Any opinions on an Adcom? [Archive]

Howard Ferstler

May 15th 05, 02:09 AM

Schizoid Man wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
> >
> >> I think the Hafler might be overkill for the application I have in mind.
> >> I
> >> am using bookshelfs and have a fairly smallish listening room. If it
> >> helps,
> >> my music tastes center around rock, guitar-centric jazz and electronica.
> >
> > Unless the Adcom has some gross design problems (unlikely)
> > or is defective or broken (also unlikely), it should sound
> > as good as any other good amp up to its overload point.
> > Don't let these idiots give you a bum steer about amplifier
> > sound.

> So does that mean that there is nothing wrong with my current Marantz? And
> me not liking it any more is purely psychological?

Anything is possible. The amp may actually have problems.
The way to find out is to get hold of a loaner of some kind
and do a level-matched comparison. Your Marantz has volume
and balance controls, so you can match its per-channel
output to a basic power amp. One way to do this without
instruments is use a pink-noise source (a test disc should
have this) and switch back and forth between each left
channel of each amp and each right channel of each amp until
they sound the same.

Admittedly, you will have to build a switch box (with both
switches and connectors) to do this, but the money you save
might be considerable, so the box would be worth the effort.

Once those levels are matched you could do some sighted
comparing to see if the Marantz is actually distorting. I
mean, due to its age or other factors it really could be.
However, it might be working just fine. One way to find out
is do that comparison. If you think you hear differences, do
the comparing blind, with a buddy operating the switches.

I built a box using double-throw switches that I got from
Radio shack. One switch for each channel. Make sure that
both the hot and ground sections are switched, to make sure
any kind of shorting is impossible. The box will cost a few
bucks and will take a bit of time to build (soldering
required), but it is really not rocket science. Nope, it is
not an ABX device, but it is better than guesswork.

Once the switch box was built, you could loan it to buddies
to do the same kind of comparing.

Howard Ferstler

Margaret von B.

May 15th 05, 02:37 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> "Margaret von B." wrote:
>>
>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> > Any other recommendations? I suppose the type of brands I am limited to
>> > are Rotel, NAD, Adcom, maybe Arcam. Ideally I would like to not spend
>> > more
>> > than $275 to $300 on each unit, hence my desire to buy used.
>
>> The Pass designs are very, very good. Some of the other stuff sucks, like
>> the early GFA555 power amp. Just awful.
>
> While it

No one cares.

Margaret

Robert Morein

May 15th 05, 02:38 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > You can get them really cheap on eBay.
> > Ridiculously cheap.
> > They build these things no frills for the pro market, yet they sound
> > exceptional, because the circuit topology is unique and the component
> > quality excellent.
> > Packaging is simple sheet steel with large heatsinks, which, depending
upon
> > the model, are either external or internal.
> > Don't listen to Howard. You dislike your Marantz because you hear
something.
> > You really do hear it.
>
> Only if the unit has wear/age-related problems or he is
> playing it at levels that cause it to clip.
>
Yes, I definitely agree that your ears and brain are experienceing
wear/age-related problems. Your mouth is functioning excellently.

Are you copacetic with this?

Robert Morein

May 15th 05, 02:39 AM

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm tired of my Marantz integrated and my Cambridge Audio CD player. I
> > want to upgrade my system piece meal and wanted to start with the amp.
> >
> > I want to replace my speakers at some point in the future too, so I
> > thought perfect opportunity to swap an integrated for a pre/power combo.
> >
> > I'm looking for a relatively cheap used power amp right now - eBay and
> > Audiogon are my destinations. I was thinking about the Adcom GFA-545 II.
> > Any opinions or experiences with this? It's got pretty decent reviews on
> > audioreview.com.
> >
> > Any other recommendations? I suppose the type of brands I am limited to
> > are Rotel, NAD, Adcom, maybe Arcam. Ideally I would like to not spend
more
> > than $275 to $300 on each unit, hence my desire to buy used.
> >
>
> The Pass designs are very, very good. Some of the other stuff sucks, like
> the early GFA555 power amp. Just awful.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>
That's what I think.
The Pass designs are at least passable.

Clyde Slick

May 15th 05, 02:52 AM

"Howard Fustian" > wrote in message
...
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>>
>> > Schizoid Man wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think the Hafler might be overkill for the application I have in
>> >> mind.
>> >> I
>> >> am using bookshelfs and have a fairly smallish listening room. If it
>> >> helps,
>> >> my music tastes center around rock, guitar-centric jazz and
>> >> electronica.
>> >
>> > Unless the Adcom has some gross design problems (unlikely)
>> > or is defective or broken (also unlikely), it should sound
>> > as good as any other good amp up to its overload point.
>> > Don't let these idiots give you a bum steer about amplifier
>> > sound.
>
>> So does that mean that there is nothing wrong with my current Marantz?
>> And
>> me not liking it any more is purely psychological?
>
> Anything is possible. The amp may actually have problems.
> The way to find out is to get hold of a loaner of some kind
> and do a level-matched comparison. Your Marantz has volume
> and balance controls, so you can match its per-channel
> output to a basic power amp. One way to do this without
> instruments is use a pink-noise source (a test disc should
> have this) and switch back and forth between each left
> channel of each amp and each right channel of each amp until
> they sound the same.
>
> Admittedly, you will have to build a switch box (with both
> switches and connectors) to do this, but the money you save
> might be considerable, so the box would be worth the effort.
>
> Once those levels are matched you could do some sighted
> comparing to see if the Marantz is actually distorting. I
> mean, due to its age or other factors it really could be.
> However, it might be working just fine. One way to find out
> is do that comparison. If you think you hear differences, do
> the comparing blind, with a buddy operating the switches.
>
> I built a box using double-throw switches that I got from
> Radio shack. One switch for each channel. Make sure that
> both the hot and ground sections are switched, to make sure
> any kind of shorting is impossible. The box will cost a few
> bucks and will take a bit of time to build (soldering
> required), but it is really not rocket science. Nope, it is
> not an ABX device, but it is better than guesswork.
>
> Once the switch box was built, you could loan it to buddies
> to do the same kind of comparing.
>
What are friends for!

----== 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 =----

Robert Morein

May 15th 05, 03:33 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Schizoid Man wrote:
> >
> > "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> >
> > > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think the Hafler might be overkill for the application I have in
mind.
> > >> I
> > >> am using bookshelfs and have a fairly smallish listening room. If it
> > >> helps,
> > >> my music tastes center around rock, guitar-centric jazz and
electronica.
> > >
> > > Unless the Adcom has some gross design problems (unlikely)
> > > or is defective or broken (also unlikely), it should sound
> > > as good as any other good amp up to its overload point.
> > > Don't let these idiots give you a bum steer about amplifier
> > > sound.
>
> > So does that mean that there is nothing wrong with my current Marantz?
And
> > me not liking it any more is purely psychological?
>
> Anything is possible. The amp may actually have problems.
> The way to find out is to get hold of a loaner of some kind
> and do a level-matched comparison. Your Marantz has volume
> and balance controls, so you can match its per-channel
> output to a basic power amp. One way to do this without
> instruments is use a pink-noise source (a test disc should
> have this) and switch back and forth between each left
> channel of each amp and each right channel of each amp until
> they sound the same.
>
> Admittedly, you will have to build a switch box (with both
> switches and connectors) to do this, but the money you save
> might be considerable, so the box would be worth the effort.
>
> Once those levels are matched you could do some sighted
> comparing to see if the Marantz is actually distorting. I
> mean, due to its age or other factors it really could be.
> However, it might be working just fine. One way to find out
> is do that comparison. If you think you hear differences, do
> the comparing blind, with a buddy operating the switches.
>
> I built a box using double-throw switches that I got from
> Radio shack.

A really bad idea.
I actually made this mistake. I was interested in exploring ABX, so I put
together remote controlled relay boxes using Radio Shack relays.
These cheap relays have iridium plated contacts, which have signficant (to
audio) contact resistance. While entirely adequate for switching power, I am
convinced they are not transparent for audio.
As I recall, Arny did a more thorough job. He used silver relays, which
probably means silver/silver oxide, which have a much better chance of audio
transparency.

Arny?

Clyde Slick

May 15th 05, 03:41 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny?
>
>

Are you constipated?
Is that why you are conjuring up the Great ****?
You'd be off sucking prunes.

----== 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 =----

EddieM

May 15th 05, 04:37 AM

> Schizoid Man wrote
>
>
>
>
> I'm tired of my Marantz integrated and my Cambridge Audio CD player. I want
> to upgrade my system piece meal and wanted to start with the amp.
>
> I want to replace my speakers at some point in the future too, so I thought
> perfect opportunity to swap an integrated for a pre/power combo.
>
> I'm looking for a relatively cheap used power amp right now - eBay and
> Audiogon are my destinations. I was thinking about the Adcom GFA-545 II. Any
> opinions or experiences with this? It's got pretty decent reviews on
> audioreview.com.
>
> Any other recommendations? I suppose the type of brands I am limited to are
> Rotel, NAD, Adcom, maybe Arcam. Ideally I would like to not spend more than
> $275 to $300 on each unit, hence my desire to buy used.

Schiz, having auditioned amps/preamps from Adcom spanning the
past ten years, I've grown weary of them. To me, their contributing
sound is akin to a huge Sony boomboxes suffering from bulimia.
Their sound is clean and lean, but thin on dynamics.

Schizoid Man

May 15th 05, 04:50 AM

"EddieM" > wrote in message

> Schiz, having auditioned amps/preamps from Adcom spanning the
> past ten years, I've grown weary of them. To me, their contributing
> sound is akin to a huge Sony boomboxes suffering from bulimia.
> Their sound is clean and lean, but thin on dynamics.

Thanks, Eddie. Any experience with Arcam or Audio Refinement? I think that I
am steering towards an integrated now.

