Mainstream Audio Magazines Died. Why?

[[email protected]]

I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
> never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
> repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
> Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?
>
Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
The direct reason is that they went broke.

Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why products
are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more ethical reason
would be the reluctance of the publisher to be responsible for business
failures.

I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence of
multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the readers
didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do. Most hifi
nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If more modern
content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative effect.
Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior patterns. Catholic
tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want to read about
something outside the box, publishing dictates that you find another "box",
ie., magazine.

In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now that
Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no alternative.
The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an example of the dgree
of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one issue with some pleasure that
additional editorial pages had been allocated.

I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite Stereophile
article on speaker cables, with comprehensive measurements, analysis of
materials and geometry. However, one choice was conspicuously absent: the
doubling or tripling of common zipcord.

Yet Stereophile is the only major survivor. Although I applaud Atkinson's
excellent measurements and technical analysis, my personal favorite was
Audio, as I feel the content was more related to merit than appearance and
marketing. Yet there came a time, in the early 90's, when the industry began
to decline as consumer dollars fled to other amusements. It no longer became
viable to service the merit of sound reproduction; there simply wasn't
enough money in it. Other factors, such as appearance, exclusivity, and
consequent high cost, allowed for favorable business models.

This trend continues. I would guess that half or more of the cost of high
end audio equipment is in the cabinet, and capacitors with "name brand"
recognition. Even that was not enough to prevent market saturation -- hence
the current shift to tubes. Tubes appear even where they have no effect, as
in the input stage of solid state amplifiers. It must be there, because it
sounds different, or because it glows.

None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way, of
anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe. Arny believes
that PA amplifiers are the "final solution". This "dumbing down" of audio,
by men with defective hearing, is a tragic sideshow. Although I do not agree
with tube lovers, I do believe that the limits and variations of audio
reproduction are subtle and still distant from complete characterization.

[[email protected]]

Much tube-ism is in fact total fraud. Most tube equipment is mediocre
just as most solid state equipment is, although tube mediocrity is more
euphonic and if built in the old manner easier to fix. While I don't
totally eschew PCBs in tube equipment many PCB built tube units are a
total cocksucker to service, unnecessarily so.

Good solid state is perfectly satisfactory, personally I often prefer
tubes because I find them more fun to fool with. Modern solid state
commercial PA amps are actually usually well built and documented and
quite serviceworthy, many High End solid state boxes are ostensibly
factory service only. The PA amps are not designed in most cases for
domestic service, some will do reasonably well some will not. Whether
PA or home oriented, high power amps with low quiescent currrent draw
usually have sonic issues at very low power levels. Power amps have a
zone they work well in, just like engines or light bulbs.

PA amps are not always a bad choice for home use. Sometimes they are
cost effective and satisfactory. However situations where they are the
best possible choice are not al that common. At least among the audio
buffs! Teenage heffalumps who want loud hard rock in the house on a
beer (Old Mil at that!) budget, sure, but do we want to encourage that?
We already have a generation and a half of people whose hearing is
shot. I am against high SPL high duty cycle music whether it's rock,
hip-hop, or whatever.

We all have our prejudices, technical and otherwise, and that doesn't
make them right for everyone all the time. Some people really like
dipole speakers, they have certain qualities: I'm sort of a horn buff.
But Arny is just a goof, and he really thinks he's the ****. No one
cares or is going to care about his ABX box and his soundcard reviews
are ridiculous. For one thing they're mostly of obsolete ones. Also he
doesn't talk about driver issues especially for Linux users or MacOS.
And does he review/test cards specifically built for pro use in
broadcast ansd other demanding markets? Finally how can we verify his
kmetrology is not grossly out of cal?

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
>
> I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
> never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
> repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
> Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

People have just lost interest in audio, a hobby that was
really on fire a few decades back.

These days, it is home theater that dominates. Just go down
to Best Buy or Circuit City for the proof. You will find
borderline high-end TV monitors in the 2 to 5 grand
categories. Yet, when you go over to the audio departments
in the same stores you will be lucky to find receivers or
speakers costing more than $400 and you will not find any
high-end gear at all.

Another reason is that all the really smart geeks have
switched to computers.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:

(snips)

> None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way, of
> anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe.

Actually, some of what you said makes sense.

> Arny believes
> that PA amplifiers are the "final solution".

I rather doubt this, and I also rather doubt that you really
believe what you wrote.

> This "dumbing down" of audio,
> by men with defective hearing, is a tragic sideshow.

This is a typically preposterous statement. The tweako
response to an objective approach is that the objective
individual has defective hearing. Heck, it is that objective
individual who trusts his ears enough to favor DBT
comparisons. On the other hand, the golden-ear types are so
unsure of their hearing that they dare not chance a DBT. If
they do give it a try and "flunk," the test is blamed.

> Although I do not agree
> with tube lovers, I do believe that the limits and variations of audio
> reproduction are subtle and still distant from complete characterization.

In that case, the only alternatives are DBT comparisons
which will settle the issue.

Howard Ferstler

[Robert Morein]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> (snips)
>
> > None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way,
of
> > anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe.
>
> Actually, some of what you said makes sense.
>
> > Arny believes
> > that PA amplifiers are the "final solution".
>
> I rather doubt this, and I also rather doubt that you really
> believe what you wrote.
>
The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> > (snips)
> >
> > > None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way,
> of
> > > anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe.
> >
> > Actually, some of what you said makes sense.
> >
> > > Arny believes
> > > that PA amplifiers are the "final solution".
> >
> > I rather doubt this, and I also rather doubt that you really
> > believe what you wrote.

> The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.

Ignorance is bliss for tweakos.

> Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.

Only if you are tweako freako, who, ironically, does not
trust his own hearing and has to know what device is playing
to render a judgment.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
> Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.

Et maintenant tu vois que tous Les Autres habitent l'enfer, n'est-ce pas?

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
> > Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.
>
> Et maintenant tu vois que tous Les Autres habitent l'enfer, n'est-ce pas?
>
Chacun de nous les vies dans un enfer de sa propre fabrication.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > > The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
> > > Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.
> >
> > Et maintenant tu vois que tous Les Autres habitent l'enfer, n'est-ce pas?
> >
> Chacun de nous les vies dans un enfer de sa propre fabrication.

I was speaking real french. You're flattening yourself in ignominy.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > > The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
> > > > Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum
booth.
> > >
> > > Et maintenant tu vois que tous Les Autres habitent l'enfer, n'est-ce
pas?
> > >
> > Chacun de nous les vies dans un enfer de sa propre fabrication.
>
> I was speaking real french. You're flattening yourself in ignominy.
>
Vous parliez vrai français ? Mais pas aussi bien que Voltaire a écrit.

[jeffc]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
> never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
> repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
> Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

Well actually, they used to give some negative reviews. Or at least "damn
with faint praise", so you could figure it out. Having said that, it well
might be that just about all "high end" gear or even top end mass market
gear is just pretty darn good nowadays. Even Absolute Sound raves over some
Sony models.

[jeffc]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yet Stereophile is the only major survivor.

Huh? The Absolute Sound. Stereophile is now viewed as a cheapy. It now
costs a buck an issue, and you can sometimes get much better deals than
that. Of course, that's usually the perceived value too. Maybe they make
money, I don't know. But when asked why I thought TAS was now a better
magazine, I couldn't resist using a quote from Stereophile - "there's just
more there there".

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > I was speaking real french. You're flattening yourself in ignominy.

> Vous parliez vrai français ? Mais pas aussi bien que Voltaire a écrit.

You have ze, how we say, langue en fourchette. A bas le poseur!

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > I was speaking real french. You're flattening yourself in ignominy.
>
> > Vous parliez vrai français ? Mais pas aussi bien que Voltaire a écrit.
>
> You have ze, how we say, langue en fourchette. A bas le poseur!
>
De diable vous parlent-ils ?

[[email protected]]

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> wrote:
> > <<snip>>

>
> Another reason is that all the really smart geeks have
> switched to computers.

For the most part computers are a solved problem. You buy a bizarro
looking case and power supply, an Asus motherboard, a sound card and
video card, and load Red Hat. Or the new $499 iMac. It's not like the
S100 days.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >> Robert Morein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > (snips)
>> >
>> > > None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in
>> >> any way, of anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or
>> >> believe.
>> >
>> > Actually, some of what you said makes sense.
>> >
>> > > Arny believes
>> > > that PA amplifiers are the "final solution".
>> >
>> > I rather doubt this, and I also rather doubt that you really
>> > believe what you wrote.
>
>> The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
>
> Ignorance is bliss for tweakos.
>
>> Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.
>
>
> Only if you are tweako freako, who, ironically, does not
> trust his own hearing and has to know what device is playing
> to render a judgment.


How would you render conscionable judgement if you don't know what
device is playing doofus ?


> Howard Ferstler

[EddieM]

> jeffc wrote
>> Robert Morein wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet Stereophile is the only major survivor.
>
> Huh? The Absolute Sound. Stereophile is now viewed as a cheapy. It now
> costs a buck an issue, and you can sometimes get much better deals than
> that. Of course, that's usually the perceived value too. Maybe they make
> money, I don't know. But when asked why I thought TAS was now a better
> magazine, I couldn't resist using a quote from Stereophile - "there's just
> more there there".


Your 'commentary' reminds me of this guy below. I couldn't tell
what is said about what.


The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing



Glass Box
You know, it's the old glass box at the—
At the gas station,
Where you're using those little things
Trying to pick up the prize,
And you can't find it.
It's—

And it's all these arms are going down in there,
And so you keep dropping it
And picking it up again and moving it,
But—

Some of you are probably too young to remember those—
Those glass boxes,
But—

But they used to have them
At all the gas stations
When I was a kid.

—Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

A Confession
Once in a while,
I'm standing here, doing something.
And I think,
"What in the world am I doing here?"
It's a big surprise.

—May 16, 2001, interview with the New York Times

The Digital Revolution
Oh my goodness gracious,
What you can buy off the Internet
In terms of overhead photography!

A trained ape can know an awful lot
Of what is going on in this world,
Just by punching on his mouse
For a relatively modest cost!

—June 9, 2001, following European trip

The Situation
Things will not be necessarily continuous.
The fact that they are something other than perfectly continuous
Ought not to be characterized as a pause.
There will be some things that people will see.
There will be some things that people won't see.
And life goes on.

—Oct. 12, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

Clarity
I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/

-----

JB

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> calcerise wrote
>
>
>
>> I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
>> never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
>> repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
>> Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?
>>
> Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
> The direct reason is that they went broke.
>
> Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why products
> are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more ethical reason
> would be the reluctance of the publisher to be responsible for business
> failures.
>
> I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence of
> multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the readers
> didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do. Most hifi
> nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If more modern
> content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative effect.
> Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior patterns. Catholic
> tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want to read about
> something outside the box, publishing dictates that you find another "box",
> ie., magazine.
>
> In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
> product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
> Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now that
> Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no alternative.
> The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an example of the
> degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one issue with some pleasure
> that additional editorial pages had been allocated.

It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to make
money.


> I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite Stereophile
> article on speaker cables, with comprehensive measurements, analysis of
> materials and geometry. However, one choice was conspicuously absent: the
> doubling or tripling of common zipcord.

Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're not
commonly use as such?



> Yet Stereophile is the only major survivor. Although I applaud Atkinson's
> excellent measurements and technical analysis, my personal favorite was
> Audio, as I feel the content was more related to merit than appearance and
> marketing. Yet there came a time, in the early 90's, when the industry began
> to decline as consumer dollars fled to other amusements. It no longer became
> viable to service the merit of sound reproduction; there simply wasn't
> enough money in it. Other factors, such as appearance, exclusivity, and
> consequent high cost, allowed for favorable business models.
>
> This trend continues. I would guess that half or more of the cost of high
> end audio equipment is in the cabinet, and capacitors with "name brand"
> recognition. Even that was not enough to prevent market saturation -- hence
> the current shift to tubes. Tubes appear even where they have no effect, as
> in the input stage of solid state amplifiers. It must be there, because it
> sounds different, or because it glows.

It would be enlightening a bit if you separate facts from opinion on this
post.


> None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way, of
> anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe. Arny believes
> that PA amplifiers are the "final solution". This "dumbing down" of audio,
> by men with defective hearing, is a tragic sideshow. Although I do not agree
> with tube lovers, I do believe that the limits and variations of audio
> reproduction are subtle and still distant from complete characterization.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> calcerise wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >> I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
> >> never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
> >> repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
> >> Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?
> >>
> > Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
> > The direct reason is that they went broke.
> >
> > Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why
products
> > are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more ethical reason
> > would be the reluctance of the publisher to be responsible for business
> > failures.
> >
> > I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence of
> > multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the readers
> > didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do. Most
hifi
> > nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If more
modern
> > content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative effect.
> > Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior patterns.
Catholic
> > tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want to read
about
> > something outside the box, publishing dictates that you find another
"box",
> > ie., magazine.
> >
> > In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
> > product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
> > Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now that
> > Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no
alternative.
> > The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an example of the
> > degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one issue with some
pleasure
> > that additional editorial pages had been allocated.
>
> It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to make
> money.
>
I didn't say what the "porpose" of Stereophile is.
Did you by any chance mean to write "purpose" when you wrote "porpose"?
Or did you mean "porpoise", the aquatic mammal?
You also said "It seem".
You confuse with grammatical errors. Did you intend to write "It seems..."
?

I did not use either word. I said "REQUIREMENT".
It is a requirement that Stereophile will make money, or it will cease to be
published.
This does not exclude the possibility that John Atkinson may have other
motivations, such as a love of audio, and a great job.

>
> > I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite
Stereophile
> > article on speaker cables, with comprehensive measurements, analysis of
> > materials and geometry. However, one choice was conspicuously absent:
the
> > doubling or tripling of common zipcord.
>
> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
> using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're
not
> commonly use as such?
>
Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said that
multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or may not
be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the popularity of
zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary formulations, I would
have liked to see how it measured.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
> that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may
> or may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
> popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary
> formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.


Please see http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> calcerise wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
>> >> never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they
>> >> always repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right
>> >> lines. Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?
>> >>
>> > Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
>> > The direct reason is that they went broke.
>> >
>> > Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why
>> > products are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more
>> > ethical reason would be the reluctance of the publisher to be responsible
>> > for business failures.
>> >
>> > I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence of
>> > multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the readers
>> > didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do. Most
>> > hifi nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If more
>> > modern content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative
>> > effect. Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior patterns.
>> > Catholic tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want
>> > to read about something outside the box, publishing dictates that you
>> > find another "box", ie., magazine.
>> >
>> > In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
>> > product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
>> > Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now
>> > that Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no
>> > alternative. The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an
>> > example of the degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one issue
>> > with some pleasure that additional editorial pages had been allocated.
>>
>> It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to make
>> money.
>
> I didn't say what the "porpose" of Stereophile is.
> Did you by any chance mean to write "purpose" when you wrote "porpose"?
> Or did you mean "porpoise", the aquatic mammal?
> You also said "It seem".
> You confuse with grammatical errors. Did you intend to write "It seems..."
> ?
>
> I did not use either word. I said "REQUIREMENT".
> It is a requirement that Stereophile will make money, or it will cease to be
> published.
> This does not exclude the possibility that John Atkinson may have other
> motivations, such as a love of audio, and a great job.


You said that since organization such as Stereophile is now part of a larger
entity, and that there's "no alternative" but to make money. Whether that is
their sole requirement or not I'm not sure base on your talk. You said that
every subscription magazine is a business and that a direct consequence
for failing to follow a business model is that they will go broke. You also
said that their fear of losing advertising revenue is one reason products are
not trashed as often, and you gratuitously supported this by adding that for
an
even more ethical reason, their publisher is reluctant to be responsible for
business failures of HE mfr.

Further, you enunciate that Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces
the rigid thinking pattern of their readers as a result of their reluctance to
delve away from this business model you enthuse about for fear that they
will go broke -- as they have no alternative but to make money, according to
you.

Can you separate your facts and fiction from these ?


In your reply above, you said that it is a requirement for organization like
Stereophile to make money, or it will cease to be published and therefore
must adhere strictly to this bus. model. BUT yet, you now say that its editor
may have other motivations, such as a love for audio, and a great job.


Do you mean to say to do a great job in succumbing to the obsessiveness
of most of these hi-fi nuts for ... the love of audios ?

Could you share your wisdom on these?



>> > I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite
>> > Stereophile article on speaker cables, with comprehensive measurements,
>> > analysis of materials and geometry. However, one choice was conspicuously
>> > absent: the doubling or tripling of common zipcord.
>>
>> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
>> using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're
>> not commonly use as such?
>>
> Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said that
> multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or may not
> be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the popularity of
> zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary formulations, I would
> have liked to see how it measured.


How do you think they're going to measure ??

You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things. Could
you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the same ?


---
Btw, do you "know" how to set the line length on your newsreader when making
post ? Do you "know" the purpose of using the backspace and/or return/enter
keys in your keyboard to align the margin ?

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> calcerise wrote
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
> >> >> never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they
> >> >> always repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right
> >> >> lines. Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?
> >> >>
> >> > Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
> >> > The direct reason is that they went broke.
> >> >
> >> > Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why
> >> > products are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more
> >> > ethical reason would be the reluctance of the publisher to be
responsible
> >> > for business failures.
> >> >
> >> > I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence
of
> >> > multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the
readers
> >> > didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do.
Most
> >> > hifi nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If
more
> >> > modern content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative
> >> > effect. Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior
patterns.
> >> > Catholic tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want
> >> > to read about something outside the box, publishing dictates that you
> >> > find another "box", ie., magazine.
> >> >
> >> > In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
> >> > product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
> >> > Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now
> >> > that Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no
> >> > alternative. The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an
> >> > example of the degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one
issue
> >> > with some pleasure that additional editorial pages had been
allocated.
> >>
> >> It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to
make
> >> money.
> >
> > I didn't say what the "porpose" of Stereophile is.
> > Did you by any chance mean to write "purpose" when you wrote "porpose"?
> > Or did you mean "porpoise", the aquatic mammal?
> > You also said "It seem".
> > You confuse with grammatical errors. Did you intend to write "It
seems..."
> > ?
> >
> > I did not use either word. I said "REQUIREMENT".
> > It is a requirement that Stereophile will make money, or it will cease
to be
> > published.
> > This does not exclude the possibility that John Atkinson may have other
> > motivations, such as a love of audio, and a great job.
>
>
> You said that since organization such as Stereophile is now part of a
larger
> entity, and that there's "no alternative" but to make money. Whether that
is
> their sole requirement or not I'm not sure base on your talk. You said
that
> every subscription magazine is a business and that a direct consequence
> for failing to follow a business model is that they will go broke. You
also
> said that their fear of losing advertising revenue is one reason products
are
> not trashed as often, and you gratuitously supported this by adding that
for
> an
> even more ethical reason, their publisher is reluctant to be responsible
for
> business failures of HE mfr.
>
> Further, you enunciate that Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces
> the rigid thinking pattern of their readers as a result of their
reluctance to
> delve away from this business model you enthuse about for fear that they
> will go broke -- as they have no alternative but to make money, according
to
> you.
>
> Can you separate your facts and fiction from these ?
>
>
> In your reply above, you said that it is a requirement for organization
like
> Stereophile to make money, or it will cease to be published and therefore

> must adhere strictly to this bus. model. BUT yet, you now say that its
editor
> may have other motivations, such as a love for audio, and a great job.
>
>
> Do you mean to say to do a great job in succumbing to the obsessiveness
> of most of these hi-fi nuts for ... the love of audios ?
>
> Could you share your wisdom on these?
>
>
>
> >> > I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite
> >> > Stereophile article on speaker cables, with comprehensive
measurements,
> >> > analysis of materials and geometry. However, one choice was
conspicuously
> >> > absent: the doubling or tripling of common zipcord.
> >>
> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
promote
> >> using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though
they're
> >> not commonly use as such?
> >>
> > Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
that
> > multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or may
not
> > be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the popularity of
> > zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary formulations, I
would
> > have liked to see how it measured.
>
>
> How do you think they're going to measure ??
>
> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
Could
> you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the same ?
>
I can, but I won't.

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
> using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're
> not
> commonly use as such?

Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is NOT
commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.

Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.

Norm Strong

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
> > that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may
> > or may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
> > popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary
> > formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.
>
>
> Please see http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf
>
Arny,
I can't access it. Perhaps the server hit it's limit. I will try later.
Perhaps you would summarize?

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:

>> Please see http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

>Arny,
> I can't access it. Perhaps the server hit it's limit. I will try later.
>Perhaps you would summarize?


Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
>>> that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may
>>> or may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
>>> popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary
>>> formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.
>>
>>
>> Please see http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf
>>
> Arny,
> I can't access it. Perhaps the server hit it's limit. I will try
> later. Perhaps you would summarize?

The author writes:

"The effects of 3.1-m cables are subtle, so many situations may not warrant
the use of special cables. Low- inductance cables will provide the best
performance when driving reactive loads, especially with amplifiers having
low damping factor, and when flat response is critical, when long cable
lengths are required, or when perfection is sought. Though not as linear as
flat cables, 12 AWG wire works well and exceeds the high-fre- of discussions
and rebuttals can be found referencing frequency performance of other
two-conductor cables tested. By the way, keep the auto jumper cables in the
garage!"

BTW, the author Fred E. Davis is among the people that Middius and his crowd
chased off of RAO.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >Perhaps you would summarize?

> Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.

Or go read one of Harold's tedious books. Same net effect.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Sander deWaal said:
>
>>> Perhaps you would summarize?
>
>> Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.
>
> Or go read one of Harold's tedious books. Same net effect.

It's about audio technology so it has no useful meaning to Middius.

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
> >> Please see http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf
>
> >Arny,
> > I can't access it. Perhaps the server hit it's limit. I will try
later.
> >Perhaps you would summarize?
>
>
> Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.
>
I have it.
I read Acrobat files all the time; Acrobat is installed as a helper app.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>
>
>snip
>
>> > Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
>> > that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or
>> > may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
>> > popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary
>> > formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.
>>
>>
>> How do you think they're going to measure ??
>>
>> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
>> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the
>> same ?
>
>
> I can, but I won't.

I wonder why. Is it because the Stereophile's article was't erudite afterall,
and that the exclusion of zipcords was alright, or Is it because you're not
sure
whether you have the latest edition of your religious fantasy?

[George M. Middius]

Turdborg smears himself again.

> >>> Perhaps you would summarize?
> >
> >> Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.
> >
> > Or go read one of Harold's tedious books. Same net effect.
>
> It's about audio technology so it has no useful meaning to Middius.

I've said before that the highest purpose any cable or wire can serve is as a
noose for Arnii Krooger. For that purpose, gauge doesn't matter, construction
doesn't matter, and price doesn't matter. Anything that gets the job done™ is
first-rate.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Turdborg smears himself again.
>
>>>>> Perhaps you would summarize?
>>>
>>>> Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.
>>>
>>> Or go read one of Harold's tedious books. Same net effect.
>>
>> It's about audio technology so it has no useful meaning to Middius.
>
> I've said before that the highest purpose any cable or wire can serve
> is as a noose for Arnii Krooger.

Thanks for helping convince everybody here that you're a murderous nut,
Middius.

>For that purpose, gauge doesn't
> matter, construction doesn't matter, and price doesn't matter.

Why not just put "I'm insane" in your signature line, George?

> Anything that gets the job doneT is first-rate.

Your supporters have to be just as nutzoid as you are!

Oh George, have a nice day! ;-)

[EddieM]

> > wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>
>
>
>
>> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
>> using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're
>> not commonly use as such?
>
> Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is NOT
> commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.
>
> Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.
>
> Norm Strong



I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.

[George M. Middius]

Paranoa™Borg quivers and quails.

> > I've said before that the highest purpose any cable or wire can serve
> > is as a noose for Arnii Krooger.

> Thanks for helping convince everybody here that you're a murderous nut,
> Middius.

Did I make you cry again, Arnii? ;-)

Hey, where's Mikey? When you start to fall apart, he's usually right there,
kleenex at the ready. ;-)


> >For that purpose, gauge doesn't
> > matter, construction doesn't matter, and price doesn't matter.

> Why not just put "I'm insane" in your signature line, George?

Kill yourself. Now.

> > Anything that gets the job done™ is first-rate.

> Your supporters have to be just as nutzoid as you are!

I have supporters? Cool. To you, anybody who sees you as a paranoid religious
freak is incomprehensible. Is your insurance paid up, BTW? When you
eventually break down and go to pieces, you don't want to be a burden to your
unfortunate surviving children.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > > wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
promote
> >> using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though
they're
> >> not commonly use as such?
> >
> > Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is NOT
> > commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.
> >
> > Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.
> >
> > Norm Strong
>
>
>
> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.
>
A lot of people use it.

[George M. Middius]

EddieM said:

> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.

24-ga is strong enough to choke the Krooborg, so it gets the Resistance Seal
of Approval.

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om

> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.

A good card-carrying golden ear would never do such a thing. The power cords
have to be twisted pair composed of Teflon-insulated silver-plated
finely-stranded OFHC copper wire with a hand-braided silk overcoat. The
speaker cables must be composed of layers of thin trips of silver-plated
OFHC copper, separated by foamed polyethylene spacers, again
Teflon-insulated and with a color-coded pattern-coordinated braided silk
overcoat.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> ParanoaTBorg quivers and quails.
>
>>> I've said before that the highest purpose any cable or wire can
>>> serve is as a noose for Arnii Krooger.
>
>> Thanks for helping convince everybody here that you're a murderous
>> nut, Middius.
>
> Did I make you cry again, Arnii? ;-)

No, I was laughing but I wasn't laughing so hard that it made me cry.

What's a boy like me to do when his leading critic on RAO provides one or
more daily demonstrations of his termendous insanity?

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > > wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
>> >> promote using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even
>> >> though they're not commonly use as such?
>> >
>> > Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is NOT
>> > commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.
>> >
>> > Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.
>> >
>> > Norm Strong
>>
>> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.
>
>
>
> A lot of people use it.


A lotta people use it to tie-up the metal flap behind their lawn mower.
Do you ?

[EddieM]

> George M. Middius wrote
>> EddieM said:
>
>
>
>> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.
>
>
> 24-ga is strong enough to choke the Krooborg, so it gets the Resistance Seal
> of Approval.


Arnii this one is for you and your buddy up there, take note.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > > wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
> >> >> promote using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even
> >> >> though they're not commonly use as such?
> >> >
> >> > Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is
NOT
> >> > commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.
> >> >
> >> > Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.
> >> >
> >> > Norm Strong
> >>
> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.
> >
> >
> >
> > A lot of people use it.
>
>
> A lotta people use it to tie-up the metal flap behind their lawn mower.
> Do you ?
>
No.

[EddieM]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> EddieM wrote

>
>> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.
>
> A good card-carrying golden ear would never do such a thing. The power cords
> have to be twisted pair composed of Teflon-insulated silver-plated
> finely-stranded OFHC copper wire with a hand-braided silk overcoat. The
> speaker cables must be composed of layers of thin trips of silver-plated
> OFHC copper, separated by foamed polyethylene spacers, again
> Teflon-insulated and with a color-coded pattern-coordinated braided silk
> overcoat.


How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of yours
above?

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> > Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
> >> > that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may
or
> >> > may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
> >> > popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary
> >> > formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.
> >>
> >>
> >> How do you think they're going to measure ??
> >>
> >> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
> >> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the
> >> same ?
> >
> >
> > I can, but I won't.
>
> I wonder why.

Go ahead and wonder.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg lied:

> > Paranoa™Borg quivers and quails.

> >>> I've said before that the highest purpose any cable or wire can
> >>> serve is as a noose for Arnii Krooger.

> >> Thanks for helping convince everybody here that you're a murderous
> >> nut, Middius.

> > Did I make you cry again, Arnii? ;-)

> No

Fortunately, I have a late-model Krooglish decoder. Look what it says:

Krooglish no/No/NO: equiv. human yes/Yes/YES

I realize that with your severe mental infirmity, you can't distinguish truth
from lies, or food from feces for that matter. ;-) Why haven't you killed
yourself yet, Arnii? Surely you're not expecting one of the Normals to do it
for you. Although one might infer that meaning in your bleating about people
wanting to "murder" you. ;-)

Where's Mikey? ;-)

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
>
> >
> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.
> >
> > A good card-carrying golden ear would never do such a thing. The power
cords
> > have to be twisted pair composed of Teflon-insulated silver-plated
> > finely-stranded OFHC copper wire with a hand-braided silk overcoat. The
> > speaker cables must be composed of layers of thin trips of silver-plated
> > OFHC copper, separated by foamed polyethylene spacers, again
> > Teflon-insulated and with a color-coded pattern-coordinated braided silk
> > overcoat.
>
>
> How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of yours
> above?
>
Arny, I don't think he understands.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > > overcoat.

> > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of yours
> > above?

> Arny, I don't think he understands.

I think he understands quite well.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>. EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > > wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
>> >> >> promote using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even
>> >> >> though they're not commonly use as such?
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is
>> >> > NOT commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.
>> >> >
>> >> > Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.
>> >> >
>> >> > Norm Strong
>> >>
>> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A lot of people use it.
>>
>>
>> A lotta people use it to tie-up the metal flap behind their lawn mower.
>> Do you ?
>>
> No.


Since you don't, what else would you use it if this zipcord measure about
the same among the speaker cables in that Stereophile article you mentioned.
An article which you probably now feel wasn't erudite at all.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >snip
>> >
>> >> > Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
>> >> > that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may
>> >> > or may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
>> >> > popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary
>> >> > formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How do you think they're going to measure ??
>> >>
>> >> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
>> >> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the
>> >> same ?
>> >
>> >
>> > I can, but I won't.
>>
>> I wonder why.
>
>
> Go ahead and wonder.


Yes, I been "wondering" all along if you are able to separate facts from our
fantasy. I thought I had empathetically made this clear to you. Did I?

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Arny Krueger wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>>
>>
>> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.
>> >
>> > A good card-carrying golden ear would never do such a thing. The power
>> > cords
>> > have to be twisted pair composed of Teflon-insulated silver-plated
>> > finely-stranded OFHC copper wire with a hand-braided silk overcoat. The
>> > speaker cables must be composed of layers of thin trips of silver-plated
>> > OFHC copper, separated by foamed polyethylene spacers, again
>> > Teflon-insulated and with a color-coded pattern-coordinated braided silk
>> > overcoat.
>>
>>
>> How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of yours
>> above?
>>
>>
> Arny, I don't think he understands.


Which part do you not understand ?

[EddieM]

> Yes, I been "wondering" all along if you are able to separate facts from








"your"








> fantasy. I thought I had empathetically made this clear to you. Did I?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
>
> What's a boy like me to do when his leading critic on RAO provides
one or
> more daily demonstrations of his tremendous insanity?
>
>
When a nutjob like "George M. Middius" chases you around Usenet, just
grin and enjoy the comedy! ;-)

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >snip
> >> >
> >> >> > Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly
said
> >> >> > that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This
may
> >> >> > or may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
> >> >> > popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced
proprietary
> >> >> > formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you think they're going to measure ??
> >> >>
> >> >> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring
things.
> >> >> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the
> >> >> same ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I can, but I won't.
> >>
> >> I wonder why.
> >
> >
> > Go ahead and wonder.
>
>
> Yes, I been "wondering" all along if you are able to separate facts from
our
> fantasy. I thought I had empathetically made this clear to you. Did I?
>
Go ahead and wonder.

[Lionel]

a écrit :
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>What's a boy like me to do when his leading critic on RAO provides
>
> one or
>
>>more daily demonstrations of his tremendous insanity?
>>
>>
>
> When a nutjob like "George M. Middius" chases you around Usenet, just
> grin and enjoy the comedy! ;-)

"George" is the most predictable and conventional little
thing I have meet on Usenet.
What Arnold calls his "tremendous insanity" is the very
banal illustration of a common neurotic behaviour.

Pitiful.

;-)

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >. EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > > wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
> >> >> >> promote using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even
> >> >> >> though they're not commonly use as such?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord
is
> >> >> > NOT commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Norm Strong
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household
appliances.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > A lot of people use it.
> >>
> >>
> >> A lotta people use it to tie-up the metal flap behind their lawn mower.
> >> Do you ?
> >>
> > No.
>
>
> Since you don't, what else would you use it if this zipcord measure about
> the same among the speaker cables in that Stereophile article you
mentioned.
> An article which you probably now feel wasn't erudite at all.
Why do you probably feel that?
>
What is the relationship, implied by "since", between the two uses?

Stereophi

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Arny Krueger wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >>
> >>
> >> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household
appliances.
> >> >
> >> > A good card-carrying golden ear would never do such a thing. The
power
> >> > cords
> >> > have to be twisted pair composed of Teflon-insulated silver-plated
> >> > finely-stranded OFHC copper wire with a hand-braided silk overcoat.
The
> >> > speaker cables must be composed of layers of thin trips of
silver-plated
> >> > OFHC copper, separated by foamed polyethylene spacers, again
> >> > Teflon-insulated and with a color-coded pattern-coordinated braided
silk
> >> > overcoat.
> >>
> >>
> >> How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of yours
> >> above?
> >>
> >>
> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
>
>
> Which part do you not understand ?
>
Which part do you misunderstand?

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > > overcoat.
>
> > > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of
yours
> > > above?
>
> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
>
> I think he understands quite well.
>
I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote

> > Only if you are tweako freako, who, ironically, does not
> > trust his own hearing and has to know what device is playing
> > to render a judgment.

> How would you render conscionable judgement if you don't know what
> device is playing doofus ?

After you do the comparing, you take the blindfolds off and
see if you could hear all of those differences blind that
seemed so obvious when you were doing sighted comparing.
Doing this without a comparator machine would require a
proctor who would keep track of your score.

