceiving, not on some absolute
or measurable criteria.

I'm still in doubt about your earlier statement:
>What sometimes happens to me is that I'm just listening for pleasure and all
>of a sudden I get this perception that something is wrong. I go back and
>listen critically, and sometimes I detect some audible flaw.

In which you clearly state that *while you're listening for pleasure,
you get the perception that something is wrong*.

Only *after* that event, that *perception*, you get to listen more
critically.
The divide you have created between recreational and critical
listening is artificial IMHO.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>"Michael McKelvy" > said:
>
>>> Perception just *is* .
>
>>You never saw a mirage?
>
>AAMOF, no.
>But how does that change my statement?
>Perceiving something doesn't equal a reality.
>

That is absolutely correct. That is why people will have different reactions
to the same piece of music, or piece of artwork.
Individual differences in terms of likes and dislikes, among other things,
determine how an event or object is perceived by a specific individual.

Differences in perception also help explain, for example, why some people have
phobias about certain things, while others do not. (e.g. fear of flying,
heights, public speaking, agoraphobia, etc.). What a person tells themself -
IOW, their thoughts, have a lot to do with how a given situation is perceived.







>EG. look at how people perceive your posts.......or mine.
>All different.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[dave weil]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:38:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"JBorg" > wrote in message
m
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote
>>>> JBorg wrote
>
>>> You can rest your hand as long as you wish until the person making
>>> the comparison decides to switch to the other source. Could be once
>>> a minute, once an hour or whatever, as long as the second source is
>>> available in a few 10ths of a second.
>
>> My idea was to keep the testee away from this task because of the
>> condition you place above ie listening for pleasure and rapid
>> switching.
>
>As usual Borgma, your idea is counter-productive.
>
>The best person to chose the switching times is generally the well-trained
>listener.

I'll remember this qjuote the next time you claim that your deliberate
truncating of your samples is in the best interest of the testee.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> <NEWSFLASH>
>
>>> All of the recreational listening *is* done sighted, Arny.
>
>> That's not true at all. People often do recreational listening under
>> conditions that amount to being double blind.
>
>
> The example you've given below isn't convincing to me.

Of course Sander, it's your job to be totally refractory on this point.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>> *I* am not claiming that there are no audible difference between
>>> power cords, *you borg* are!

>> Where did I claim that?

> Hmmm.. Wasn't you with the power plants, allll the way from the power
> plants ... how can the last few inches make a difference ... Hmmm..
> Maybe it was some OTHER ARNY KRUEGER!!! DUH! :)

Inability to tell the differnce between a power cord and a complete power
distribution system, noted.

[JBorg]

> Michael McKelvy wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>>> Michael McKelvy" wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>>> The above from you is gibberish. If you want to compare for differences, you
>>> need to switch between two sources quickly so you don't forget what you heard.
>>> You can listen as long as you wish, but to compare, you need to have the other
>>> source available at the flick of a switch.


The rapid switching I was referring to all along is the switching betw the
components under test and not the time it takes the device 'itself' to switch
betw the two component.


>> Very well. The scheme above is still about comparing, and the subject knows
>> that the two component involve are different.
>>
>>
> That's the point. The person making the comparisons is trying to determine what
> if any difference he or she might be able to detect. See the post below
> regarding the BBC's tests for replacement of their LS line of speakers, in the
> thread A bit from the BBC.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > said:
>
>>> Perception just *is* .
>
>>You never saw a mirage?
>
> AAMOF, no.
> But how does that change my statement?

A mirage is perceiving something that isn't there.

> Perceiving something doesn't equal a reality.
>
> EG. look at how people perceive your posts.......or mine.
> All different.
>
But only one reality.

Perception is not always real. Perception can be fooled. Reality simply is,
perceptions can change.

If I perceive sound one way at one time and differently at another time, it
doesn't mean that my equipment has changed, it could simply be my
disposition. I don't think I need to alter or replace my equipment every
time my mood changes.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Michael McKelvy wrote:


> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Michael McKelvy" > said:
> >
> >>> Perception just *is* .
> >
> >>You never saw a mirage?
> >
> > AAMOF, no.
> > But how does that change my statement?
>
> A mirage is perceiving something that isn't there.
>

That is incorrect. Seeing something that is not there, i.e. can not be
proven to be there physically, is an illusion, not a pereption. More
precisely, a mirage would be an optical illusion.

The well known Muller-Lyer illusion is another example of an optical
illusion.

http://www.yorku.ca/eye/m-lillu.htm

The lines are physically the same length, by measurement, but are often
seen as different lengths. IOW, the appearance of different lengths is
an illusion.

Perceptions, by contrast, are the responses that people have to various
stimuli based on their prior experiences primarily, along with other
biases.


> > Perceiving something doesn't equal a reality.
> >
> > EG. look at how people perceive your posts.......or mine.
> > All different.
> >
> But only one reality.
>

The words in the post are physically there and "real". However, as
Sander points out, the responses that different people have to the same
content can be different and are the perceptions the posts elicit.



> Perception is not always real. Perception can be fooled. Reality
simply is,
> perceptions can change.
>
> If I perceive sound one way at one time and differently at another
time, it
> doesn't mean that my equipment has changed, it could simply be my
> disposition. I don't think I need to alter or replace my equipment
every
> time my mood changes.

[Clyde Slick]

"Paul Dormer" > wrote in message
...
> "Nousaine" emitted :
>
>>If you think about stress carefully you'll conclude that stress at its
>>maximal
>>level makes one as good as he can possibly be. Just think of all those
>>stories
>>about super-human strength and activity ... they all occur in a life or
>>death
>>(or near life or death) situation. The ONLY times when stress seems to be
>>disabling is when the task is physically impossible ... such as 'hearing'
>>inaudible phenomena.
>
> Yes.. because superhuman feats like singlehandedly lifting the rear
> end of a vehicle so a child can be pulled out at the scene of a RTA
> *IS* akin to acute listening tests... in Clownsville USA.
>
>>Put another way IF a certain effect were physically or even
>>psychologically
>>"audible" under what condition would an individual be MOST LIKLEY to
>>reliably
>>report its presence? I'd say that if IF someone held a gun to a subjects
>>head
>>threatening to shoot him when he failed to reliably report the presence of
>>a
>>given sound the subject would be most likely to respond correctly when the
>>sound was actually a real phenomenon.
>
> Fairly recently I asked you if you were armed when you conducted the
> listening tests with Zip, but I did not get a reply. It's obvious why
> you didn't reply now. You clearly indicate above that in your opinion,
> listeners perform at their best when held at gunpoint.. but you failed
> to deal with Zip in that manner. Thus, as a proctor of those tests you
> failed in your duty to provide ideal listening conditions, and
> according to your own criteria the tests were flawed. Very
> embarressing for you, I'm sure.
>

Thus, Arny's listening tests are not valid unless he were holding
a loaded gun to his head.. Now, taking that further,
I would hope Arny would test those noise cancelling headphones
to see how they perform at, say, two inches form the source
of the noise. That ought to give him "at least" a nanosecond
to figure it out.