EddieM

May 15th 05, 05:16 AM

> Schizoid Man wrote
>> EddieM wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>> Schiz, having auditioned amps/preamps from Adcom spanning the
>> past ten years, I've grown weary of them. To me, their contributing
>> sound is akin to a huge Sony boomboxes suffering from bulimia.
>> Their sound is clean and lean, but thin on dynamics.
>
> Thanks, Eddie. Any experience with Arcam or Audio Refinement? I think that I
> am steering towards an integrated now.

I have the Arcam FMJ T-21 Tuner, but I haven't heard amps from
both mfr.

Robert Morein

May 15th 05, 05:24 AM

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "EddieM" > wrote in message
>
> > Schiz, having auditioned amps/preamps from Adcom spanning the
> > past ten years, I've grown weary of them. To me, their contributing
> > sound is akin to a huge Sony boomboxes suffering from bulimia.
> > Their sound is clean and lean, but thin on dynamics.
>
> Thanks, Eddie. Any experience with Arcam or Audio Refinement? I think that
I
> am steering towards an integrated now.
>
If you can afford the high prices for small amps, the British make the best
small amps. They seem to incorporate features of big American designs, such
as near-DC response, with proportionately reduced power.

I have a Sugden A48 mkII, love it.

They just don't have the bang-for-the-buck that Haflers do, and they don't
sound better.

Margaret von B.

May 15th 05, 05:32 AM

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "EddieM" > wrote in message
>
>> Schiz, having auditioned amps/preamps from Adcom spanning the
>> past ten years, I've grown weary of them. To me, their contributing
>> sound is akin to a huge Sony boomboxes suffering from bulimia.
>> Their sound is clean and lean, but thin on dynamics.
>
> Thanks, Eddie. Any experience with Arcam or Audio Refinement? I think that
> I am steering towards an integrated now.
>
>

Smart choice. Keep your CD player and find yourself a Plinius 8200, you
won't regret it. Lush, powerful, dynamic and unbreakable amp that will drive
almost anything for years to come. And it won't leave you wanting tubes
either. Power can be addictive.

Cheers,

Margaret

dave weil

May 15th 05, 08:17 AM

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
>Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
>Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
>and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.

Opinion stated as fact.

Sander deWaal

May 15th 05, 11:35 AM

"Robert Morein" > said:

>> I built a box using double-throw switches that I got from
>> Radio shack.

>A really bad idea.
>I actually made this mistake. I was interested in exploring ABX, so I put
>together remote controlled relay boxes using Radio Shack relays.
>These cheap relays have iridium plated contacts, which have signficant (to
>audio) contact resistance. While entirely adequate for switching power, I am
>convinced they are not transparent for audio.
>As I recall, Arny did a more thorough job. He used silver relays, which
>probably means silver/silver oxide, which have a much better chance of audio
>transparency.

For line level switching, use double contact relays with gold plated
contacts in parallel per channel.
For speaker level switching, use double contact relays with one gold
contact and one heavy duty silver contact in parallel per channel.

--

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

Sander deWaal

May 15th 05, 11:39 AM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> I'm tired of my Marantz integrated and my Cambridge Audio
>CD player.

>More likely, you're tried of the way your speakers and room
>sounds.

You may have a point.

Ever since we moved, I haven't been able to get the sound back that we
had in our old house.
Same speakers, same gear, same furniture, but different room
dimensions.

--

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

George M. Middius

May 15th 05, 12:52 PM

dave weil said:

> >Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.

> Opinion stated as fact.

There you go again, bashing Harold's religious devotions. ;-)

George M. Middius

May 15th 05, 12:53 PM

Sander deWaal said:

> Ever since we moved, I haven't been able to get the sound back that we
> had in our old house.
> Same speakers, same gear, same furniture, but different room
> dimensions.

The only thing that doesn't change is change itself.

severian

May 15th 05, 02:49 PM

[email protected]

May 15th 05, 04:32 PM

severian wrote:
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
> > >Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
> > >Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
> > >and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.
> >
> > Opinion stated as fact.
>
> The fact is that Zipser could not tell the difference, he amply
demonstrated
> that in the test. How is that "opinion?" Let alone "opinion stated as
fact?"
>
>
Generic excuse: blind tests make the listener(s) "stress out",
rendering their golden ears tin and making them unable to tell ****
fron shineola.
>
Specific excuses:
1)Zipser had a hangover
2)the testers made "noises"
3)Zipser was just "getting it" when the test was ended by a bad ABX
box.
>
>
Excuses, excuses!!

severian

May 15th 05, 05:08 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> severian wrote:
> > "dave weil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
> > > >Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
> > > >Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
> > > >and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.
> > >
> > > Opinion stated as fact.
> >
> > The fact is that Zipser could not tell the difference, he amply
> demonstrated
> > that in the test. How is that "opinion?" Let alone "opinion stated as
> fact?"
> >
> >
> Generic excuse: blind tests make the listener(s) "stress out",
> rendering their golden ears tin and making them unable to tell ****
> fron shineola.
> >
> Specific excuses:
> 1)Zipser had a hangover
> 2)the testers made "noises"
> 3)Zipser was just "getting it" when the test was ended by a bad ABX
> box.
> >
> >
> Excuses, excuses!!
>

True, excuses excuses, but any observation or whining on his part about the
test being biased or noises preventing him or whatever does not alter the
FACT that in this test he could not tell the difference. So when dave weil
says "opinion" that's a complete piece of BS, the FACT is he couldn't tell
the difference, end of discussion. People can and undoubtedly will whine and
make excuses, but that he couldn't and didn't distinguish between the amps
in this test is not an opinion, it's a FACT. Intellectual dishonesty or
sloppiness like that is not going to win many converts to an argument.

[email protected]

May 15th 05, 05:27 PM

severian wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > severian wrote:
> > > "dave weil" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
> > > > >Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
> > > > >Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
> > > > >and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.
> > > >
> > > > Opinion stated as fact.
> > >
> > > The fact is that Zipser could not tell the difference, he amply
> > demonstrated
> > > that in the test. How is that "opinion?" Let alone "opinion
stated as
> > fact?"
> > >
> > >
> > Generic excuse: blind tests make the listener(s) "stress out",
> > rendering their golden ears tin and making them unable to tell ****
> > fron shineola.
> > >
> > Specific excuses:
> > 1)Zipser had a hangover
> > 2)the testers made "noises"
> > 3)Zipser was just "getting it" when the test was ended by a bad ABX
> > box.
> > >
> > >
> > Excuses, excuses!!
> >
>
> True, excuses excuses, but any observation or whining on his part
about the
> test being biased or noises preventing him or whatever does not alter
the
> FACT that in this test he could not tell the difference. So when dave
weil
> says "opinion" that's a complete piece of BS, the FACT is he couldn't
tell
> the difference, end of discussion. People can and undoubtedly will
whine and
> make excuses, but that he couldn't and didn't distinguish between the
amps
> in this test is not an opinion, it's a FACT. Intellectual dishonesty
or
> sloppiness like that is not going to win many converts to an
argument.
>
>
We are in complete agreement on this.

ScottW

May 15th 05, 06:12 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
>>Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
>>Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
>>Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
>>and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.
>
> Opinion stated as fact.

My opinion: my Yamaha M-50 doesn't sound any different on my Legacy focus or
my Original large Advents than my Krell KSA-150. However, both amps are
rated at 150W, Krell is supposedly pure class A but I have heard that
debated... I think the Yamaha is AB. At normal listening I don't think I
can differentiate either from a 35 W Sansui AU-6500 that I've had for 30+
years. If I wanted to get a different sound from my system by changing
amplifiers I'd explore different technologies, perhaps some of the better
Class D amps (I don't have any real experience there) or enter the world of
tubes.

ScottW

ScottW

May 15th 05, 06:15 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I think the Hafler might be overkill for the application I have in mind.
>> I
>> am using bookshelfs and have a fairly smallish listening room. If it
> helps,
>> my music tastes center around rock, guitar-centric jazz and electronica.
>>
> You can get them really cheap on eBay.
> Ridiculously cheap.
> They build these things no frills for the pro market, yet they sound
> exceptional, because the circuit topology is unique

Can you be more specific? Exactly what is so unique about the Hafler
topology?

ScottW

Lionel

May 15th 05, 06:34 PM

severian a écrit :
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>severian wrote:
>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
>>>>>Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
>>>>>Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
>>>>>and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.
>>>>
>>>>Opinion stated as fact.
>>>
>>>The fact is that Zipser could not tell the difference, he amply
>>
>>demonstrated
>>
>>>that in the test. How is that "opinion?" Let alone "opinion stated as
>>
>>fact?"
>>
>>>
>>Generic excuse: blind tests make the listener(s) "stress out",
>>rendering their golden ears tin and making them unable to tell ****
>>fron shineola.
>>
>>Specific excuses:
>>1)Zipser had a hangover
>>2)the testers made "noises"
>>3)Zipser was just "getting it" when the test was ended by a bad ABX
>>box.
>>
>>>
>>Excuses, excuses!!
>>
>
>
> True, excuses excuses, but any observation or whining on his part about the
> test being biased or noises preventing him or whatever does not alter the
> FACT that in this test he could not tell the difference. So when dave weil
> says "opinion" that's a complete piece of BS, the FACT is he couldn't tell
> the difference, end of discussion. People can and undoubtedly will whine and
> make excuses, but that he couldn't and didn't distinguish between the amps
> in this test is not an opinion, it's a FACT. Intellectual dishonesty or
> sloppiness like that is not going to win many converts to an argument.

Were you really waiting for intellectual honesty from dave
weil ?
These 2 words are at the antipode of his way of living.