The ABX device, is interesting. It allows you to compare a
known A and known B component and render judgments about the
sound. However, you can also switch to "X" (which could be
either A or B; only the machine knows) and see if it has a
sound character that matches either A or B. You can then hit
a "choice" button and move onto another trial. A and B
remain the same, but the ABX device may or may not change X
to the other component.

After a number of trials, you can all up a score and see if
you actually could pick out A from B (during the X
selections) blind. The nice thing about the ABX device is
that you can do the comparing all by yourself, which
eliminates having a proctor possibly intimidate you.

Unfortunately, the trouble with tweakos such as yourself is
that you can only happily compare sighted, which allows the
procedure to not be much more than a popularity contest.

Howard Ferstler

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >snip
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring
>> >> >> things. Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure
>> >> >> about the same ?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I can, but I won't.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder why.
>> >
>> >
>> > Go ahead and wonder.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I been "wondering" all along if you are able to separate facts from
>> your fantasy. I thought I had empathetically made this clear to you. Did
>> I?
>
>
> Go ahead and wonder.

Yes, I'd rather wonder than to assume that you're able to separate facts
from your fantasy.

Is this some brand new debating technique from you?

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >snip
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring
> >> >> >> things. Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they
measure
> >> >> >> about the same ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I can, but I won't.
> >> >>
> >> >> I wonder why.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Go ahead and wonder.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, I been "wondering" all along if you are able to separate facts
from
> >> your fantasy. I thought I had empathetically made this clear to you.
Did
> >> I?
> >
> >
> > Go ahead and wonder.
>
> Yes, I'd rather wonder than to assume that you're able to separate facts
> from your fantasy.
>
> Is this some brand new debating technique from you?
>
Why all the questions?

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>
>
>> > Only if you are tweako freako, who, ironically, does not
>> > trust his own hearing and has to know what device is playing
>> > to render a judgment.
>
>> How would you render conscionable judgement if you don't know what
>> device is playing doofus ?
>
> After you do the comparing, you take the blindfolds off and


How the **** are you going to make any meaningful comparison
if you don't know what device is playing Doofus ?



> see if you could hear all of those differences blind that
> seemed so obvious when you were doing sighted comparing.
> Doing this without a comparator machine would require a
> proctor who would keep track of your score.
>
> The ABX device, is interesting. It allows you to compare a
> known A and known B component and render judgments about the
> sound. However, you can also switch to "X" (which could be
> either A or B; only the machine knows) and see if it has a
> sound character that matches either A or B. You can then hit
> a "choice" button and move onto another trial. A and B
> remain the same, but the ABX device may or may not change X
> to the other component.


You are a doofus.


> After a number of trials, you can all up a score and see if
> you actually could pick out A from B (during the X
> selections) blind. The nice thing about the ABX device is
> that you can do the comparing all by yourself, which
> eliminates having a proctor possibly intimidate you.


and still........


> Unfortunately, the trouble with tweakos such as yourself is
> that you can only happily compare sighted, which allows the
> procedure to not be much more than a popularity contest.
>
> Howard Ferstler

.............. a doofus.

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:
> >> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >
> >
> >> > Only if you are tweako freako, who, ironically, does not
> >> > trust his own hearing and has to know what device is playing
> >> > to render a judgment.
> >
> >> How would you render conscionable judgement if you don't know what
> >> device is playing doofus ?

> > After you do the comparing, you take the blindfolds off and

> How the **** are you going to make any meaningful comparison
> if you don't know what device is playing Doofus ?

If you do not use an ABX device, you have a proctor help
out. He (or she) does the switching without you knowing
which items are playing at any given time. He (or she) keeps
track of your score and at the end of the comparison series
you check with him (or her) to see how accurately you
performed.

Why is this such a complex thing for you to understand?

> > see if you could hear all of those differences blind that
> > seemed so obvious when you were doing sighted comparing.
> > Doing this without a comparator machine would require a
> > proctor who would keep track of your score.
> >
> > The ABX device, is interesting. It allows you to compare a
> > known A and known B component and render judgments about the
> > sound. However, you can also switch to "X" (which could be
> > either A or B; only the machine knows) and see if it has a
> > sound character that matches either A or B. You can then hit
> > a "choice" button and move onto another trial. A and B
> > remain the same, but the ABX device may or may not change X
> > to the other component.

> You are a doofus.

You are immature, and obviously not able to articulate a
solid rebuttal.

> > After a number of trials, you can all up a score and see if
> > you actually could pick out A from B (during the X
> > selections) blind. The nice thing about the ABX device is
> > that you can do the comparing all by yourself, which
> > eliminates having a proctor possibly intimidate you.

> and still........

And still what?

> > Unfortunately, the trouble with tweakos such as yourself is
> > that you can only happily compare sighted, which allows the
> > procedure to not be much more than a popularity contest.

> ............. a doofus.

And you are an immature (and insulting) little twit.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > > > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of yours
> > > > above?

> > > Arny, I don't think he understands.

> > I think he understands quite well.

> I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.

I disagree.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >. EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> > > wrote
>> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
>> >> >> >> promote using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even
>> >> >> >> though they're not commonly use as such?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is
>> >> >> > NOT commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Norm Strong
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household
>> >> >> appliances.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > A lot of people use it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A lotta people use it to tie-up the metal flap behind their lawn mower.
>> >> Do you ?
>> >>
>> > No.
>>
>>
>> Since you don't, what else would you use it if this zipcord measure about
>> the same among the speaker cables in that Stereophile article you
>> mentioned. An article which you probably now feel wasn't erudite at all.


> Why do you probably feel that?

I feel that way because it seems that you are not able to tell facts from your
own fantasy, remember ?


> What is the relationship, implied by "since", between the two uses?


When you learn to properly set line length and margins in your posting, maybe
I'll tell ya. You need some work on these.




> Stereophi
>
>

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Arny Krueger wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household
>> >> >> appliances.
>> >> >
>> >> > A good card-carrying golden ear would never do such a thing. The
>> >> > power cords
>> >> > have to be twisted pair composed of Teflon-insulated silver-plated
>> >> > finely-stranded OFHC copper wire with a hand-braided silk overcoat.
>> >> > The speaker cables must be composed of layers of thin trips of
>> >> > silver-plated
>> >> > OFHC copper, separated by foamed polyethylene spacers, again
>> >> > Teflon-insulated and with a color-coded pattern-coordinated braided
>> >> > silk overcoat.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of yours
>> >> above?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
>>
>>
>> Which part do you not understand ?
>>
> Which part do you misunderstand?


NONE.


Which part did you not understand ?

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> George M. Middius wrote
>> > Robert Morein said:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of
>> > > yours above?
>>
>> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
>>
>> I think he understands quite well.
>
> I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.



What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?

[George M. Middius]

EddieM said:

> >> I think he understands quite well.

> > I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.

> What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?

Just to clarify, it's well known on RAO that Krooger is a pile of ****. You
understand that, right?

[EddieM]

> Paul Dormer wrote
>> Howard Ferstler" emitted :
>
>
>
>>> and still........
>>
>>And still what?
>>
> <soap suds washed away..>
>>
>>> ............. a doofus.
>>
>>And you are an immature (and insulting) little twit.
>
> I do believe The Ferstler has received a well deserved poke in the
> eye. The wrecking ball may be activated any minute now...


He is a Dooofus, Dooofuss, Dooofus.... the answer to his questions
is under his poke eyes.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> Why all the questions?



Go ahead and wonder.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>> >> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >> > Only if you are tweako freako, who, ironically, does not
>> >> > trust his own hearing and has to know what device is playing
>> >> > to render a judgment.
>> >
>> >> How would you render conscionable judgement if you don't
>> >> know what device is playing doofus ?
>
>> > After you do the comparing, you take the blindfolds off and
>
>> How the **** are you going to make any meaningful comparison
>> if you don't know what device is playing Doofus ?
>
> If you do not use an ABX device, you have a proctor help
> out. He (or she) does the switching without you knowing
> which items are playing at any given time. He (or she) keeps
> track of your score and at the end of the comparison series
> you check with him (or her) to see how accurately you
> performed.
>
> Why is this such a complex thing for you to understand?


Because you're a doofus.



>> > see if you could hear all of those differences blind that
>> > seemed so obvious when you were doing sighted comparing.
>> > Doing this without a comparator machine would require a
>> > proctor who would keep track of your score.
>> >
>> > The ABX device, is interesting. It allows you to compare a
>> > known A and known B component and render judgments about the
>> > sound. However, you can also switch to "X" (which could be
>> > either A or B; only the machine knows) and see if it has a
>> > sound character that matches either A or B. You can then hit
>> > a "choice" button and move onto another trial. A and B
>> > remain the same, but the ABX device may or may not change X
>> > to the other component.
>
>> You are a doofus.
>
> You are immature, and obviously not able to articulate a
> solid rebuttal.

Because it is not possible to articulate anything with a doofus
that is "you".


>> > After a number of trials, you can all up a score and see if
>> > you actually could pick out A from B (during the X
>> > selections) blind. The nice thing about the ABX device is
>> > that you can do the comparing all by yourself, which
>> > eliminates having a proctor possibly intimidate you.
>
>> and still........
>
>
> And still what?


A Doofus.


>> > Unfortunately, the trouble with tweakos such as yourself is
>> > that you can only happily compare sighted, which allows the
>> > procedure to not be much more than a popularity contest.
>
>> ............. a doofus.
>
> And you are an immature (and insulting) little twit.

That's becausse you are a ....................




> Howard Ferstler

........ well, a Doofus.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Why all the questions?
>
>
>
> Go ahead and wonder.
>
:):):)

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >. EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> > > wrote
> >> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ...
etc.
> >> >> >> >> promote using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable
even
> >> >> >> >> though they're not commonly use as such?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that
zipcord is
> >> >> >> > NOT commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Norm Strong
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household
> >> >> >> appliances.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A lot of people use it.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> A lotta people use it to tie-up the metal flap behind their lawn
mower.
> >> >> Do you ?
> >> >>
> >> > No.
> >>
> >>
> >> Since you don't, what else would you use it if this zipcord measure
about
> >> the same among the speaker cables in that Stereophile article you
> >> mentioned. An article which you probably now feel wasn't erudite at
all.
>
>
> > Why do you probably feel that?
>
> I feel that way because it seems that you are not able to tell facts from
your
> own fantasy, remember ?
>
>
> > What is the relationship, implied by "since", between the two uses?
>
>
> When you learn to properly set line length and margins in your posting,
maybe
> I'll tell ya. You need some work on these.
>
OK, just for you.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Arny Krueger wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household
> >> >> >> appliances.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A good card-carrying golden ear would never do such a thing. The
> >> >> > power cords
> >> >> > have to be twisted pair composed of Teflon-insulated silver-plated
> >> >> > finely-stranded OFHC copper wire with a hand-braided silk
overcoat.
> >> >> > The speaker cables must be composed of layers of thin trips of
> >> >> > silver-plated
> >> >> > OFHC copper, separated by foamed polyethylene spacers, again
> >> >> > Teflon-insulated and with a color-coded pattern-coordinated
braided
> >> >> > silk overcoat.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of
yours
> >> >> above?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which part do you not understand ?
> >>
> > Which part do you misunderstand?
>
>
> NONE.
>
>
> Which part did you not understand ?
>
Why do you ask?

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> EddieM said:
>
> > >> I think he understands quite well.
>
> > > I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.
>
> > What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?
>
> Just to clarify, it's well known on RAO that Krooger is a pile of ****.
You
> understand that, right?
>
George, "Eddie" is actually a malefactor from another forum, where he has a
history of undirected belligerency. You and I know how to pick our enemies.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> George M. Middius wrote
> >> > Robert Morein said:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of
> >> > > yours above?
> >>
> >> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
> >>
> >> I think he understands quite well.
> >
> > I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.
>
>
>
> What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?
>
Why do you ask?

[EddieM]

> George M. Middius wrote
>> EddieM said:
>
>
>
>> >> I think he understands quite well.
>
>> > I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.
>
>> What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?
>
> Just to clarify, it's well known on RAO that Krooger is a pile of ****. You
> understand that, right?


Of course. Anyone that think that he should be honored as a scientist
is sackload of ****.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> George M. Middius wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein said:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this
>> >> >> dream of yours above?
>> >>
>> >> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
>> >>
>> >> I think he understands quite well.
>> >
>> > I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.
>>
>>
>>
>> What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?
>>
> Why do you ask?


I'm testing to see if you're now able to distinguish facts from your
fantasy at this point in time. You will, of course, realize the futility
of asking you directly whether you can or not, note.

[EddieM]

"Robert Morein wrote
> "EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> > Arny Krueger wrote
>> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household
>> >> >> >> appliances.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A good card-carrying golden ear would never do such a thing. The
>> >> >> > power cords
>> >> >> > have to be twisted pair composed of Teflon-insulated silver-plated
>> >> >> > finely-stranded OFHC copper wire with a hand-braided silk
>> >> >> > overcoat.
>> >> >> > The speaker cables must be composed of layers of thin trips of
>> >> >> > silver-plated
>> >> >> > OFHC copper, separated by foamed polyethylene spacers, again
>> >> >> > Teflon-insulated and with a color-coded pattern-coordinated
>> >> >> > braided silk overcoat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of
>> >> >> yours above?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Which part do you not understand ?
>> >>
>> > Which part do you misunderstand?
>>
>>
>> NONE.
>>
>>
>> Which part did you not understand ?
>>
> Why do you ask?


At this point in time, I'm testing to see if you're now able to distinguish
facts from
your own fantasy base in what you say, you will understand, I hope.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein" wrote
>> EddieM" wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >. EddieM wrote
>> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> >> > > wrote
>> >> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ...
> etc.
>> >> >> >> >> promote using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable
> even
>> >> >> >> >> though they're not commonly use as such?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that
> zipcord is
>> >> >> >> > NOT commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Norm Strong
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household
>> >> >> >> appliances.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A lot of people use it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A lotta people use it to tie-up the metal flap behind their lawn
> mower.
>> >> >> Do you ?
>> >> >>
>> >> > No.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Since you don't, what else would you use it if this zipcord measure
> about
>> >> the same among the speaker cables in that Stereophile article you
>> >> mentioned. An article which you probably now feel wasn't erudite at
> all.
>>
>>
>> > Why do you probably feel that?
>>
>> I feel that way because it seems that you are not able to tell facts from
> your
>> own fantasy, remember ?
>>
>>
>> > What is the relationship, implied by "since", between the two uses?
>>
>>
>> When you learn to properly set line length and margins in your posting,
> maybe
>> I'll tell ya. You need some work on these.
>
>
>
> OK, just for you.


NO. This is still a fantasy from you.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein" wrote
> >> EddieM" wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >. EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> >> > > wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound
....
> > etc.
> >> >> >> >> >> promote using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker
cable
> > even
> >> >> >> >> >> though they're not commonly use as such?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that
> > zipcord is
> >> >> >> >> > NOT commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than
mine.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Norm Strong
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household
> >> >> >> >> appliances.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > A lot of people use it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> A lotta people use it to tie-up the metal flap behind their lawn
> > mower.
> >> >> >> Do you ?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > No.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Since you don't, what else would you use it if this zipcord measure
> > about
> >> >> the same among the speaker cables in that Stereophile article you
> >> >> mentioned. An article which you probably now feel wasn't erudite at
> > all.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Why do you probably feel that?
> >>
> >> I feel that way because it seems that you are not able to tell facts
from
> > your
> >> own fantasy, remember ?
> >>
> >>
> >> > What is the relationship, implied by "since", between the two uses?
> >>
> >>
> >> When you learn to properly set line length and margins in your posting,
> > maybe
> >> I'll tell ya. You need some work on these.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, just for you.
>
>
> NO. This is still a fantasy from you.
>
OK, just for you.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> George M. Middius wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein said:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this
> >> >> >> dream of yours above?
> >> >>
> >> >> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think he understands quite well.
> >> >
> >> > I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?
> >>
> > Why do you ask?
>
>
> I'm testing to see if you're now able to distinguish facts from your
> fantasy at this point in time. You will, of course, realize the futility
> of asking you directly whether you can or not, note.
>
Really?

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Robert Morein wrote
> > "EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> > Arny Krueger wrote
> >> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household
> >> >> >> >> appliances.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > A good card-carrying golden ear would never do such a thing.
The
> >> >> >> > power cords
> >> >> >> > have to be twisted pair composed of Teflon-insulated
silver-plated
> >> >> >> > finely-stranded OFHC copper wire with a hand-braided silk
> >> >> >> > overcoat.
> >> >> >> > The speaker cables must be composed of layers of thin trips of
> >> >> >> > silver-plated
> >> >> >> > OFHC copper, separated by foamed polyethylene spacers, again
> >> >> >> > Teflon-insulated and with a color-coded pattern-coordinated
> >> >> >> > braided silk overcoat.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How many trips to the back alley before you realize this dream of
> >> >> >> yours above?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Which part do you not understand ?
> >> >>
> >> > Which part do you misunderstand?
> >>
> >>
> >> NONE.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which part did you not understand ?
> >>
> > Why do you ask?
>
>
> At this point in time, I'm testing to see if you're now able to
distinguish
> facts from
> your own fantasy base in what you say, you will understand, I hope.
>
Really?

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein" wrote
>> >> EddieM" wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>
>
>snip
>
>
>> >> > What is the relationship, implied by "since", between the two uses?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> When you learn to properly set line length and margins in your posting,
>> >> maybe I'll tell ya. You need some work on these.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > OK, just for you.
>>
>>
>> NO. This is still a fantasy from you.
>>
> OK, just for you.


Forget line length and margins, instead, work on what is facts from your
fantasy as I said to you before. Remember this one from the top of these
thread?


* * * *

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> calcerise wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
>> >> never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they
>> >> always repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right
>> >> lines. Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?
>> >>
>> > Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
>> > The direct reason is that they went broke.
>> >
>> > Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why
>> > products are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more
>> > ethical reason would be the reluctance of the publisher to be responsible
>> > for business failures.
>> >
>> > I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence of
>> > multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the readers
>> > didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do. Most
>> > hifi nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If more
>> > modern content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative
>> > effect. Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior patterns.
>> > Catholic tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want
>> > to read about something outside the box, publishing dictates that you
>> > find another "box", ie., magazine.
>> >
>> > In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
>> > product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
>> > Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now
>> > that Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no
>> > alternative. The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an
>> > example of the degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one issue
>> > with some pleasure that additional editorial pages had been allocated.
>>
>> It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to make
>> money.
>
> I didn't say what the "porpose" of Stereophile is.
> Did you by any chance mean to write "purpose" when you wrote "porpose"?
> Or did you mean "porpoise", the aquatic mammal?
> You also said "It seem".
> You confuse with grammatical errors. Did you intend to write "It seems..."
> ?
>
> I did not use either word. I said "REQUIREMENT".
> It is a requirement that Stereophile will make money, or it will cease to be
> published.
> This does not exclude the possibility that John Atkinson may have other
> motivations, such as a love of audio, and a great job.


You said that since organization such as Stereophile is now part of a larger
entity, and that there's "no alternative" but to make money. Whether that is
their sole requirement or not I'm not sure base on your talk. You said that
every subscription magazine is a business and that a direct consequence
for failing to follow a business model is that they will go broke. You also
said that their fear of losing advertising revenue is one reason products are
not trashed as often, and you gratuitously supported this by adding that for
an even more ethical reason, their publisher is reluctant to be responsible
for business failures of HE mfr.

Further, you enunciate that Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces
the rigid thinking pattern of their readers as a result of their reluctance to
delve away from this business model you enthuse about for fear that they
will go broke -- as they have no alternative but to make money, according to
you.

Can you separate your facts and fiction from these ?


In your reply above, you said that it is a requirement for organization like
Stereophile to make money, or it will cease to be published and therefore
must adhere strictly to this bus. model. BUT yet, you now say that its editor
may have other motivations, such as a love for audio, and a great job.


Do you mean to say to do a great job in succumbing to the obsessiveness
of most of these hi-fi nuts for ... the love of audios ?

Could you share your wisdom on these?



>> > I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite
>> > Stereophile article on speaker cables, with comprehensive
>> > measurements, analysis of materials and geometry. However, one
>> > choice was conspicuously absent: the doubling or tripling of common
>> > zipcord.
>>
>> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
>> using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're
>> not commonly use as such?
>>
> Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said that
> multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or may not
> be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the popularity of
> zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary formulations, I would
> have liked to see how it measured.


How do you think they're going to measure ??

You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the same ?

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein" wrote
> >> >> EddieM" wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >
> >
> >snip
> >
> >
> >> >> > What is the relationship, implied by "since", between the two
uses?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> When you learn to properly set line length and margins in your
posting,
> >> >> maybe I'll tell ya. You need some work on these.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > OK, just for you.
> >>
> >>
> >> NO. This is still a fantasy from you.
> >>
> > OK, just for you.
>
>
> Forget line length and margins, instead, work on what is facts from your
> fantasy as I said to you before. Remember this one from the top of these
> thread?
>
>
> * * * *
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> calcerise wrote
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
> >> >> never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they
> >> >> always repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right
> >> >> lines. Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?
> >> >>
> >> > Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
> >> > The direct reason is that they went broke.
> >> >
> >> > Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why
> >> > products are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more
> >> > ethical reason would be the reluctance of the publisher to be
responsible
> >> > for business failures.
> >> >
> >> > I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence
of
> >> > multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the
readers
> >> > didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do.
Most
> >> > hifi nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If
more
> >> > modern content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative
> >> > effect. Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior
patterns.
> >> > Catholic tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want
> >> > to read about something outside the box, publishing dictates that you
> >> > find another "box", ie., magazine.
> >> >
> >> > In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
> >> > product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
> >> > Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now
> >> > that Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no
> >> > alternative. The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an
> >> > example of the degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one
issue
> >> > with some pleasure that additional editorial pages had been
allocated.
> >>
> >> It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to
make
> >> money.
> >
> > I didn't say what the "porpose" of Stereophile is.
> > Did you by any chance mean to write "purpose" when you wrote "porpose"?
> > Or did you mean "porpoise", the aquatic mammal?
> > You also said "It seem".
> > You confuse with grammatical errors. Did you intend to write "It
seems..."
> > ?
> >
> > I did not use either word. I said "REQUIREMENT".
> > It is a requirement that Stereophile will make money, or it will cease
to be
> > published.
> > This does not exclude the possibility that John Atkinson may have other
> > motivations, such as a love of audio, and a great job.
>
>
> You said that since organization such as Stereophile is now part of a
larger
> entity, and that there's "no alternative" but to make money. Whether that
is
> their sole requirement or not I'm not sure base on your talk. You said
that
> every subscription magazine is a business and that a direct consequence
> for failing to follow a business model is that they will go broke. You
also
> said that their fear of losing advertising revenue is one reason products
are
> not trashed as often, and you gratuitously supported this by adding that
for
> an even more ethical reason, their publisher is reluctant to be
responsible
> for business failures of HE mfr.
>
> Further, you enunciate that Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces
> the rigid thinking pattern of their readers as a result of their
reluctance to
> delve away from this business model you enthuse about for fear that they
> will go broke -- as they have no alternative but to make money, according
to
> you.
>
> Can you separate your facts and fiction from these ?
>
>
> In your reply above, you said that it is a requirement for organization
like
> Stereophile to make money, or it will cease to be published and therefore
> must adhere strictly to this bus. model. BUT yet, you now say that its
editor
> may have other motivations, such as a love for audio, and a great job.
>
>
> Do you mean to say to do a great job in succumbing to the obsessiveness
> of most of these hi-fi nuts for ... the love of audios ?
>
> Could you share your wisdom on these?
>
>
>
> >> > I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite
> >> > Stereophile article on speaker cables, with comprehensive
> >> > measurements, analysis of materials and geometry. However, one
> >> > choice was conspicuously absent: the doubling or tripling of common
> >> > zipcord.
> >>
> >> Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
promote
> >> using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though
they're
> >> not commonly use as such?
> >>
> > Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
that
> > multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or may
not
> > be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the popularity of
> > zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary formulations, I
would
> > have liked to see how it measured.
>
>
> How do you think they're going to measure ??
>
How do you think they will measure?

> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the same ?
>
Could I?

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>
>
>snip
>
>
>> How do you think they're going to measure ??
>>
> How do you think they will measure?

This is your song and dance.

>> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
>> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the same ?
>>
> Could I?


You are still not able to weed out facts from your fantasy. Perhaps this is
the
result of your voracious appetite for "chicken" pies.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> "Robert Morein wrote
>
>
>
>> At this point in time, I'm testing to see if you're now able to
> >distinguish facts from
>> your own fantasy base in what you say, you will understand, I hope.
>
>
> Really?


Yes, I'm interested if you can or not.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >
> >
> >snip
> >
> >
> >> How do you think they're going to measure ??
> >>
> > How do you think they will measure?
>
> This is your song and dance.
>
> >> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
> >> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the
same ?
> >>
> > Could I?
>
>
> You are still not able to weed out facts from your fantasy. Perhaps this
is
> the
> result of your voracious appetite for "chicken" pies.
>
I'm not?

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> "Robert Morein wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >> At this point in time, I'm testing to see if you're now able to
> > >distinguish facts from
> >> your own fantasy base in what you say, you will understand, I hope.
> >
> >
> > Really?
>
>
> Yes, I'm interested if you can or not.
>
Why are you interested?

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> George M. Middius wrote
>> >> >> > Robert Morein said:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this
>> >> >> >> dream of yours above?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think he understands quite well.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?
>> >>
>> > Why do you ask?
>>
>>
>> I'm testing to see if you're now able to distinguish facts from your
>> fantasy at this point in time. You will, of course, realize the futility
>> of asking you directly whether you can or not, note.
>
>
> Really?

That's a good example.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> George M. Middius wrote
> >> >> >> > Robert Morein said:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this
> >> >> >> >> dream of yours above?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I think he understands quite well.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?
> >> >>
> >> > Why do you ask?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm testing to see if you're now able to distinguish facts from your
> >> fantasy at this point in time. You will, of course, realize the
futility
> >> of asking you directly whether you can or not, note.
> >
> >
> > Really?
>
> That's a good example.
>
Of what?

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >snip
>> >
>> >
>> >> How do you think they're going to measure ??
>> >>
>> > How do you think they will measure?
>>
>> This is your song and dance.
>>
>> >> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
>> >> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the
>> >> same ?
>> >>
>> > Could I?
>>
>>
>> You are still not able to weed out facts from your fantasy. Perhaps this
>> is the result of your voracious appetite for "chicken" pies.
>
>
>
> I'm not?


That's another good example.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> "Robert Morein wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> At this point in time, I'm testing to see if you're now able to
>> > >distinguish facts from
>> >> your own fantasy base in what you say, you will understand, I hope.
>> >
>> >
>> > Really?
>>
>>
>> Yes, I'm interested if you can or not.
>
>
> Why are you interested?



Because you can't.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> >> George M. Middius wrote
>> >> >> >> > Robert Morein said:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this
>> >> >> >> >> dream of yours above?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I think he understands quite well.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?
>> >> >>
>> >> > Why do you ask?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm testing to see if you're now able to distinguish facts from your
>> >> fantasy at this point in time. You will, of course, realize the
>> >> futility
>> >> of asking you directly whether you can or not, note.
>> >
>> >
>> > Really?
>>
>> That's a good example.
>
>
> Of what?

An example of your inability to take note.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >snip
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> How do you think they're going to measure ??
> >> >>
> >> > How do you think they will measure?
> >>
> >> This is your song and dance.
> >>
> >> >> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring
things.
> >> >> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the
> >> >> same ?
> >> >>
> >> > Could I?
> >>
> >>
> >> You are still not able to weed out facts from your fantasy. Perhaps
this
> >> is the result of your voracious appetite for "chicken" pies.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not?
>
>
> That's another good example.
>
How so?

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >snip
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> How do you think they're going to measure ??
>> >> >>
>> >> > How do you think they will measure?
>> >>
>> >> This is your song and dance.
>> >>
>> >> >> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring
> > >> >> things.
>> >> >> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the
>> >> >> same ?
>> >> >>
>> >> > Could I?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You are still not able to weed out facts from your fantasy. Perhaps
>> >> this is the result of your voracious appetite for "chicken" pies.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not?
>>
>>
>> That's another good example.
>
>
> How so?


Because you can't at this point in time.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >snip
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> How do you think they're going to measure ??
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > How do you think they will measure?
> >> >>
> >> >> This is your song and dance.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring
> > > >> >> things.
> >> >> >> Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about
the
> >> >> >> same ?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Could I?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You are still not able to weed out facts from your fantasy. Perhaps
> >> >> this is the result of your voracious appetite for "chicken" pies.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm not?
> >>
> >>
> >> That's another good example.
> >
> >
> > How so?
>
>
> Because you can't at this point in time.
>
Do what?

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> >> George M. Middius wrote
> >> >> >> >> > Robert Morein said:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > > How many trips to the back alley before you realize this
> >> >> >> >> >> dream of yours above?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Arny, I don't think he understands.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I think he understands quite well.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I think he thinks that Arny Krueger is an audiophile.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What makes you think that I think he's an audiophile ?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Why do you ask?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm testing to see if you're now able to distinguish facts from your
> >> >> fantasy at this point in time. You will, of course, realize the
> >> >> futility
> >> >> of asking you directly whether you can or not, note.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Really?
> >>
> >> That's a good example.
> >
> >
> > Of what?
>
> An example of your inability to take note.
>
Of what?

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> "Robert Morein wrote
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> At this point in time, I'm testing to see if you're now able to
> >> > >distinguish facts from
> >> >> your own fantasy base in what you say, you will understand, I hope.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Really?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, I'm interested if you can or not.
> >
> >
> > Why are you interested?
>
>
>
> Because you can't.
>
Do what?

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>snip
>> >>
>> >> >> You are still not able to weed out facts from your fantasy.
>> >> >> Perhaps this is the result of your voracious appetite for >> >> >
>> >> > "chicken" pies.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That's another good example.
>> >
>> >
>> > How so?
>>
>>
>> Because you can't at this point in time.
>
>
> Do what?



You know sometimes your allright, sometimes your not making sense like
here. It appears however that you're not one of them full-pledge Objectivist
mother****ers in this forum. But still though, you got to do something about
these ongoing fantasy happening inside your head wishing that your name is
Bobo and your last name is Moron. There's no need to fantasize over this.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>snip
> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are still not able to weed out facts from your fantasy.
> >> >> >> Perhaps this is the result of your voracious appetite for >> >>
>
> >> >> > "chicken" pies.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm not?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> That's another good example.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > How so?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because you can't at this point in time.
> >
> >
> > Do what?
>
>
>
> You know sometimes your allright,

Thank you.

[redux]

I think you have the answer. It's just a matter of how easy it is to
get acceptable sound. You buy yuor favorite CDs and a set of speakers
and a receiver. Just no big deal, and for the mainstream, not
expensive. HiFi is dead except for the few tweakers. Even pro audio is
a lot easier in digital, and for pop stuff the production values are
straight forward. Punch the levels up till the bottom three red lights
flash and hit record to CD...

[[email protected]]

I don't think the mainstream audio press has died. Of the hard-copy
magazines, a few are gone, but they've been replaced by much, much more
content in hard copy and on the web.

At least in the US, the two mainstream audio magazines (IMHO) were:

* High Fidelity
* Stereo Review

They were much alike. HF died and SR survived, then evolved into Sound
& Vision, which does many more reviews and has more pages than either
HF or SR ever did, and still publishes an annual equipment guide.
Anyway, the fact that two such similar magazines competing for the same
audience didn't both last and that one survived and evolved isn't too
surprising to me.

Audio magazine was a bit more technical and less mainstream than any of
the above, so I'm not including it here.

Anybody in the US and has access to the web and/or a big newsstand has
access to magazines such as "What HiFi?" (a UK magazine), which is
mainstream and publishes many more reviews than any US magazine ever
has. I read that sometimes myself. Although WHF does no technical
testing, at least they do cover a lot of gear that would interest a
typical US audio consumer.

And then there's the web, with gobs of mainstream audio information
from the US and around the world, as well as providing the audio
itself! The only possible problem with audio info on the web is that
there's more than anyone can keep up with.

As a typical consumer, I'm better informed and have much greater access
to info than I did when I subscribed to the few US mainstream audio
magazines. I don't really miss the few magazines that died off; there
are plenty of mainstream audio magazines in hard copy that can be found
and there's much more audio info on the web.

To summarize, I'd say the mainstream audio press is far from dead, and
that a typical mainstream audio consumer has access to much more
information than ever before, thanks to the huge amount of mainstream
audio info published electronically.

[[email protected]]

What some of the mainstream audio press (and other hobby magazines)
does and has done is not review the really bad products at all. There's
enough good gear out there that there's no need to waste space on bad
gear, as one of the photography magazines once explained. They'd rather
give attention to gear that is at least of acceptable quality. They
can't review everything.

However, I realize the strongly negative reviews can make for
entertaining reading. I agree find that a careful reader of mainstream
audio magazines can sometimes read between the lines a bit over the
years and get some ideas about gear to avoid. And if it's negative
reviews and discussion of audio gear that are quite frank that readers
want, that's easily found on the web.

The fact that there are a few less US audio magazine titles that can
appear in my (physical) mailbox doesn't really bother. They've been
replaced by newer magazines that cover audio and other topics. If we
include the web, we're living in the best-ever era for publishing and
reading audio info, including mainstream audio info. As a mainstream
audio consumer, I never want to go back to depending on just a few
magazines such as High Fidelity (now defunct) and Stereo Review (which
survived and evolved into Sound & Vision, with a web site also).

[Mike McKelvy]

How would you render conscionable judgement if you don't know what
device is playing doofus ?


Well, Eddie first you ought to find out if you can hear any difference
before deciding if you have a preference. If both sound identical,
then your judgement is just that.

[EddieM]

> Mike McKelvy wrote
>
>

I said:

> How would you render conscionable judgement if you don't know what
> device is playing doofus ?
>
>
> Well, Eddie first you ought to find out if you can hear any difference
> before deciding if you have a preference. If both sound identical,
> then your judgement is just that.


You should tell that to Ferstler.

[[email protected]]

There are many Brit magazines of high price and dubious utility sold in
the United States, but the content of the audio ones which I have seen
is boring, dull, and useless. I have very little interest in mainstream
consumer equipment, it's a futile effort to even pay all that much
attention to what is sold by people who know nothing to people who know
nothing and don't care. High End equipment has its issues and foibles
but there is a semblance of dedication here.

The only audio magazine of which I am familiar for which I'd pay money
is AudioXPress. Although it is nowhere the magazine it was (as TAA) in
the eighties.

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Mike McKelvy wrote
> >
> >
>
> I said:
>
> > How would you render conscionable judgement if you don't know what
> > device is playing doofus ?

> > Well, Eddie first you ought to find out if you can hear any difference
> > before deciding if you have a preference. If both sound identical,
> > then your judgement is just that.

> You should tell that to Ferstler.

My friend, following Mr. McKelvy, that is exactly what the
ABX device allow you to do. A and B are always known. X is
the mystery source (it can be either A or B) and you can
compare A and B all you like at first, in order to see if
you hear differences. You can then switch to X and see if it
exhibits the characteristics of either A or B. You register
a vote electronically, and then move on to the next trial. X
may or may not change during subsequent trials, but A and B
always remain the same.

Now, if you do not have an ABX device you can still do
level-matched comparing with the help of a buddy who will do
the switching while you do your evaluations. No, it is not
as slick as the ABX device, but your buddy will keep score,
and THAT is how you will know which item is playing - after
the comparison series is completed.

By the way, sighted or unsighted, all proper comparisons
involving amps or CD players require very precise level
matching. Fortunately, with wires the levels will almost
always automatically be level matched, so comparing wires is
the easiest way to discover the value of the DBT protocol.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>
> By the way, sighted or unsighted, all proper comparisons
> involving amps or CD players require very precise level
> matching. Fortunately, with wires the levels will almost
> always automatically be level matched, so comparing wires is
> the easiest way to discover the value of the DBT protocol.

This is true. However, you can sometimes get valuable info by running a
test in which you choose whatever level you prefer. This way, you find out
if there is ANY volume level that can switch your preference from one device
to the other. A slight change in the volume is a lot cheaper than
substituting a McIntosh for a Kenwood! Naturally, it still has to be done
blind. ;-)

Norm Strong

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Mike McKelvy wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> I said:
>>
>> > How would you render conscionable judgment if you don't know what
>> > device is playing doofus ?
>
>> > Well, Eddie first you ought to find out if you can hear any difference
>> > before deciding if you have a preference. If both sound identical,
>> > then your judgement is just that.
>
>> You should tell that to Ferstler.
>
> My friend, following Mr. McKelvy, that is exactly what the
> ABX device allow you to do. A and B are always known. X is
> the mystery source (it can be either A or B) and you can
> compare A and B all you like at first, in order to see if
> you hear differences. You can then switch to X and see if it
> exhibits the characteristics of either A or B. You register
> a vote electronically, and then move on to the next trial. X
> may or may not change during subsequent trials, but A and B
> always remain the same.

Your blossoming craziness is again becoming too painful to read through
your posting.

In ABX, you’re comparing to detect subtle differences between two sound
signals representing the two “unknown” devices e.g. amps, which themselves
are represented as the “known” A or B along with the “unknown” X which,
as requisite, you are required to identify as either the “known” A or B
representing the unknown devices.

By this, the test is requiring that you make conscionable judgment in
identifying the unknown X between the two unknown device being represented
by the two known A and B representing the unknown to the testee.

Tell me what the flying **** is wrong with these, Mr. Ferstler?

Is it your abx device or methodology ?



And you do these comparison using a signal source (Music) to deliberately
deflect your consciousness in discerning subtle differences. Are you expecting
this to help heighten your awareness in detecting and in prolonging your
ability to restore your ability to critically discern subtle sound
differences.

Are you going to listen to music or make critical comparison?


Who else does this musical ABX ?

> Now, if you do not have an ABX device you can still do
> level-matched comparing with the help of a buddy who will do
> the switching while you do your evaluations. No, it is not
> as slick as the ABX device, but your buddy will keep score,
> and THAT is how you will know which item is playing - after
> the comparison series is completed.


Instead of a buddy, would you suggest in using a wife like
Norm Strong did?


> By the way, sighted or unsighted, all proper comparisons
> involving amps or CD players require very precise level
> matching. Fortunately, with wires the levels will almost
> always automatically be level matched, so comparing wires is
> the easiest way to discover the value of the DBT protocol.
>
> Howard Ferstler

[EddieM]

wrote
>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>
>
>
>
>> By the way, sighted or unsighted, all proper comparisons
>> involving amps or CD players require very precise level
>> matching. Fortunately, with wires the levels will almost
>> always automatically be level matched, so comparing wires is
>> the easiest way to discover the value of the DBT protocol.
>
>
> This is true. However, you can sometimes get valuable info by running a
> test in which you choose whatever level you prefer. This way, you find out
> if there is ANY volume level that can switch your preference from one device
> to the other.


Uncle Norm, choosing any volume level is changing your preference to the
of level of sound.

> A slight change in the volume is a lot cheaper than substituting a McIntosh
> for a Kenwood! Naturally, it still has to be done blind. ;-)

You mean that if you slightly adjust the sound of your Kenwood it will
begin to sound like a McIntosh ? Hmm, you might wanna sharpen the
edges of your fantasy.


> Norm Strong

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m

>> wrote

>> A slight change in the volume is a lot cheaper than substituting a
>> McIntosh for a Kenwood! Naturally, it still has to be done blind.
>> ;-)

> You mean that if you slightly adjust the sound of your Kenwood it will
> begin to sound like a McIntosh ?

One comparison I'm familiar with involved adjusting the volume of a Yamaha
Integrated amp so that it sounded just like a Pass amp, according to the
ears of a well-known now-passed Pass dealer from south Florida.

>Hmm, you might wanna sharpen the edges of your fantasy.

Eddie, it's no fantasy. Want a google reference to the Mea Culpa by the
Florida Pass dealer?

BTW, this was not the only time this sort of thing happened. Want more
details?

[dave weil]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:50:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"EddieM" > wrote in message
m
>
>>> wrote
>
>>> A slight change in the volume is a lot cheaper than substituting a
>>> McIntosh for a Kenwood! Naturally, it still has to be done blind.
>>> ;-)
>
>> You mean that if you slightly adjust the sound of your Kenwood it will
>> begin to sound like a McIntosh ?
>
>One comparison I'm familiar with involved adjusting the volume of a Yamaha
>Integrated amp so that it sounded just like a Pass amp, according to the
>ears of a well-known now-passed Pass dealer from south Florida.

If only there were some legitimate blind listening tests that supports
this statement...

[EdHeath]

I doubt it is just hi-fi magazines that have suffered in recent years.

I think many computer mags have gone the same way. Certainly, there ad
revenues must have dropped hugely as those that are still around are
half the size they were in the 1990s heyday.

Ed

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.the-ipod.com for all things iPod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[EddieM]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> normanstrong wrote
>
>
>
>
>>> A slight change in the volume is a lot cheaper than substituting a
>>> McIntosh for a Kenwood! Naturally, it still has to be done blind.
>>> ;-)
>
>> You mean that if you slightly adjust the sound of your Kenwood it will
>> begin to sound like a McIntosh ?
>
> One comparison I'm familiar with involved adjusting the volume of a Yamaha
> Integrated amp so that it sounded just like a Pass amp, according to the
> ears of a well-known now-passed Pass dealer from south Florida.
>
>>Hmm, you might wanna sharpen the edges of your fantasy.
>
> Eddie, it's no fantasy. Want a google reference to the Mea Culpa by the
> Florida Pass dealer?
>
> BTW, this was not the only time this sort of thing happened. Want more
> details?


I'm more interested to learn of Uncle Norm's ability in making his Kenwood
sound like a McIntosh through sheer adjustment to the level of sound it
produce. Btw, I own a McIntosh C-41 preamp which I bought over a year
ago.

For you and Uncle Norm: http://tinyurl.com/623c4

Now I own two preamps; a Mac and an Audio Reaserch. That is
the problem!

[Sander deWaal]

"EddieM" > said:

>Now I own two preamps; a Mac and an Audio Reaserch. That is
>the problem!


No problem at all.
Dump the C41 and enjoy the ARC ;-)

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

[EddieM]

> Sander deWaal wrote
>> EddieM said:
>
>
>
>>Now I own two preamps; a Mac and an Audio Reaserch. That is
>>the problem!
>
>
> No problem at all.
> Dump the C41 and enjoy the ARC ;-)


I wouldn't go in that direction just yet, yes the ARC beats this Mac
hand in hand from the sheer ectasy and purity of the sound it help
provide. TheARC I have is lush, liquidy, and smooth and I'm talkin
midrange here. It bring more presence to the vocals in a well
recorded CDs. The Mac isn't that far behind and is probaby beaten
by only a hair in most cases. In fact, they do better in the bass
region.

I have many cds that were badly recorded yet I didn't wanna use
EQs. So I experimented with several preamp and the Mac was it.
It has treble and tone control. I know down the road that I'll be
setting up another small system and I'll shuffle them around then as
needed.

Anyway, I began to like listening to the said cds again in my
collection when Mac join the gang.





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

[[email protected]]

In my opinion there is no substitute for EQ when you need it. Having
graphic and/or parametric EQ you can put in or out of the chain as
needed is a radicallly better solution than lame-o consumer tone
controls. I have used a Marantz 7 clone for years but it's really-like
all preamps-an obsolete thing except for its phono stage. The pro
approach of patch panels and balanced everything is just, well, a
better way to go, and that's the way to think.

If you only use a digital source-a DC player or a DAC-you don't need a
preamp. You shouldn't even have a preamp. You should have a power amp
with a volume control and perhaps switchable inputs, or a DAC or CD
player with a good output section and a volume control.

The argument that the low lwvel circuits should be in a different box
is, except again for phono sections, horse****, because digital units
(and tape machines, et al) have outputs at the same levels as the
preamp puts out. Hence the "passive preamp" . Put the "passive preamp"
in the power amp or the DAC.

If the record is dead the preamp should be too. In fact even if it
isn't-put the phono section in the turntable.

[EddieM]

> wrote
>
>
>
>
> In my opinion there is no substitute for EQ when you need it. Having
> graphic and/or parametric EQ you can put in or out of the chain as
> needed is a radicallly better solution than lame-o consumer tone
> controls.

Allright. Would the above also work well with the passive preamp?
I suppose they would. One other reason I went with the Mac preamp
is that they have separate (2) line out for my powered subw. The
tone controls seem to work well for me so far. Only two knobs, one
for treble and one for bass. I have a little over 450 cds that would be
generally considered lamely recorded. That's about maybe 85%
of my collection. I don't wanna kneel to the front of these eq's and
fidget with their knobs and slider each time I play a different cd.
Besides that, I still have to stand back each time to listen to see if the
setting is right. I'd rather sit back and listen as much as I can.


> I have used a Marantz 7 clone for years but it's really-like
> all preamps-an obsolete thing except for its phono stage. The pro
> approach of patch panels and balanced everything is just, well, a
> better way to go, and that's the way to think.

A balance way for me to think is to consider the situation I'm in
including money.


> If you only use a digital source-a DC player or a DAC-you don't need a
> preamp. You shouldn't even have a preamp. You should have a power
> amp with a volume control and perhaps switchable inputs, or a DAC
> or CD player with a good output section and a volume control.

I have an Arcam FMJ T-21 tuner. A sound system has to have a tuner.
I install a 14 foot antenna I bought from Antenna Performance Specialty
and I use a 18 ft. pole with a rotator.


> The argument that the low lwvel circuits should be in a different box
> is, except again for phono sections, horse****, because digital units
> (and tape machines, et al) have outputs at the same levels as the
> preamp puts out. Hence the "passive preamp" . Put the "passive
> preamp" in the power amp or the DAC.
>
> If the record is dead the preamp should be too. In fact even if it
> isn't-put the phono section in the turntable.

You got it.

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com
> > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In my opinion there is no substitute for EQ when you need it. Having
>> graphic and/or parametric EQ you can put in or out of the chain as
>> needed is a radicallly better solution than lame-o consumer tone
>> controls.
>
> Allright. Would the above also work well with the passive preamp?

Of course, been there done that.

> I suppose they would. One other reason I went with the Mac preamp
> is that they have separate (2) line out for my powered subw.

A powered subwoofer with a passive controller? Been there done that, too.

> The tone controls seem to work well for me so far.

Once you become used to the flexibility of a good parametric or graphic eq,
plain old tone controls are such low-rez devices.

> Only two knobs, one for treble and one for bass.

Good enough for a boom box or a simple-minded operator.

> I have a little over 450 cds that would
> be generally considered lamely recorded. That's about maybe 85%
> of my collection. I don't wanna kneel to the front of these eq's and
> fidget with their knobs and slider each time I play a different cd.

That's why smart people use their computers to remaster CDs in the digital
domain.

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > By the way, sighted or unsighted, all proper comparisons
> > involving amps or CD players require very precise level
> > matching. Fortunately, with wires the levels will almost
> > always automatically be level matched, so comparing wires is
> > the easiest way to discover the value of the DBT protocol.
>
> This is true. However, you can sometimes get valuable info by running a
> test in which you choose whatever level you prefer. This way, you find out
> if there is ANY volume level that can switch your preference from one device
> to the other. A slight change in the volume is a lot cheaper than
> substituting a McIntosh for a Kenwood! Naturally, it still has to be done
> blind. ;-)
>
> Norm Strong

Hi, Norm.

Yes, I did this when doing my comparison series. I ramped up
the gain slightly on B, to see just when I could pick it out
from A during the X part of the series. About one dB did it
some of the time, but for consistent results upping it about
three dB did the trick.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> wrote
> >> Howard Ferstler wrote

> >> By the way, sighted or unsighted, all proper comparisons
> >> involving amps or CD players require very precise level
> >> matching. Fortunately, with wires the levels will almost
> >> always automatically be level matched, so comparing wires is
> >> the easiest way to discover the value of the DBT protocol.

> > This is true. However, you can sometimes get valuable info by running a
> > test in which you choose whatever level you prefer. This way, you find out
> > if there is ANY volume level that can switch your preference from one device
> > to the other.

> Uncle Norm, choosing any volume level is changing your preference to the
> of level of sound.

Obviously. But because you can make any amp in the
comparison (be it the cheap one or the expensive one) play
louder, he is basically saying that if you want an amp
upgrade on the cheap, just advance the gain control of your
existing unit a bit. Of course, this assumes that the unit
can deliver adequate power at this higher level.

> > A slight change in the volume is a lot cheaper than substituting a McIntosh
> > for a Kenwood! Naturally, it still has to be done blind. ;-)

> You mean that if you slightly adjust the sound of your Kenwood it will
> begin to sound like a McIntosh ? Hmm, you might wanna sharpen the
> edges of your fantasy.

Actually, if you were to raise the level of the Kenwood a dB
or two, it would sound better than the McIntosh. That was
Norm's point.

If you do not properly level match, all bets are off with
any kind of wire or amp (or CD player) comparison series.
However, once you have level matched precisely and
discovered that most amps sound the same, it is an
interesting extension of the experiment to change the levels
in known amounts in order to see just how big a difference
different levels can be.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:50:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

> >One comparison I'm familiar with involved adjusting the volume of a Yamaha
> >Integrated amp so that it sounded just like a Pass amp, according to the
> >ears of a well-known now-passed Pass dealer from south Florida.

> If only there were some legitimate blind listening tests that supports
> this statement...

Anybody can do a comparison like this if they give it a
decent try. The test Arny mentioned involved not only an ABX
device but also involved simple amp switching that involved
connecting and disconnecting cables from the amps. (To
eliminate participant paranoia about the influence of the
ABX device's switching network.) The funny thing is that
most of you guys just chatter about such tests, while never
bothering to do any yourselves.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:

> I'm more interested to learn of Uncle Norm's ability in making his Kenwood
> sound like a McIntosh through sheer adjustment to the level of sound it
> produce. Btw, I own a McIntosh C-41 preamp which I bought over a year
> ago.

This would be easy. Just match levels and they should sound
alike - assuming that both amps were operating normally and
neither was being driven to clipping levels.

> Now I own two preamps; a Mac and an Audio Reaserch. That is
> the problem!

My take on this is that you are trying to justify your
having spent big bucks on amps and preamps. Rather than
speculate, just do some level-matched comparing. Oops, if
you do that you will probably discover that you overspent.
Cannot let that happen, can we?

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote

> > My friend, following Mr. McKelvy, that is exactly what the
> > ABX device allow you to do. A and B are always known. X is
> > the mystery source (it can be either A or B) and you can
> > compare A and B all you like at first, in order to see if
> > you hear differences. You can then switch to X and see if it
> > exhibits the characteristics of either A or B. You register
> > a vote electronically, and then move on to the next trial. X
> > may or may not change during subsequent trials, but A and B
> > always remain the same.

> Your blossoming craziness is again becoming too painful to read through
> your posting.
>
> In ABX, you’re comparing to detect subtle differences between two sound
> signals representing the two “unknown” devices e.g. amps, which themselves
> are represented as the “known” A or B along with the “unknown” X which,
> as requisite, you are required to identify as either the “known” A or B
> representing the unknown devices.

Your grammar is a bit convoluted, but, yep.

> By this, the test is requiring that you make conscionable judgment in
> identifying the unknown X between the two unknown device being represented
> by the two known A and B representing the unknown to the testee.

Well, we are again being a bit more grammatically convoluted
than necessary. But in any case, you just compare A and B
enough so that you are sure of the supposed differences. You
can then move on to comparing either of them to X. If A is X
on this trial then it will sound the same as X and B will
sound different from X. If B is X on this trial, things will
be reversed. Once that trial is completed (by registering a
vote with the machine), you go on to a new trial where X may
or may not have been changed by the machine. A and B remain
as before: known components.

During the test, if you discover that X consistently sounds
like both A and B, then you have also discovered that amps
(at least the two amps in the test) sound the same. Of
course, you can go through the whole trial and see if any
supposed differences you thought you were hearing are real.
At the end of the trial, you ask the machine how well you
scored when comparing X to the others (A and B) with all 25
trials.

Incidentally, the best way to do a test like this is to not
compare two upscale amps. Rather, it is better to choose one
favorite upscale amp and then compare it to something rather
cheap, like a mid-fi receiver's amp section. That way, the
test becomes dramatic. Using a mid-fi receiver, fed through
it's "aux" inputs will also allow you to use the receiver's
volume and balance controls to precisely level match each
amp channel.

If you lack a digital volt meter for doing this (the QSC
brand ABX box has such a meter built in), you can use pink
noise and level match each channel by ear. It works
surprisingly well.

> Tell me what the flying **** is wrong with these, Mr. Ferstler?

Nothing. Indeed, they are a superb way to compare, because
you cannot let your preconceptions about the supposed
quality of A and B turn the comparison into a
self-justifying popularity contest between a favored amp and
one you think is junk.

> Is it your abx device or methodology ?
>
> And you do these comparison using a signal source (Music) to deliberately
> deflect your consciousness in discerning subtle differences.

Use music or anything else you care to use. Take as much
time as you like. Just make sure the levels are properly
matched.

> Are you expecting
> this to help heighten your awareness in detecting and in prolonging your
> ability to restore your ability to critically discern subtle sound
> differences.

I am expecting the procedure to prove to you that
differences you thought you heard during sighted comparisons
were not really differences at all. Yes, I know that
learning this will demoralize you, but the hard knocks in
life are the ones that teach the best.

> Are you going to listen to music or make critical comparison?

Sure. Use any musical source you want.

> Who else does this musical ABX ?

Any number of other people who want to discover if those
audible differences they think exist are really audible.

> > Now, if you do not have an ABX device you can still do
> > level-matched comparing with the help of a buddy who will do
> > the switching while you do your evaluations. No, it is not
> > as slick as the ABX device, but your buddy will keep score,
> > and THAT is how you will know which item is playing - after
> > the comparison series is completed.

> Instead of a buddy, would you suggest in using a wife like
> Norm Strong did?

Use anyone you like. Heck, you could jumble the wires with
your eyes closed and then plug them in and essentially have
a DBT.

Obviously, you have spent some money on exotic hardware and
you are bound and determined to justify those expenditures.
Rather than take a chance and do some comparing blind, you
make excuses here.

Quit being so defensive and do some carefully level-matched
comparing. See if your belief system holds steady when put
to the test.

Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

> dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:50:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>>> One comparison I'm familiar with involved adjusting the volume of a
>>> Yamaha Integrated amp so that it sounded just like a Pass amp,
>>> according to the ears of a well-known now-passed Pass dealer from
>>> south Florida.
>
>> If only there were some legitimate blind listening tests that
>> supports this statement...
>
> Anybody can do a comparison like this if they give it a
> decent try. The test Arny mentioned involved not only an ABX
> device but also involved simple amp switching that involved
> connecting and disconnecting cables from the amps. (To
> eliminate participant paranoia about the influence of the
> ABX device's switching network.) The funny thing is that
> most of you guys just chatter about such tests, while never
> bothering to do any yourselves.

Agreed. Dave Weil likes to talk big, but around here has a track record of
being technically incompetent to do simple things like level matching to
within 0.1 dB, or perceive the value of doing so. His idea of a big, complex
technical experiment is to hook up a pair of speakers and listen to them.

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

> EddieM wrote:
>
>> I'm more interested to learn of Uncle Norm's ability in making his
>> Kenwood sound like a McIntosh through sheer adjustment to the level
>> of sound it produce. Btw, I own a McIntosh C-41 preamp which I
>> bought over a year ago.
>
> This would be easy. Just match levels and they should sound
> alike - assuming that both amps were operating normally and
> neither was being driven to clipping levels.
>
>> Now I own two preamps; a Mac and an Audio Reaserch. That is
>> the problem!
>
> My take on this is that you are trying to justify your
> having spent big bucks on amps and preamps. Rather than
> speculate, just do some level-matched comparing. Oops, if
> you do that you will probably discover that you overspent.
> Cannot let that happen, can we?

I think that EddieM is just a troll. In real life he probably has a pretty
pathetic audio system. But, he knows how to drop impressive names on Usenet.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>
>> dave weil wrote:
>
> Agreed. Dave Weil likes to talk big, but around here has a track record of
> being technically incompetent to do simple things like level matching to
> within 0.1 dB, or perceive the value of doing so. His idea of a big,
> complex
> technical experiment is to hook up a pair of speakers and listen to them.
>

I would think that it is his idea of fun.
It is, for me.
Enjoying home audio need not be a 'big,
complex technical experiment'.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>
>> EddieM wrote:
>>
>>> I'm more interested to learn of Uncle Norm's ability in making his
>>> Kenwood sound like a McIntosh through sheer adjustment to the level
>>> of sound it produce. Btw, I own a McIntosh C-41 preamp which I
>>> bought over a year ago.
>>
>> This would be easy. Just match levels and they should sound
>> alike - assuming that both amps were operating normally and
>> neither was being driven to clipping levels.
>>
>>> Now I own two preamps; a Mac and an Audio Reaserch. That is
>>> the problem!
>>
>> My take on this is that you are trying to justify your
>> having spent big bucks on amps and preamps. Rather than
>> speculate, just do some level-matched comparing. Oops, if
>> you do that you will probably discover that you overspent.
>> Cannot let that happen, can we?
>
> I think that EddieM is just a troll. In real life he probably has a pretty
> pathetic audio system. But, he knows how to drop impressive names on
> Usenet.
>
>

Arny "Turdy" Kruger

There! I just dropped an impressive name on Usenet.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[dave weil]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:15:15 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

>> dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:50:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> One comparison I'm familiar with involved adjusting the volume of a
>>>> Yamaha Integrated amp so that it sounded just like a Pass amp,
>>>> according to the ears of a well-known now-passed Pass dealer from
>>>> south Florida.
>>
>>> If only there were some legitimate blind listening tests that
>>> supports this statement...
>>
>> Anybody can do a comparison like this if they give it a
>> decent try. The test Arny mentioned involved not only an ABX
>> device but also involved simple amp switching that involved
>> connecting and disconnecting cables from the amps. (To
>> eliminate participant paranoia about the influence of the
>> ABX device's switching network.) The funny thing is that
>> most of you guys just chatter about such tests, while never
>> bothering to do any yourselves.
>
>Agreed. Dave Weil likes to talk big, but around here has a track record of
>being technically incompetent to do simple things like level matching to
>within 0.1 dB, or perceive the value of doing so. His idea of a big, complex
>technical experiment is to hook up a pair of speakers and listen to them.

And here's big-time live music engineer Arnold spouting off again. I
guess he's still high from the choir rehearsal today. I heard that Joe
the Butcher was flat again this week.

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > By the way, sighted or unsighted, all proper comparisons
>> > involving amps or CD players require very precise level
>> > matching. Fortunately, with wires the levels will almost
>> > always automatically be level matched, so comparing wires is
>> > the easiest way to discover the value of the DBT protocol.
>>
>> This is true. However, you can sometimes get valuable info by running a
>> test in which you choose whatever level you prefer. This way, you find
>> out
>> if there is ANY volume level that can switch your preference from one
>> device
>> to the other. A slight change in the volume is a lot cheaper than
>> substituting a McIntosh for a Kenwood! Naturally, it still has to be
>> done
>> blind. ;-)
>>
>> Norm Strong
>
> Hi, Norm.
>
> Yes, I did this when doing my comparison series. I ramped up
> the gain slightly on B, to see just when I could pick it out
> from A during the X part of the series. About one dB did it
> some of the time, but for consistent results upping it about
> three dB did the trick.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it takes somewhere
between 1 and 3 db change in level to reliably tell the difference between 2
amplifiers that are otherwise the same. That you might have to double the
power output of an amplifier to reliably tell that you've made some change
is quite remarkable to me. I would have thought 1 db would be more than
enough. I've learned something new! I was pretty much aware that human
powers of discrimination were nowhere near as sensitive as most audiophiles
believe--but 3db is a lot.

Norm Strong

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it takes somewhere
> between 1 and 3 db change in level to reliably tell the difference
> between 2 amplifiers that are otherwise the same.

Depends on how close the comparison is.

IME 0.5 dB is detectable under ideal conditions, 1 dB can be detected when
comparing two similar sounds in different rooms, and 3 dB or more under
less-than-ideal conditions.

> That you might
> have to double the power output of an amplifier to reliably tell that
> you've made some change is quite remarkable to me.

OK.

> I would have thought 1 db would be more than enough.

I can be, but 1 dB is no way anything like earth-shaking.

>I've learned something new!
> I was pretty much aware that human powers of discrimination were
> nowhere near as sensitive as most audiophiles believe--but 3db is a
> lot.

Under non-ideal conditions - time delay during comparison, dynamic sounds
going on during the comparison, etc.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> wrote
>> >> Howard Ferstler wrote
>
>
>
>> >> By the way, sighted or unsighted, all proper comparisons
>> >> involving amps or CD players require very precise level
>> >> matching. Fortunately, with wires the levels will almost
>> >> always automatically be level matched, so comparing wires is
>> >> the easiest way to discover the value of the DBT protocol.
>
>> > This is true. However, you can sometimes get valuable info by running a
>> > test in which you choose whatever level you prefer. This way, you find
>> > out if there is ANY volume level that can switch your preference from one
>> > device to the other.
>
>> Uncle Norm, choosing any volume level is changing your preference to the
>> level of sound.
>
>
> Obviously. But because you can make any amp in the
> comparison (be it the cheap one or the expensive one) play
> louder, he is basically saying that if you want an amp
> upgrade on the cheap, just advance the gain control of your
> existing unit a bit. Of course, this assumes that the unit
> can deliver adequate power at this higher level.


You ever consider taking antipsychotic medication?


>> > A slight change in the volume is a lot cheaper than substituting a
>> > McIntosh for a Kenwood! Naturally, it still has to be done blind. ;-)
>
>> You mean that if you slightly adjust the sound of your Kenwood it will
>> begin to sound like a McIntosh ? Hmm, you might wanna sharpen the
>> edges of your fantasy.
>
> Actually, if you were to raise the level of the Kenwood a dB
> or two, it would sound better than the McIntosh. That was
> Norm's point.

So your saying that if Uncle Norm were to raise the level of his Kenwood
a dB or two, he'd be capable of percieving its sound as good as whatever
components he could muster to fantazise.

Both of you should seriously consider getting on psych meds. before
messing around with any experiment.



> If you do not properly level match, all bets are off with
> any kind of wire or amp (or CD player) comparison series.
> However, once you have level matched precisely and
> discovered that most amps sound the same, it is an
> interesting extension of the experiment to change the levels
> in known amounts in order to see just how big a difference
> different levels can be.


Now you're saying that once a proper level match is done, it is an
interesting extension of the ABX experiment ability to make both
components to sound the same


> Howard Ferstler, a crazy person.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>
>
>
>
>snip huge repeatitions.
>
>
>
> During the test, if you discover that X consistently sounds
> like both A and B, then you have also discovered that amps
> (at least the two amps in the test) sound the same.


OR, the experiment made it possible for the testee to preconcieve
that the sound will be the same after adjusting their output levels.

I've always suspected this part about your experiment. I don't think that
level matching precludes the testee to preconceive that the device
familiar to him would still sound different from the way it did.

So you say they should simply listen for differences. That doesn't
address it.


> Of course, you can go through the whole trial and see if any
> supposed differences you thought you were hearing are real.

That's right, you can now go through the whole trial to see if the
differences exist 'cause you have now adjusted their output levels
and you have to "at least" expect to affect the way the components
will sound -- that they would now be different, that is, their sound
levels would now be the same.


This is taking care of preconception, right?


> At the end of the trial, you ask the machine how well you
> scored when comparing X to the others (A and B) with all 25
> trials.

That's right again, if the machine tells that you thought they sounded
the same, expect that you are "at least" partly correct because you
have change their output levels in order to make the adjustment for
this "scientific" experiment.


> Incidentally, the best way to do a test like this is to not
> compare two upscale amps. Rather, it is better to choose one
> favorite upscale amp and then compare it to something rather
> cheap, like a mid-fi receiver's amp section. That way, the
> test becomes dramatic. Using a mid-fi receiver, fed through
> it's "aux" inputs will also allow you to use the receiver's
> volume and balance controls to precisely level match each
> amp channel.
>
> If you lack a digital volt meter for doing this (the QSC
> brand ABX box has such a meter built in), you can use pink
> noise and level match each channel by ear. It works
> surprisingly well.
>
>
>
>> Tell me what the flying **** is wrong with these, Mr. Ferstler?
>
> Nothing.
> Indeed, they are a superb way to compare, because
> you cannot let your preconceptions about the supposed
> quality of A and B turn the comparison into a
> self-justifying popularity contest between a favored amp and
> one you think is junk.


Ooops, I wish, I hope, and I'm sure that they will discuss this methodology
during The Great Debate. I'm interested what would be said.

What I would say is that the practice use in this methodology
is a set-up guise as a scientific experiment under the false pretense of
solving the problems of preconceptions, and in addressing the ability
to discern subtle differences under this condition through level matching
to the benefit and to compliment the abx device -- not the testee.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.


>> Is it your abx device or methodology ?
>>
>> And you do these comparison using a signal source (Music) to
>> deliberately deflect your consciousness in discerning subtle
>> differences.
>
> Use music or anything else you care to use. Take as much
> time as you like. Just make sure the levels are properly
> matched.


Which type of music is good?
What else could be use if not music?
Why is music good to use?

What does, "Take as much time as you like" mean?


>> Are you expecting
>> this to help heighten your awareness in detecting and in prolonging your
>> ability to restore your ability to critically discern subtle sound
>> differences.
>
> I am expecting the procedure to prove to you that
> differences you thought you heard during sighted comparisons
> were not really differences at all. Yes, I know that
> learning this will demoralize you, but the hard knocks in
> life are the ones that teach the best.


Please address the question I ask above. Give an answer to counter
my remarks.


>> Are you going to listen to music or make critical comparison?
>
> Sure. Use any musical source you want.


Please respond addressing the question above. Offer a commentary
explaining why listening to music while making critical comparison
hightens the ability to discern subtle differences in sound.



>> Who else does this musical ABX ?
>
> Any number of other people who want to discover if those
> audible differences they think exist are really audible.



>> > Now, if you do not have an ABX device you can still do
>> > level-matched comparing with the help of a buddy who will do
>> > the switching while you do your evaluations. No, it is not
>> > as slick as the ABX device, but your buddy will keep score,
>> > and THAT is how you will know which item is playing - after
>> > the comparison series is completed.
>
>> Instead of a buddy, would you suggest in using a wife like
>> Norm Strong did?
>
> Use anyone you like. Heck, you could jumble the wires with
> your eyes closed and then plug them in and essentially have
> a DBT.


You keep saying that ABX experiment and its methodology is
scientific. Is the above also ?


> Obviously, you have spent some money on exotic hardware and
> you are bound and determined to justify those expenditures.
> Rather than take a chance and do some comparing blind, you
> make excuses here.

Are you angry 'cause I have some money for exotic hardware?