:-(

dave weil

May 15th 05, 07:33 PM

On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:34:38 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>severian a écrit :
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>severian wrote:
>>>
>>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
>>>>>>Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
>>>>>>Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
>>>>>>and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>Opinion stated as fact.
>>>>
>>>>The fact is that Zipser could not tell the difference, he amply
>>>
>>>demonstrated
>>>
>>>>that in the test. How is that "opinion?" Let alone "opinion stated as
>>>
>>>fact?"
>>>
>>>>
>>>Generic excuse: blind tests make the listener(s) "stress out",
>>>rendering their golden ears tin and making them unable to tell ****
>>>fron shineola.
>>>
>>>Specific excuses:
>>>1)Zipser had a hangover
>>>2)the testers made "noises"
>>>3)Zipser was just "getting it" when the test was ended by a bad ABX
>>>box.
>>>
>>>>
>>>Excuses, excuses!!
>>>
>>
>>
>> True, excuses excuses, but any observation or whining on his part about the
>> test being biased or noises preventing him or whatever does not alter the
>> FACT that in this test he could not tell the difference. So when dave weil
>> says "opinion" that's a complete piece of BS, the FACT is he couldn't tell
>> the difference, end of discussion. People can and undoubtedly will whine and
>> make excuses, but that he couldn't and didn't distinguish between the amps
>> in this test is not an opinion, it's a FACT. Intellectual dishonesty or
>> sloppiness like that is not going to win many converts to an argument.
>
>Were you really waiting for intellectual honesty from dave
>weil ?
>These 2 words are at the antipode of his way of living.
>
>:-(

Perhaps you should go back and review the record. It is clear, and
even the "objectivists" were forced to admit it, that the Zipser tests
weren't conducted to the normal "gold standard" of dbts. It is also
clear that the trend, when the test was prematurely stopped, was that
Mr. Zipser was approaching getting a statistically signignicant number
of trials correct.

There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.

Sander deWaal

May 15th 05, 07:42 PM

dave weil > said:

>Perhaps you should go back and review the record. It is clear, and
>even the "objectivists" were forced to admit it, that the Zipser tests
>weren't conducted to the normal "gold standard" of dbts. It is also
>clear that the trend, when the test was prematurely stopped, was that
>Mr. Zipser was approaching getting a statistically signignicant number
>of trials correct.

>There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
>using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.

What's the big deal?
I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are no audible differences
between the Yamaha and the Pass amps in a DBT.

As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening, any difference heard in
sighted listening is valid to the listener, regardless whether visual
or other clues are responsible for that. End of story.

--

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

Lionel

May 15th 05, 07:52 PM

"8hz" dave a écrit :

> On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:34:38 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>severian a écrit :
>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>severian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
>>>>>>>Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
>>>>>>>Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
>>>>>>>and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Opinion stated as fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>The fact is that Zipser could not tell the difference, he amply
>>>>
>>>>demonstrated
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>that in the test. How is that "opinion?" Let alone "opinion stated as
>>>>
>>>>fact?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Generic excuse: blind tests make the listener(s) "stress out",
>>>>rendering their golden ears tin and making them unable to tell ****
>>>>fron shineola.
>>>>
>>>>Specific excuses:
>>>>1)Zipser had a hangover
>>>>2)the testers made "noises"
>>>>3)Zipser was just "getting it" when the test was ended by a bad ABX
>>>>box.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Excuses, excuses!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>True, excuses excuses, but any observation or whining on his part about the
>>>test being biased or noises preventing him or whatever does not alter the
>>>FACT that in this test he could not tell the difference. So when dave weil
>>>says "opinion" that's a complete piece of BS, the FACT is he couldn't tell
>>>the difference, end of discussion. People can and undoubtedly will whine and
>>>make excuses, but that he couldn't and didn't distinguish between the amps
>>>in this test is not an opinion, it's a FACT. Intellectual dishonesty or
>>>sloppiness like that is not going to win many converts to an argument.
>>
>>Were you really waiting for intellectual honesty from dave
>>weil ?
>>These 2 words are at the antipode of his way of living.
>>
>>:-(
>
>
> Perhaps...

Eh, eh

severian

May 15th 05, 07:55 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:34:38 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
> >severian a écrit :
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>
> >>>severian wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
> >>>>>>Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
> >>>>>>Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
> >>>>>>and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Opinion stated as fact.
> >>>>
> >>>>The fact is that Zipser could not tell the difference, he amply
> >>>
> >>>demonstrated
> >>>
> >>>>that in the test. How is that "opinion?" Let alone "opinion stated as
> >>>
> >>>fact?"
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>Generic excuse: blind tests make the listener(s) "stress out",
> >>>rendering their golden ears tin and making them unable to tell ****
> >>>fron shineola.
> >>>
> >>>Specific excuses:
> >>>1)Zipser had a hangover
> >>>2)the testers made "noises"
> >>>3)Zipser was just "getting it" when the test was ended by a bad ABX
> >>>box.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>Excuses, excuses!!
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> True, excuses excuses, but any observation or whining on his part about
the
> >> test being biased or noises preventing him or whatever does not alter
the
> >> FACT that in this test he could not tell the difference. So when dave
weil
> >> says "opinion" that's a complete piece of BS, the FACT is he couldn't
tell
> >> the difference, end of discussion. People can and undoubtedly will
whine and
> >> make excuses, but that he couldn't and didn't distinguish between the
amps
> >> in this test is not an opinion, it's a FACT. Intellectual dishonesty or
> >> sloppiness like that is not going to win many converts to an argument.
> >
> >Were you really waiting for intellectual honesty from dave
> >weil ?
> >These 2 words are at the antipode of his way of living.
> >
> >:-(
>
> Perhaps you should go back and review the record. It is clear, and
> even the "objectivists" were forced to admit it, that the Zipser tests
> weren't conducted to the normal "gold standard" of dbts. It is also
> clear that the trend, when the test was prematurely stopped, was that
> Mr. Zipser was approaching getting a statistically signignicant number
> of trials correct.
>
> There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
> using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.

Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is, REGARDLESS of
whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly conducted, he
FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is not OPINION,
but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt understanding the
difference.

And ol'Zipperhead was one of the most bloviated and dishonest people it's
been my displeasure to ever know, his claim he was zeroing in on it is
bull****, and that was most definitely not the story right after the test,
but after he'd had time to come up with some kind of bull to cover his
deafness. The day after the test, indeed later in the day of the test, his
posted thoughts were that he definitely couldn't tell the difference, and he
was taken aback and was really acting as if he had to rethink his views.
Then his usual attitude and ego stepped back in and away he went into lies
and obsfucation, which was his classical approach to everything. If he
ripped off a customer and they complained, why, the customer was trying to
attack him with no provocation. Yeah, I can flip a coin there times, get 2
heads, then stop and CLAIM I was about to get statistically significant
increase in the number of heads that come up, doesn't mean anything.

Amazing ain't it, everytime one of your subjectivist ilk gets their
metaphorical ass handed to them, the test is always faulty, whine, moan,
****, wheeze, blubber...a real fool is one who, when an opportunity is
offered to learn something, not only doesn't but attacks the people offering
him the chance.

Clyde Slick

May 15th 05, 07:56 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>. Intellectual dishonesty
> or
>> sloppiness like that is not going to win many converts to an
> argument.
>>
>>
> We are in complete agreement on this.
>

I think we are making some headway into your
acknowledgement of Fustian's shortcomings.

----== 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 =----

Lionel

May 15th 05, 07:56 PM

Sander deWaal a écrit :
> dave weil > said:
>
>
>>Perhaps you should go back and review the record. It is clear, and
>>even the "objectivists" were forced to admit it, that the Zipser tests
>>weren't conducted to the normal "gold standard" of dbts. It is also
>>clear that the trend, when the test was prematurely stopped, was that
>>Mr. Zipser was approaching getting a statistically signignicant number
>>of trials correct.
>
>
>>There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
>>using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.
>
>
>
> What's the big deal?
> I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are no audible differences
> between the Yamaha and the Pass amps in a DBT.
>
> As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,

This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of
this thread.

> any difference heard in
> sighted listening is valid to the listener, regardless whether visual
> or other clues are responsible for that. End of story.

Clyde Slick

May 15th 05, 08:01 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Sander deWaal a écrit :

>>
>> As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,
>
> This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of this thread.
>

But for reasons that are completely over your head.

----== 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

May 15th 05, 08:12 PM

On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:36 GMT, "severian" >
wrote:

>> There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
>> using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.
>
>Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is, REGARDLESS of
>whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly conducted, he
>FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is not OPINION,
>but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt understanding the
>difference.

So, your opinion is that if a test isn't conducted to the standards
that are demanded of that specific test, the results of that test are
valid?

I disagree totally. There are specific guidelines that are required BY
PROPONENTS OF SUCH TESTING that are necessary to insure the validity
of the testing. This particular test violated several of them.

Lionel

May 15th 05, 08:16 PM

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sander deWaal a écrit :
>
>
>>>As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,
>>
>>This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of this thread.
>>
>
>
> But for reasons that are completely over your head.

You are right Sackman some of good musics are still over my
head... Everyday different, everyday more detailled,
everyday more pleasant...
What's a pity that you cannot understand. :-(

ScottW

May 15th 05, 08:29 PM

severian

May 15th 05, 09:26 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:36 GMT, "severian" >
> wrote:
>
> >> There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
> >> using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.
> >
> >Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is, REGARDLESS
of
> >whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly conducted,
he
> >FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is not
OPINION,
> >but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt understanding
the
> >difference.
>
> So, your opinion is that if a test isn't conducted to the standards
> that are demanded of that specific test, the results of that test are
> valid?
>
> I disagree totally. There are specific guidelines that are required BY
> PROPONENTS OF SUCH TESTING that are necessary to insure the validity
> of the testing. This particular test violated several of them.

Are you really that reading or logically challenged? The validity of the
test in question has absolutely nothing to do with the original statement
you made. See if you can parse this train of thought:

Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care if it was
a bogus test or not).

A statement was made to that effect.

You said Opinion Stated as Fact.

The FACT is he couldn't hear a difference in THAT test, regardless of what
you think of the validity of that test.

Ergo, it is not OPINION stated as fact, it is FACT.

Argue about the merits of lack thereof of that test all you want, it is a
FACT that he couldn't hear a difference, not an OPINION! Jesus Christ on a
pogo stick, I've hardly ever seen such a combination of pedantic mixed with
confused logic mixed with obsfucation in my life.

Now you can go on and argue to your hearts content about the relative merits
or validity of that test, but that doesn't affect the facts.

And I've heard and seen the whole thing real time the first time around, and
all the post test whining doesn't alter it, I think the test was reasonable
enough that he should have been able to hear a difference, after all, he was
confident he could, and was allegedly getting 10 out of 10 before they
showed up and level matched the systems. A reasonable person would have at
least been forced to come to the conclusion that whatever differences were
apparent between the amps before the test, they obviously were in large part
due to level imbalances and were nowhere near as large or easy to discern as
was thought. That at least should point to the relative magnitude of these
allegedly night and day differences between amps. You can quibble then over
if the test was sensitive or masking enough due to talking, etc. to make it
hard to hear subtle differences, but you can't continue with any degree of
common sense or logic to continue to claim that the differences are as huge
as they are claimed to be.

And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been part of
one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.
People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've never
participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their opinions
are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and toe
downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.

severian

May 15th 05, 09:29 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sander deWaal a écrit :
>
> >>
> >> As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,
> >
> > This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of this thread.
> >
>
> But for reasons that are completely over your head.
>

There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more like
what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
differences, but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.

George M. Middius

May 15th 05, 09:33 PM

severianborg said:

> Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care if it was
> a bogus test or not).

If you call the Zippy exercise a "test", then you can take home the trophy
on this one.

> And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been part of
> one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.

Is that why you sound like a raging bull being stuck by picadors?

> People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've never
> participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation.

<snicker>

> Their opinions
> are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and toe
> downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.

Oh, I see now -- you do the "tests" for fun. And Normal people who listen to
music for enjoyment aren't having the right kind of "fun".

Perhaps you'd like to tell us how these "tests" you've endured enhanced your
enjoyment of music or your sound system.

George M. Middius

May 15th 05, 09:33 PM

severianborg said:

> There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more like
> what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
> generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
> differences, but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
> results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.

This is the definition of "mental masturbation".

Lionel

May 15th 05, 09:51 PM

severian a écrit :
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Sander deWaal a écrit :
>>
>>>>As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,
>>>
>>>This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of this thread.
>>>
>>
>>But for reasons that are completely over your head.
>>
>
>
> There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more like
> what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
> generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
> differences,

The problems is how to objectively quantify what you call
"small differences" and their *real* prejudice on the
listening pleasure.
In a second time you will be perhaps obliged to establish an
objective ponderation system to take in count the difference
of the above prejudice on the pleasure of the tester and the
pleasure of the subject...

Good luck !

;-)

> but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
> results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.

Lionel

May 15th 05, 09:52 PM

severian a écrit :
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:36 GMT, "severian" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
>>>>using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.
>>>
>>>Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is, REGARDLESS
>
> of
>
>>>whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly conducted,
>
> he
>
>>>FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is not
>
> OPINION,
>
>>>but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt understanding
>
> the
>
>>>difference.
>>
>>So, your opinion is that if a test isn't conducted to the standards
>>that are demanded of that specific test, the results of that test are
>>valid?
>>
>>I disagree totally. There are specific guidelines that are required BY
>>PROPONENTS OF SUCH TESTING that are necessary to insure the validity
>>of the testing. This particular test violated several of them.
>
>
> Are you really that reading or logically challenged?

LOL !
:-D

> The validity of the
> test in question has absolutely nothing to do with the original statement
> you made. See if you can parse this train of thought:
>
> Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care if it was
> a bogus test or not).
>
> A statement was made to that effect.
>
> You said Opinion Stated as Fact.
>
> The FACT is he couldn't hear a difference in THAT test, regardless of what
> you think of the validity of that test.
>
> Ergo, it is not OPINION stated as fact, it is FACT.
>
> Argue about the merits of lack thereof of that test all you want, it is a
> FACT that he couldn't hear a difference, not an OPINION! Jesus Christ on a
> pogo stick, I've hardly ever seen such a combination of pedantic mixed with
> confused logic mixed with obsfucation in my life.
>
> Now you can go on and argue to your hearts content about the relative merits
> or validity of that test, but that doesn't affect the facts.
>
> And I've heard and seen the whole thing real time the first time around, and
> all the post test whining doesn't alter it, I think the test was reasonable
> enough that he should have been able to hear a difference, after all, he was
> confident he could, and was allegedly getting 10 out of 10 before they
> showed up and level matched the systems. A reasonable person would have at
> least been forced to come to the conclusion that whatever differences were
> apparent between the amps before the test, they obviously were in large part
> due to level imbalances and were nowhere near as large or easy to discern as
> was thought. That at least should point to the relative magnitude of these
> allegedly night and day differences between amps. You can quibble then over
> if the test was sensitive or masking enough due to talking, etc. to make it
> hard to hear subtle differences, but you can't continue with any degree of
> common sense or logic to continue to claim that the differences are as huge
> as they are claimed to be.
>
> And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been part of
> one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.
> People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've never
> participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their opinions
> are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and toe
> downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.
>
>
>
>

Clyde Slick

May 15th 05, 10:21 PM

"severian" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been part
> of
> one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.
> People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've
> never
> participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
> opinions
> are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and
> toe
> downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.
>

What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
have to participate in one to know that. It's like
bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
I would not have had to have done that to understand how
idiotic it would be.

----== 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

May 15th 05, 10:23 PM

"severian" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> But for reasons that are completely over your head.
>>
>
> There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more
> like
> what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
> generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
> differences, but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
> results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.
>

"shouldn't have shown differences"? That certainly is
presumptive, determing the answer before the test.
So, thanks for proving you went into the test haveing a bias
that you would find no difference.

----== 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 =----

severian

May 15th 05, 10:24 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> severianborg said:

Ah, labeling me, dehumanizing and objectifying me already, first resort of
someone who either has no intelligent argument, or who cares only about
rabble rousing.

>
> > Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care if it
was
> > a bogus test or not).
>
> If you call the Zippy exercise a "test", then you can take home the trophy
> on this one.

It was a test, you may not think it was a good test, but it meets the
definition of test. Attempts to create confusion by semantic mislabeling is
another cheap trick.

>
> > And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been
part of
> > one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.
>
> Is that why you sound like a raging bull being stuck by picadors?

Better that than sounding like a neurotic, obsessive compulsive who as far
as can be determined by his/her comments doesn't even own a stereo.

>
> > People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've
never
> > participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation.
>
> <snicker>
>
> > Their opinions
> > are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and
toe
> > downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.
>
> Oh, I see now -- you do the "tests" for fun. And Normal people who listen
to
> music for enjoyment aren't having the right kind of "fun".

I do more things for "fun" than just plop my ass down on a couch in front of
a stereo, yes. I find the exploration of the engineering aspects of the
hobby (well, not entirely a hobby for me, I do get paid for it) and
psychoacoustics to be fun and interesting. And, if you're going to make some
kind of claim that "normal people" just listen to music for enjoyment, you
can't be talking about most subjective audiophiles. The kind of people who
obsess about things like wires, cables, magic bricks, and get depressed and
dissatisfied with a piece of gear they previously loved just because it
didn't get a good review are definitely not "just" enjoying music, many of
their antics are directly interfering with their ability to listen to music
for enjoyment. Now I'd agree that they are taking the act of listening to or
for equipment/artifacts for amusement/enjoyment. Which is not exactly the
same as listening to music for enjoyment.

> Perhaps you'd like to tell us how these "tests" you've endured enhanced
your
> enjoyment of music or your sound system.

It allowed me to determine what areas had real effects on sound quality, and
what were BS. That allowed me to spend money and often more importantly time
on areas and things that had a direct and significant effect on sound
quality, with the result that my system sounds very very good, is very
pleasing to me, makes music in a way that I can listen to the music without
worrying about the system, and is very satisfying. It has also meant that
I've been satisfied with the sound, and haven't felt the need to constantly
churn gear or make changes for a fairly long time, other than add a new
source (or an old one, my "new" old 10.5 in open reel is way cool). I've
enjoyed the music, and mainly forgotten about the gear.

But then, you know all this, you only argue and make insulting posts to
satisfy whatever bizarre need you seem to have for conflict and some
perverse sense of self satisfaction/narcicism. I still don't really believe
you are real, I think you're a poorly coded Turing Machine.

Clyde Slick

May 15th 05, 10:25 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> ;-)
>
>> but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
>> results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.
>
>

Where do they manufacture 'ponderation systems',
on the Ponderosa?

----== 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 =----

severian

May 15th 05, 10:29 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> But for reasons that are completely over your head.
> >>
> >
> > There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more
> > like
> > what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
> > generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
> > differences, but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
> > results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.
> >
>
>
> "shouldn't have shown differences"? That certainly is
> presumptive, determing the answer before the test.
> So, thanks for proving you went into the test haveing a bias
> that you would find no difference.
>

Where did I say that I thought that there shouldn't be a difference before I
did the test? Reading comprehension and the logical ability to parse the
English language is a real problem around here isn't it? Often I've not
known the exact measured performance of some items before I did the test, so
as not to prejudice it in any way. Afterwards, when quantified, there were
no differences that should have been audible, that is, any differences were
below what would have been predicted to be audible after I refered to the
literature on psychoacoustics. Don't assume that I knew where those limits
were before performing a test in every case.