> Quit being so defensive and do some carefully level-matched
> comparing. See if your belief system holds steady when put
> to the test.
>
> Howard Ferstler

But me doing the ABX experiment will not prove that it is effective.

Agree or disagree ?

[EddieM]

> Arnii Krooger chow lie lie !

Me chung chang choo, yung yang yu, a tong tong chou.
Hosoong sangso yung tang ting moting tang to!.
Bang bong ching chong cha, chang ching cha?
A ching chang cho!! Ohh, chong chang ching tsaa !

Arnii,.....ahh chonng channg ching-cha! Aha!

Zou tong bad bad boy, motoung mata qoung qua tong ga
chan chou.... mooo, aw aw aw !




> Of course, been there done that.



Tuuunnnnnng ta! Tung ta-tung ta!





>> Only two knobs, one for treble and one for bass.
>
>
> Good enough for a boom box or a simple-minded operator.


Mang mang yu? Mang mang yu? Mo toi tung lie mong lie tong
tie. Pong pang to, metong chang to, a tong-tong pa! Ming huk huk
dang, suk sang sook wong lie pyuk ? Ming pyong-pyang yo ?
Metong chi wung tang do, tang tang do, pyuk pyuk wang tang do

Wak tung, pak tung, mak tung tak tung ta! Yong bang bang twong?
Yang bang fuk fuk yuo, yo bang lie mo? bang mie yo? bang lie ma?
Yu bang fuk fuk yo yo ma. Wu tang toi mung chang .. a wang tung
cha, tung cha? Me tung chang ..... cho! Puk puk mo zang chou.

Motooonnngg chuk chak chong! Arnii meng chong chang so!
Wung dang so, me chuk chong chuk chang so!

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > By the way, sighted or unsighted, all proper comparisons
> >> > involving amps or CD players require very precise level
> >> > matching. Fortunately, with wires the levels will almost
> >> > always automatically be level matched, so comparing wires is
> >> > the easiest way to discover the value of the DBT protocol.
> >>
> >> This is true. However, you can sometimes get valuable info by running a
> >> test in which you choose whatever level you prefer. This way, you find
> >> out
> >> if there is ANY volume level that can switch your preference from one
> >> device
> >> to the other. A slight change in the volume is a lot cheaper than
> >> substituting a McIntosh for a Kenwood! Naturally, it still has to be
> >> done
> >> blind. ;-)
> >>
> >> Norm Strong
> >
> > Hi, Norm.
> >
> > Yes, I did this when doing my comparison series. I ramped up
> > the gain slightly on B, to see just when I could pick it out
> > from A during the X part of the series. About one dB did it
> > some of the time, but for consistent results upping it about
> > three dB did the trick.
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it takes somewhere
> between 1 and 3 db change in level to reliably tell the difference between 2
> amplifiers that are otherwise the same. That you might have to double the
> power output of an amplifier to reliably tell that you've made some change
> is quite remarkable to me.

Remember, the doubling is not all that obvious with musical
source material that is fluctuating in intensity. It would
jump right out at you with a steady-state signal, however.
It would also be clearly evident even with only 1 dB in
level differences. The type of source material is really,
really important when comparing in this way.

> I would have thought 1 db would be more than
> enough.

It can sometimes be surprising just how hard one has to
listen with levels mismatched by only that much. However, if
one has the right musical material the difference can be
fairly evident. With pink noise you would hear if fairly
easily.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:06:37 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it takes somewhere
>> between 1 and 3 db change in level to reliably tell the difference between 2
>> amplifiers that are otherwise the same. That you might have to double the
>> power output of an amplifier to reliably tell that you've made some change
>> is quite remarkable to me.
>
>Remember, the doubling is not all that obvious with musical
>source material that is fluctuating in intensity. It would
>jump right out at you with a steady-state signal, however.

Yes, this matters because we all only listen to "steady-state
signals".

And pink noise, of course.

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote

> > During the test, if you discover that X consistently sounds
> > like both A and B, then you have also discovered that amps
> > (at least the two amps in the test) sound the same.

> OR, the experiment made it possible for the testee to preconcieve
> that the sound will be the same after adjusting their output levels.

I am not sure what you mean. If you are listening to A and
B, with them both known, then, sure, preconceptions might
cause you to favor one over the other and think that the
differences were audible. However, because you do not know
what X is during any of the X-choice trials (X may or not
change with each succeeding trial) preconceptions cannot
come into play.

> I've always suspected this part about your experiment. I don't think that
> level matching precludes the testee to preconceive that the device
> familiar to him would still sound different from the way it did.

I'd like to debate you here, but for the life of me I really
do not know what you are driving at. I get the impression
that you are working pretty hard to justify what you spent
on some upscale amps. You want to feel good about what you
did.

> So you say they should simply listen for differences. That doesn't
> address it.

Well, I really do not know what else they could do.

> > Of course, you can go through the whole trial and see if any
> > supposed differences you thought you were hearing are real.

> That's right, you can now go through the whole trial to see if the
> differences exist 'cause you have now adjusted their output levels
> and you have to "at least" expect to affect the way the components
> will sound -- that they would now be different, that is, their sound
> levels would now be the same.

Your commentary has clearly left me in the dust.

> This is taking care of preconception, right?

Well, you either hear differences or you do not. With
sighted comparisons (especially if levels are not matched)
it certainly is possible to exercise preconceptions. With a
DBT (level matched, of course), I suppose you could have
anxiety problems as differences were found to be impossible
to detect. This artifact has caused more than one high-end
believer to "crash and burn" during a comparison series.
However, one thing you cannot do is pick out a "favorite"
amp and declare it to be the winner.

> > At the end of the trial, you ask the machine how well you
> > scored when comparing X to the others (A and B) with all 25
> > trials.

> That's right again, if the machine tells that you thought they sounded
> the same, expect that you are "at least" partly correct because you
> have change their output levels in order to make the adjustment for
> this "scientific" experiment.

Well, you have to match levels, in order to level (pun
intended) the playing field. Give this procedure a try and
see what transpires. Compare a cheap amp to one of those
expensive and exotic jobs you have on hand.

> >> Tell me what the flying **** is wrong with these, Mr. Ferstler?

> > Nothing.
> > Indeed, they are a superb way to compare, because
> > you cannot let your preconceptions about the supposed
> > quality of A and B turn the comparison into a
> > self-justifying popularity contest between a favored amp and
> > one you think is junk.

> Ooops, I wish, I hope, and I'm sure that they will discuss this methodology
> during The Great Debate. I'm interested what would be said.

Well, while it is impossible to cheat and pick out a
favorite during a DBT, it is certainly possible to do that
when doing sighted comparisons.

> What I would say is that the practice use in this methodology
> is a set-up guise as a scientific experiment under the false pretense of
> solving the problems of preconceptions, and in addressing the ability
> to discern subtle differences under this condition through level matching
> to the benefit and to compliment the abx device -- not the testee.

I think you are working overtime to justify having spent big
money on some exotic amplification. I do not blame you,
because who would be happy knowing that they blew a wad on
an overkill product?

> Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Unfortunately for you, snickering will not change reality.

> >> Is it your abx device or methodology ?
> >>
> >> And you do these comparison using a signal source (Music) to
> >> deliberately deflect your consciousness in discerning subtle
> >> differences.

> > Use music or anything else you care to use. Take as much
> > time as you like. Just make sure the levels are properly
> > matched.

> Which type of music is good?

I tend to prefer baroque or the classics, because the
instrumentation is not electrically diddled with as much as
it is with rock music. Indeed, as I have stated in another
series of threads, one does not ordinarily need an upscale
audio system to get maximum pleasure from rock music. Things
are different with the classics, however.

> What else could be use if not music?
> Why is music good to use?

Well, the bottom line is music. No matter how good or bad a
system is, for most of us it is how that system handles
music that matters.

> What does, "Take as much time as you like" mean?

Some criticisms of the ABX protocol (or any other DBT
protocol) are based upon the participant being "forced" to
make his choices rapidly. I do not like pressuring those
people, and so I think that they should be encouraged to
take their time during each trial. The results will be the
same in any case.

> >> Are you expecting
> >> this to help heighten your awareness in detecting and in prolonging your
> >> ability to restore your ability to critically discern subtle sound
> >> differences.

> > I am expecting the procedure to prove to you that
> > differences you thought you heard during sighted comparisons
> > were not really differences at all. Yes, I know that
> > learning this will demoralize you, but the hard knocks in
> > life are the ones that teach the best.

> Please address the question I ask above. Give an answer to counter
> my remarks.

OK, while your grammar in that previous comment is stilted,
I will give answering your question a try. (Incidentally,
when you type out a question you should end the sentence
with a question mark.) Yes, I certainly do expect a DBT to
heighten my ability to fairly hear differences. Why? Because
by not knowing which item is playing (during the X phase of
an ABX comparison, for example) the individual must
determine sound quality by the way the components SOUND and
not be influenced by preconceptions that are enhanced by
knowledge of what is playing during a sighted comparison.

As for level matching, that is the only way to eliminate
level-related biases.

> >> Are you going to listen to music or make critical comparison?

> > Sure. Use any musical source you want.

> Please respond addressing the question above. Offer a commentary
> explaining why listening to music while making critical comparison
> hightens the ability to discern subtle differences in sound.

Well, actually something like pink noise would usually be
better much of the time. (I can do DBT comparisons with
music that are difficult, even with levels slightly
mismatched, but when switching to pink noise the
level-related differences are clearly evident.) However,
because music reproduction is the bottom line, and because
guys like you tend to think that music has some kind of
mystical ability to transcend electronic realities, the best
source material when doing DBT comparisons is music.

> >> > Now, if you do not have an ABX device you can still do
> >> > level-matched comparing with the help of a buddy who will do
> >> > the switching while you do your evaluations. No, it is not
> >> > as slick as the ABX device, but your buddy will keep score,
> >> > and THAT is how you will know which item is playing - after
> >> > the comparison series is completed.

> >> Instead of a buddy, would you suggest in using a wife like
> >> Norm Strong did?

> > Use anyone you like. Heck, you could jumble the wires with
> > your eyes closed and then plug them in and essentially have
> > a DBT.

> You keep saying that ABX experiment and its methodology is
> scientific. Is the above also ?

Well, any old port in a storm. I can think of better ways to
do comparing, for sure. However, the procedure I noted is
certainly better than sighted and non-level-matched
comparisons, where the participant can turn the situation
into a popularity contest that his favored amp will
certainly win.

> > Obviously, you have spent some money on exotic hardware and
> > you are bound and determined to justify those expenditures.
> > Rather than take a chance and do some comparing blind, you
> > make excuses here.

> Are you angry 'cause I have some money for exotic hardware?

Not in the least. I do find it unfortunate (for you) that
you have overspent for gear. Spending on cheaper gear that
was just as good would have allowed you to spend the surplus
on additional recordings. You do indeed have my sympathies.

Then, again, as best I can tell you are caught up in the
mysteries of high-end audio, and for you obtaining and using
exotic and expensive gear is actually an end in itself, and
completely separate from musical enjoyment.

> > Quit being so defensive and do some carefully level-matched
> > comparing. See if your belief system holds steady when put
> > to the test.

> But me doing the ABX experiment will not prove that it is effective.
>
> Agree or disagree ?

Well, probably not for you. You want to believe in the
mystique surrounding exotic equipment, and no doubt whatever
happens during a DBT (ABX or otherwise) I am sure you will
come up with an excuse that continues to justify your need
to spend big on esoteric hardware.

If a guy like you actually did do an DBT series that proved
you could not hear differences between your favorite,
expensive amp and some cheap job, you would probably give up
the hobby.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote

> > If you do not properly level match, all bets are off with
> > any kind of wire or amp (or CD player) comparison series.
> > However, once you have level matched precisely and
> > discovered that most amps sound the same, it is an
> > interesting extension of the experiment to change the levels
> > in known amounts in order to see just how big a difference
> > different levels can be.

> Now you're saying that once a proper level match is done, it is an
> interesting extension of the ABX experiment ability to make both
> components to sound the same
>
> > Howard Ferstler, a crazy person.

I am pretty sure that:

1) You still do not realize just how a properly
level-matched DBT works to eliminate preconceptions.

2) You are desperately trying to justify the big bucks you
spent on some of your exotic gear and will avoid doing any
DBT comparisons to protect your belief system.

However, take a chance. Do some carefully level-matched DBT
work, and then see what transpires.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>
> > EddieM wrote:

> >> Now I own two preamps; a Mac and an Audio Reaserch. That is
> >> the problem!

> > My take on this is that you are trying to justify your
> > having spent big bucks on amps and preamps. Rather than
> > speculate, just do some level-matched comparing. Oops, if
> > you do that you will probably discover that you overspent.
> > Cannot let that happen, can we?

> I think that EddieM is just a troll. In real life he probably has a pretty
> pathetic audio system. But, he knows how to drop impressive names on Usenet.

Most people who have money to waste on overkill products
probably have at least enough formal education to carefully
and coherently articulate their points of view, weird though
they may be.

EddieM does not appear to be quite in this intellectual and
educational category (this also goes for a few of the other
RAO tweakos), and so, yes, it is likely that he is a kid
somewhere with a cheap rig and plenty of hope for the
future.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

> > I think that EddieM is just a troll. In real life he probably has a pretty
> > pathetic audio system. But, he knows how to drop impressive names on
> > Usenet.

> Arny "Turdy" Kruger
>
> There! I just dropped an impressive name on Usenet.

What I said about EddieM in another post on this thread goes
for this guy, too. They both come across as semi-literate,
vocabulary limited kids with big hopes for their
audio-hardware futures.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> >
> >> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > Agreed. Dave Weil likes to talk big, but around here has a track record of
> > being technically incompetent to do simple things like level matching to
> > within 0.1 dB, or perceive the value of doing so. His idea of a big,
> > complex
> > technical experiment is to hook up a pair of speakers and listen to them.
> >
>
> I would think that it is his idea of fun.
> It is, for me.
> Enjoying home audio need not be a 'big,
> complex technical experiment'.

For many individuals (like you), engaging in a bit of self
education is too painful to contemplate. Fun is all that
matters, and knowledge be damned.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Poor Howard Ferstler griped:

> Most people who have money to waste on overkill products

The agenda is laid bare.

[George M. Middius]

Howard "Hypocrisy Becomes Me" Ferstler said:

> They both come across as semi-literate,
> vocabulary limited kids

And to think, just yesterday you were complaining about being called names.

Does the expression "sauce for the gander" strike a note for you, Clerkie?

[[email protected]]

EddieM wrote:
> > Arnii Krooger chow lie lie !
>
> Me chung chang choo, yung yang yu, a tong tong chou.
> Hosoong sangso yung tang ting moting tang to!.
> Bang bong ching chong cha, chang ching cha?
> A ching chang cho!! Ohh, chong chang ching tsaa !
>
> Arnii,.....ahh chonng channg ching-cha! Aha!
>
> Zou tong bad bad boy, motoung mata qoung qua tong ga
> chan chou.... mooo, aw aw aw !
>
>
>
>
> > Of course, been there done that.
>
>
>
> Tuuunnnnnng ta! Tung ta-tung ta!
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Only two knobs, one for treble and one for bass.
> >
> >
> > Good enough for a boom box or a simple-minded operator.
>
>
> Mang mang yu? Mang mang yu? Mo toi tung lie mong lie tong
> tie. Pong pang to, metong chang to, a tong-tong pa! Ming huk huk
> dang, suk sang sook wong lie pyuk ? Ming pyong-pyang yo ?
> Metong chi wung tang do, tang tang do, pyuk pyuk wang tang do
>
> Wak tung, pak tung, mak tung tak tung ta! Yong bang bang twong?
> Yang bang fuk fuk yuo, yo bang lie mo? bang mie yo? bang lie ma?
> Yu bang fuk fuk yo yo ma. Wu tang toi mung chang .. a wang tung
> cha, tung cha? Me tung chang ..... cho! Puk puk mo zang chou.
>
> Motooonnngg chuk chak chong! Arnii meng chong chang so!
> Wung dang so, me chuk chong chuk chang so!
>
>

This reads alot like some of the crap from the nutball posting as
"George M. Middius". Are you two related? ;-)

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:06:37 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it takes somewhere
> >> between 1 and 3 db change in level to reliably tell the difference between 2
> >> amplifiers that are otherwise the same. That you might have to double the
> >> power output of an amplifier to reliably tell that you've made some change
> >> is quite remarkable to me.

> >Remember, the doubling is not all that obvious with musical
> >source material that is fluctuating in intensity. It would
> >jump right out at you with a steady-state signal, however.

> Yes, this matters because we all only listen to "steady-state
> signals".
>
> And pink noise, of course.

You miss the point, but I am not surprised.

Howard Ferstler

[Tom]

> wrote
>
> This reads alot like some of the crap from the nutball posting as
> "George M. Middius". Are you two related? ;-)



zzzzzzzzz..............why do you even bother???

listen to the ozark mountain daredevils much, DF?

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>>
>>> dave weil wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. Dave Weil likes to talk big, but around here has a track
>> record of being technically incompetent to do simple things like
>> level matching to within 0.1 dB, or perceive the value of doing so.
>> His idea of a big, complex
>> technical experiment is to hook up a pair of speakers and listen to
>> them.
>>
>
> I would think that it is his idea of fun.

It strikes me as being without a practical purpose.

> It is, for me.

So speaks the audio airhead.

> Enjoying home audio need not be a 'big, complex technical experiment'.

Enjoying music need not be any kind of technical experiment at all.

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

> dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:06:37 -0500, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it takes
>>>> somewhere between 1 and 3 db change in level to reliably tell the
>>>> difference between 2 amplifiers that are otherwise the same. That
>>>> you might have to double the power output of an amplifier to
>>>> reliably tell that you've made some change is quite remarkable to
>>>> me.
>
>>> Remember, the doubling is not all that obvious with musical
>>> source material that is fluctuating in intensity. It would
>>> jump right out at you with a steady-state signal, however.
>
>> Yes, this matters because we all only listen to "steady-state
>> signals".

I gotta check the thread to see who is this abysmially stupid. Oh, it is
THAT bozo. Figures.

>> And pink noise, of course.

Same bozo, natch.

> You miss the point, but I am not surprised.

Agreed.

[George M. Middius]

****-for-Brains said:

> speaks the audio airhead.

Harold has just declared that "sophomoric" name-calling is unwelcome on
RAO. Please try to keep your rulebook up to date, you disgusting pile of
turds.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>
>

page 1 of 2

>
>
>
>> > During the test, if you discover that X consistently sounds
>> > like both A and B, then you have also discovered that amps
>> > (at least the two amps in the test) sound the same.
>
>> OR, the experiment made it possible for the testee to preconceive
>> that the sound will be the same after adjusting their output levels.
>
>
> I am not sure what you mean.

What I'm saying was that would the sound (quality) of a component be
affected if their output level is adjusted. I mean from the way the
subject is used to hearing them.


> If you are listening to A and
> B, with them both known, then, sure, preconceptions might
> cause you to favor one over the other and think that the
> differences were audible. However, because you do not know
> what X is during any of the X-choice trials (X may or not
> change with each succeeding trial) preconceptions cannot
> come into play.
>
>
>> I've always suspected this part about your experiment. I don't think that
>> level matching precludes the testee to preconceive that the device
>> familiar to him would still sound different from the way it did.
>
> I'd like to debate you here, but for the life of me I really
> do not know what you are driving at.

I'm talking about the components themselves. Wouldn't the quality
of their sound be affected when their levels are adjusted becoming
different from the way the subject is use to hearing them.

> I get the impression
> that you are working pretty hard to justify what you spent
> on some upscale amps. You want to feel good about what you
> did.

I'm focusing on the abx methodology, and you keep yappin about how
I spent my money.


>> So you say they should simply listen for differences. That doesn't
>> address it.
>
> Well, I really do not know what else they could do.

Don't you think it's important to know if adjusting the output level of
components have any untoward effects from the way that the
participants are use to hearing their components? I mean, just to
maintain the integrity of the experiment.



>> > Of course, you can go through the whole trial and see if any
>> > supposed differences you thought you were hearing are real.
>
>> That's right, you can now go through the whole trial to see if the
>> differences exist 'cause you have now adjusted their output levels
>> and you have to "at least" expect to affect the way the components
>> will sound -- that they would now be different, that is, their sound
>> levels would now be the same. (output, that is)
>
> Your commentary has clearly left me in the dust.
>
>> This is taking care of preconception, right?
>
> Well, you either hear differences or you do not. With
> sighted comparisons (especially if levels are not matched)
> it certainly is possible to exercise preconceptions. With a
> DBT (level matched, of course), I suppose you could have
> anxiety problems as differences were found to be impossible
> to detect. This artifact has caused more than one high-end
> believer to "crash and burn" during a comparison series.
> However, one thing you cannot do is pick out a "favorite"
> amp and declare it to be the winner.

You need to stop invalidating some other completely irrelevant
practices such as sighted comparison in order to justify the
effectiveness of your ABX methodology. Don't conclude that your
methodology is scientifically accurate because you think some
other practices is ineffective.


>> > At the end of the trial, you ask the machine how well you
>> > scored when comparing X to the others (A and B) with all 25
>> > trials.
>
>> That's right again, if the machine tells that you thought they sounded
>> the same, expect that you are "at least" partly correct because you
>> have change their output levels in order to make the adjustment for
>> this "scientific" experiment.
>
> Well, you have to match levels, in order to level (pun
> intended) the playing field. Give this procedure a try and
> see what transpires. Compare a cheap amp to one of those
> expensive and exotic jobs you have on hand.


Matching levels favors your experiment only, not the testee.


>> >> Tell me what the flying **** is wrong with these, Mr. Ferstler?
>
>> > Nothing.
>> > Indeed, they are a superb way to compare, because
>> > you cannot let your preconceptions about the supposed
>> > quality of A and B turn the comparison into a
>> > self-justifying popularity contest between a favored amp and
>> > one you think is junk.
>
>> Ooops, I wish, I hope, and I'm sure that they will discuss this
>> methodology during The Great Debate. I'm interested what
>> would be said.
>
> Well, while it is impossible to cheat and pick out a
> favorite during a DBT, it is certainly possible to do that
> when doing sighted comparisons.


There you go again.... you cannot claim that your abx experiment is
effective because you think some other people's way of comparison
is ineffective. Goddamn.


>> What I would say is that the practice use in this methodology
>> is a set-up guise as a scientific experiment under the false
>> pretense of solving the problems of preconceptions, and the
>> pretense of addressing the ability to discern subtle differences
>> under this condition through level matching to the benefit and to
>> compliment the abx device -- not the testee.
>
> I think you are working overtime to justify having spent big
> money on some exotic amplification. I do not blame you,
> because who would be happy knowing that they blew a wad on
> an overkill product?

Here you go again with my money. This is irrelevant to your
methodology.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>
>

page 2 of 2

>
>
>
>> Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
>
> Unfortunately for you, snickering will not change reality.
>
>> >> Is it your abx device or methodology ?
>> >>
>> >> And you do these comparison using a signal source (Music) to
>> >> deliberately deflect your consciousness in discerning subtle
>> >> differences.
>
>> > Use music or anything else you care to use. Take as much
>> > time as you like. Just make sure the levels are properly
>> > matched.
>
>> Which type of music is good?
>
> I tend to prefer baroque or the classics, because the
> instrumentation is not electrically diddled with as much as
> it is with rock music.

So rock music is a no-no with abx test. So those into rock music
should avoid abx because it will be difficult to discern differences.

You keep evading questions.

> Indeed, as I have stated in another
> series of threads, one does not ordinarily need an upscale
> audio system to get maximum pleasure from rock music. Things
> are different with the classics, however.


lol!


>> What else could be use if not music?
>> Why is music good to use?
>
> Well, the bottom line is music.

!!

Shouldn't be the ability to accurately discern sound differences be
the bottom line for this "scientific" experiment ? Is this no more?


> No matter how good or bad a
> system is, for most of us it is how that system handles
> music that matters.


What does this have to do with ABX methodology?


>> What does, "Take as much time as you like" mean?
>
> Some criticisms of the ABX protocol (or any other DBT
> protocol) are based upon the participant being "forced" to
> make his choices rapidly. I do not like pressuring those
> people, and so I think that they should be encouraged to
> take their time during each trial. The results will be the
> same in any case.


So now your saying again that it is about accurately
discerning sound differences for this scientific experiment.
The fact that the testee should take as much time as needed

Whats the matter with you?


>> >> Are you expecting
>> >> this to help heighten your awareness to detect and to
>> >> prolong your ability to restore your ability to critically
>> >> discern subtle sound differences ? (Question mark added.)
>
>> > I am expecting the procedure to prove to you that
>> > differences you thought you heard during sighted comparisons
>> > were not really differences at all. Yes, I know that
>> > learning this will demoralize you, but the hard knocks in
>> > life are the ones that teach the best.
>
>> Please address the question I ask above. Give an answer to counter
>> my remarks.
>
> OK, while your grammar in that previous comment is stilted,
> I will give answering your question a try. (Incidentally,
> when you type out a question you should end the sentence
> with a question mark.) Yes, I certainly do expect a DBT to
> heighten my ability to fairly hear differences. Why? Because
> by not knowing which item is playing (during the X phase of
> an ABX comparison, for example) the individual must
> determine sound quality by the way the components SOUND and
> not be influenced by preconceptions that are enhanced by
> knowledge of what is playing during a sighted comparison.

So let see, you want the testee to determine X through the sound
quality and determine whether it's A or B --- NOW that is identifying their
sound base on preferences instead of determining subtle differences
between X and the known A and B. Yes, they're determining the
difference but they're also affected by their preferences.


Welcome to emotional effects of music! music! music! .... play it on.


> As for level matching, that is the only way to eliminate
> level-related biases.

Too bad for abx.


>> >> Are you going to listen to music or make critical comparison?
>
>> > Sure. Use any musical source you want.
>
>> Please respond addressing the question above. Offer a commentary
>> explaining why listening to music while making critical comparison
>> hightens the ability to discern subtle differences.
>
> Well, actually something like pink noise would usually be
> better much of the time. (I can do DBT comparisons with
> music that are difficult, even with levels slightly
> mismatched, but when switching to pink noise the
> level-related differences are clearly evident.) However,
> because music reproduction is the bottom line, and because
> guys like you tend to think that music has some kind of
> mystical ability to transcend electronic realities, the best
> source material when doing DBT comparisons is music.

So what would happen if your state of mind is being affected by
the music? Such as with your moods, feelings, emotions, attitude,
temperament, etc...




>> >> > snip the rest of your irrelevant remarks.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>> > If you do not properly level match, all bets are off with
>> > any kind of wire or amp (or CD player) comparison series.
>> > However, once you have level matched precisely and
>> > discovered that most amps sound the same, it is an
>> > interesting extension of the experiment to change the levels
>> > in known amounts in order to see just how big a difference
>> > different levels can be.
>
>> Now you're saying that once a proper level match is done, it is an
>> interesting extension of the ABX experiment ability to make both
>> components to sound the same
>>
>> > Howard Ferstler, a crazy person.
>
> I am pretty sure that:
>
> 1) You still do not realize just how a properly
> level-matched DBT works to eliminate preconceptions.

All I'm saying is if adjusting the output level affect the way the testee
perceive the component sound quality.


> 2) You are desperately trying to justify the big bucks you
> spent on some of your exotic gear and will avoid doing any
> DBT comparisons to protect your belief system.

Big bucks again.


> However, take a chance. Do some carefully level-matched DBT
> work, and then see what transpires.
>
> Howard Ferstler


Wouldn't it be a waste of time your methodology is ineffective?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:27:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> >> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it takes somewhere
>> >> between 1 and 3 db change in level to reliably tell the difference between 2
>> >> amplifiers that are otherwise the same. That you might have to double the
>> >> power output of an amplifier to reliably tell that you've made some change
>> >> is quite remarkable to me.
>
>> >Remember, the doubling is not all that obvious with musical
>> >source material that is fluctuating in intensity. It would
>> >jump right out at you with a steady-state signal, however.
>
>> Yes, this matters because we all only listen to "steady-state
>> signals".
>>
>> And pink noise, of course.
>
>You miss the point, but I am not surprised.

Actually it was YOU who missed the point. The subtext of this is that
you just admitted that level-matching when comparing a system actually
playing music isn't all that important after all.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:48:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed. Dave Weil likes to talk big, but around here has a track
>>> record of being technically incompetent to do simple things like
>>> level matching to within 0.1 dB, or perceive the value of doing so.
>>> His idea of a big, complex
>>> technical experiment is to hook up a pair of speakers and listen to
>>> them.
>>>
>>
>> I would think that it is his idea of fun.
>
>It strikes me as being without a practical purpose.

Since when do using the gear for its intended purpose "without a
practical purpose"?

>> It is, for me.
>
>So speaks the audio airhead.
>
>> Enjoying home audio need not be a 'big, complex technical experiment'.
>
>Enjoying music need not be any kind of technical experiment at all.

Exactly.

[Mike McKelvy]

Mar 10, 4:32 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Mar 2005 16:32:16 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 10 2005 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: Mainstream Audio Magazines Died. Why?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

There are many Brit magazines of high price and dubious utility sold in

the United States, but the content of the audio ones which I have seen
is boring, dull, and useless. I have very little interest in mainstream

consumer equipment, it's a futile effort to even pay all that much
attention to what is sold by people who know nothing to people who know

nothing and don't care. High End equipment has its issues and foibles
but there is a semblance of dedication here.


The only audio magazine of which I am familiar for which I'd pay money

is AudioXPress. Although it is nowhere the magazine it was (as TAA) in
the eighties.



It has also incorporated Speaker Builder magazine and Glass Audio
(IIRC).

I suspect the reason for the combining, is that there is less interest
in the audio hobby for a number of reasons.

Partly, there are enough people who can afford software to design
reasonably good sounding speakers, or they can pay someone like
Madisound to design a crossover for them that will work reasonably
well.

There are plenty of web sites that are free and don't require you to be
an EE to make use of somebody else's ideas.

Tubes which were obsolete for audio decades ago, but have had some
slight increase in interest for a tiny niche are falling out of fashion
again.

Plain stereo has been replaced for most people by home theater systems.

Vinyl is far to expenisve for most people to do right when they can put
in a CD that they don't have to go through any ritual in order to play.

IOW the audio hobby has gotten far simpler and and cheaper for many
people to take a serious DIY interest in the way it was in the past.

I don't know what you mean by high end having issues and foilbles, it's
populated a lot of fringe wierdo's for a long time. The equipment that
is called high end for the most part is just overpriced without any
sonic improvement except for loudspeakers, which are all over the map
in terms of what constitutes praiseworthy performance. SP's reviews of
speakers show that there is absolutely no agreement all on what a good
speaker sounds like, although they seem to have a preference for
speakers with bass bloat. They've been lacking in credibilty forever
but with the gushing over unmitigated crap like the $300,000 WAVAC amp,
I think they finally hit bottom.

The real mainstream audio magazine, Sound and Vision has always shyed
away from reviewing bad equipment and truth be told, it's hard to find
bad equipment. Most of the electronics have been capable of good sound
for decades and it gets less and less expensive to build.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> There are many Brit magazines of high price and dubious utility sold
in
> the United States, but the content of the audio ones which I have
seen
> is boring, dull, and useless. I have very little interest in
mainstream
> consumer equipment, it's a futile effort to even pay all that much
> attention to what is sold by people who know nothing to people who
know
> nothing and don't care.

I see your point, but it's the fact that "What HiFi?" covers such a
huge range of consumer equipment that makes me look at it occasionally.
They cover gear, and types of gear, that's rarely (if ever) covered in
the US hobbyist press. Anyway, my point is that WHF is useful to me
because it covers stuff not covered in the US and that interests me. T3
also covers a lot of stuff that the US hobbyist press ignores. But
neither of the above does any technical testing.

As for the UK high-end press, I'm not really involved with high-end
gear these days, and if I was, there's plenty of US high-end magazines.
I don't have the dedication or time to keep up with high-end gear
nowadays. If I want fine sound these days, I listen to a CD with my
better headphones. If I still had high-end gear, it would gather dust
for weeks or months.

Anyway, the huge volume of AV hobbyist info published on the web means
anybody can find tons of info. However, I often prefer to read and
enjoy a printed magazine, and as far as I can see, mainstream audio
magazines are far from dead, while information published on the web has
made the total amount of AV information much greater.

Maybe what people miss is the feeling of being a subscriber and being
part of a group with the magazine, the editors, and the readers?

> High End equipment has its issues and foibles
> but there is a semblance of dedication here.

Maybe a little too much dedication, sometimes! ;-)

> The only audio magazine of which I am familiar for which I'd pay
money
> is AudioXPress. Although it is nowhere the magazine it was (as TAA)
in
> the eighties.

Even though I've never built a single project, I've enjoyed
AudioXPress, Speaker Builder, etc. Very educational and the perspective
is very practical and down to earth; at least that was the case years
ago. Haven't seen any of the DIY magazines for awhile.

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:
> >> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> > If you do not properly level match, all bets are off with
> >> > any kind of wire or amp (or CD player) comparison series.
> >> > However, once you have level matched precisely and
> >> > discovered that most amps sound the same, it is an
> >> > interesting extension of the experiment to change the levels
> >> > in known amounts in order to see just how big a difference
> >> > different levels can be.
> >
> >> Now you're saying that once a proper level match is done, it is an
> >> interesting extension of the ABX experiment ability to make both
> >> components to sound the same
> >>
> >> > Howard Ferstler, a crazy person.
> >
> > I am pretty sure that:
> >
> > 1) You still do not realize just how a properly
> > level-matched DBT works to eliminate preconceptions.
>
> All I'm saying is if adjusting the output level affect the way the testee
> perceive the component sound quality.