>
>
> ----== 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
=----

severian

May 15th 05, 10:33 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> >
> > And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been
part
> > of
> > one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous times.
> > People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've
> > never
> > participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
> > opinions
> > are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and
> > toe
> > downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.
> >
>
> What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
> not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
> have to participate in one to know that. It's like
> bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
> I would not have had to have done that to understand how
> idiotic it would be.

I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen to music,
you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are making
comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of them,
which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled testing is
directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't makes no
sense at all.

severian

May 15th 05, 10:34 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> >> but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
> >> results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.
> >
> >
>
> Where do they manufacture 'ponderation systems',
> on the Ponderosa?

I think Hoss was in charge of that branch...

Clyde Slick

May 15th 05, 10:36 PM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>

> I think you're a poorly coded Turing Machine.
>

George, I think he's in love with you.

----== 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 =----

George M. Middius

May 15th 05, 10:45 PM

severianborg said:

> Ah, labeling me, dehumanizing and objectifying me already, first resort of
> someone who either has no intelligent argument, or who cares only about
> rabble rousing.

If an intelligent argument is what you want, why are you babbling on the
stupid side of nonsensical issue?

> > If you call the Zippy exercise a "test", then you can take home the trophy
> > on this one.

> It was a test, you may not think it was a good test, but it meets the
> definition of test.

No, it does not.

> Attempts to create confusion by semantic mislabeling is
> another cheap trick.

Sorry, pinhead, but words have meanings. Just because you don't know the
correct word for something doesn't mean you get to choose whichever word you
want. It was not a test. It was an exercise, a prelude to a demonstration, a
mockup of a test.... pick your poison. But a test it was not.

> > Is that why you sound like a raging bull being stuck by picadors?

> Better that than sounding like a neurotic, obsessive compulsive who as far
> as can be determined by his/her comments doesn't even own a stereo.

Is that the side of you we will soon have the pleasure of discovering?

> > Oh, I see now -- you do the "tests" for fun. And Normal people who listen to
> > music for enjoyment aren't having the right kind of "fun".

[snip incoherent rambling]
> (well, not entirely a hobby for me, I do get paid for it)

You get for what, exactly?

As an aside, you could mitigate your poor communication skills somewhat by
fixing your newsreader so it doesn't Kroogerize quoted text.

Clyde Slick

May 15th 05, 10:46 PM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "severian" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been
> part
>> > of
>> > one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous
>> > times.
>> > People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've
>> > never
>> > participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
>> > opinions
>> > are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel
>> > and
>> > toe
>> > downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.
>> >
>>
>> What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
>> not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
>> have to participate in one to know that. It's like
>> bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
>> I would not have had to have done that to understand how
>> idiotic it would be.
>
> I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen to music,
> you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are making
> comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of them,
> which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled testing
> is
> directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't makes no
> sense at all.
>
>

You are so wrong. We are not commenting upon
the audibility of sounds. We are commenting upon
our preferences for the equipment we choose for listening to music.

----== 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 =----

George M. Middius

May 15th 05, 10:47 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > I think you're a poorly coded Turing Machine.

> George, I think he's in love with you.

Did you see him foaming at the mouth about magic and Shakti stones? You
don't want to get between a 'borg and his meters.

severian

May 15th 05, 10:52 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "severian" > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been
> > part
> >> > of
> >> > one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous
> >> > times.
> >> > People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests
they've
> >> > never
> >> > participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
> >> > opinions
> >> > are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel
> >> > and
> >> > toe
> >> > downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.
> >> >
> >>
> >> What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
> >> not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
> >> have to participate in one to know that. It's like
> >> bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
> >> I would not have had to have done that to understand how
> >> idiotic it would be.
> >
> > I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen to
music,
> > you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are making
> > comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of them,
> > which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled testing
> > is
> > directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't makes
no
> > sense at all.
> >
> >
>
> You are so wrong. We are not commenting upon
> the audibility of sounds. We are commenting upon
> our preferences for the equipment we choose for listening to music.

No, your preferences are not subject to argument, if you like X or Y, that's
fine. It's when comments like "Adcom amps suck" or "it sounds better
because" occur that makes controlled testing and the results relevant. When
you state that your preferences are predicated on there actually being a
difference in sound, then the ability to prove or disprove that such a
difference exists becomes relevant to the discussion. If you don't want to
get involved in the whole testing argument and such, just state your
preferences, but when you attempt to make your observations transportable to
other people or environments, then that's a different matter.

George M. Middius

May 15th 05, 10:59 PM

severianborg said:

> It's when comments like "Adcom amps suck" or "it sounds better
> because" occur that makes controlled testing and the results relevant. When
> you state that your preferences are predicated on there actually being a
> difference in sound, then the ability to prove or disprove that such a
> difference exists becomes relevant to the discussion.

Mental masturbation alert!

severian

May 15th 05, 11:02 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> severianborg said:
>
> > Ah, labeling me, dehumanizing and objectifying me already, first resort
of
> > someone who either has no intelligent argument, or who cares only about
> > rabble rousing.
>
> If an intelligent argument is what you want, why are you babbling on the
> stupid side of nonsensical issue?

Stupid in who's view, yours? Nonsensical, same comment.
If an intelligent argument is what I want, why am I on rec.audio.opinion, if
anything it's gotten worse over the years...

>
> > > If you call the Zippy exercise a "test", then you can take home the
trophy
> > > on this one.
>
> > It was a test, you may not think it was a good test, but it meets the
> > definition of test.
>
> No, it does not.

Test:

# A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence,
quality, or truth of something; a trial: a test of one's eyesight;
subjecting a hypothesis to a test; a test of an athlete's endurance.
# A series of questions, problems, or physical responses designed to
determine knowledge, intelligence, or ability.
# A basis for evaluation or judgment

You were saying?
Calling it an exercise is disingenous at best.
Or is it your assertion that he wasn't attempting to show his ability with
it.

He sure was claiming he was going to ace that TEST in his posts leading up
to the event. Attempting to artificially and semantically shift the purpose
of it is not going to change the fact that he failed miserably, and wasn't
honest enough to admit it.

>
> > Attempts to create confusion by semantic mislabeling is
> > another cheap trick.
>
> Sorry, pinhead, but words have meanings. Just because you don't know the
> correct word for something doesn't mean you get to choose whichever word
you
> want. It was not a test. It was an exercise, a prelude to a demonstration,
a
> mockup of a test.... pick your poison. But a test it was not.
>
>
> > > Is that why you sound like a raging bull being stuck by picadors?
>
> > Better that than sounding like a neurotic, obsessive compulsive who as
far
> > as can be determined by his/her comments doesn't even own a stereo.
>
> Is that the side of you we will soon have the pleasure of discovering?
>
>
> > > Oh, I see now -- you do the "tests" for fun. And Normal people who
listen to
> > > music for enjoyment aren't having the right kind of "fun".
>
> [snip incoherent rambling]
> > (well, not entirely a hobby for me, I do get paid for it)
>
> You get for what, exactly?

I get paid for audio design and acoustical measurements. The fact that in
this area my vocation and avocation overlap is one of life's little rewards,
getting to do what I enjoy.

>
> As an aside, you could mitigate your poor communication skills somewhat by
> fixing your newsreader so it doesn't Kroogerize quoted text.

um, no?

Robert Morein

May 15th 05, 11:10 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:EsLhe.6238$It1.4381@lakeread02...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> I think the Hafler might be overkill for the application I have in
mind.
> >> I
> >> am using bookshelfs and have a fairly smallish listening room. If it
> > helps,
> >> my music tastes center around rock, guitar-centric jazz and
electronica.
> >>
> > You can get them really cheap on eBay.
> > Ridiculously cheap.
> > They build these things no frills for the pro market, yet they sound
> > exceptional, because the circuit topology is unique
>
> Can you be more specific? Exactly what is so unique about the Hafler
> topology?
>
> ScottW
>
The Transnova Haflers, as opposed to the older ones, really are quite
unique, perhaps as unique as switching amps, but in their own way.

When MOSFET amplifiers were introduced, they were acclaimed for their
smoothness. These amplifiers can draw considerable bias current and run hot,
yet require no protection against thermal runaway, the bane of bipolar and
IGFET designs. They are free of crossover distortion. Some designs, however,
have been criticized for the so-called "MOSFET mist". A standard MOSFET
design is inherently soft-clipping, because the outputs cannot be driven
into saturation, because the gate voltage would have to be raised above the
drain voltage, which is usually the maximum rail in a design.

The Transnova circuit is radically different. The entire power supply bridge
rectifier floats with respect to ground, connected to ground through
alternate push-pull arrays of MOSFETs. The MOSFETS swing the entire bridge.
With this setup, the outputs can be driven into saturation with a 23 volt
rail, which, in Transnova amplifiers, is provided by a regulated supply.

These amplifiers have a huge damping factor. At the time the TNT-200 was
introduced, it was specified as unmeasurably high, so high that fuses were
omitted because the resistance in the fuse would compromise this remarkable
characteristic. Together with the regulated low voltage supply, they seem to
maintain the damping factor at high volume levels, which means that a small
Transnova amp can provide big bass.

They also have phenomenal bandwidth. My Acoustat TNT-200 amps, the original
design, are flat -3dB out to 400 kHz. The reason is simple: the output
devices actually produce gain, as opposed to the original design, where they
were merely impedance converters. Consequently, a Transnova design can be
accomplished with only three gain stages. Since the signal transit time is
reduced, there is no need to limit bandwidth to achieve stability. Contrast
this with many of the amps currently being sold today, which sag at 50 kHz.