OK, I am going to assume that what you are saying is that
adjusting the output level of component will alter your
perception of its quality. The answer is yes, which is why
it is so important to level match properly when comparing
components.

> > 2) You are desperately trying to justify the big bucks you
> > spent on some of your exotic gear and will avoid doing any
> > DBT comparisons to protect your belief system.

> Big bucks again.

There is also the possibility (or probably the likelihood)
that you own no such gear at all - but wish you did.

> > However, take a chance. Do some carefully level-matched DBT
> > work, and then see what transpires.

> Wouldn't it be a waste of time your methodology is ineffective?

Learn to write.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:27:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >> >> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it takes somewhere
> >> >> between 1 and 3 db change in level to reliably tell the difference between 2
> >> >> amplifiers that are otherwise the same. That you might have to double the
> >> >> power output of an amplifier to reliably tell that you've made some change
> >> >> is quite remarkable to me.
> >
> >> >Remember, the doubling is not all that obvious with musical
> >> >source material that is fluctuating in intensity. It would
> >> >jump right out at you with a steady-state signal, however.
> >
> >> Yes, this matters because we all only listen to "steady-state
> >> signals".
> >>
> >> And pink noise, of course.
> >
> >You miss the point, but I am not surprised.
>
> Actually it was YOU who missed the point. The subtext of this is that
> you just admitted that level-matching when comparing a system actually
> playing music isn't all that important after all.

It is very important when doing the kind of very close
comparing I was referring to. Yes, pink noise will show up
even slight level differences very fast, indeed. On the
other hand, a very slight level difference will be much more
difficult to pinpoint as a level mismatch with a lot of
musical source material. The interesting thing is that while
the differences in level will not be all that easy to
pinpoint as level differences, the listener will pretty
quickly conclude that the louder component is somehow better
sounding, even though the level differences will be
difficult to pinpoint.

That is why precise level matching is so important. Yes, the
best way to do that is with a digital volt meter and a
test-tone sequence. (The QSC ABX device has this function
built in.) However, if you want to do the level matching on
the cheap (and by ear), you can use pink noise. Just tweak
the levels until there is no difference when switching from
one component to the other. (Yes, this means that you will
have to use mechanical switches instead of the
plug/unplug/plug technique - sorry.)

And, no, an SPL meter is NO GOOD when doing level-matching
with amps. It can do OK with speakers, however, at least if
pink noise is uses as the source material during the
matching procedure. As for wires, well there is probably no
reason to sweat level matching with them. For the most part,
they will level match with decent adequacy automatically.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:
> >> > Howard Ferstler wrote

> > I am not sure what you mean.

> What I'm saying was that would the sound (quality) of a component be
> affected if their output level is adjusted. I mean from the way the
> subject is used to hearing them.

Sure. Listeners tend to judge identical sounding components
in such a way that the louder of them will sound "better,"
at least up to a point.

> >> I've always suspected this part about your experiment. I don't think that
> >> level matching precludes the testee to preconceive that the device
> >> familiar to him would still sound different from the way it did.

> > I'd like to debate you here, but for the life of me I really
> > do not know what you are driving at.

> I'm talking about the components themselves. Wouldn't the quality
> of their sound be affected when their levels are adjusted becoming
> different from the way the subject is use to hearing them.

Sure. This is why it is important to have the levels
identical during comparisons. If one is very slightly louder
than the other, the listener may not be aware of the
loudness difference, but will still consider the slightly
louder component to be better sounding.

> > I get the impression
> > that you are working pretty hard to justify what you spent
> > on some upscale amps. You want to feel good about what you
> > did.

> I'm focusing on the abx methodology, and you keep yappin about how
> I spent my money.

Well, I am STILL not sure you are actually aware of just how
the ABX protocol works. I mean, it is pretty
straightforward. You know what A and B are, and they always
remain the same during the trials. You can compare them and
zero in on supposed differences or whether one sounds
superior to the other. However, when you switch to X you
will then have to determine if it sounds like either A or B.
Because X is unknown to you (and will possibly change with
each trial, due to the way the machine works), you are
forced to use only your ears to make the choices. Your
preconceptions, hopes, dreams, and speculations can have no
impact at all.

> >> So you say they should simply listen for differences. That doesn't
> >> address it.

> > Well, I really do not know what else they could do.

> Don't you think it's important to know if adjusting the output level of
> components have any untoward effects from the way that the
> participants are use to hearing their components? I mean, just to
> maintain the integrity of the experiment.

Sure. I did that myself when evaluating the QSC ABX device.
While most of my comparing was done with the levels matched,
I also purposely mismatched during some sessions, in order
to see how much impact the mismatching would have.

> > Well, you either hear differences or you do not. With
> > sighted comparisons (especially if levels are not matched)
> > it certainly is possible to exercise preconceptions. With a
> > DBT (level matched, of course), I suppose you could have
> > anxiety problems as differences were found to be impossible
> > to detect. This artifact has caused more than one high-end
> > believer to "crash and burn" during a comparison series.
> > However, one thing you cannot do is pick out a "favorite"
> > amp and declare it to be the winner.

> You need to stop invalidating some other completely irrelevant
> practices such as sighted comparison in order to justify the
> effectiveness of your ABX methodology. Don't conclude that your
> methodology is scientifically accurate because you think some
> other practices is ineffective.

I do sighted comparisons all the time for my The Sensible
Sound reviews, because I only borrowed the ABX box for an
article I was doing. However, one thing that I always do is
precisely level match. Once that is done, it is pretty easy
to see that amps do indeed sound alike if they are decently
designed and the speaker loads are not too weird.
Fortunately, most speakers are not all that bad when it
comes to loading, and most amps are decently designed. Even
some of the cheapest ones found in typical receivers are
decently designed.

> >> That's right again, if the machine tells that you thought they sounded
> >> the same, expect that you are "at least" partly correct because you
> >> have change their output levels in order to make the adjustment for
> >> this "scientific" experiment.

> > Well, you have to match levels, in order to level (pun
> > intended) the playing field. Give this procedure a try and
> > see what transpires. Compare a cheap amp to one of those
> > expensive and exotic jobs you have on hand.

> Matching levels favors your experiment only, not the testee.

Matching levels favors having the comparison not turn into a
"louder sounds better" situation. Trust me on this: we could
take your favorite amp and compare it to a $400 receiver
that had its levels set slightly louder than your favorite,
and during any kind of comparison (blind or sighted), and if
you were honest with your opinions, you would judge the
receiver to sound better than the super amp. It might bring
tears to your eyes to do so, however. I know how much
believing in super amps means to you.

> > Well, while it is impossible to cheat and pick out a
> > favorite during a DBT, it is certainly possible to do that
> > when doing sighted comparisons.

> There you go again.... you cannot claim that your abx experiment is
> effective because you think some other people's way of comparison
> is ineffective. Goddamn.

It is ineffective if:

1) The levels are mismatched.

2) The participant knows which components are playing at any
given time, allowing him to pick a favorite based upon
something other than sound quality.

> >> What I would say is that the practice use in this methodology
> >> is a set-up guise as a scientific experiment under the false
> >> pretense of solving the problems of preconceptions, and the
> >> pretense of addressing the ability to discern subtle differences
> >> under this condition through level matching to the benefit and to
> >> compliment the abx device -- not the testee.

> > I think you are working overtime to justify having spent big
> > money on some exotic amplification. I do not blame you,
> > because who would be happy knowing that they blew a wad on
> > an overkill product?

> Here you go again with my money. This is irrelevant to your
> methodology.

No, actually it is quite relevant. I believe that you have
spent big bucks on exotic gear and are looking to justify
your expenditures. My "methodology" makes it difficult for
you to do this. Of course, you may just be a wishful thinker
who hopes to someday spend big on exotic gear.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:

> >> Which type of music is good?

> > I tend to prefer baroque or the classics, because the
> > instrumentation is not electrically diddled with as much as
> > it is with rock music.

> So rock music is a no-no with abx test.

Oh, no. It can work fine, at least if the listener likes
that kind of music. Remember, with the ABX test you are
listening only for differences, and are not independently
evaluating things like soundstaging, imaging, focus, depth,
etc. Now, when evaluating speakers for those
characteristics, rock music is not all that good, because it
is not ordinarily recorded with live-music reproduction in
mind.

> So those into rock music
> should avoid abx because it will be difficult to discern differences.

Nope. It can work just fine, because listening for
differences is different than listening for a system's
ability to deliver realistic sound. Note that I do comparing
when evaluating speakers, but because they always sound
different I can then look for quality differences that
impact realism.

With the ABX procedure, you are NOT looking for specific
qualities with each component being compared. Rather, you
are only listening to see if differences of any kind are
even audible.

> You keep evading questions.

Not really. I think your problem is that you are so ignorant
of just what is involved with a DBT comparison that you
cannot ask intelligent questions or understand intelligent
replies.

> > Indeed, as I have stated in another
> > series of threads, one does not ordinarily need an upscale
> > audio system to get maximum pleasure from rock music. Things
> > are different with the classics, however.

> lol!

It is an unfortunate characteristic of reality that those
who spend big for exotic amps, wires, and even speakers,
listen to music that does not demand truly high-quality
sound reproduction.

> >> What else could be use if not music?
> >> Why is music good to use?

> > Well, the bottom line is music.

> !!

Sorry to shock you.

> Shouldn't be the ability to accurately discern sound differences be
> the bottom line for this "scientific" experiment ? Is this no more?

You fail to see the difference between listening to
determine the sound quality of an audio system (or if sound
differences exist at all with wires and amps) and listening
for pleasure after intelligently putting a system together
based upon the critical comparison work.

> > No matter how good or bad a
> > system is, for most of us it is how that system handles
> > music that matters.

> What does this have to do with ABX methodology?

Not much, actually. The ABX methodology involves
intelligently and fairly (using the ears and not prior
knowledge) listening for audible differences between
components. Ultimately, it will save those who learn from it
some money. (Maybe not right away, but eventually when they
decided to upgrade.) They will see the folly in overspending
for amps and wires. This will allow them to take the money
saved and buy more recordings. So, the bottom line really is
the music.

> >> What does, "Take as much time as you like" mean?

> > Some criticisms of the ABX protocol (or any other DBT
> > protocol) are based upon the participant being "forced" to
> > make his choices rapidly. I do not like pressuring those
> > people, and so I think that they should be encouraged to
> > take their time during each trial. The results will be the
> > same in any case.

> So now your saying again that it is about accurately
> discerning sound differences for this scientific experiment.
> The fact that the testee should take as much time as needed

Sure. Actually, I think that after a fairly short time they
will become fairly frustrated by their inability to pinpoint
differences. A lot of ABX tests are over before many trials
happen, because the listener realizes that he simply cannot
hear differences and cannot really make a choice. A, B, and
X all sound the same.

> Whats the matter with you?

Well, to be truthful, I find you rather frustrating to deal
with. I am not sure if you are stupid, confused, or just
deluded.

> >> > I am expecting the procedure to prove to you that
> >> > differences you thought you heard during sighted comparisons
> >> > were not really differences at all. Yes, I know that
> >> > learning this will demoralize you, but the hard knocks in
> >> > life are the ones that teach the best.

> >> Please address the question I ask above. Give an answer to counter
> >> my remarks.

> > OK, while your grammar in that previous comment is stilted,
> > I will give answering your question a try. (Incidentally,
> > when you type out a question you should end the sentence
> > with a question mark.) Yes, I certainly do expect a DBT to
> > heighten my ability to fairly hear differences. Why? Because
> > by not knowing which item is playing (during the X phase of
> > an ABX comparison, for example) the individual must
> > determine sound quality by the way the components SOUND and
> > not be influenced by preconceptions that are enhanced by
> > knowledge of what is playing during a sighted comparison.

> So let see, you want the testee to determine X through the sound
> quality and determine whether it's A or B ---

Yep. It is as simple as that. Remember, A and B are both
known, so the participant can switch back and forth between
them as much as they want, in order to get an idea of the
sound qualities of each. They can also switch to X as much
as they like, to see if it sounds like either A or B.

Of course, if, when switching back and forth between A and B
the listener is not sure there are any audible differences,
then obviously they are going to be more frustrated than
ever when they switch to X.

> NOW that is identifying their
> sound base on preferences instead of determining subtle differences
> between X and the known A and B.

Nope. They are just listening for differences. Preferences
have nothing to do with it. Well, I suppose, given that they
know what A and B are, that they will have a tendency to
prefer one over the other, at least if one of the two is a
component that they expect to sound better than the other.
However, because they do not know what X is, they are forced
to use their ears and not their preconceptions to make the
important judgment.

> Yes, they're determining the
> difference but they're also affected by their preferences.

Sure. That will certainly be possible when comparing A and
B. However, when it comes to judging whether X sounds like A
or B, the bottom line is whether they can hear differences.

> Welcome to emotional effects of music! music! music! .... play it on.

Certainly. This does not impact the validity of the ABX
procedure at all.

> > As for level matching, that is the only way to eliminate
> > level-related biases.

> Too bad for abx.

Why is this the case?

> >> >> Are you going to listen to music or make critical comparison?

> >> > Sure. Use any musical source you want.

> >> Please respond addressing the question above. Offer a commentary
> >> explaining why listening to music while making critical comparison
> >> hightens the ability to discern subtle differences.

> > Well, actually something like pink noise would usually be
> > better much of the time. (I can do DBT comparisons with
> > music that are difficult, even with levels slightly
> > mismatched, but when switching to pink noise the
> > level-related differences are clearly evident.) However,
> > because music reproduction is the bottom line, and because
> > guys like you tend to think that music has some kind of
> > mystical ability to transcend electronic realities, the best
> > source material when doing DBT comparisons is music.

> So what would happen if your state of mind is being affected by
> the music? Such as with your moods, feelings, emotions, attitude,
> temperament, etc...

This will not impact the ABX procedure at all. Indeed, the
better the music, the better the test. Remember, what we are
doing is comparing for differences only. That is it. The
idea is to see if a pair of amps (or set of wires) sound
different, no matter what the musical source material.

Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om

> So let see, you want the testee to determine X through the sound
> quality and determine whether it's A or B ---

Yep

> NOW that is identifying their sound base on preferences instead of
determining
> subtle differences between X and the known A and B.

Nope.

> Yes, they're determining the
> difference but they're also affected by their preferences.

If you can't tell the difference between A & B, then you have no reason to
prefer one over the other.

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "EddieM" > wrote in message
> om

> > Yes, they're determining the
> > difference but they're also affected by their preferences.

> If you can't tell the difference between A & B, then you have no reason to
> prefer one over the other.

Exactly. Preference becomes irrelevant when the units sound
identical.

Howard Ferstler

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > om
>
> > > Yes, they're determining the
> > > difference but they're also affected by their preferences.
>
> > If you can't tell the difference between A & B, then you have no reason to
> > prefer one over the other.
>
> Exactly. Preference becomes irrelevant when the units sound
> identical.

Didn't jj used to say something about amps with purple neon signs?

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said:

> > > If you can't tell the difference between A & B, then you have no reason to
> > > prefer one over the other.
> >
> > Exactly. Preference becomes irrelevant when the units sound
> > identical.
>
> Didn't jj used to say something about amps with purple neon signs?

Even Phoebe could tell the difference between Ferstler and Krooger.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>> >> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>
>
>
>snip
>
>
>> I'm talking about the components themselves. Wouldn't the quality
>> of their sound be affected when their levels are adjusted becoming
>> different from the way the subject is use to hearing them.
>
> Sure. This is why it is important to have the levels
> identical during comparisons. If one is very slightly louder
> than the other, the listener may not be aware of the
> loudness difference, but will still consider the slightly
> louder component to be better sounding.


Right, I'm glad that you agreed that this is one of the failure of abx/dbt
methodology. The fact that you have to adjust the components output
levels to make the sound different from the way subjects are used to
hearing them in order to compliment your abx device.

It's a compromise at an expense to the testee, so I'm glad you
appear to see it now.


>> > I get the impression
>> > that you are working pretty hard to justify what you spent
>> > on some upscale amps. You want to feel good about what you
>> > did.
>
>> I'm focusing on the abx methodology, and you keep yappin about how
>> I spent my money.
>
> Well, I am STILL not sure you are actually aware of just how
> the ABX protocol works. I mean, it is pretty
> straightforward. You know what A and B are, and they always
> remain the same during the trials. You can compare them and
> zero in on supposed differences or whether one sounds
> superior to the other. However, when you switch to X you
> will then have to determine if it sounds like either A or B.
> Because X is unknown to you (and will possibly change with
> each trial, due to the way the machine works), you are
> forced to use only your ears to make the choices.

Goddamn! Why do you keep repeating these nonsense. You only
make yourself look bad being repetitious. It's a sign of weakness
and mental retardation. Ooops, you're retired.

> Your preconceptions, hopes, dreams, and speculations can have no
> impact at all.


Does this include the many hours and years I spent honing my hearing
listening to well recorded music through well engeneered audio gears?
Is your abx/dbt capable of extracting these preferences out of my head
so as to not influence my ability differentiate the components base on
their sound quality ?


>> >> So you say they should simply listen for differences. That doesn't
>> >> address it.
>
>> > Well, I really do not know what else they could do.
>
>> Don't you think it's important to know if adjusting the output level of
>> components have any untoward effects from the way that the
>> participants are use to hearing their components? I mean, just to
>> maintain the integrity of the experiment.
>
>
> Sure. I did that myself when evaluating the QSC ABX device.
> While most of my comparing was done with the levels matched,
> I also purposely mismatched during some sessions, in order
> to see how much impact the mismatching would have.


I wonder how well you did with regards to your well-known hearing
loss. At what point where you able to conclude both components
sounding the same (in db)?


>> > Well, you either hear differences or you do not. With
>> > sighted comparisons (especially if levels are not matched)
>> > it certainly is possible to exercise preconceptions.
>>
>> snip repeatition.
>>
>>
>> You need to stop invalidating some other completely irrelevant
>> practices such as sighted comparison in order to justify the
>> effectiveness of your ABX methodology. Don't conclude that your
>> methodology is scientifically accurate because you think some
>> other practices is ineffective.
>
> I do sighted comparisons all the time for my The Sensible
> Sound reviews, because I only borrowed the ABX box for an
> article I was doing. However, one thing that I always do is
> precisely level match. Once that is done, it is pretty easy
> to see that amps do indeed sound alike if they are decently
> designed and the speaker loads are not too weird.
> Fortunately, most speakers are not all that bad when it
> comes to loading, and most amps are decently designed. Even
> some of the cheapest ones found in typical receivers are
> decently designed.


Although it's level match, the above listening evaluation you describe
is not double blind. Is double blind no more? Did you still believed
that sighted biases are going to be a concern during that time.


>> >> That's right again, if the machine tells that you thought they sounded
>> >> the same, expect that you are "at least" partly correct because you
>> >> have change their output levels in order to make the adjustment for
>> >> this "scientific" experiment.
>
>> > Well, you have to match levels, in order to level (pun
>> > intended) the playing field. Give this procedure a try and
>> > see what transpires. Compare a cheap amp to one of those
>> > expensive and exotic jobs you have on hand.
>
>> Matching levels favors your experiment only, not the testee.
>
> Matching levels favors having the comparison not turn into a
> "louder sounds better" situation.


That doesn't disprove my contention being that it still favor your
listening experiment. Well engineered audio gears are designed to
perform at specific output levels. If "louder sounds better" is true, then
why does your scientific methodology demands that it is the participant
who must adjust to offset and rectify this drawback?

What kinda methodology are you putting out here?


> Trust me on this: we could
> take your favorite amp and compare it to a $400 receiver
> that had its levels set slightly louder than your favorite,
> and during any kind of comparison (blind or sighted), and if
> you were honest with your opinions, you would judge the
> receiver to sound better than the super amp. It might bring
> tears to your eyes to do so, however. I know how much
> believing in super amps means to you.


Trust you? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are one of
the few obnoxious people worthy of trust in this forum.


>> > Well, while it is impossible to cheat and pick out a
>> > favorite during a DBT, it is certainly possible to do that
>> > when doing sighted comparisons.
>
>> There you go again.... you cannot claim that your abx experiment is
>> effective because you think some other people's way of comparison
>> is ineffective. Goddamn.
>
> It is ineffective if:
>
> 1) The levels are mismatched.


I addresed this above re: your abx.


> 2) The participant knows which components are playing at any
> given time, allowing him to pick a favorite based upon
> something other than sound quality.

I'm not sure which listening eval. you are referring here.


>snip
>
>> Here you go again with my money. This is irrelevant to your
>> methodology.
>
> No, actually it is quite relevant. I believe that you have
> spent big bucks on exotic gear and are looking to justify
> your expenditures. My "methodology" makes it difficult for
> you to do this. Of course, you may just be a wishful thinker
> who hopes to someday spend big on exotic gear.


Your methodology sucks, and you're belief that I spent some big
bucks is completely wrong.


> Howard Ferstler

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>> >> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>> >> Which type of music is good?
>
>> > I tend to prefer baroque or the classics, because the
>> > instrumentation is not electrically diddled with as much as
>> > it is with rock music.
>
>> So rock music is a no-no with abx test.
>
> Oh, no. It can work fine, at least if the listener likes
> that kind of music. Remember, with the ABX test you are
> listening only for differences, and are not independently
> evaluating things like soundstaging, imaging, focus, depth,
> etc. Now, when evaluating speakers for those
> characteristics, rock music is not all that good, because it
> is not ordinarily recorded with live-music reproduction in
> mind.


Some, if not most, speakers present sound (dispersion)
differently by design. Some does poorly with imaging.


>> So those into rock music
>> should avoid abx because it will be difficult to discern
>> differences.
>
> Nope. It can work just fine, because listening for
> differences is different than listening for a system's
> ability to deliver realistic sound. Note that I do comparing
> when evaluating speakers, but because they always sound
> different I can then look for quality differences that
> impact realism.
>
> With the ABX procedure, you are NOT looking for specific
> qualities with each component being compared. Rather, you
> are only listening to see if differences of any kind are
> even audible.


So with abx, you're saying that you're not looking for any specific
"qualities" with each components but, earlier you were saying that
the subjects must assess components' SOUND base strictly on
their "sound quality."



>> You keep evading questions.
>
> Not really. I think your problem is that you are so ignorant
> of just what is involved with a DBT comparison that you
> cannot ask intelligent questions or understand intelligent
> replies.

We've been talkin about abx so I decided to ask you what
type of music is good but you went ahead and told me your own
musical preferences -- that's an evasion. Now reread what I said
above about "quality" and then reread what you just wrote above.



>> > Indeed, as I have stated in another
>> > series of threads, one does not ordinarily need an upscale
>> > audio system to get maximum pleasure from rock music.
>> > Things are different with the classics, however.
>
>> lol!
>
> It is an unfortunate characteristic of reality that those
> who spend big for exotic amps, wires, and even speakers,
> listen to music that does not demand truly high-quality
> sound reproduction.

Is there suppose to be certain amount of well recorded rock
albums/cds you need to have before you approve it's ok to
buy high quality gears?


>> >> What else could be use if not music?
>> >> Why is music good to use?
>
>> > Well, the bottom line is music.
>
>> !!
>
> Sorry to shock you.
>
>> Shouldn't be the ability to accurately discern sound differences be
>> the bottom line for this "scientific" experiment ? Is this no more?
>
> You fail to see the difference between listening to
> determine the sound quality of an audio system (or if sound
> differences exist at all with wires and amps) and listening
> for pleasure after intelligently putting a system together
> based upon the critical comparison work.


Answer the question simpleton.


>> > No matter how good or bad a
>> > system is, for most of us it is how that system handles
>> > music that matters.
>
>> What does this have to do with ABX methodology?
>
> Not much, actually. The ABX methodology involves
> intelligently and fairly (using the ears and not prior
> knowledge) listening for audible differences between
> components. Ultimately, it will save those who learn from it
> some money. (Maybe not right away, but eventually when they
> decided to upgrade.) They will see the folly in overspending
> for amps and wires. This will allow them to take the money
> saved and buy more recordings. So, the bottom line really is
> the music.


What you are saying is that the ABX is a scientifically valid
methodology to discern audible differences because....

1. it involves intelligent and fair listening requirement...

2. it will save those who learn (?) from it some money....

3. They will see the folly in overspending for amps and wires...

4. This will allow them to take the money saved and buy more
recordings...

5. So, the bottom line really is the music.


Now tell me, crazy person, which one of your opinion above
provides proof that ABX is a valid methodology?


>> >> What does, "Take as much time as you like" mean?
>
>> > Some criticisms of the ABX protocol (or any other DBT
>> > protocol) are based upon the participant being "forced" to
>> > make his choices rapidly. I do not like pressuring those
>> > people, and so I think that they should be encouraged to
>> > take their time during each trial. The results will be the
>> > same in any case.
>
>> So now your saying again that it is about accurately
>> discerning sound differences for this scientific experiment.
>> The fact that the testee should take as much time as needed
>
> Sure. Actually, I think that after a fairly short time they
> will become fairly frustrated by their inability to pinpoint
> differences. A lot of ABX tests are over before many trials
> happen, because the listener realizes that he simply cannot
> hear differences and cannot really make a choice. A, B, and
> X all sound the same.
>
>
>> Whats the matter with you?
>
> Well, to be truthful, I find you rather frustrating to deal
> with. I am not sure if you are stupid, confused, or just
> deluded.


I am frustrating to deal with because you are a habitual LIAR.
You will change direction, twist your answer, alter your perspective
for as long as it serves your interest.


>snip
>
>> > OK, while your grammar in that previous comment is stilted,
>> > I will give answering your question a try. (Incidentally,
>> > when you type out a question you should end the sentence
>> > with a question mark.) Yes, I certainly do expect a DBT to
>> > heighten my ability to fairly hear differences. Why? Because
>> > by not knowing which item is playing (during the X phase of
>> > an ABX comparison, for example) the individual must
>> > determine sound quality by the way the components SOUND
>> > and not be influenced by preconceptions that are enhanced by
>> > knowledge of what is playing during a sighted comparison.
>
>> So let see, you want the testee to determine X through the sound
>> quality and determine whether it's A or B ---
>
> Yep. It is as simple as that. Remember, A and B are both
> known, so the participant can switch back and forth between
> them as much as they want, in order to get an idea of the
> sound qualities of each. They can also switch to X as much
> as they like, to see if it sounds like either A or B.
>
> Of course, if, when switching back and forth between A and B
> the listener is not sure there are any audible differences,
> then obviously they are going to be more frustrated than
> ever when they switch to X.


You need treatment for OCD.


>> NOW that is identifying their sound base on preferences instead
>> of determining subtle differences between X and the known
>> A and B.
>
> Nope. They are just listening for differences. Preferences
> have nothing to do with it. Well, I suppose, given that they
> know what A and B are, that they will have a tendency to
> prefer one over the other, at least if one of the two is a
> component that they expect to sound better than the other.
> However, because they do not know what X is, they are forced
> to use their ears and not their preconceptions to make the
> important judgment.


The preferences I'm referring to are from those acquired through
past listening experience that help to mold what a quality in sound
represent to the subject. If you are comparing and discerning diff.
betw A and B to X, and v.v. based on sound quality, those deeply
held preferences will help to guide in deflecting your cognizance
away from discerning these subtle differences particularly if you
use a signal source (music) capable of affecting the state of mind
eg moods, ... etc. This lead to confusion.



>> Yes, they're determining the
>> difference but they're also affected by their preferences.
>
> Sure. That will certainly be possible when comparing A and
> B. However, when it comes to judging whether X sounds like A
> or B, the bottom line is whether they can hear differences.


Not quite. That should be whether they're able to accurately discern
sound differences.


>> Welcome to emotional effects of music! music! music! .... play it on.
>
> Certainly. This does not impact the validity of the ABX
> procedure at all.


Why is it not capable to do so?


>> > As for level matching, that is the only way to eliminate
>> > level-related biases.
>
>> Too bad for abx.
>
> Why is this the case?


Because level matching only favors the experiment, remember?

>snip
>
>> > Well, actually something like pink noise would usually be
>> > better much of the time. (I can do DBT comparisons with
>> > music that are difficult, even with levels slightly
>> > mismatched, but when switching to pink noise the
>> > level-related differences are clearly evident.) However,
>> > because music reproduction is the bottom line, and because
>> > guys like you tend to think that music has some kind of
>> > mystical ability to transcend electronic realities, the best
>> > source material when doing DBT comparisons is music.
>
>> So what would happen if your state of mind is being affected by
>> the music? Such as with your moods, feelings, emotions,
>> attitude, temperament, etc...
>
> This will not impact the ABX procedure at all. Indeed, the
> better the music, the better the test. Remember, what we are
> doing is comparing for differences only. That is it. The
> idea is to see if a pair of amps (or set of wires) sound
> different, no matter what the musical source material.


I disagree, and I have address this issue above.

> Howard Ferstler

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > EddieM wrote
>
>
>
>
>> > Yes, they're determining the
>> > difference but they're also affected by their preferences.
>
>> If you can't tell the difference between A & B, then you have no reason to
>> prefer one over the other.
>
> Exactly. Preference becomes irrelevant when the units sound
> identical.
>
> Howard Ferstler



You two meathead are irreconcilably confused.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>> >> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> > If you do not properly level match, all bets are off with
>> >> > any kind of wire or amp (or CD player) comparison series.
>> >> > However, once you have level matched precisely and
>> >> > discovered that most amps sound the same, it is an
>> >> > interesting extension of the experiment to change the levels
>> >> > in known amounts in order to see just how big a difference
>> >> > different levels can be.
>> >
>> >> Now you're saying that once a proper level match is done, it is an
>> >> interesting extension of the ABX experiment ability to make both
>> >> components to sound the same
>> >>
>> >> > Howard Ferstler, a crazy person.
>> >
>> > I am pretty sure that:
>> >
>> > 1) You still do not realize just how a properly
>> > level-matched DBT works to eliminate preconceptions.
>>
>> All I'm saying is if adjusting the output level affect the way the testee
>> perceive the component sound quality.
>
> OK, I am going to assume that what you are saying is that
> adjusting the output level of component will alter your
> perception of its quality. The answer is yes, which is why
> it is so important to level match properly when comparing
> components.


Meltdown.


>> > 2) You are desperately trying to justify the big bucks you
>> > spent on some of your exotic gear and will avoid doing any
>> > DBT comparisons to protect your belief system.
>
>> Big bucks again.
>
> There is also the possibility (or probably the likelihood)
> that you own no such gear at all - but wish you did.


Same here.


>> > However, take a chance. Do some carefully level-matched DBT
>> > work, and then see what transpires.
>
>> Wouldn't it be a waste of time your methodology is ineffective?
>
> Learn to write.


.........and here.


> Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

EddieM said:

> You two meathead are irreconcilably confused.

What do you expect? It's a religious revival meeting.

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com
>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> EddieM wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Yes, they're determining the
>>>> difference but they're also affected by their preferences.
>>
>>> If you can't tell the difference between A & B, then you have no
>>> reason to prefer one over the other.
>>
>> Exactly. Preference becomes irrelevant when the units sound
>> identical.

> You two meathead are irreconcilably confused.

Please explain the relevance of preference, when the items being compared
sound identically the same and can't be distinguished by listening to them.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message


> It's a religious revival meeting.

Yup, Pastor George and Deacon Eddie presiding.

[EddieM]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Yes, they're determining the
>>>>> difference but they're also affected by their preferences.
>>>
>>>> If you can't tell the difference between A & B, then you have no
>>>> reason to prefer one over the other.
>>>
>>> Exactly. Preference becomes irrelevant when the units sound
>>> identical.
>
>> You two meathead are irreconcilably confused.
>
> Please explain the relevance of preference, when the items being
> compared sound identically the same and can't be distinguished
> by listening to them.



I'm not sure whether it is your dementia, arrested development,
learning disabilities, or your infatuation children's genitalia at work
here.

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:

> >> I'm talking about the components themselves. Wouldn't the quality
> >> of their sound be affected when their levels are adjusted becoming
> >> different from the way the subject is use to hearing them.

> > Sure. This is why it is important to have the levels
> > identical during comparisons. If one is very slightly louder
> > than the other, the listener may not be aware of the
> > loudness difference, but will still consider the slightly
> > louder component to be better sounding.
>
> Right, I'm glad that you agreed that this is one of the failure of abx/dbt
> methodology. The fact that you have to adjust the components output
> levels to make the sound different from the way subjects are used to
> hearing them in order to compliment your abx device.

It is clear to me that you simply do not know what you are
taking about. How you believe that having to match levels
properly to get a level playing field when comparing
products during a DBT is is indicative of protocol failure
escapes me.

Look, you match levels so that the only variables are
potential quality differences. You do not want level
differences to fool you into thinking that the
louder-sounding component is better sounding, when all it
really is doing is sounding louder.

For pete's sake, do some serious comparing to validate these
claims of yours.

> It's a compromise at an expense to the testee, so I'm glad you
> appear to see it now.

Matching levels is a compromise? Actually, what I would like
to see is a DBT where the levels are not matched and your
favorite amp is not playing quite as loud (say a dB lower in
level) than some cheap amp it is being compared to. You'd go
nuts when you discovered that the cheap amp sounded better
than your favorite. However, the only reason it would sound
better is because it was playing a tad louder.

That, pal, is why it is important to precisely level match
with any kind of comparison - blind or sighted.

> >> I'm focusing on the abx methodology, and you keep yappin about how
> >> I spent my money.