Unfortunately, Acoustat, Hafler, and their descendent, Rockford, have been
unable to reap the full rewards of this technological prowess, because audio
does not sell on merit. In large part, I fault the audio press, including
Stereophile, for their failure to spotlight this technology. But in truth,
the amps are so damn good, and so cheap, they would pose a severe menace to
the cognitive dissonance that plagues audiophilia.

The Transnova design performs best with soft dome tweeters, as well as the
new Audax and Vifa ring tweeters. It does well with aluminum domes, matches
poorly to titanium domes, and curiously, doesn't do well with the
VonSchweikert Juniors, even though they have soft domes. It works magically
well with KEF Reference III, Kef Q1's, Polk LSi11, and old AR's. The extreme
speed of this design -- slew rate of 165 volts/microsecond, seems to wake
resonances in some metal domes that are better left to sleep.

It can tame any woofer.

Clyde Slick

May 15th 05, 11:11 PM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "severian" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "severian" > wrote in message
>> >> ink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been
>> > part
>> >> > of
>> >> > one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous
>> >> > times.
>> >> > People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests
> they've
>> >> > never
>> >> > participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
>> >> > opinions
>> >> > are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel
>> >> > and
>> >> > toe
>> >> > downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
>> >> not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
>> >> have to participate in one to know that. It's like
>> >> bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
>> >> I would not have had to have done that to understand how
>> >> idiotic it would be.
>> >
>> > I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen to
> music,
>> > you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are making
>> > comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of them,
>> > which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled
>> > testing
>> > is
>> > directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't makes
> no
>> > sense at all.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You are so wrong. We are not commenting upon
>> the audibility of sounds. We are commenting upon
>> our preferences for the equipment we choose for listening to music.
>
> No, your preferences are not subject to argument, if you like X or Y,
> that's
> fine. It's when comments like "Adcom amps suck" or "it sounds better
> because" occur that makes controlled testing and the results relevant.
> When
> you state that your preferences are predicated on there actually being a
> difference in sound, then the ability to prove or disprove that such a
> difference exists becomes relevant to the discussion. If you don't want to
> get involved in the whole testing argument and such, just state your
> preferences, but when you attempt to make your observations transportable
> to
> other people or environments, then that's a different matter.
>

Look, its a given, in our conversations here, that when we say that
something
'sucks', or 'sounds better than' something else that such statements are
individual opinions, and not offered as statements of fact. And we don't
need to preface each utterance with such a proviso, it is a a given here, on
rec.audio.OPINION. I think that your type might be much happier
posting on rec.audio.TECH.

----== 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 =----

Sander deWaal

May 15th 05, 11:36 PM

"Robert Morein" > said:

>The Transnova Haflers, as opposed to the older ones, really are quite
>unique, perhaps as unique as switching amps, but in their own way.

>When MOSFET amplifiers were introduced, they were acclaimed for their
>smoothness. These amplifiers can draw considerable bias current and run hot,
>yet require no protection against thermal runaway, the bane of bipolar and
>IGFET designs.

Most MOSFET designs using the Hitachi types, are/were used in source
follower configuration.
As such, the "smoothness" could well stem from their relatively high
output impedance (Rds-on), just like a tube amplifier.
One can even use the highish Cgs to "emulate" high-rolloff" just like
a crappy cathodyne tube phase inverter ;-)

A matter of preference, indeed.

> They are free of crossover distortion.

That would depend on the applied bias.

> Some designs, however,
>have been criticized for the so-called "MOSFET mist". A standard MOSFET
>design is inherently soft-clipping, because the outputs cannot be driven
>into saturation, because the gate voltage would have to be raised above the
>drain voltage, which is usually the maximum rail in a design.

The 2SK135/2SJ50 MOSFET family doesn't know saturation.
The limit, again, is their Rds-on, which is fairly high for a single
pair. That, and the limited Vg of +/- 12 V.
Even in the Transnova circuit this is the case, even with 3 pairs in
push pull. At least still higher than a single BJT pair in the usual
emitter follower circuit.

>The Transnova circuit is radically different. The entire power supply bridge
>rectifier floats with respect to ground, connected to ground through
>alternate push-pull arrays of MOSFETs. The MOSFETS swing the entire bridge.
>With this setup, the outputs can be driven into saturation with a 23 volt
>rail, which, in Transnova amplifiers, is provided by a regulated supply.
>
>These amplifiers have a huge damping factor. At the time the TNT-200 was
>introduced, it was specified as unmeasurably high, so high that fuses were
>omitted because the resistance in the fuse would compromise this remarkable
>characteristic. Together with the regulated low voltage supply, they seem to
>maintain the damping factor at high volume levels, which means that a small
>Transnova amp can provide big bass.

Strickland wasn't a fool.
However, the circuit suffers from several well-known MOSFET problems
as well.
Rds-on in CDC is still high.
One of the unique features of his TNT200 design was the feedback
topology, IMHO. I'm quoting from memory here.
Remind me to look up the schematics, they're in a box somewhere, still
unpacked after the move.

>They also have phenomenal bandwidth. My Acoustat TNT-200 amps, the original
>design, are flat -3dB out to 400 kHz. The reason is simple: the output
>devices actually produce gain, as opposed to the original design, where they
>were merely impedance converters. Consequently, a Transnova design can be
>accomplished with only three gain stages. Since the signal transit time is
>reduced, there is no need to limit bandwidth to achieve stability. Contrast
>this with many of the amps currently being sold today, which sag at 50 kHz.

High bandwidht is both the blessing and the curse of MOSFETs.
It's hard to NOT get 1 MHz of bandwidth out of a powerstage, unless
one's deliberately damping the gate drive (in order to prevent
oscillations).

--

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

John Atkinson

May 15th 05, 11:42 PM

Robert Morein wrote:
> Unfortunately, Acoustat, Hafler, and their descendent, Rockford,
> have been unable to reap the full rewards of this technological
> prowess, because audio does not sell on merit. In large part, I
> fault the audio press, including Stereophile, for their failure
> to spotlight this technology.

Hi Bob, Stereophile raved over Jim Strickland's ingenious TransNova
topology back at the end of the 1980s and the Hafler amps using
it were very highly reviewed in my magazine. I have no idea why
the amps failed to gain market traction, but I don't think it was
because we didn't spotlight the technology.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Robert Morein

May 15th 05, 11:46 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
> >The Transnova Haflers, as opposed to the older ones, really are quite
> >unique, perhaps as unique as switching amps, but in their own way.
>
> >When MOSFET amplifiers were introduced, they were acclaimed for their
> >smoothness. These amplifiers can draw considerable bias current and run
hot,
> >yet require no protection against thermal runaway, the bane of bipolar
and
> >IGFET designs.
>
>
> Most MOSFET designs using the Hitachi types, are/were used in source
> follower configuration.
> As such, the "smoothness" could well stem from their relatively high
> output impedance (Rds-on), just like a tube amplifier.

That's part of it, though the output impedance is also a function of
feedback.
There are also the following:
1. In order to turn a MOSFET all the way on, the gate voltage has to be
raised 0.6 volts above the drain voltage.
2. The drain capacitance is substantial, making the dynamic load for the
driver circuit a difficult one.

Robert Morein

May 15th 05, 11:52 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> I have no idea why
> the amps failed to gain market traction, but I don't think it was
> because we didn't spotlight the technology.

Maybe it was because you DID! Seems like the only successful audio products
are those NOT reviewed by Stereophile.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 12:05 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > Unfortunately, Acoustat, Hafler, and their descendent, Rockford,
> > have been unable to reap the full rewards of this technological
> > prowess, because audio does not sell on merit. In large part, I
> > fault the audio press, including Stereophile, for their failure
> > to spotlight this technology.
>
> Hi Bob, Stereophile raved over Jim Strickland's ingenious TransNova
> topology back at the end of the 1980s and the Hafler amps using
> it were very highly reviewed in my magazine. I have no idea why
> the amps failed to gain market traction, but I don't think it was
> because we didn't spotlight the technology.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
I think one of the reasons is that the marketing geniuses at Rockford/Hafler
did not realize that, with audio, it is constantly necessary to come up with
new packages of technology/appearance in order to maintain novelty and
exposure. In the case of DACs and speakers, this is very easy. But suppose
you have invented an extraordinary amplifier, which has no further
evolutionary path? What do you do? It is now clear that you go to the
Chinese manufacturers, who can come up with a new anodizing scheme every
year, or you go broke.

The audio press is complicit in this. But perhaps you're as stuck as they
are; the business of staying in the magazine business is a brutal one. This
is why my style of Stereophile "bashing" is so muted. But here's a positive
step you could take: establish an "ugly duckling" class of componentry.
Eligible for review would be components that make no concessions to
appearance. You could be instrumental in the revival of the original U.S.
closet industry, which traditionally focused on the biggest
bang-for-the-buck, while providing an entry for young enthusiasts, who at
their stage of their life, require no antidote to sexual frustration.

Dave Hafler, when he introduced the DH-200, originally intended that the
amplifier be placed out of sight, behind furniture. His logical mind could
conceive of no reason why anyone would want to see an amplifier. Mine are
stuck in a walk-in closet.

Fear not that "ugly ducking componentry" could compromise Stereophile's main
emphasis. While some readers might be astonished to learn that good sound
does not depend on blue LEDs, the vast majority would remain committed to
the purpose of building their little Hindu altars.

I read Stereophile's first "classic" review, but that thrust is not
coincident with the purpose I propose.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 12:27 AM

Schizoid Man

May 16th 05, 12:39 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> The Transnova design performs best with soft dome tweeters, as well as the
> new Audax and Vifa ring tweeters. It does well with aluminum domes,
> matches
> poorly to titanium domes, and curiously, doesn't do well with the
> VonSchweikert Juniors, even though they have soft domes. It works
> magically
> well with KEF Reference III, Kef Q1's, Polk LSi11, and old AR's. The
> extreme
> speed of this design -- slew rate of 165 volts/microsecond, seems to wake
> resonances in some metal domes that are better left to sleep.