> > Well, I am STILL not sure you are actually aware of just how
> > the ABX protocol works. I mean, it is pretty
> > straightforward. You know what A and B are, and they always
> > remain the same during the trials. You can compare them and
> > zero in on supposed differences or whether one sounds
> > superior to the other. However, when you switch to X you
> > will then have to determine if it sounds like either A or B.
> > Because X is unknown to you (and will possibly change with
> > each trial, due to the way the machine works), you are
> > forced to use only your ears to make the choices.

> Goddamn! Why do you keep repeating these nonsense. You only
> make yourself look bad being repetitious. It's a sign of weakness
> and mental retardation. Ooops, you're retired.

Does this mean that:

1) You think I have improperly described how the ABX device
works, or that 2) you believe that I described it
accurately, but that the DBT protocol will not work. If the
latter, I assume you believe it will not work, because for a
sharp listener like you to be able to pick and choose to
your satisfaction you need to know which units are playing
at any given time?

> > Your preconceptions, hopes, dreams, and speculations can have no
> > impact at all.

> Does this include the many hours and years I spent honing my hearing
> listening to well recorded music through well engeneered audio gears?
> Is your abx/dbt capable of extracting these preferences out of my head
> so as to not influence my ability differentiate the components base on
> their sound quality ?

Well, the best way to find out is for you to do a
level-matched DBT and see if those golden ears of yours are
as golden as you obviously believe. Put those ears to the
test, if you have the nerve.

> >> Don't you think it's important to know if adjusting the output level of
> >> components have any untoward effects from the way that the
> >> participants are use to hearing their components? I mean, just to
> >> maintain the integrity of the experiment.

> > Sure. I did that myself when evaluating the QSC ABX device.
> > While most of my comparing was done with the levels matched,
> > I also purposely mismatched during some sessions, in order
> > to see how much impact the mismatching would have.

> I wonder how well you did with regards to your well-known hearing
> loss.

What well-known hearing loss? Of course, my supposed hearing
loss means nothing in the context we are dealing with here.
My contention remains that all a DBT has to do for the
individual is determine if THEY can hear differences.
Nobody, including me, can take a DBT for you if your
ultimate goal is to know for absolutely sure if you can hear
differences. That is why it is important for YOU to do your
own level-matched DBT comparisons.

Now, if LOTS of people have taken a bunch of DBTs and none
of them can hear differences, then, yes, even someone who
has never taken a DBT is justified in being suspicious of
golden-ear reviewer claims that differences should easily be
audible. That is why writers and researchers like Nousaine
do such tests over a period of time. They realize that not
everyone can afford an ABX device. They also realize (or at
least hope) that people who read such their articles will be
smart enough and rational enough to put away their idiotic
preconceptions and grow up.

> At what point where you able to conclude both components
> sounding the same (in db)?

They sounded the same when I had a fraction of a dB level
match.

> >> You need to stop invalidating some other completely irrelevant
> >> practices such as sighted comparison in order to justify the
> >> effectiveness of your ABX methodology. Don't conclude that your
> >> methodology is scientifically accurate because you think some
> >> other practices is ineffective.

> > I do sighted comparisons all the time for my The Sensible
> > Sound reviews, because I only borrowed the ABX box for an
> > article I was doing. However, one thing that I always do is
> > precisely level match. Once that is done, it is pretty easy
> > to see that amps do indeed sound alike if they are decently
> > designed and the speaker loads are not too weird.
> > Fortunately, most speakers are not all that bad when it
> > comes to loading, and most amps are decently designed. Even
> > some of the cheapest ones found in typical receivers are
> > decently designed.

> Although it's level match, the above listening evaluation you describe
> is not double blind. Is double blind no more?

The DBT protocol has its greatest value when trying to show
people such as yourself that what you think you have been
hearing is not really audible at all. Once someone has seen
the truth, they can probably get along just fine with
sighted comparisons, PROVIDED that they precisely level
match - and provided that they do not blame the test for
their failures and continue to believe nonsense.

Note that I sent a letter to High Fidelity magazine back in
1974 (the year before I started writing magazine articles
about audio) that claimed that I could not hear differences
between any number of amps I had compared - sighted, but
level matched. Unlike you tweakos, I have never had
delusions about amplifier sound.

> Did you still believed
> that sighted biases are going to be a concern during that time.

The trick is to be unbiased. Once you have compared a number
of amps blind or sighted, but always level matched, you
break free of audiophile obsessions with mumbo jumbo. Well,
at least some people break free. I doubt that you would.

> >> > Well, you have to match levels, in order to level (pun
> >> > intended) the playing field. Give this procedure a try and
> >> > see what transpires. Compare a cheap amp to one of those
> >> > expensive and exotic jobs you have on hand.

> >> Matching levels favors your experiment only, not the testee.

> > Matching levels favors having the comparison not turn into a
> > "louder sounds better" situation.

> That doesn't disprove my contention being that it still favor your
> listening experiment.

Obviously it does. Because level-matched amps nearly always
sound the same (up to overload points, at least) it is
obvious that matching levels will allow a DBT to prove that
amps sound pretty much the same. Now, if a sighted
comparison without level matching is used instead, then all
bets are off. That kind of comparison is a fool's paradise.

> Well engineered audio gears are designed to
> perform at specific output levels. If "louder sounds better" is true, then
> why does your scientific methodology demands that it is the participant
> who must adjust to offset and rectify this drawback?

My god, you are simply opaque. You are possibly the most
ignorant person I have ever debated here - and that is
saying a lot.

> >> There you go again.... you cannot claim that your abx experiment is
> >> effective because you think some other people's way of comparison
> >> is ineffective. Goddamn.

> > It is ineffective if:
> >
> > 1) The levels are mismatched.

> I addresed this above re: your abx.

How on earth you can think matching levels can skew the
results of a comparison is a sign that you absolutely do not
have any rational ideas about this topic at all.

> >> Here you go again with my money. This is irrelevant to your
> >> methodology.

> > No, actually it is quite relevant. I believe that you have
> > spent big bucks on exotic gear and are looking to justify
> > your expenditures. My "methodology" makes it difficult for
> > you to do this. Of course, you may just be a wishful thinker
> > who hopes to someday spend big on exotic gear.

> Your methodology sucks, and you're belief that I spent some big
> bucks is completely wrong.

Well, if you got those amps on the cheap, congratulations.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:

> >> So those into rock music
> >> should avoid abx because it will be difficult to discern
> >> differences.

> > Nope. It can work just fine, because listening for
> > differences is different than listening for a system's
> > ability to deliver realistic sound. Note that I do comparing
> > when evaluating speakers, but because they always sound
> > different I can then look for quality differences that
> > impact realism.
> >
> > With the ABX procedure, you are NOT looking for specific
> > qualities with each component being compared. Rather, you
> > are only listening to see if differences of any kind are
> > even audible.

> So with abx, you're saying that you're not looking for any specific
> "qualities" with each components but, earlier you were saying that
> the subjects must assess components' SOUND base strictly on
> their "sound quality."

Not inconsistent. When I said sound quality, I meant that
all comparing should be done blind, without eyesight or the
knowledge of what is playing during the critical part of the
comparison helping the individual pick a winner.

> >> You keep evading questions.

> > Not really. I think your problem is that you are so ignorant
> > of just what is involved with a DBT comparison that you
> > cannot ask intelligent questions or understand intelligent
> > replies.

> We've been talkin about abx so I decided to ask you what
> type of music is good but you went ahead and told me your own
> musical preferences -- that's an evasion. Now reread what I said
> above about "quality" and then reread what you just wrote above.

I am not sure if you are playing a game here, or if you are
just plain ignorant. You almost define the term "limited."

> > It is an unfortunate characteristic of reality that those
> > who spend big for exotic amps, wires, and even speakers,
> > listen to music that does not demand truly high-quality
> > sound reproduction.

> Is there suppose to be certain amount of well recorded rock
> albums/cds you need to have before you approve it's ok to
> buy high quality gears?

Gears? I am not sure if you have some kind of writing/typing
problem or if English is your second or third language.

In any case, my preference for classical music when
evaluating audio gear (particularly speakers and processors)
is probably well known in audio circles. Rock may be fun,
but it is a long way from being a good software reference
tool. Most rockers defend rock as a critical source
material, because they spend big on their hardware and
mostly listen to that stuff. If they thought that rock was
technically deficient, they would have problems justifying
the big bucks (or the hope of spending big bucks) on upscale
and exotic hardware.

> >> Shouldn't be the ability to accurately discern sound differences be
> >> the bottom line for this "scientific" experiment ? Is this no more?

> > You fail to see the difference between listening to
> > determine the sound quality of an audio system (or if sound
> > differences exist at all with wires and amps) and listening
> > for pleasure after intelligently putting a system together
> > based upon the critical comparison work.

> Answer the question simpleton.

I will if you phrase it decently. Frankly, I have answered
most of your questions quite well, so I now believe that
your reading skills are no better than your writing
abilities.

> >> > No matter how good or bad a
> >> > system is, for most of us it is how that system handles
> >> > music that matters.

> >> What does this have to do with ABX methodology?

> > Not much, actually. The ABX methodology involves
> > intelligently and fairly (using the ears and not prior
> > knowledge) listening for audible differences between
> > components. Ultimately, it will save those who learn from it
> > some money. (Maybe not right away, but eventually when they
> > decided to upgrade.) They will see the folly in overspending
> > for amps and wires. This will allow them to take the money
> > saved and buy more recordings. So, the bottom line really is
> > the music.

> What you are saying is that the ABX is a scientifically valid
> methodology to discern audible differences because....

Because only the ears are involved. Prior knowledge is not
involved, at least with the X-selection part of the series.
A and B are known, which allows the participant to form up
his prejudices as he sees fit. Only when it comes down to
deciding if X is either A or B will the ears be the only
participants.

> 1. it involves intelligent and fair listening requirement...

Yep.

> 2. it will save those who learn (?) from it some money....

Yep.

> 3. They will see the folly in overspending for amps and wires...

Yep.

> 4. This will allow them to take the money saved and buy more
> recordings...

Yep.

> 5. So, the bottom line really is the music.

Yep, or maybe home theater movies.

> Now tell me, crazy person, which one of your opinion above
> provides proof that ABX is a valid methodology?

All of the above.

> >> Whats the matter with you?

> > Well, to be truthful, I find you rather frustrating to deal
> > with. I am not sure if you are stupid, confused, or just
> > deluded.

> I am frustrating to deal with because you are a habitual LIAR.
> You will change direction, twist your answer, alter your perspective
> for as long as it serves your interest.

I do believe that you are a pinhead. No wonder you use a
pseudonym.

> >> NOW that is identifying their sound base on preferences instead
> >> of determining subtle differences between X and the known
> >> A and B.

> > Nope. They are just listening for differences. Preferences
> > have nothing to do with it. Well, I suppose, given that they
> > know what A and B are, that they will have a tendency to
> > prefer one over the other, at least if one of the two is a
> > component that they expect to sound better than the other.
> > However, because they do not know what X is, they are forced
> > to use their ears and not their preconceptions to make the
> > important judgment.

> The preferences I'm referring to are from those acquired through
> past listening experience that help to mold what a quality in sound
> represent to the subject.

Fine. They can use those preference-related talents when
they do the DBT comparing.

> If you are comparing and discerning diff.
> betw A and B to X, and v.v. based on sound quality, those deeply
> held preferences will help to guide in deflecting your cognizance
> away from discerning these subtle differences particularly if you
> use a signal source (music) capable of affecting the state of mind
> eg moods, ... etc. This lead to confusion.

I am not sure what you mean (grammar problems again) but as
best I can determine after analyzing your comments, you are
full of crap.

> >> Yes, they're determining the
> >> difference but they're also affected by their preferences.

> > Sure. That will certainly be possible when comparing A and
> > B. However, when it comes to judging whether X sounds like A
> > or B, the bottom line is whether they can hear differences.

> Not quite. That should be whether they're able to accurately discern
> sound differences.

Yep. That is what I said. Discern or hear, either version is
fine, provided they use their ears only and the levels are
matched.

> >> Welcome to emotional effects of music! music! music! .... play it on.

> > Certainly. This does not impact the validity of the ABX
> > procedure at all.

> Why is it not capable to do so?

Learn to read. The DBT protocol can work with any source
material. The validity of the ABX version involves the
inability of the participant to know which component is
playing during the crucial (Is "X" A or B?) part of the
procedure. The source material can be any musical program
(or even noise) the participant chooses.

> >> > As for level matching, that is the only way to eliminate
> >> > level-related biases.

> >> Too bad for abx.

> > Why is this the case?

> Because level matching only favors the experiment, remember?

Of course it does. Without level matching the whole
comparison procedure becomes a joke. Invariably, the louder
sounding component will be judged the better sounding one.

> >> So what would happen if your state of mind is being affected by
> >> the music? Such as with your moods, feelings, emotions,
> >> attitude, temperament, etc...

> > This will not impact the ABX procedure at all. Indeed, the
> > better the music, the better the test. Remember, what we are
> > doing is comparing for differences only. That is it. The
> > idea is to see if a pair of amps (or set of wires) sound
> > different, no matter what the musical source material.

> I disagree, and I have address this issue above.

While you are stupid as a post and obviously are in need of
a tweako audio belief system, you are also clever enough to
realize that the DBT protocol could undermine that belief
system.

Well, you are not the first tweako be in that situation. You
may be the most opaque, however.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >>> Howard Ferstler wrote
> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>> EddieM wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Yes, they're determining the
> >>>>> difference but they're also affected by their preferences.
> >>>
> >>>> If you can't tell the difference between A & B, then you have no
> >>>> reason to prefer one over the other.
> >>>
> >>> Exactly. Preference becomes irrelevant when the units sound
> >>> identical.
> >
> >> You two meathead are irreconcilably confused.
> >
> > Please explain the relevance of preference, when the items being
> > compared sound identically the same and can't be distinguished
> > by listening to them.
>
> I'm not sure whether it is your dementia, arrested development,
> learning disabilities, or your infatuation children's genitalia at work
> here.

Eddie resorts to insults when he cannot, in his usual
confused and crabbed-grammar manner, respond to a situation.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Crybaby whined:

> Eddie resorts to insults

Yes, RAO is full of jerks, nitwits, tweakos, idiots, and sophomores. No
coincidence you feel right at home here.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>snip
>
>
> It is clear to me that you simply do not know what you are
> taking about. How you believe that having to match levels
> properly to get a level playing field when comparing
> products during a DBT is is indicative of protocol failure
> escapes me.


Please answer why adjusting a components output level and making
it different from the way testee usually listen to them, is doing them
a favor?


> Look, you match levels so that the only variables are
> potential quality differences. You do not want level
> differences to fool you into thinking that the
> louder-sounding component is better sounding, when all it
> really is doing is sounding louder.
>
> For pete's sake, do some serious comparing to validate these
> claims of yours.


Your evasiveness is noted. Please answer the question above.


>> It's a compromise at an expense to the testee, so I'm glad you
>> appear to see it now.
>
> Matching levels is a compromise? Actually, what I would like
> to see is a DBT where the levels are not matched and your
> favorite amp is not playing quite as loud (say a dB lower in
> level) than some cheap amp it is being compared to. You'd go
> nuts when you discovered that the cheap amp sounded better
> than your favorite. However, the only reason it would sound
> better is because it was playing a tad louder.
>
> That, pal, is why it is important to precisely level match
> with any kind of comparison - blind or sighted.


Your evasiveness is noted.


>snip
>
>> Goddamn! Why do you keep repeating these nonsense. You only
>> make yourself look bad being repetitious. It's a sign of weakness
>> and mental retardation. Ooops, you're retired.
>
>
> Does this mean that:
>
> 1) You think I have improperly described how the ABX device
> works, or that 2) you believe that I described it
> accurately, but that the DBT protocol will not work. If the
> latter, I assume you believe it will not work, because for a
> sharp listener like you to be able to pick and choose to
> your satisfaction you need to know which units are playing
> at any given time?


Again, please donot conclude that your abx experiment will be an effective
methodology because you think some other people's way of comparison
is ineffective. You're in meltdown.


>> > Your preconceptions, hopes, dreams, and speculations can have no
>> > impact at all.
>
>> Does this include the many hours and years I spent honing my hearing
>> listening to well recorded music through well engeneered audio gears?
>> Is your abx/dbt capable of extracting these preferences out of my head
>> so as to not influence my ability differentiate the components base on
>> their sound quality ?
>
> Well, the best way to find out is for you to do a
> level-matched DBT and see if those golden ears of yours are
> as golden as you obviously believe. Put those ears to the
> test, if you have the nerve.


Please answer the question.


>> >> Don't you think it's important to know if adjusting the output level of
>> >> components have any untoward effects from the way that the
>> >> participants are use to hearing their components? I mean, just to
>> >> maintain the integrity of the experiment.
>
>> > Sure. I did that myself when evaluating the QSC ABX device.
>> > While most of my comparing was done with the levels matched,
>> > I also purposely mismatched during some sessions, in order
>> > to see how much impact the mismatching would have.
>
>> I wonder how well you did with regards to your well-known hearing
>> loss.
>
> What well-known hearing loss? Of course, my supposed hearing
> loss means nothing in the context we are dealing with here.


Why are you not answering the question? That question is: How
well you did with regards to your well-known hearing loss?

Please describe how your hearing loss is not in the context with
what we're dealing here.


> My contention remains that all a DBT has to do for the
> individual is determine if THEY can hear differences.
> Nobody, including me, can take a DBT for you if your
> ultimate goal is to know for absolutely sure if you can hear
> differences. That is why it is important for YOU to do your
> own level-matched DBT comparisons.

Again, doing abx/dbt for myself will not prove that it is a scientifically
valid experiment. Why is this so hard for you to accept?



> Now, if LOTS of people have taken a bunch of DBTs and none
> of them can hear differences, then, yes, even someone who
> has never taken a DBT is justified in being suspicious of
> golden-ear reviewer claims that differences should easily be
> audible.


Listen nimrod, your above statement can also mean that your
DBT is not effective.


> That is why writers and researchers like Nousaine
> do such tests over a period of time. They realize that not
> everyone can afford an ABX device. They also realize (or at
> least hope) that people who read such their articles will be
> smart enough and rational enough to put away their idiotic
> preconceptions and grow up.


lol! Where is Mr. Nousaine?


Meltdown! lol!


>> At what point where you able to conclude both components
>> sounding the same (in db)?
>
>
> They sounded the same when I had a fraction of a dB level
> match.


Well now, I have you on the record on this thread alone stating:


" I ramped up the gain slightly on B, to see just when I could
pick it out from A during the X part of the series. About one
dB did it some of the time, but for consistent results upping
it about three dB did the trick."


These doesn't appear to coincide with what you just said above.
Could you please make the necessary adjustment now to make
it so.


Look, look, look -----> http://tinyurl.com/5rx6y


>snip
>
>> > I do sighted comparisons all the time for my The Sensible
>> > Sound reviews, because I only borrowed the ABX box for an
>> > article I was doing. However, one thing that I always do is
>> > precisely level match. Once that is done, it is pretty easy
>> > to see that amps do indeed sound alike if they are decently
>> > designed and the speaker loads are not too weird.
>> > Fortunately, most speakers are not all that bad when it
>> > comes to loading, and most amps are decently designed. Even
>> > some of the cheapest ones found in typical receivers are
>> > decently designed.
>
>> Although it's level match, the above listening evaluation you describe
>> is not double blind. Is double blind no more?
>
> The DBT protocol has its greatest value when trying to show
> people such as yourself that what you think you have been
> hearing is not really audible at all. Once someone has seen
> the truth, they can probably get along just fine with
> sighted comparisons, PROVIDED that they precisely level
> match - and provided that they do not blame the test for
> their failures and continue to believe nonsense.



Excussse me for a minute while I wipe the coffee off my keyboard ....

........... you're saying that the greatest value of the DBT protocol is
to suddenly become a scientifically valid experiment once I think
that what I been hearing is not really audible at all. Because the
DBT will show me the TRVTH and from then on, it's OK to do sighted
comparison as long as they're level match and not blame the test
for their failures.



> Note that I sent a letter to High Fidelity magazine back in
> 1974 (the year before I started writing magazine articles
> about audio) that claimed that I could not hear differences
> between any number of amps I had compared - sighted, but
> level matched. Unlike you tweakos, I have never had
> delusions about amplifier sound.

So I'm delusional 'cause you couldn't hear any differences?


>> Did you still believed
>> that sighted biases are going to be a concern during that time.
>
> The trick is to be unbiased. Once you have compared a number
> of amps blind or sighted, but always level matched, you
> break free of audiophile obsessions with mumbo jumbo. Well,
> at least some people break free. I doubt that you would.


Are you saying that the trick is to be unbiased in order to eliminate
your claims of sighted biases that is prevalent in sighted comparison?


lol!

>> >> > Well, you have to match levels, in order to level (pun
>> >> > intended) the playing field. Give this procedure a try and
>> >> > see what transpires. Compare a cheap amp to one of those
>> >> > expensive and exotic jobs you have on hand.
>
>> >> Matching levels favors your experiment only, not the testee.
>
>> > Matching levels favors having the comparison not turn into a
>> > "louder sounds better" situation.
>
>> That doesn't disprove my contention being that it still favor your
>> listening experiment.
>
> Obviously it does. Because level-matched amps nearly always
> sound the same (up to overload points, at least) it is
> obvious that matching levels will allow a DBT to prove that
> amps sound pretty much the same. Now, if a sighted
> comparison without level matching is used instead, then all
> bets are off. That kind of comparison is a fool's paradise.


With regards to this level matching, you just said above that:

... it is obvious that matching levels will allow a DBT to prove
that amps sound pretty much the same.


You are melting down.


>> Well engineered audio gears are designed to
>> perform at specific output levels. If "louder sounds better" is
>> true, then why does your scientific methodology demands that it
>> is the participant who must adjust to offset and rectify this
>> drawback?
>
> My god, you are simply opaque. You are possibly the most
> ignorant person I have ever debated here - and that is
> saying a lot.


Pls answer the question.


>> >> There you go again.... you cannot claim that your abx experiment is
>> >> effective because you think some other people's way of comparison
>> >> is ineffective. Goddamn.
>
>> > It is ineffective if:
>> >
>> > 1) The levels are mismatched.
>
>> I addresed this above re: your abx.
>
> How on earth you can think matching levels can skew the
> results of a comparison is a sign that you absolutely do not
> have any rational ideas about this topic at all.


I await your answer above.


>> >> snip

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> >> So those into rock music
>> >> should avoid abx because it will be difficult to discern
>> >> differences.
>
>> > Nope. It can work just fine, because listening for
>> > differences is different than listening for a system's
>> > ability to deliver realistic sound. Note that I do comparing
>> > when evaluating speakers, but because they always sound
>> > different I can then look for quality differences that
>> > impact realism.
>> >
>> > With the ABX procedure, you are NOT looking for specific
>> > qualities with each component being compared. Rather, you
>> > are only listening to see if differences of any kind are
>> > even audible.
>
>
>> So with abx, you're saying that you're not looking for any specific
>> "qualities" with each components but, earlier you were saying that
>> the subjects must assess components' SOUND base strictly on
>> their "sound quality."
>
>
> Not inconsistent. When I said sound quality, I meant that
> all comparing should be done blind, without eyesight or the
> knowledge of what is playing during the critical part of the
> comparison helping the individual pick a winner.


In your post above in this subthread, you said that:

".... Because by not knowing which item is playing (during the X
phase of an ABX comparison, for example) the individual must
determine sound quality by the way the components SOUND and
not be influenced by preconceptions that are enhanced by
knowledge of what is playing during a sighted comparison."


Look there, you said that the individual must DETERMINE sound quality
by the way components sound. In your statement four paragraph above,
you're saying that a components sound quality do not play a part in abx.
And that you are NOT looking for specific qualities with each component
being compared. But now you're saying that by "sound quality", you
meant that all comparing should be done blind. [?]

How do you differentiate the components sound in order to determine
subtle differences without consideration to sound quality?

How do you prevent the testee from being influence by biases learned
from past listening experience I mentioned before?


Earlier, you were saying that you do sighted comparisons all
the time for your magazine's components review. Could you give a
reasoned opinion making it consistent with your statements
above and with your magazine's review policy?

Perhaps your editor would be kind enough to give a short comment
to clarify this rather minor misunderstanding.


>> >> You keep evading questions.
>
>> > Not really. I think your problem is that you are so ignorant
>> > of just what is involved with a DBT comparison that you
>> > cannot ask intelligent questions or understand intelligent
>> > replies.
>
>> We've been talkin about abx so I decided to ask you what
>> type of music is good but you went ahead and told me your own
>> musical preferences -- that's an evasion. Now reread what I said
>> above about "quality" and then reread what you just wrote above.
>
> I am not sure if you are playing a game here, or if you are
> just plain ignorant. You almost define the term "limited."

Limited? You are the one limiting this abx methodology to own
self serving interest to protect your turf.



>> > It is an unfortunate characteristic of reality that those
>> > who spend big for exotic amps, wires, and even speakers,
>> > listen to music that does not demand truly high-quality
>> > sound reproduction.
>
>> Is there suppose to be certain amount of well recorded rock
>> albums/cds you need to have before you approve it's ok to
>> buy high quality gears?
>
> Gears? I am not sure if you have some kind of writing/typing
> problem or if English is your second or third language.
>
> In any case, my preference for classical music when
> evaluating audio gear (particularly speakers and processors)
> is probably well known in audio circles. Rock may be fun,
> but it is a long way from being a good software reference
> tool. Most rockers defend rock as a critical source
> material, because they spend big on their hardware and
> mostly listen to that stuff. If they thought that rock was
> technically deficient, they would have problems justifying
> the big bucks (or the hope of spending big bucks) on upscale
> and exotic hardware.

In other words, you can't answer the question.


Meltdown! lol!


>> >> Shouldn't be the ability to accurately discern sound differences be
>> >> the bottom line for this "scientific" experiment ? Is this no more?
>
>> > You fail to see the difference between listening to
>> > determine the sound quality of an audio system (or if sound
>> > differences exist at all with wires and amps) and listening
>> > for pleasure after intelligently putting a system together
>> > based upon the critical comparison work.
>
>> Answer the question simpleton.
>
> I will if you phrase it decently. Frankly, I have answered
> most of your questions quite well, so I now believe that
> your reading skills are no better than your writing
> abilities.


In other words, you can't answer the question.


Meltdown! lol!

>> >> > No matter how good or bad a
>> >> > system is, for most of us it is how that system handles
>> >> > music that matters.
>
>> >> What does this have to do with ABX methodology?
>
>> > Not much, actually. The ABX methodology involves
>> > intelligently and fairly (using the ears and not prior
>> > knowledge) listening for audible differences between
>> > components. Ultimately, it will save those who learn from it
>> > some money. (Maybe not right away, but eventually when they
>> > decided to upgrade.) They will see the folly in overspending
>> > for amps and wires. This will allow them to take the money
>> > saved and buy more recordings. So, the bottom line really is
>> > the music.
>
>> What you are saying is that the ABX is a scientifically valid
>> methodology to discern audible differences because....
>
> Because only the ears are involved. Prior knowledge is not
> involved, at least with the X-selection part of the series.
> A and B are known, which allows the participant to form up
> his prejudices as he sees fit. Only when it comes down to
> deciding if X is either A or B will the ears be the only
> participants.
>
>
>> 1. it involves intelligent and fair listening requirement...
>
> Yep.
>
>> 2. it will save those who learn (?) from it some money....
>
> Yep.
>
>> 3. They will see the folly in overspending for amps and wires...
>
> Yep.
>
>> 4. This will allow them to take the money saved and buy more
>> recordings...
>
> Yep.
>
>> 5. So, the bottom line really is the music.
>
> Yep, or maybe home theater movies.
>
>> Now tell me, crazy person, which one of your opinion above
>> provides proof that ABX is a valid methodology?
>
> All of the above.



Meltdown! lol!




>> >> Whats the matter with you?
>
>> > Well, to be truthful, I find you rather frustrating to deal
>> > with. I am not sure if you are stupid, confused, or just
>> > deluded.
>
>> I am frustrating to deal with because you are a habitual LIAR.
>> You will change direction, twist your answer, alter your perspective
>> for as long as it serves your interest.
>
> I do believe that you are a pinhead. No wonder you use a
> pseudonym.


Meltdown! lol!


>> >> NOW that is identifying their sound base on preferences instead
>> >> of determining subtle differences between X and the known
>> >> A and B.
>
>> > Nope. They are just listening for differences. Preferences
>> > have nothing to do with it. Well, I suppose, given that they
>> > know what A and B are, that they will have a tendency to
>> > prefer one over the other, at least if one of the two is a
>> > component that they expect to sound better than the other.
>> > However, because they do not know what X is, they are forced
>> > to use their ears and not their preconceptions to make the
>> > important judgment.
>
>> The preferences I'm referring to are from those acquired through
>> past listening experience that help to mold what a quality in sound
>> represent to the subject.
>
>
> Fine. They can use those preference-related talents when
> they do the DBT comparing.


They can ? But you said that prior knowledge is not and cannot be
involved because it allows the participant to form up his prejudices
as he sees fit.

Meltdown! lol!


>> If you are comparing and discerning diff.
>> betw A and B to X, and v.v. based on sound quality, those deeply
>> held preferences will help to guide in deflecting your cognizance
>> away from discerning these subtle differences particularly if you
>> use a signal source (music) capable of affecting the state of mind
>> eg moods, ... etc. This lead to confusion.
>
>
> I am not sure what you mean (grammar problems again) but as
> best I can determine after analyzing your comments, you are
> full of crap.


Please give reason contrasting the statement I made above.


>one meltdown snip
>
>
>> >> Welcome to emotional effects of music! music! music! .... play it on.
>
>> > Certainly. This does not impact the validity of the ABX
>> > procedure at all.
>
>> Why is it not capable to do so?
>
> Learn to read. The DBT protocol can work with any source
> material. The validity of the ABX version involves the
> inability of the participant to know which component is
> playing during the crucial (Is "X" A or B?) part of the
> procedure. The source material can be any musical program
> (or even noise) the participant chooses.


Learn to answer!


Meltdown! lol!


>> >> > As for level matching, that is the only way to eliminate
>> >> > level-related biases.
>
>> >> Too bad for abx.
>
>> > Why is this the case?
>
>> Because level matching only favors the experiment, remember?
>
> Of course it does. Without level matching the whole
> comparison procedure becomes a joke. Invariably, the louder
> sounding component will be judged the better sounding one.


It favors your bull**** experimental methodology.


Meltdown! lol!



>> >> So what would happen if your state of mind is being affected by
>> >> the music? Such as with your moods, feelings, emotions,
>> >> attitude, temperament, etc...
>
>> > This will not impact the ABX procedure at all. Indeed, the
>> > better the music, the better the test. Remember, what we are
>> > doing is comparing for differences only. That is it. The
>> > idea is to see if a pair of amps (or set of wires) sound
>> > different, no matter what the musical source material.
>
>> I disagree, and I have address this issue above.
>
> While you are stupid as a post and obviously are in need of
> a tweako audio belief system, you are also clever enough to
> realize that the DBT protocol could undermine that belief
> system.


You're making this up. All my comments in this thread is directed
towards you abx/dbt methodology, and not about my audio belief
system. You are the one suggesting this.


Meltdown! lol!


> Well, you are not the first tweako be in that situation. You
> may be the most opaque, however.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Learn to write.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Arny Krueger wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >>>>> EddieM wrote
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Yes, they're determining the
>> >>>>> difference but they're also affected by their preferences.
>> >>>
>> >>>> If you can't tell the difference between A & B, then you have no
>> >>>> reason to prefer one over the other.
>> >>>
>> >>> Exactly. Preference becomes irrelevant when the units sound
>> >>> identical.
>> >
>> >> You two meathead are irreconcilably confused.
>> >
>> > Please explain the relevance of preference, when the items being
>> > compared sound identically the same and can't be distinguished
>> > by listening to them.
>>
>> I'm not sure whether it is your dementia, arrested development,
>> learning disabilities, or your infatuation children's genitalia at work
>> here.
>
> Eddie resorts to insults when he cannot, in his usual
> confused and crabbed-grammar manner, respond to a situation.
>
> Howard Ferstler


I responded and address that in my post to you on the other
subthread, hypocrite.



---
...... have a new job starting tomorrow so be interesting...

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om

> I responded and address that in my post to you on the other
> subthread, hypocrite.

Eddie, IMO you don't deserve a response from Ferstler, given that you
responded to my reasonble and polite questions about preference and
audible differences with a melt-down that accused me of child abuse.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "EddieM" > wrote in message
> om
>
> > I responded and address that in my post to you on the other
> > subthread, hypocrite.
>
> Eddie, IMO you don't deserve a response from Ferstler, given that you
> responded to my reasonble and polite questions about preference and
> audible differences with a melt-down that accused me of child abuse.
>
>
It's just typical behavior from the 'Middius clique'. :-(

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote

> > It is clear to me that you simply do not know what you are
> > taking about. How you believe that having to match levels
> > properly to get a level playing field when comparing
> > products during a DBT is is indicative of protocol failure
> > escapes me.

> Please answer why adjusting a components output level and making
> it different from the way testee usually listen to them, is doing them
> a favor?

OK, this is the last time I am going to try to get through
to you if all you are going to do is harp over and over
about a topic you apparently do not understand.

Because mismatched levels will make it impossible to fairly
compare products that are being compared for differences
that do not involve level contrasts, it is vital that with
any kind of comparison (blind or sighted) that the levels be
matched. You do the participant "a favor," because matching
levels allows them to listen for differences unrelated to
level differences. Going further and doing the comparing
blind allows them to use their ears, and only their ears,
during the comparison.

> > Look, you match levels so that the only variables are
> > potential quality differences. You do not want level
> > differences to fool you into thinking that the
> > louder-sounding component is better sounding, when all it
> > really is doing is sounding louder.
> >
> > For pete's sake, do some serious comparing to validate these
> > claims of yours.

> Your evasiveness is noted. Please answer the question above.

Evasiveness? Look who's talking. You may be the single most
opaque person I have ever encountered here. I have made it
clear that:

1) The DBT protocol makes it impossible for the participant
to cheat.

2) Comparing level matched levels the playing field so that
any audible differences will be based upon performance
quality and not simple level differences.

> >> Goddamn! Why do you keep repeating these nonsense. You only
> >> make yourself look bad being repetitious. It's a sign of weakness
> >> and mental retardation. Ooops, you're retired.

> > Does this mean that:
> >
> > 1) You think I have improperly described how the ABX device
> > works, or that 2) you believe that I described it
> > accurately, but that the DBT protocol will not work. If the
> > latter, I assume you believe it will not work, because for a
> > sharp listener like you to be able to pick and choose to
> > your satisfaction you need to know which units are playing
> > at any given time?

> Again, please donot conclude that your abx experiment will be an effective
> methodology because you think some other people's way of comparison
> is ineffective. You're in meltdown.

Well, I can guarantee that if the levels are mismatched
those "other people's" techniques will be ineffective, at
least if they are trying to pinpoint sound-quality
differences.

> >> > Your preconceptions, hopes, dreams, and speculations can have no
> >> > impact at all.

> >> Does this include the many hours and years I spent honing my hearing
> >> listening to well recorded music through well engeneered audio gears?
> >> Is your abx/dbt capable of extracting these preferences out of my head
> >> so as to not influence my ability differentiate the components base on
> >> their sound quality ?

> > Well, the best way to find out is for you to do a
> > level-matched DBT and see if those golden ears of yours are
> > as golden as you obviously believe. Put those ears to the
> > test, if you have the nerve.

> Please answer the question.

The ABX procedure will not "extract" your preferences from
your head, as you indicated. What it will do is force you to
use your ears and not your preconceptions when doing the
comparing. Your preferences will be unaffected. Indeed, you
can exercise them all you want when doing the comparing
between the known A and B components.

> >> I wonder how well you did with regards to your well-known hearing
> >> loss.

> > What well-known hearing loss? Of course, my supposed hearing
> > loss means nothing in the context we are dealing with here.

> Why are you not answering the question? That question is: How
> well you did with regards to your well-known hearing loss?

I did just fine. Remember, all I HAD to do is satisfy my own
requirements. That is all anybody needs to do, no matter how
good or bad their hearing. That is why it is important for
YOU to do your own level-matched DBT work, in order to see
if what YOU think you are hearing now, when doing sighted
comparing, can really be heard.

> Please describe how your hearing loss is not in the context with
> what we're dealing here.

It is not in the context, because the DBT protocol is a
personal thing. I cannot hear for you, and so my results do
not apply to you. What does apply to you are your own,
level-matched DBT comparisons. Now, let's be realistic. I am
not the only person who has done DBT comparing. Others have,
too, and the vast bulk of those comparisons have had the
same results that I have. Consequently, even those who have
not done DBT comparing on their own have to realize that the
supposed profound differences that people like you hear
during sighted comparisons are suspect.

> > My contention remains that all a DBT has to do for the
> > individual is determine if THEY can hear differences.
> > Nobody, including me, can take a DBT for you if your
> > ultimate goal is to know for absolutely sure if you can hear
> > differences. That is why it is important for YOU to do your
> > own level-matched DBT comparisons.

> Again, doing abx/dbt for myself will not prove that it is a scientifically
> valid experiment. Why is this so hard for you to accept?

It does not have to be scientifically valid in the usual
"publish the results in a journal" context. All the
comparisons have to do is show you whether or not YOU can
hear differences when comparing level matched and blind.
That is why, if you are skeptical about the procedure, you
need to do your own level-matched DBT comparisons and see
what happens.

> > Now, if LOTS of people have taken a bunch of DBTs and none
> > of them can hear differences, then, yes, even someone who
> > has never taken a DBT is justified in being suspicious of
> > golden-ear reviewer claims that differences should easily be
> > audible.

> Listen nimrod, your above statement can also mean that your
> DBT is not effective.

Well, while we have no idea whether or not it is effective
for you, we do know that it was effective for me. In order
for YOU to be sure of your hearing acuity and the
performance of your favorite products, it is YOU who needs
to do the level-matched DBT comparing. Quit sweating what I
did or am doing and do some work yourself.

> > That is why writers and researchers like Nousaine
> > do such tests over a period of time. They realize that not
> > everyone can afford an ABX device. They also realize (or at
> > least hope) that people who read such their articles will be
> > smart enough and rational enough to put away their idiotic
> > preconceptions and grow up.

> lol! Where is Mr. Nousaine?

I believe he is in Detroit. He is a regular contributor and
reviewer for Sound & Vision magazine, the largest AV
publication in the USA.

> Meltdown! lol!

Your above comment makes no sense whatsoever, but I continue
to assume that you are a true-believer audio buff who is
scratching for excuses that will defend your belief system.

> >> At what point where you able to conclude both components
> >> sounding the same (in db)?

> > They sounded the same when I had a fraction of a dB level
> > match.

> Well now, I have you on the record on this thread alone stating:
>
> " I ramped up the gain slightly on B, to see just when I could
> pick it out from A during the X part of the series. About one
> dB did it some of the time, but for consistent results upping
> it about three dB did the trick."

> These doesn't appear to coincide with what you just said above.
> Could you please make the necessary adjustment now to make
> it so.

OK, with a 3 dB difference in level it was easy to hear
differences with all of the musical and noise sources I
tried. With a 1 dB difference it was very, very difficult to
hear differences with some kinds of music, and only fairly
difficult with other kinds. With pink noise, it was still
easy to detect differences even with only a 1 dB imbalance.
Only when I got down to a fraction of a dB difference in
level (some experts say that the levels should be within 0.1
dB) did I reach a point where I could not detect
differences, even with pink noise.

> >> Although it's level match, the above listening evaluation you describe
> >> is not double blind. Is double blind no more?

> > The DBT protocol has its greatest value when trying to show
> > people such as yourself that what you think you have been
> > hearing is not really audible at all. Once someone has seen
> > the truth, they can probably get along just fine with
> > sighted comparisons, PROVIDED that they precisely level
> > match - and provided that they do not blame the test for
> > their failures and continue to believe nonsense.

> Excussse me for a minute while I wipe the coffee off my keyboard ....

One thing mystifies me with this little series of ours: why
on earth are you such a poor typist, speller, and
grammarian? Do you at least have a spell checker built into
your computer?

> .......... you're saying that the greatest value of the DBT protocol is
> to suddenly become a scientifically valid experiment once I think
> that what I been hearing is not really audible at all.

Yeah. Once you reach that level you have finally grown up as
an audiophile. You are no longer a moron who believes in the
audio equivalent of the tooth fairy.

> Because the
> DBT will show me the TRVTH and from then on, it's OK to do sighted
> comparison as long as they're level match and not blame the test
> for their failures.

Yeah. Of course, this assumes that you really did learn
something when doing all of that DBT work. The problem is
that most tweako freakos are incapable of learning much of
anything related to audio technology. When most of those who
encounter a proper DBT are through, rather than admit that
they were wrong (and also admit that they have learned
something) they blame the test. So goes the "will to
believe."

> > Note that I sent a letter to High Fidelity magazine back in
> > 1974 (the year before I started writing magazine articles
> > about audio) that claimed that I could not hear differences
> > between any number of amps I had compared - sighted, but
> > level matched. Unlike you tweakos, I have never had
> > delusions about amplifier sound.

> So I'm delusional 'cause you couldn't hear any differences?

No. You are delusional for a host of other reasons.

> >> Did you still believed
> >> that sighted biases are going to be a concern during that time.

> > The trick is to be unbiased. Once you have compared a number
> > of amps blind or sighted, but always level matched, you
> > break free of audiophile obsessions with mumbo jumbo. Well,
> > at least some people break free. I doubt that you would.

> Are you saying that the trick is to be unbiased in order to eliminate
> your claims of sighted biases that is prevalent in sighted comparison?

When deluded people do sighted comparisons, all bets are
off.

> >> That doesn't disprove my contention being that it still favor your
> >> listening experiment.

> > Obviously it does. Because level-matched amps nearly always
> > sound the same (up to overload points, at least) it is
> > obvious that matching levels will allow a DBT to prove that
> > amps sound pretty much the same. Now, if a sighted
> > comparison without level matching is used instead, then all
> > bets are off. That kind of comparison is a fool's paradise.

> With regards to this level matching, you just said above that:
>
> ... it is obvious that matching levels will allow a DBT to prove
> that amps sound pretty much the same.
>
> You are melting down.

No. I am stating the truth to a jerk.

> >> Well engineered audio gears are designed to
> >> perform at specific output levels. If "louder sounds better" is
> >> true, then why does your scientific methodology demands that it
> >> is the participant who must adjust to offset and rectify this
> >> drawback?

> > My god, you are simply opaque. You are possibly the most
> > ignorant person I have ever debated here - and that is
> > saying a lot.

> Pls answer the question.

I have answered it dozens of times in this give and take
series. The problem is that you are too biased to both
understand what I am saying and give the procedure a try on
your own. Rather than jawbone about the supposed problems
with the level-matched DBT protocol, why don't you at least
give it a proper try. That way, you will be more able to
intelligently discuss its advantages and limitations.

> >> >> There you go again.... you cannot claim that your abx experiment is
> >> >> effective because you think some other people's way of comparison
> >> >> is ineffective. Goddamn.

> >> > It is ineffective if:
> >> >
> >> > 1) The levels are mismatched.

> >> I addresed this above re: your abx.

> > How on earth you can think matching levels can skew the
> > results of a comparison is a sign that you absolutely do not
> > have any rational ideas about this topic at all.

> I await your answer above.

OK, here is the best "answer" I can come up with: if you do
not level match, ALL comparisons (DBT, ABX, or sighted) are
bogus. Any other comparison by people will be "ineffective"
if they do not properly level match.

If you cannot understand this, you are clearly the most
intellectually limited person I have ever encountered here,
and that is saying a lot.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:17:36 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> Excussse me for a minute while I wipe the coffee off my keyboard ....
>
>One thing mystifies me with this little series of ours: why
>on earth are you such a poor typist, speller, and
>grammarian? Do you at least have a spell checker built into
>your computer?

You're not really familiar with Steve Martin, are you, Howard?

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:

> Earlier, you were saying that you do sighted comparisons all
> the time for your magazine's components review. Could you give a
> reasoned opinion making it consistent with your statements
> above and with your magazine's review policy?
>
> Perhaps your editor would be kind enough to give a short comment
> to clarify this rather minor misunderstanding.

Quit worrying about supposed inconsistencies you have
discovered within my multitude of DBT related commentaries
(written differently at times in an attempt to get through
to you in one way or another) and do some level-matched DBT
work yourself. Quit making my statements a reference
standard for the procedure and determine your own standards
by gaining some first-person experience with the procedure.

Incidentally, my magazine is not "my magazine," and it does
not have any review policy, per se. The assorted reviewers
who do product reviews for the publication have all sorts of
different approaches.

> >> We've been talkin about abx so I decided to ask you what
> >> type of music is good but you went ahead and told me your own
> >> musical preferences -- that's an evasion. Now reread what I said
> >> above about "quality" and then reread what you just wrote above.

> > I am not sure if you are playing a game here, or if you are
> > just plain ignorant. You almost define the term "limited."

> Limited? You are the one limiting this abx methodology to own
> self serving interest to protect your turf.

Hey, my turf is fully protected. Trust me, pal, your
influence on my "turf" is just about zero. As for your own
turf, well you have that well protected by your sockpuppet
handle.

> >> > It is an unfortunate characteristic of reality that those
> >> > who spend big for exotic amps, wires, and even speakers,
> >> > listen to music that does not demand truly high-quality
> >> > sound reproduction.

> >> Is there suppose to be certain amount of well recorded rock
> >> albums/cds you need to have before you approve it's ok to
> >> buy high quality gears?

> > Gears? I am not sure if you have some kind of writing/typing
> > problem or if English is your second or third language.
> >
> > In any case, my preference for classical music when
> > evaluating audio gear (particularly speakers and processors)
> > is probably well known in audio circles. Rock may be fun,
> > but it is a long way from being a good software reference
> > tool. Most rockers defend rock as a critical source
> > material, because they spend big on their hardware and
> > mostly listen to that stuff. If they thought that rock was
> > technically deficient, they would have problems justifying
> > the big bucks (or the hope of spending big bucks) on upscale
> > and exotic hardware.

> In other words, you can't answer the question.

> Meltdown! lol!

OK, I'll give you a straightforward answer. I do not think
it is necessary to have a high-end audio system to listen to
the vast bulk of modern rock recordings. It is also not
necessary at all to have such a system to listen to vintage
rock recordings. The only way someone can justify owning a
high-end audio system (I am talking about one that is
profoundly accurate) is to be interested mainly in listening
to classical (baroque, classical, romantic, impressionistic,
etc.) music.

Yes, having a super system does make sense with some
home-theater sources, but even that does not require
high-end perfection. The only exceptions to this rule would
be acoustic jazz and some folk-music stuff, and maybe a few
other, more esoteric performance categories.

> >> >> Shouldn't be the ability to accurately discern sound differences be
> >> >> the bottom line for this "scientific" experiment ? Is this no more?

> >> > You fail to see the difference between listening to
> >> > determine the sound quality of an audio system (or if sound
> >> > differences exist at all with wires and amps) and listening
> >> > for pleasure after intelligently putting a system together
> >> > based upon the critical comparison work.

> >> Answer the question simpleton.

> > I will if you phrase it decently. Frankly, I have answered
> > most of your questions quite well, so I now believe that
> > your reading skills are no better than your writing
> > abilities.

> In other words, you can't answer the question.

Well, I DO have to be able to understand what you wrote! I
have read eight-year-olds who wrote more coherently than
you. The ironic thing about this is that you are probably a
paradigm for a large number of high-end tweakos.

> >> What you are saying is that the ABX is a scientifically valid
> >> methodology to discern audible differences because....

> > Because only the ears are involved. Prior knowledge is not
> > involved, at least with the X-selection part of the series.
> > A and B are known, which allows the participant to form up
> > his prejudices as he sees fit. Only when it comes down to
> > deciding if X is either A or B will the ears be the only
> > participants.

> >> 1. it involves intelligent and fair listening requirement...

> > Yep.

> >> 2. it will save those who learn (?) from it some money....

> > Yep.

> >> 3. They will see the folly in overspending for amps and wires...

> > Yep.

> >> 4. This will allow them to take the money saved and buy more
> >> recordings...

> > Yep.

> >> 5. So, the bottom line really is the music.

> > Yep, or maybe home theater movies.

> >> Now tell me, crazy person, which one of your opinion above
> >> provides proof that ABX is a valid methodology?

> > All of the above.

> Meltdown! lol!

For the life of me, I do not know what you are attempting to
say. However, I am beginning to realize that every time you
type the word "meltdown" you are describing your own
situation.

> >> >> Whats the matter with you?

> >> > Well, to be truthful, I find you rather frustrating to deal
> >> > with. I am not sure if you are stupid, confused, or just
> >> > deluded.

> >> I am frustrating to deal with because you are a habitual LIAR.
> >> You will change direction, twist your answer, alter your perspective
> >> for as long as it serves your interest.
> >
> > I do believe that you are a pinhead. No wonder you use a
> > pseudonym.

> Meltdown! lol!

Yes, pinheads can indeed do a meltdown. And for pete's sake
learn to write. Maybe if you learned to write coherently you
would be able to think coherently.

> >> The preferences I'm referring to are from those acquired through
> >> past listening experience that help to mold what a quality in sound
> >> represent to the subject.

> > Fine. They can use those preference-related talents when
> > they do the DBT comparing.

> They can ? But you said that prior knowledge is not and cannot be
> involved because it allows the participant to form up his prejudices
> as he sees fit.

Prior knowledge is fine, and you can apply it when comparing
A to B during an ABX test. You can also apply all the
preconceptions and prejudices you want. However, when it
comes time to compare the unknown "X" to A and/or B, those
preconceptions, prior knowledge, and prejudices will not be
able to assist you. The only thing you will have working for
you are your ears.

> Meltdown! lol!

Yes, you laugh out loud, no doubt. And it will be nervous
laughter on your part.

> >> If you are comparing and discerning diff.
> >> betw A and B to X, and v.v. based on sound quality, those deeply
> >> held preferences will help to guide in deflecting your cognizance
> >> away from discerning these subtle differences particularly if you
> >> use a signal source (music) capable of affecting the state of mind
> >> eg moods, ... etc. This lead to confusion.

> > I am not sure what you mean (grammar problems again) but as
> > best I can determine after analyzing your comments, you are
> > full of crap.

> Please give reason contrasting the statement I made above.

Please learn to write.

> >> >> Welcome to emotional effects of music! music! music! .... play it on.

> >> > Certainly. This does not impact the validity of the ABX
> >> > procedure at all.

> >> Why is it not capable to do so?

> > Learn to read. The DBT protocol can work with any source
> > material. The validity of the ABX version involves the
> > inability of the participant to know which component is
> > playing during the crucial (Is "X" A or B?) part of the
> > procedure. The source material can be any musical program
> > (or even noise) the participant chooses.

> Learn to answer!

Learn to read - and write. Your questions have been answered
many times. The problem is that either those answers go
right over your head, or else you are so doctrinaire in your
beliefs that you reject them outright and search for
excuses.

> >> >> Too bad for abx.

> >> > Why is this the case?

> >> Because level matching only favors the experiment, remember?

> > Of course it does. Without level matching the whole
> > comparison procedure becomes a joke. Invariably, the louder
> > sounding component will be judged the better sounding one.

> It favors your bull**** experimental methodology.
>
> Meltdown! lol!

It favors a fair comparison that forces the participant to
use his hearing acuity and nothing else.

> >> >> So what would happen if your state of mind is being affected by
> >> >> the music? Such as with your moods, feelings, emotions,
> >> >> attitude, temperament, etc...

> >> > This will not impact the ABX procedure at all. Indeed, the
> >> > better the music, the better the test. Remember, what we are
> >> > doing is comparing for differences only. That is it. The
> >> > idea is to see if a pair of amps (or set of wires) sound
> >> > different, no matter what the musical source material.

> >> I disagree, and I have address this issue above.

> > While you are stupid as a post and obviously are in need of
> > a tweako audio belief system, you are also clever enough to
> > realize that the DBT protocol could undermine that belief
> > system.

> You're making this up. All my comments in this thread is directed
> towards you abx/dbt methodology, and not about my audio belief
> system. You are the one suggesting this.
>
> Meltdown! lol!

Look, why don't you specifically list your objections to
anyone (including you) doing a level-matched DBT with audio
components. That way, we can get to work outlining my
objections to your objections.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Horace the Crybaby whined:
>
> > Eddie resorts to insults
>
> Yes, RAO is full of jerks, nitwits, tweakos, idiots, and sophomores. No
> coincidence you feel right at home here.

I show up mainly to slap you pinheads around a bit. Of
course, I also show up to inform the newcomers of my
existence within the audio-journalism scene. The more the
merrier.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:

> >> I'm not sure whether it is your dementia, arrested development,
> >> learning disabilities, or your infatuation children's genitalia at work
> >> here.

> > Eddie resorts to insults when he cannot, in his usual
> > confused and crabbed-grammar manner, respond to a situation.

> I responded and address that in my post to you on the other
> subthread, hypocrite.

Eddie, it pains me to write this, but you are a nitwit.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:17:36 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >> Excussse me for a minute while I wipe the coffee off my keyboard ....

> >One thing mystifies me with this little series of ours: why
> >on earth are you such a poor typist, speller, and
> >grammarian? Do you at least have a spell checker built into
> >your computer?

> You're not really familiar with Steve Martin, are you, Howard?

Are you telling me that Eddie is really Steve Martin?

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:16:52 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:17:36 -0500, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Excussse me for a minute while I wipe the coffee off my keyboard ....
>
>> >One thing mystifies me with this little series of ours: why
>> >on earth are you such a poor typist, speller, and
>> >grammarian? Do you at least have a spell checker built into
>> >your computer?
>
>> You're not really familiar with Steve Martin, are you, Howard?
>
>Are you telling me that Eddie is really Steve Martin?

No.

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:16:52 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >dave weil wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:17:36 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Excussse me for a minute while I wipe the coffee off my keyboard ....
> >
> >> >One thing mystifies me with this little series of ours: why
> >> >on earth are you such a poor typist, speller, and
> >> >grammarian? Do you at least have a spell checker built into
> >> >your computer?

> >> You're not really familiar with Steve Martin, are you, Howard?

> >Are you telling me that Eddie is really Steve Martin?

> No.

Whew! Had me scared there for a minute. Martin appears to be
a very talented guy, by the way.

Howard Ferstler

[Mike McKelvy]

"EddieM" > wrote in message


om


> I responded and address that in my post to you on the other
> subthread, hypocrite.


Eddie, IMO you don't deserve a response from Ferstler, given that you
responded to my reasonble and polite questions about preference and
audible differences with a melt-down that accused me of child abuse.


Once again another of the idiots has shown they can't discuss anything
in a civil manner and in Eddie's case that a volume difference between
2 DUT's has nothing to do with prefernce.

So you make one thing louder than the other, how the hell does that
make it different except for louder?

Before you can express a prefernce you first have to determine they
sound different, AT THE SAME SPL, whatever that happens to be.

[Howard Ferstler]

Mike McKelvy wrote:

> So you make one thing louder than the other, how the hell does that
> make it different except for louder?
>
> Before you can express a prefernce you first have to determine they
> sound different, AT THE SAME SPL, whatever that happens to be.

If you get through to that guy it will be a miracle.

Howard Ferstler

[Ruud Broens]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
: The only way someone can justify owning ...
:
: Howard Ferstler

"Justify owning " ?
"Justify owning " ??

what ARE you babbling on about, Ferstler ???

Rudy

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>"Justify owning " ?
>"Justify owning " ??


Stuttering again, Rodney?


>what ARE you babbling on about, Ferstler ???

>Rudy


Double Dutch? Dichotomy? Or sheer coincidence?

Its like, yo mamma brought up two seperate "audio-eggsphurts" at once,
mr. Suckpoppett Brreuns, NoT! ;-(

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

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >"Justify owning " ?
: >"Justify owning " ??
:
:
: Stuttering again, Rodney?
:
:
: >what ARE you babbling on about, Ferstler ???
:
: >Rudy
:
:
: Double Dutch? Dichotomy? Or sheer coincidence?
:
: Its like, yo mamma brought up two seperate "audio-eggsphurts" at once,
: mr. Suckpoppett Brreuns, NoT! ;-(
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

keepin'up private and public threads can be a challenge with you,
Saender :-)

Ridny

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>keepin'up private and public threads can be a challenge with you,
>Saender :-)

>Ridny


As always, it was my pleasure, Kidney ;-)

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

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>Hmm, kidney stones ....100 % improvid fidelitiy when removed
> Bizflash: maybe we can come up with something to take away at a
>customer's premises, to improve the sound quality ? :-))))


Judging from what suregry costs, you might be on to something.

Got any scalpels in your toolbox? ;-)

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

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >keepin'up private and public threads can be a challenge with you,
: >Saender :-)
:
: >Ridny
:
:
: As always, it was my pleasure, Kidney ;-)
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Hmm, kidney stones ....100 % improvid fidelitiy when removed
Bizflash: maybe we can come up with something to take away at a
customer's premises, to improve the sound quality ? :-))))

Rudy

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >Hmm, kidney stones ....100 % improvid fidelitiy when removed
: > Bizflash: maybe we can come up with something to take away at a
: >customer's premises, to improve the sound quality ? :-))))
:
:
: Judging from what suregry costs, you might be on to something.
:
: Got any scalpels in your toolbox? ;-)
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Sure:-) Amazing things an army dumpstore has at less than 10 euro's ;-)
You have some spare headlights, you know,
as if, then, we can sorta see what we're doin' ?

Rudy
SOA as surgeon, err..

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>: Got any scalpels in your toolbox? ;-)

>Sure:-) Amazing things an army dumpstore has at less than 10 euro's ;-)


Been Baco-ing again, hm?


>You have some spare headlights, you know,


Sure, I fitted my CX with sealed-beam (US) headlights just for that
purpose.


>as if, then, we can sorta see what we're doin' ?


Seeing and understanding are two different things, my good man.


>Rudy
>SOA as surgeon, err..


You couldn't operate your way out of a paper bag, mr.
pretending-to-be-a-renaissance-man-but-in-reality-is-a-bottom-feeder-of-the-worst-kind-that-we-can-often-find-under-rocks-and-in-muddy-waters,
LoT;"S! ;-)

SOA in Dutch or English?

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

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >: Got any scalpels in your toolbox? ;-)
:
: >Sure:-) Amazing things an army dumpstore has at less than 10 euro's ;-)
:
:
: Been Baco-ing again, hm?
:
:
: >You have some spare headlights, you know,
:
:
: Sure, I fitted my CX with sealed-beam (US) headlights just for that
: purpose.
:
:
: >as if, then, we can sorta see what we're doin' ?
:
:
: Seeing and understanding are two different things, my good man.
:
:
: >Rudy
: >SOA as surgeon, err..
:
:
: You couldn't operate your way out of a paper bag, mr.
:
pretending-to-be-a-renaissance-man-but-in-reality-is-a-bottom-feeder-of-the-worst
-kind-that-we-can-often-find-under-rocks-and-in-muddy-waters,
: LoT;"S! ;-)
:
: SOA in Dutch or English?
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

...that's too hard on this intnl. audience, Sander !
but, basically, you got me, there, Loszt';zz
/on top

....btw, about that thread head,
any decent bookstore over here carries at least 30 german and english hifi mag's,
as well as plenty recording equipment / musical instrument , etc. glossy's.
What are they talkin' 'bout, State-side ? ;-)
/no top
Rudy

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> Earlier, you were saying that you do sighted comparisons all
>> the time for your magazine's components review. Could you give a
>> reasoned opinion making it consistent with your statements
>> above and with your magazine's review policy?
>>
>> Perhaps your editor would be kind enough to give a short comment
>> to clarify this rather minor misunderstanding.
>
> Quit worrying about supposed inconsistencies you have
> discovered within my multitude of DBT related commentaries
> (written differently at times in an attempt to get through
> to you in one way or another) and do some level-matched DBT
> work yourself. Quit making my statements a reference
> standard for the procedure and determine your own standards
> by gaining some first-person experience with the procedure.



Hypocrite. That sums you up.



> Huge snip .....................



>> >> The preferences I'm referring to are from those acquired through
>> >> past listening experience that help to mold what a quality in sound
>> >> represent to the subject.
>
>> > Fine. They can use those preference-related talents when
>> > they do the DBT comparing.
>
>> They can ? But you said that prior knowledge is not and cannot be
>> involved because it allows the participant to form up his prejudices
>> as he sees fit.
>
> Prior knowledge is fine, and you can apply it when comparing
> A to B during an ABX test. You can also apply all the
> preconceptions and prejudices you want. [...]

> [...] However, when it comes time to compare the unknown "X" to
> A and/or B, those preconceptions, prior knowledge, and prejudices
> will not be able to assist you. The only thing you will have working for
> you are your ears.

OKEY, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THIS ONE.

[The problem with having lenthy exchanges in this format is that
everything soaks down the longer it last. I don't know why I let this
go this far.]


>> Meltdown! lol!
>
> Yes, you laugh out loud, no doubt. And it will be nervous
> laughter on your part.


> snip................


>> >> >> Too bad for abx.
>
>> >> > Why is this the case?
>
>> >> Because level matching only favors the experiment, remember?
>
>> > Of course it does. Without level matching the whole
>> > comparison procedure becomes a joke. Invariably, the louder
>> > sounding component will be judged the better sounding one.
>
>> It favors your bull**** experimental methodology.
>>
>> Meltdown! lol!
>
> It favors a fair comparison that forces the participant to
> use his hearing acuity and nothing else.


Don't forget now you said this:

"... Because level-matched amps nearly always sound the
same (up to overload points, at least) it is obvious that
matching levels will allow a DBT to prove that amps
sound pretty much the same. "



> snip



>
> Look, why don't you specifically list your objections to
> anyone (including you) doing a level-matched DBT with audio
> components. That way, we can get to work outlining my
> objections to your objections.

But you and your kind always run away. In your case this time,
you become evasive. What you're doing is not fun you know.


> Howard Ferstler

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>> > It is clear to me that you simply do not know what you are
>> > taking about. How you believe that having to match levels
>> > properly to get a level playing field when comparing
>> > products during a DBT is is indicative of protocol failure
>> > escapes me.
>
>> Please answer why adjusting a components output level
>> and making it different from the way testee usually listen to
>> them, is doing them a favor?
>
> OK, this is the last time I am going to try to get through
> to you if all you are going to do is harp over and over
> about a topic you apparently do not understand.
>
> Because mismatched levels will make it impossible to fairly
> compare products that are being compared for differences
> that do not involve level contrasts, it is vital that with
> any kind of comparison (blind or sighted) that the levels be
> matched. You do the participant "a favor," because matching
> levels allows them to listen for differences unrelated to
> level differences. Going further and doing the comparing
> blind allows them to use their ears, and only their ears,
> during the comparison.



I been refering to adjusting level to one (or both)
component to which the testee have been familiar with all along
and asking you why changing the output levels does him a favor
by listening to them under these different condition.

As I said to you from the gitgo that I'm suspcious about level matching
ie adjusting a component's level output (volts) and whether it has any
affect in the sound in the way a testee normally listen to them.
If there's no effect, then fine. I been wondering if it will affect the
dynamics, inherent loudness ... etc.




>> > Huge snip of your bull****




>> >> I wonder how well you did with regards to your well-known hearing
>> >> loss.
>
>> > What well-known hearing loss? Of course, my supposed hearing
>> > loss means nothing in the context we are dealing with here.
>
>> Why are you not answering the question? That question is: How
>> well you did with regards to your well-known hearing loss?
>
> I did just fine. Remember, all I HAD to do is satisfy my own
> requirements. That is all anybody needs to do, no matter how
> good or bad their hearing. That is why it is important for
> YOU to do your own level-matched DBT work, in order to see
> if what YOU think you are hearing now, when doing sighted
> comparing, can really be heard.
>
>> Please describe how your hearing loss is not in the context with
>> what we're dealing here.
>
> It is not in the context, because the DBT protocol is a
> personal thing. I cannot hear for you, and so my results do
> not apply to you. What does apply to you are your own,
> level-matched DBT comparisons. [...]

Ohh woowowo! So your DBT is a personal thing.


> Now, let's be realistic. I am
> not the only person who has done DBT comparing. Others have,
> too, and the vast bulk of those comparisons have had the
> same results that I have. Consequently, even those who have
> not done DBT comparing on their own have to realize that the
> supposed profound differences that people like you hear
> during sighted comparisons are suspect.

Ohh woowowo! But since DBT is a personal thing. What we have
here could be a bunch a deaf nutballs who failed this unproven
"scientific" methodology saying people like me who is able to discern
subtle differences is a suspect. But then again, it's a personal thing
from you, right?



>> > Huge snip of your bull****


>> >> At what point where you able to conclude both components
>> >> sounding the same (in db)?
>
>> > They sounded the same when I had a fraction of a dB level
>> > match.
>
>> Well now, I have you on the record on this thread alone stating:
>>
>> " I ramped up the gain slightly on B, to see just when I could
>> pick it out from A during the X part of the series. About one
>> dB did it some of the time, but for consistent results upping
>> it about three dB did the trick."
>
>> These doesn't appear to coincide with what you just said above.
>> Could you please make the necessary adjustment now to make
>> it so.
>
> OK, with a 3 dB difference in level it was easy to hear
> differences with all of the musical and noise sources I
> tried. With a 1 dB difference it was very, very difficult to
> hear differences with some kinds of music, and only fairly
> difficult with other kinds. With pink noise, it was still
> easy to detect differences even with only a 1 dB imbalance.
> Only when I got down to a fraction of a dB difference in
> level (some experts say that the levels should be within 0.1
> dB) did I reach a point where I could not detect
> differences, even with pink noise.


Aha! You can do better than that you lying sack a ****.

Now tell how the above is not in context with your hearing loss with
regard to your inability to hear subtle differences?




>> >> Huge snip of your bull****.


>> >> That doesn't disprove my contention being that it still favor your
>> >> listening experiment.
>
>> > Obviously it does. Because level-matched amps nearly always
>> > sound the same (up to overload points, at least) it is
>> > obvious that matching levels will allow a DBT to prove that
>> > amps sound pretty much the same. Now, if a sighted
>> > comparison without level matching is used instead, then all
>> > bets are off. That kind of comparison is a fool's paradise.
>
>> With regards to this level matching, you just said above that:
>>
>> ... it is obvious that matching levels will allow a DBT to prove
>> that amps sound pretty much the same.
>>
>> You are melting down.
>
> No. I am stating the truth to a jerk.



And the obvious truth, acording to you, is that 'matching levels' will
allow a DBT to prove that amps sound pretty much the same.



>> >> SNIP



I HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR PERSONAL BULL**** TOO LAST A
WHILE.

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message


>> Howard Ferstler wrote

>> Look, why don't you specifically list your objections to
>> anyone (including you) doing a level-matched DBT with audio
>> components. That way, we can get to work outlining my
>> objections to your objections.

> But you and your kind always run away.

Not at all, Eddie.

Eddie, your response to perfectly reasonable technical questions about
DBTs has been to rant about your obsession with pedophilia. If that
isn't you running away from us, I don't know what is.