Since I have titanium domes, the Haflers might not make be such a good
choice after all.

severian

May 16th 05, 01:25 AM

How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a high damping
factor?

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
> >The Transnova Haflers, as opposed to the older ones, really are quite
> >unique, perhaps as unique as switching amps, but in their own way.
>
> >When MOSFET amplifiers were introduced, they were acclaimed for their
> >smoothness. These amplifiers can draw considerable bias current and run
hot,
> >yet require no protection against thermal runaway, the bane of bipolar
and
> >IGFET designs.
>
>
> Most MOSFET designs using the Hitachi types, are/were used in source
> follower configuration.
> As such, the "smoothness" could well stem from their relatively high
> output impedance (Rds-on), just like a tube amplifier.
> One can even use the highish Cgs to "emulate" high-rolloff" just like
> a crappy cathodyne tube phase inverter ;-)
>
> A matter of preference, indeed.
>
>
> > They are free of crossover distortion.
>
>
> That would depend on the applied bias.
>
>
> > Some designs, however,
> >have been criticized for the so-called "MOSFET mist". A standard MOSFET
> >design is inherently soft-clipping, because the outputs cannot be driven
> >into saturation, because the gate voltage would have to be raised above
the
> >drain voltage, which is usually the maximum rail in a design.
>
>
> The 2SK135/2SJ50 MOSFET family doesn't know saturation.
> The limit, again, is their Rds-on, which is fairly high for a single
> pair. That, and the limited Vg of +/- 12 V.
> Even in the Transnova circuit this is the case, even with 3 pairs in
> push pull. At least still higher than a single BJT pair in the usual
> emitter follower circuit.
>
>
> >The Transnova circuit is radically different. The entire power supply
bridge
> >rectifier floats with respect to ground, connected to ground through
> >alternate push-pull arrays of MOSFETs. The MOSFETS swing the entire
bridge.
> >With this setup, the outputs can be driven into saturation with a 23 volt
> >rail, which, in Transnova amplifiers, is provided by a regulated supply.
> >
> >These amplifiers have a huge damping factor. At the time the TNT-200 was
> >introduced, it was specified as unmeasurably high, so high that fuses
were
> >omitted because the resistance in the fuse would compromise this
remarkable
> >characteristic. Together with the regulated low voltage supply, they seem
to
> >maintain the damping factor at high volume levels, which means that a
small
> >Transnova amp can provide big bass.
>
>
> Strickland wasn't a fool.
> However, the circuit suffers from several well-known MOSFET problems
> as well.
> Rds-on in CDC is still high.
> One of the unique features of his TNT200 design was the feedback
> topology, IMHO. I'm quoting from memory here.
> Remind me to look up the schematics, they're in a box somewhere, still
> unpacked after the move.
>
>
> >They also have phenomenal bandwidth. My Acoustat TNT-200 amps, the
original
> >design, are flat -3dB out to 400 kHz. The reason is simple: the output
> >devices actually produce gain, as opposed to the original design, where
they
> >were merely impedance converters. Consequently, a Transnova design can be
> >accomplished with only three gain stages. Since the signal transit time
is
> >reduced, there is no need to limit bandwidth to achieve stability.
Contrast
> >this with many of the amps currently being sold today, which sag at 50
kHz.
>
>
> High bandwidht is both the blessing and the curse of MOSFETs.
> It's hard to NOT get 1 MHz of bandwidth out of a powerstage, unless
> one's deliberately damping the gate drive (in order to prevent
> oscillations).
>
> --
>
> "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
> - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 01:32 AM

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > The Transnova design performs best with soft dome tweeters, as well as
the
> > new Audax and Vifa ring tweeters. It does well with aluminum domes,
> > matches
> > poorly to titanium domes, and curiously, doesn't do well with the
> > VonSchweikert Juniors, even though they have soft domes. It works
> > magically
> > well with KEF Reference III, Kef Q1's, Polk LSi11, and old AR's. The
> > extreme
> > speed of this design -- slew rate of 165 volts/microsecond, seems to
wake
> > resonances in some metal domes that are better left to sleep.
>
> Since I have titanium domes, the Haflers might not make be such a good
> choice after all.
>
True.
However, there is another choice, that works quite well with such
bookshelves: the Hafler Excelinear circuit. Specifically, the XL-280. An
evolution of the original DH series, it has a tuned circuit in the output
stage that can be adjusted by the user to reduce distortion to what Dave
Hafler claimed could not be matched by conventional designs. Conventionally,
this was done with the loan by a dealer of a Hafler nulling box, but I have
done it by ear. One review, possibly by Audio, stated that the degree of
resolution of low level detail was the best experienced.
Not a great match for low efficiency bass drivers, although Rich Hollis
reports a wonderful match with his top-of-the line VonSchweikert VR-7.
The XL-280 is a compact 31 lb brick that delivers 145wpc into 8 ohms, 200
wpc into four ohms, 400watts/8 ohms bridged. It has a dual mono supply, with
six MOSFETs per side. It's so small and so heavy, you'll be amazed at the
density.

I use a bridged pair to drive NEAR50m's. It's da' bomb! A related amp, the
XL-600, is still widely used in recording studios.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 01:37 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a high damping
> factor?
>
Amplifier dynamic impedance is not determined by the impedance of the output
devices, at least not grossly.
In theory, you can get any damping factor you want, provided the output
stage is part of the global feedback loop, and the feedback loop leaves the
poles in the left-hand plane.
The lower the internal signal transit time, the faster the feedback loop can
be.

SanDerWaal's comment about high Rdc is also relevant. But from the results,
it is apparent that there are circuit topologies that get around these
problems, as well as solutions that look like they might work, but don't.

severian

May 16th 05, 01:45 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a high damping
> > factor?
> >
> Amplifier dynamic impedance is not determined by the impedance of the
output
> devices, at least not grossly.
> In theory, you can get any damping factor you want, provided the output
> stage is part of the global feedback loop, and the feedback loop leaves
the
> poles in the left-hand plane.
> The lower the internal signal transit time, the faster the feedback loop
can
> be.
>
> SanDerWaal's comment about high Rdc is also relevant. But from the
results,
> it is apparent that there are circuit topologies that get around these
> problems, as well as solutions that look like they might work, but don't.
>
>

Interesting, I'm going to have to go back and refresh myself with respect to
amplifier design (I mainly do acoustic measurements and loudspeaker design).
However, from my memory damping factor was defined as the inverse of output
impedence, hence my question.

Unless dynamic impedance has a different connotation from what I was taught
was output impedance.

If you'd care to comment, I'd be interested. I am not sure how much longer
I'm going to be at this machine (probably thru tomorrow at least). I'm
cleaning up some LP to CD recordings I recently made at a friends work
machine. They're turning out just about perfect. (Woo Hoo, finally a really
good CD copy of The Mysterious Flying Orchestra) After that I usually don't
get on Usenet much.

The comment about not mating well with titanium domes would seem to me to
indicate some ultrasonic nastiness in the amp, something that the extended
HF response of titanium domes, coupled with their tendency to breakup and
resonate at very high freqs, could make problematic. FWIW, I think most
metal domes are the audio incarnation of the AntiChrist, I find few that I
can live with, and even fewer that I enjoy the sound of.

severian

May 16th 05, 01:54 AM

Clyde Slick

May 16th 05, 01:58 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
rdnews.com...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>> I have no idea why
>> the amps failed to gain market traction, but I don't think it was
>> because we didn't spotlight the technology.
>
> Maybe it was because you DID! Seems like the only successful audio
> products
> are those NOT reviewed by Stereophile.
>

oh yeah?
such as products from

Meridian
Vandersteen
Quad electrostats
NHT
PSB
Velodyne
Carver
Grado

et al?

----== 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

May 16th 05, 01:59 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> rdnews.com...
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>> > I have no idea why
>> > the amps failed to gain market traction, but I don't think it was
>> > because we didn't spotlight the technology.
>>
>> Maybe it was because you DID! Seems like the only successful audio
> products
>> are those NOT reviewed by Stereophile.
>>
> Forgery.
>
>

Point taken.
I was surprised you would write such a thing.

----== 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 =----

Arny Krueger

May 16th 05, 02:27 AM

severian wrote:

> How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a
high damping
> factor?

Violate the well-known laws of physics.

The person making said claim could have a hard time passing
a 2nd year undergraduate electrical engineering course in
electrical circuits.

severian

May 16th 05, 02:36 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> severian wrote:
>
> > How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a
> high damping
> > factor?
>
> Violate the well-known laws of physics.
>
> The person making said claim could have a hard time passing
> a 2nd year undergraduate electrical engineering course in
> electrical circuits.
>
>

Possibly, as I said amp design isn't my primary interest, and it's been a
while.

I certainly recall nothing other than the inverse of output impedance, which
was the definition of damping factor.

Arny Krueger

May 16th 05, 02:53 AM

Robert Morein wrote:
> "severian" > wrote in message
>
nk.net...

>> How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a
high damping
>> factor?

> Amplifier dynamic impedance is not determined by the
impedance of the
> output devices, at least not grossly.

True, the amp's output impedance is based on the impedance
of the whole amplifier, not just the output devices.

> In theory, you can get any damping factor you want,
provided the
> output stage is part of the global feedback loop, and the
feedback
> loop leaves the poles in the left-hand plane.

IOW, it's stable.

> The lower the internal signal transit time, the faster the
feedback
> loop can be.

How things generally are, these days.

Arny Krueger

May 16th 05, 02:59 AM

severian wrote:

> The comment about not mating well with titanium domes
would seem to
> me to indicate some ultrasonic nastiness in the amp,
something that
> the extended HF response of titanium domes, coupled with
their
> tendency to breakup and resonate at very high freqs, could
make
> problematic.