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:

> But you and your kind always run away. In your case this time,
> you become evasive. What you're doing is not fun you know.

Trust me Eddie, I do not run away from clowns like you.
Rather, I vacate the premises usually for one or two
reasons:

1) You are so opaque and prejudiced that you would not
accept the truth if it hit you in the face, or, more
precisely, took a proper DBT and failed to live up to your
golden-ear claims.

2) My generosity towards the people who post here is just
that: generosity. However, because people like you, Eddie,
are basically mental flatworms, with little to justify
spending a lot of time with you, going on and on with a
series of debates is a waste of my time.

So, yes, I will acknowledge your final sentence. Dealing
with a person as mentally limited and inarticulate as
yourself is anything but "fun" after a while.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

The Big **** croaked:

> > But you and your kind always run away.
>
> Not at all, Eddie.

You're right again, Arnii. Nine times out of ten, you have to be flushed
away.

[EddieM]

> Mike McKelvy wrote
>
>
>
> Once again another of the idiots has shown they can't discuss
> anything in a civil manner and in Eddie's case that a volume
> difference between 2 DUT's has nothing to do with prefernce.
>
> So you make one thing louder than the other, how the hell does that
> make it different except for louder?

That was not my objection at all.

My objection was that if "louder sounds better" is true during abx, then
why does ABX methodology demands that it is the participant who
must adjust to offset and rectify this drawback.

Ferstler refuse to give direct answer to this but perhaps "you will."


> Before you can express a preference you first have to determine if
> they sound different, AT THE SAME SPL, whatever that happens
> to be.


No. Components doesn't have to be in the same SPL in order to
determine your preferences. SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious
reason, when determining your preferences.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>> >> I'm not sure whether it is your dementia, arrested development,
>> >> learning disabilities, or your infatuation children's genitalia at work
>> >> here.
>
>> > Eddie resorts to insults when he cannot, in his usual
>> > confused and crabbed-grammar manner, respond to a situation.
>
>> I responded and address that in my post to you on the other
>> subthread, hypocrite.
>
> Eddie, it pains me to write this, but you are a nitwit.
>
> Howard Ferstler


It is not ok for me to respond to Krooger when you think I have not
answered his question. But it is ok for you to be evasive and refuse
to give direct answer on my question to you, hypocrite.

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:
> >> > Howard Ferstler wrote

> >> > It is clear to me that you simply do not know what you are
> >> > taking about. How you believe that having to match levels
> >> > properly to get a level playing field when comparing
> >> > products during a DBT is is indicative of protocol failure
> >> > escapes me.

> >> Please answer why adjusting a components output level
> >> and making it different from the way testee usually listen to
> >> them, is doing them a favor?

> > OK, this is the last time I am going to try to get through
> > to you if all you are going to do is harp over and over
> > about a topic you apparently do not understand.
> >
> > Because mismatched levels will make it impossible to fairly
> > compare products that are being compared for differences
> > that do not involve level contrasts, it is vital that with
> > any kind of comparison (blind or sighted) that the levels be
> > matched. You do the participant "a favor," because matching
> > levels allows them to listen for differences unrelated to
> > level differences. Going further and doing the comparing
> > blind allows them to use their ears, and only their ears,
> > during the comparison.

> I been refering to adjusting level to one (or both)
> component to which the testee have been familiar with all along
> and asking you why changing the output levels does him a favor
> by listening to them under these different condition.
>
> As I said to you from the gitgo that I'm suspcious about level matching
> ie adjusting a component's level output (volts) and whether it has any
> affect in the sound in the way a testee normally listen to them.
> If there's no effect, then fine. I been wondering if it will affect the
> dynamics, inherent loudness ... etc.

Eddie, it is really very evident that you do not know much
about audio, even on the most rudimentary level.

> >> Please describe how your hearing loss is not in the context with
> >> what we're dealing here.

> > It is not in the context, because the DBT protocol is a
> > personal thing. I cannot hear for you, and so my results do
> > not apply to you. What does apply to you are your own,
> > level-matched DBT comparisons. [...]

> Ohh woowowo! So your DBT is a personal thing.

Of course it is. All along I have been saying that the only
way for sure for YOU to know about your own hearing and the
performance capabilities of your own amps or wires, or
whatever, would be for you to do your own DBT. I said as
much about other enthusiasts in the articles I wrote. I
cannot hear for you, Eddie. Only you can do that.

> > Now, let's be realistic. I am
> > not the only person who has done DBT comparing. Others have,
> > too, and the vast bulk of those comparisons have had the
> > same results that I have. Consequently, even those who have
> > not done DBT comparing on their own have to realize that the
> > supposed profound differences that people like you hear
> > during sighted comparisons are suspect.

> Ohh woowowo! But since DBT is a personal thing. What we have
> here could be a bunch a deaf nutballs who failed this unproven
> "scientific" methodology saying people like me who is able to discern
> subtle differences is a suspect. But then again, it's a personal thing
> from you, right?

Well, I find it hard to believe that everyone who has taken
a DBT and not heard differences is a "deaf nutball." In any
case, at least they went to the trouble to do their DBT
work, which is more than we can say for you.

In any case, the only way you will be able to prove to
yourself that you can hear those "subtle differences" would
be to take a proper, level-matched DBT. I suggest you
compare your favorite amp to some cheap version, and while
you connect your favorite with super-duper wires, connect
the cheap one to the speaker hookups with lamp cord. That
way, your educational experience will be more dramatic.

Incidentally, if your favorite amp has problems, it will
probably sound different from a good cheaper job.

> >> These doesn't appear to coincide with what you just said above.
> >> Could you please make the necessary adjustment now to make
> >> it so.

> > OK, with a 3 dB difference in level it was easy to hear
> > differences with all of the musical and noise sources I
> > tried. With a 1 dB difference it was very, very difficult to
> > hear differences with some kinds of music, and only fairly
> > difficult with other kinds. With pink noise, it was still
> > easy to detect differences even with only a 1 dB imbalance.
> > Only when I got down to a fraction of a dB difference in
> > level (some experts say that the levels should be within 0.1
> > dB) did I reach a point where I could not detect
> > differences, even with pink noise.

> Aha! You can do better than that you lying sack a ****.

Eddie, it is clear to me that you are a prejudicial audio
nitwit who would not participate in a serious DBT, simply
because you do not want to take a chance on not hearing
differences.

> Now tell how the above is not in context with your hearing loss with
> regard to your inability to hear subtle differences?

Quit sweating my supposed inabilities, Eddie, and do your
own DBT comparisons. That would do you more good than all
the speculating in the world.

> >> With regards to this level matching, you just said above that:
> >>
> >> ... it is obvious that matching levels will allow a DBT to prove
> >> that amps sound pretty much the same.
> >>
> >> You are melting down.

> > No. I am stating the truth to a jerk.

> And the obvious truth, acording to you, is that 'matching levels' will
> allow a DBT to prove that amps sound pretty much the same.

For me they did. This has also been the case for a lot of
other people. Obviously, the best thing for you to do is
participate in a good level-matched DBT and see how well you
do. Rather than speculate about the procedure, give it a
real-world try.

> >> >> SNIP
>
> I HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR PERSONAL BULL**** TOO LAST A
> WHILE.

Ditto.

PS: grammatically, your sentence should have been written:
"I have had enough of your personal bull**** to last a
while." This goes for me to you, too.

My last words to you for a while: learn to both spell and
construct sentences properly.

Howard Ferstler

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Howard Ferstler wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>> >> I'm not sure whether it is your dementia, arrested development,
>> >> learning disabilities, or your infatuation children's genitalia at work
>> >> here.
>
>> > Eddie resorts to insults when he cannot, in his usual
>> > confused and crabbed-grammar manner, respond to a situation.
>
>> I responded and address that in my post to you on the other
>> subthread, hypocrite.
>
> Eddie, it pains me to write this, but you are a nitwit.
>
> Howard Ferstler


On the subject of (1) Level Matching and, (2) Music as signal source,
would you like me to paste down here my questions to which you
refuse to give direct direct answers ?

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Mike McKelvy wrote
> >
> >
> >
> > Once again another of the idiots has shown they can't discuss
> > anything in a civil manner and in Eddie's case that a volume
> > difference between 2 DUT's has nothing to do with prefernce.
> >
> > So you make one thing louder than the other, how the hell does that
> > make it different except for louder?

> That was not my objection at all.
>
> My objection was that if "louder sounds better" is true during abx, then
> why does ABX methodology demands that it is the participant who
> must adjust to offset and rectify this drawback.

You must adjust levels, so that the only differences
possible are those related to the sound qualities of the
components being compared and not the fact that one is
playing louder than the other.

Eddie, you like to read what I post here. However, I suggest
two things:

1) You read up on the literature relating to the
loudness-level phenomenon.

2) You do some DBT work, level-matched, and see if those
super amps of those really do sound different (and better
than) some cheaper competition.

> Ferstler refuse to give direct answer to this but perhaps "you will."

Eddie, all you have been getting from me is direct answers.
Your problem is that you either:

1) Cannot accept the truth.

or

2) Lack the ability to read.

Probably a bit of both.

> > Before you can express a preference you first have to determine if
> > they sound different, AT THE SAME SPL, whatever that happens
> > to be.

> No. Components doesn't have to be in the same SPL in order to
> determine your preferences.

But levels do have to be matched if you are listening for
differences. This is unrelated to preference.

> SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious
> reason, when determining your preferences.

Yes, but personal preferences have nothing to do with
comparing components for audible differences. To fairly
compare for differences levels must be matched.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote

> > Eddie, it pains me to write this, but you are a nitwit.

> It is not ok for me to respond to Krooger when you think I have not
> answered his question. But it is ok for you to be evasive and refuse
> to give direct answer on my question to you, hypocrite.

Eddie, all you have gotten from me are direct answers. Your
problem is that you are too mentally opaque to understand
what I am saying and too prejudiced regarding your hearing
abilities and super-duper amps to give the level-matched DBT
protocol a try.

It is you who is running away, Eddie.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:

> > Howard Ferstler wrote

> > Eddie, it pains me to write this, but you are a nitwit.

> On the subject of (1) Level Matching and,

Without level matching, it is impossible to fairly compare
audio components.

(2) Music as signal source,

The DBT participant can use any source material he wants,
including music.

> would you like me to paste down here my questions to which you
> refuse to give direct direct answers ?

Eddie, you have here all the direct answers from me that you
rate.

PS: I lied. It did not pain me in the least to call you a
nitwit.

Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message


> My objection was that if "louder sounds better" is true during abx,
> then why does ABX methodology demands that it is the participant
who
> must adjust to offset and rectify this drawback.

So Eddie, how many power amps should somone buy only because when they
auditioned it, it was turned up a little more than the other one?

> No. Components doesn't have to be in the same SPL in order to
> determine your preferences.

Don't you think that a preference due to a power amp being turned up a
little higher is trivial?

> SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious reason, when determining your
preferences.

Nope. For one thing the ear loses its sensitivity to small details
when the listening level is too high or too soft.

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message


> It is not ok for me to respond to Krooger when you think I have not
> answered his question.

More specifically Eddie, you responded to my proper technical question
with a rant about your obsession with pedophilia.

That's weird!

> But it is ok for you to be evasive and refuse
> to give direct answer on my question to you, hypocrite.

Ferstler's answer wasn't evasive. Your problem Eddie is that you think
that every answer that is over your head is an evasion. Give Howard
and I a little time - we'll break this simple concept down to your
level. It might take a bit of work but we're up to it!

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message


> As I said to you from the gitgo that I'm suspcious about level
> matching ie adjusting a component's level output (volts) and whether
> it has any affect in the sound in the way a testee normally listen
to
> them.

That would be a misapprehension on your part, Eddie. When levels are
matched, we are just ensuring that both components are presented to
the listeners at their preferred listening level.

[Mike McKelvy]

Eddie M said:

Ferstler refuse to give direct answer to this but perhaps "you will."



> Before you can express a preference you first have to determine if
> they sound different, AT THE SAME SPL, whatever that happens
> to be.

>>No. Components doesn't have to be in the same SPL in order to
>>determine your preferences

That's not a QUESTION. If it were the answer would be, yes they do
have to be the same if you are comapring sound quality. In order to
make an unbiased comparison, all settings must be equal, otherwise you
are not comapring sound QUALITY, you are are comparing spl.

.. SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious
reason, when determining your preferences.

It is not irrelevant it is critical. If you are comparing SOUND
QUALITY then both units need to be at the same SPL.

[EddieM]

> Mike McKelvy" wrote
>> Eddie M said:
>>> Mike McKelvy" wrote
>
>
>
>> Ferstler refuse to give direct answer to this but perhaps "you will."
>
>
>
>>> Before you can express a preference you first have to determine if
>>> they sound different, AT THE SAME SPL, whatever that happens
>>> to be.
>
>> No. Components doesn't have to be in the same SPL in order to
>> determine your preferences
>
> That's not a QUESTION.

Actually, what it was was a false calim coming from the infamous
conveyor belt.


> If it were the answer would be, yes they do
> have to be the same if you are comapring sound quality.

Sound quality?

I thought ABX/DBT is done to compare components for subtle sound
differences. Is this no more?

Comparing sound quality between components is going to be about
preferences.


> In order to
> make an unbiased comparison, all settings must be equal, otherwise you
> are not comapring sound QUALITY, you are are comparing spl.
>
>> SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious
>> reason, when determining your preferences.
>
> It is not irrelevant it is critical. If you are comparing SOUND
> QUALITY then both units need to be at the same SPL.

No kidding! You mean to tell me that if you turn the volume slightly
lower or higher on one or both of the components -- that won't be able
to assess and determine for sound quality?


lol !




---

Say, I remember the last time I have lengthy exchanges with you....
..... you got me footless. lol!

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>snip bs.
>
>
>> SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious
>> reason, when determining your preferences.
>
>
> Yes, but personal preferences have nothing to do with
> comparing components for audible differences.


McKelvy, could you and this guy straighten your heads up
together ...............


> To fairly
> compare for differences levels must be matched.



....................... before responding to my post.



> Howard Ferstler

[Mike McKelvy]

EddieM Mar 23, 4:33 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: "EddieM" > - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:33:10 GMT
Local: Wed, Mar 23 2005 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: Mainstream Audio Magazines Died. Why?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Mike McKelvy" wrote
>> Eddie M said:
>>> Mike McKelvy" wrote

>> Ferstler refuse to give direct answer to this but perhaps "you
will."


>>> Before you can express a preference you first have to determine if
>>> they sound different, AT THE SAME SPL, whatever that happens
>>> to be.


>> No. Components doesn't have to be in the same SPL in order to
>> determine your preferences


> That's not a QUESTION.



Actually, what it was was a false calim coming from the infamous
conveyor belt.


> If it were the answer would be, yes they do
> have to be the same if you are comapring sound quality.


>Sound quality?

>I thought ABX/DBT is done to compare components for subtle sound
>differences. Is this no more?

That's right, a difference, even a subtle one, is a differnce in sound
quality of some sort.


>Comparing sound quality between components is going to be about
>preferences.

Only if there are DIFFERENCES OF SOME SORT.

> In order to
> make an unbiased comparison, all settings must be equal, otherwise
you
> are not comapring sound QUALITY, you are are comparing spl.

>> SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious
>> reason, when determining your preferences.


> It is not irrelevant it is critical. If you are comparing SOUND
> QUALITY then both units need to be at the same SPL.



No kidding! You mean to tell me that if you turn the volume slightly
lower or higher on one or both of the components -- that won't be able
to assess and determine for sound quality?

If you comparing sound you compare on as even a basis as possible, that
means same SPL.


---


Say, I remember the last time I have lengthy exchanges with you....
..... you got me footless. lol!


Now you seem to have found it and put it in your mouth.

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message


>> Mike McKelvy" wrote

>> It is not irrelevant it is critical. If you are comparing SOUND
>> QUALITY then both units need to be at the same SPL.

> No kidding! You mean to tell me that if you turn the volume
slightly
> lower or higher on one or both of the components -- that won't be
able
> to assess and determine for sound quality?

Not at all. BTW Eddie you can obviously write, but can you read and
perceive what is written along with reasonable consequences of what
you read?

First off, a statement like yours only makes sense if we can define
the inital state of the components and the nature of the
adjustment(s). Here are some possibilities:

If the initial state of the components is initially unmatched SPLs,
then they are going to sound different for a trivial reason - the SPLs
are different. If the adjustment results in matched SPLs, then we any
differences we hear are due to a non-trivial cause - an inherent sound
difference between the components that can't be level-matched out of
existence.

If the initial state of the components is initially unmatched SPLs,
then again they are going to sound different for a trivial reason -
the SPLs are different. If the adjustment results in unmatched SPLs,
then we any differences we hear are likely to be due to a trivial
cause - an apparent sounic difference between the components that
might possibly be level-matched out of existence.

If the initial state of the components is initially matched SPLs, then
any sonic differences at that point are due to a non-trivial reason -
the SPLs are different. If the adjustments results in matched SPLs,
then we any differences we hear are due to a non-trivial cause - an
inherent sound difference between the components that can't be
level-matched out of existence.

If the initial state of the components is again initially matched
SPLs, then any sonic differences at that point are still due to a
non-trivial reason - the SPLs are different. If the adjustment results
in unmatched SPLs, then we any differences we hear are likely to be
due to a trivial cause - an apparent sounic difference between the
components that might possibly be level-matched out of existence.

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "EddieM" > wrote in message
>
>
> > My objection was that if "louder sounds better" is true during abx,
> > then why does ABX methodology demands that it is the participant
> who
> > must adjust to offset and rectify this drawback.
>
> So Eddie, how many power amps should somone buy only because when they
> auditioned it, it was turned up a little more than the other one?
>
> > No. Components doesn't have to be in the same SPL in order to
> > determine your preferences.
>
> Don't you think that a preference due to a power amp being turned up a
> little higher is trivial?
>
> > SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious reason, when determining your
> preferences.
>
> Nope. For one thing the ear loses its sensitivity to small details
> when the listening level is too high or too soft.

Arny, this guy is a jerk. It would not matter how well we
articulated our views, he would continue to be a
bone-headed, audio-tweako believer.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:

> I thought ABX/DBT is done to compare components for subtle sound
> differences. Is this no more?

Well, admittedly, we are trying every literary and
explanation-related trick in the book to get you to
understand. However, rather than understand, you pick away
at our posts, and rather than think about what we are saying
(or doing your own level-matched comparing work), you look
for ways to protect your belief system.

But let's be realistic, Eddie. You do not want to
understand. You want to believe, and so all the convincing
arguments in the world are not going to spark any kind of
intellectual awakening within you.

> No kidding! You mean to tell me that if you turn the volume slightly
> lower or higher on one or both of the components -- that won't be able
> to assess and determine for sound quality?

Well, at any volume setting you can determine sound quality
of a sort, provided all you are doing is doing an open-ended
session. (This can work OK with speakers, or even
recordings, but it is a dead end when evaluating things like
amps.) However, if you want to do a precise listening
comparison between components, with the intention being to
hear differences (if they are there), then level matching is
the way you level the playing field so that only sound
quality (instead of sound quantity) differences are what you
will hear.

But of course, Eddie, you are not interested in learning
about audio. For you, audio is a belief systems and belief
systems do not mix well with evaluations that lock out
preconceptions and speculations.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Ferstler's answer wasn't evasive. Your problem Eddie is that you think
> that every answer that is over your head is an evasion. Give Howard
> and I a little time - we'll break this simple concept down to your
> level. It might take a bit of work but we're up to it!

I am not sure. I, for one, have run out of options. I think
that Eddie is not in the mood to learn. He thinks he already
has the answers and any new info we supply that does not
jive with his beliefs becomes for him lies and trickery.

Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> "EddieM" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> My objection was that if "louder sounds better" is true during
abx,
>>> then why does ABX methodology demands that it is the participant
>>> who must adjust to offset and rectify this drawback.
>>
>> So Eddie, how many power amps should somone buy only because when
>> they auditioned it, it was turned up a little more than the other
>> one?
>>
>>> No. Components doesn't have to be in the same SPL in order to
>>> determine your preferences.
>>
>> Don't you think that a preference due to a power amp being turned
up
>> a little higher is trivial?
>>
>>> SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious reason, when determining
>>> your preferences.
>>
>> Nope. For one thing the ear loses its sensitivity to small details
>> when the listening level is too high or too soft.
>
> Arny, this guy is a jerk. It would not matter how well we
> articulated our views, he would continue to be a
> bone-headed, audio-tweako believer.

Agreed. He's probably a new sockpuppet of the same old idiots.

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Ferstler's answer wasn't evasive. Your problem Eddie is that you
>> think that every answer that is over your head is an evasion. Give
>> Howard and I a little time - we'll break this simple concept down
to
>> your level. It might take a bit of work but we're up to it!
>
> I am not sure. I, for one, have run out of options. I think
> that Eddie is not in the mood to learn. He thinks he already
> has the answers and any new info we supply that does not
> jive with his beliefs becomes for him lies and trickery.

Consider that the second dumbest poster (#1 would be Scott Wheeler) in
RAO history went silent a few weeks ago. Now, up pops this Eddie
fellow...

[Tom]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote

> Consider that the second dumbest poster (#1 would be Scott Wheeler) in
> RAO history went silent a few weeks ago.


I thought Richie was your buddy. You and he used to winky at
each other.

[Arny Krueger]

"Tom" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
>> Consider that the second dumbest poster (#1 would be Scott Wheeler)
>> in RAO history went silent a few weeks ago.
>
>
> I thought Richie was your buddy. You and he used to winky at
> each other.

Who is Richie?

[Tom]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote

>>> Consider that the second dumbest poster
>>> in RAO history went silent a few weeks ago.


"Tom" wrote

>> I thought Richie was your buddy. You and he used to winky at
>> each other.


"Arny Krueger" wrote:

> Who is Richie?


Damn, Arny..... I know you're not that dumb! Everyone on the group
knows who Richie is. He's "the second dumbest poster in RAO history".
He's your buddy who started to go "silent a few weeks ago" when he lost his
precious anonymity. He's the hypocrite that's trying to protect Lisa from
learning the truth about him.

god!!!.........IDIOT!!!!!

[Arny Krueger]

"Tom" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
>>>> Consider that the second dumbest poster
>>>> in RAO history went silent a few weeks ago.
>
>
> "Tom" wrote
>
>>> I thought Richie was your buddy. You and he used to winky at
>>> each other.
>
>
> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>
>> Who is Richie?
>
>
> Damn, Arny..... I know you're not that dumb!

Really?

>Everyone on the group knows who Richie is.

Really?

>He's "the second dumbest poster in RAO history".

No, that's Art Sackman and sucessive aliases.

> He's your buddy who started to go "silent a few weeks ago" when he
> lost his precious anonymity.

Oh you mean the guy who you said was gone, and then made a bunch more
posts?

>He's the hypocrite that's trying to protect Lisa from learning the
truth about him.

Who is Lisa and what disturbing truth is he protecting?

[Tom]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote

> "Tom" > wrote
>>
>> Damn, Arny..... I know you're not that dumb!
>
> Really?

well, maybe..........

>>Everyone on the group knows who Richie is.
>
> Really?

anyone not, raise your hand.

>>He's "the second dumbest poster in RAO history".
>
> No, that's Art Sackman and sucessive aliases.

oh. I heard his brain was shot tho, so...... third?

>> He's your buddy who started to go "silent a few weeks ago" when he
>> lost his precious anonymity.
>
> Oh you mean the guy who you said was gone, and then made a bunch more
> posts?

yeah - Richie. you know..... RELATIVELY gone. RELATIVELY silent.
he was a lot more boisterous before we learned where he lived and
what he was doing.

> Who is Lisa and what disturbing truth is he protecting?

Lisa thinks he's a hero.
the truth is in THE ARCHIVE.

[EddieM]

> Mike McKelvy wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> Mike McKelvy" wrote
>>>> Eddie M said:
>>>>> Mike McKelvy" wrote
>
>
>
>
>>>>> If it were the answer would be, yes they do
>>>>> have to be the same [SPL] if you are comapring sound quality.
>
>>>> Sound quality?
>
>>>> I thought ABX/DBT is done to compare components for subtle
>>>> sound differences.
>
>>> That's right, a difference, even a subtle one, is a differnce in sound
>>> quality of some sort.
>
>>>> Comparing sound quality between components is going to be
>>>> about preferences.
>
>>> Only if there are DIFFERENCES OF SOME SORT.
>
>
>>>>> In order to make an unbiased comparison, all settings must be
>>>>> equal, otherwise you are not comapring sound QUALITY, you are
>>>>> are comparing spl.
>
>>>> SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious
>>>> reason, when determining your preferences.
>
>>> It is not irrelevant it is critical. If you are comparing SOUND
>>> QUALITY then both units need to be at the same SPL.
>
>> No kidding! You mean to tell me that if you turn the volume slightly
>> lower or higher on one or both of the components -- that you won't
>> be able to assess and determine for sound quality?
>
> If you comparing sound [quality] you compare on as even a basis as
> possible, that means same SPL.



Your ignorance is manifesting itself with the way you attribute qouted
text in this exchanges, Mr. McKelvy, but you could be doing
this on purpose so before you recede further back into your
nonsense, could you:


1. provide an example of differences in sound quality requiring
that SPL must be different between components.

2. with these sample(s), could you ensure that the differences are
distinguishable when the SPL are different betw both components.




-----

>> Say, I remember the last time I have lengthy exchanges with you....
>> .... you got me footless. lol!
>
> Now you seem to have found it and put it in your mouth.


They grow some really strange people where you're at.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>> I thought ABX/DBT is done to compare components for
>> subtle sound differences. Is this no more?
>
> Well, admittedly, we are trying every literary and
> explanation-related trick in the book to get you to
> understand. However, rather than understand, you pick away
> at our posts, and rather than think about what we are saying
> (or doing your own level-matched comparing work), you look
> for ways to protect your belief system.
>
> But let's be realistic, Eddie. You do not want to
> understand. You want to believe, and so all the convincing
> arguments in the world are not going to spark any kind of
> intellectual awakening within you.
>
>> No kidding! You mean to tell me that if you turn the volume
>> slightly lower or higher on one or both of the components --
>> that won't be able to assess and determine for sound quality?
>
> Well, at any volume setting you can determine sound quality
> of a sort, provided all you are doing is doing an open-ended
> session. (This can work OK with speakers, or even
> recordings, but it is a dead end when evaluating things like
> amps.)


Oh Yeah? Dead-end? According to McKelvy, that cannot be.
He said that it is critical that SPL be the same when determining
and evaluating sound quality.

He said that:

" If you are comparing SOUND QUALITY then both
units need to be at the same SPL."



> However, if you want to do a precise listening
> comparison between components, with the intention being to
> hear differences (if they are there), then level matching is
> the way you level the playing field so that only sound
> quality (instead of sound quantity) differences are what you
> will hear.


So for precise listening with the intention to hear differences, you
level match only for sound quality? But again according to McKelvy,
sound quantity must be the same. He said "both units need to be
at the same SPL." It is critical, he said.


Are you both competing to see who is the real DOOFUS ?


> But of course, Eddie, you are not interested in learning
> about audio. For you, audio is a belief systems and belief
> systems do not mix well with evaluations that lock out
> preconceptions and speculations.
>
> Howard Ferstler

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>

> Prior knowledge is fine, and you can apply it when comparing
> A to B during an ABX test. You can also apply all the
> preconceptions and prejudices you want. [...]

> [...] However, when it comes time to compare the unknown "X" to
> A and/or B, those preconceptions, prior knowledge, and prejudices
> will not be able to assist you. The only thing you will have working for
> you are your ears.

OKEY, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THIS ONE

Correction: ... but only to certain point. How can past listening
experience, preferences, prior knowledge, and prejudices not
affect you in differentiating subtle differences in sound quality
if you use music signals as a source for comparison. How would
you not have trouble deciding upon what condition they are different
if you attempt to locate these subtle differences base on your
(listening) preference? The listening preferences of course is
to listen to musical sound.


>> But you and your kind always run away. In your case this time,
>> you become evasive. What you're doing is not fun you know.
>
> Trust me Eddie, I do not run away from clowns like you.
> Rather, I vacate the premises usually for one or two
> reasons:
>
> 1) You are so opaque and prejudiced that you would not
> accept the truth if it hit you in the face, or, more
> precisely, took a proper DBT and failed to live up to your
> golden-ear claims.

These are all evasive talk. You said that you have been in audio
business and journalist for many years, and support abx/dbt.
Then you should focus in discussing why it is a valid methodology.
By that, I mean you cannot say they're effective because it saves
you money.

> 2) My generosity towards the people who post here is just
> that: generosity. However, because people like you, Eddie,
> are basically mental flatworms, with little to justify
> spending a lot of time with you, going on and on with a
> series of debates is a waste of my time.

If I am a flatworm then you shouldn't have to be deceptive in
discussing the methodology.

> So, yes, I will acknowledge your final sentence. Dealing
> with a person as mentally limited and inarticulate as
> yourself is anything but "fun" after a while.
>
> Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m
>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> Prior knowledge is fine, and you can apply it when comparing
>> A to B during an ABX test. You can also apply all the
>> preconceptions and prejudices you want. [...]
>
>> [...] However, when it comes time to compare the unknown "X" to
>> A and/or B, those preconceptions, prior knowledge, and prejudices
>> will not be able to assist you. The only thing you will have
working
>> for you are your ears.
>
> OKEY, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THIS ONE
>
> Correction: ... but only to certain point. How can past listening
> experience, preferences, prior knowledge, and prejudices not
> affect you in differentiating subtle differences in sound quality
> if you use music signals as a source for comparison.

Since you can see which product is playing, your knowlege of the items
you listed and more are known to you.

> How would
> you not have trouble deciding upon what condition they are different
> if you attempt to locate these subtle differences base on your
> (listening) preference? The listening preferences of course is
> to listen to musical sound.

Listening to musical sound, and not seeing what you are listening to -
why that's a blind listening test!

What's wrong with judging equipment based only on the musical sound?

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>

> > Arny, this guy is a jerk. It would not matter how well we
> > articulated our views, he would continue to be a
> > bone-headed, audio-tweako believer.

> Agreed. He's probably a new sockpuppet of the same old idiots.

Yes, he has a writing style that seems vaguely familiar.
Wasn't there a guy writing here some time back who had a
similar style and who claimed that he was dyslexic?

I lampooned the guy, and all of the tweakos rushed to his
defense as if I had picked on some poor, weak
mental-retardation case instead of a semi-literate audio
tweako.

What the heck was that guy's name?

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:

> Are you both competing to see who is the real DOOFUS ?

You are a moron.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Infantile squawked:

> > Are you both competing to see who is the real DOOFUS ?

> You are a moron.

And yet he's much smarter than you. What does that make you, Clerkie?

[Mike McKelvy]

EddieM Mar 25, 5:59 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: "EddieM" > - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:59:42 GMT
Local: Fri, Mar 25 2005 5:59 pm
Subject: Re: Mainstream Audio Magazines Died. Why?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Mike McKelvy wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> Mike McKelvy" wrote
>>>> Eddie M said:
>>>>> Mike McKelvy" wrote

>>>>> If it were the answer would be, yes they do
>>>>> have to be the same [SPL] if you are comapring sound quality.


>>>> Sound quality?


>>>> I thought ABX/DBT is done to compare components for subtle
>>>> sound differences.


>>> That's right, a difference, even a subtle one, is a differnce in
sound
>>> quality of some sort.


>>>> Comparing sound quality between components is going to be
>>>> about preferences.


>>> Only if there are DIFFERENCES OF SOME SORT.


>>>>> In order to make an unbiased comparison, all settings must be
>>>>> equal, otherwise you are not comapring sound QUALITY, you are
>>>>> are comparing spl.


>>>> SPL is almost irrelevant, for obvious
>>>> reason, when determining your preferences.


>>> It is not irrelevant it is critical. If you are comparing SOUND
>>> QUALITY then both units need to be at the same SPL.


>> No kidding! You mean to tell me that if you turn the volume
slightly
>> lower or higher on one or both of the components -- that you won't
>> be able to assess and determine for sound quality?


> If you comparing sound [quality] you compare on as even a basis as
> possible, that means same SPL.



Your ignorance is manifesting itself with the way you attribute qouted
text in this exchanges, Mr. McKelvy, but you could be doing
this on purpose so before you recede further back into your
nonsense, could you:

>1. provide an example of differences in sound quality requiring
> that SPL must be different between components.


Eddie, if the spl level of the components being tested, then obviously,
they will sound different.
If your looking to find if the differences are something other than one
being louder than the other, then make them the same and eliminate that
possibility.


>2. with these sample(s), could you ensure that the differences are
> distinguishable when the SPL are different betw both components.

The object of this kind of comparison, is to compare them on even
ground, if you have one set to a different spl it is obvioulsy going to
sound different for a reason that has nothing to with how the device
reproduces a given signal.






>> Say, I remember the last time I have lengthy exchanges with you....
>> .... you got me footless. lol!

> Now you seem to have found it and put it in your mouth

Do you understand what an unbiased comparison means?

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Horace the Infantile squawked:
>
> > > Are you both competing to see who is the real DOOFUS ?
>
> > You are a moron.

> And yet he's much smarter than you. What does that make you, Clerkie?

While not precisely a moron yourself, you are in some ways
actually much worse, because you are an apologist for
morons.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Increasingly Doofusish wailed:

> > > > Are you both competing to see who is the real DOOFUS ?

> > > You are a moron.

> > And yet he's much smarter than you. What does that make you, Clerkie?

> While not precisely

Inability to answer the question noted. Admission of idiocy noted.
Self-abnegation noted, with a sneer.