I suspect that the comment about not mating well with
titanium domes is bogus.

> FWIW, I think most metal domes are the audio incarnation
> of the AntiChrist, I find few that I can live with, and
even fewer
> that I enjoy the sound of.

Often there's a resonance around 25-35 Khz. The resonance
itself is outside the audible range, but due to its moderate
Q, it can cause aberrations in the audible range. However,
fabric domes can have resonances in this range as well.

As always, the details of an implementation are not as
important as how the whole implementation comes together in
actual use.

Joseph Oberlander

May 16th 05, 03:05 AM

>>Rotel, NAD, Adcom, maybe Arcam. Ideally I would like to not spend more
>
> than
>
>>$275 to $300 on each unit, hence my desire to buy used.

I'd look at used McIntosh myself or an old Yamaha CA
series in mint condition. I have a couple of CA-1000s
running my HT setup and it's great. Will it drive a pair
of stats or a stack at a rock concert? No. But it will
get the job done and take years to break down or need
repairs.

A Yamaha CA/CT combo is a very nice choice, IMO, for that
sort of money(though the tuner is pretty optional, it's
nice)

Arny Krueger

May 16th 05, 03:06 AM

severian wrote:

> There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's
much much
> more like what people call "real" listening, there's no
time limit
> required.

This has been done. However, so-called *real* listening
which no double means sighted listening, is not the standard
for listening tests.

> It generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity
> to small differences,

This can be stated, but there is no proof, not even any
reliable evidence for the statement.

> but it can be done, and I've done same, with
> the same null results on things that shouldn't have shown
differences.

DBTs produce positive results when there are audible
differences to hear. Self-serving anti-DBT critics have
claimed that there are no reliable means other than DBTs for
determining what the audible thresholds are. Were this true,
then the only means for verifying DBTs would another DBT, a
situation with obvious logical failings.

People who have studied the science of psychoacoustics,
including the landmark work of Zwicker and Fastl know that
there are means other than DBTs for determinnig what the
audible thresholds are. Anybody who says that only DBTs have
been used to determine the threshold of audiblity are simply
exposing their ignorance or their dishonesty.

Arny Krueger

May 16th 05, 03:16 AM

severian wrote:

> Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point
is,
> REGARDLESS of whether or not you or anyone else feels the
test was
> properly conducted, he FAILED to discern the difference IN
THIS TEST,
> therefore it is not OPINION, but FACT. Obviously you have
a
> significant challenge wrt understanding the difference.

Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same cop-out. They
failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the number of
trials they attempted. Anybody who wants to can take a
scientifically-represenatiatve DBT with any reasonable
number of trials, whenever they want to. Atkinson has had at
least 27 years to take such a test and make the results
publicly available. A few less years for Fremer, or not.
Zippy rest his soul it gone now, but he did not lack the
reasonable opportunity to take a proper DBT while he was
alive.

> And ol'Zipperhead was one of the most bloviated and
dishonest people
> it's been my displeasure to ever know, his claim he was
zeroing in on
> it is bull****, and that was most definitely not the story
right
> after the test, but after he'd had time to come up with
some kind of
> bull to cover his deafness.

While your comments are harsh, they are IME representative.

>he day after the test, indeed later in
> the day of the test, his posted thoughts were that he
definitely
> couldn't tell the difference, and he was taken aback and
was really
> acting as if he had to rethink his views.

He was apparently shocked into honesty, but he quickly came
to back his usual *sensibilities*, which were as you said.

> Then his usual attitude and
> ego stepped back in and away he went into lies and
obsfucation, which
> was his classical approach to everything.

Agreed.

>If he ripped off a customer
> and they complained, why, the customer was trying to
attack him with
> no provocation.

Us old-timers saw a number of examples of that acted out
right here on RAO.

>Yeah, I can flip a coin there times, get 2 heads,
> then stop and CLAIM I was about to get statistically
significant
> increase in the number of heads that come up, doesn't mean
anything.

Exactly.

> Amazing ain't it, everytime one of your subjectivist ilk
gets their
> metaphorical ass handed to them, the test is always
faulty, whine,
> moan, ****, wheeze, blubber...a real fool is one who, when
an
> opportunity is offered to learn something, not only
doesn't but
> attacks the people offering him the chance.

The last 7 years postings on RAO are proof of that.

severian

May 16th 05, 03:19 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> severian wrote:
>
> > There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's
> much much
> > more like what people call "real" listening, there's no
> time limit
> > required.
>
> This has been done. However, so-called *real* listening
> which no double means sighted listening, is not the standard
> for listening tests.
>
> > It generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity
> > to small differences,
>
> This can be stated, but there is no proof, not even any
> reliable evidence for the statement.
>

Don't understand, are you saying that greatly increasing the time between
switching stimuli improves detection? My experience, along with the
references I've read, indicate rapid switching between units under test
maximizes ability to detect slight differences.

> > but it can be done, and I've done same, with
> > the same null results on things that shouldn't have shown
> differences.
>
> DBTs produce positive results when there are audible
> differences to hear. Self-serving anti-DBT critics have
> claimed that there are no reliable means other than DBTs for
> determining what the audible thresholds are. Were this true,
> then the only means for verifying DBTs would another DBT, a
> situation with obvious logical failings.
>

In my experience that has been true. One one test, I was surprised to be
able to hear a difference between units under test. I intially pulled 8 of
10, then 10 of 10, then 9 of 10 trials. This was between two similar solid
state amps driving speakers that were not a terribly difficult load. Upon
investigation, I found that right before I performed the test I had
inadvertantly bumped the setup and induced a channel imbalance in one unit
of about 1.8 dB.

> People who have studied the science of psychoacoustics,
> including the landmark work of Zwicker and Fastl know that
> there are means other than DBTs for determinnig what the
> audible thresholds are. Anybody who says that only DBTs have
> been used to determine the threshold of audiblity are simply
> exposing their ignorance or their dishonesty.
>
>

Arny Krueger

May 16th 05, 03:19 AM

severian wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in
message
> ...
>>
>>
>> severianborg said:
>
> Ah, labeling me, dehumanizing and objectifying me already,
first
> resort of someone who either has no intelligent argument,
or who
> cares only about rabble rousing.

George Middius, right?

>>> Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I
don't care
>>> if it was a bogus test or not).

>> If you call the Zippy exercise a "test", then you can
take home the
>> trophy on this one.

> It was a test, you may not think it was a good test, but
it meets the
> definition of test. Attempts to create confusion by
semantic
> mislabeling is another cheap trick.

George Middius, right?

>>> And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs
have ever
>>> been part of one, let alone set them up themselves
correctly? I
>>> have, numerous times.

>> Is that why you sound like a raging bull being stuck by
picadors?

> Better that than sounding like a neurotic, obsessive
compulsive who
> as far as can be determined by his/her comments doesn't
even own a
> stereo.

George Middius, right?

>>> People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the
tests
>>> they've never participated in are engaging in serious
mental
>>> masturbation.

>> <snicker>

The Weil card gets played.

>>> Their opinions
>>> are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to
properly
>>> heel and toe downshift into a corner, considering he
doesn't know
>>> how to drive.

>> Oh, I see now -- you do the "tests" for fun. And Normal
people who
>> listen to music for enjoyment aren't having the right
kind of "fun".

> I do more things for "fun" than just plop my ass down on a
couch in
> front of a stereo, yes.

George Middius, right?

> I find the exploration of the engineering
> aspects of the hobby (well, not entirely a hobby for me, I
do get
> paid for it) and psychoacoustics to be fun and
interesting. And, if
> you're going to make some kind of claim that "normal
people" just
> listen to music for enjoyment, you can't be talking about
most
> subjective audiophiles. The kind of people who obsess
about things
> like wires, cables, magic bricks, and get depressed and
dissatisfied
> with a piece of gear they previously loved just because it
didn't get
> a good review are definitely not "just" enjoying music,
many of their
> antics are directly interfering with their ability to
listen to music
> for enjoyment. Now I'd agree that they are taking the act
of
> listening to or for equipment/artifacts for
amusement/enjoyment.
> Which is not exactly the same as listening to music for
enjoyment.

George Middius wants to have us believe otherwise. Trouble
is, facts such as the one presented in the previous
paragraph tie him in logical knots.

>> Perhaps you'd like to tell us how these "tests" you've
endured
>> enhanced your enjoyment of music or your sound system.

> It allowed me to determine what areas had real effects on
sound
> quality, and what were BS. That allowed me to spend money
and often
> more importantly time on areas and things that had a
direct and
> significant effect on sound quality, with the result that
my system
> sounds very very good, is very pleasing to me, makes music
in a way
> that I can listen to the music without worrying about the
system, and
> is very satisfying. It has also meant that I've been
satisfied with
> the sound, and haven't felt the need to constantly churn
gear or make
> changes for a fairly long time, other than add a new
source (or an
> old one, my "new" old 10.5 in open reel is way cool). I've
enjoyed
> the music, and mainly forgotten about the gear.

George Middius wants us to believe that the most important
parameter about a stereo is the discounted price that you
get on it.

> But then, you know all this, you only argue and make
insulting posts
> to satisfy whatever bizarre need you seem to have for
conflict and
> some perverse sense of self satisfaction/narcicism. I
still don't
> really believe you are real, I think you're a poorly coded
Turing
> Machine.

IOW, Middius is RAO's running joke.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 03:24 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "severian" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a high damping
> > > factor?
> > >
> > Amplifier dynamic impedance is not determined by the impedance of the
> output
> > devices, at least not grossly.
> > In theory, you can get any damping factor you want, provided the output
> > stage is part of the global feedback loop, and the feedback loop leaves
> the
> > poles in the left-hand plane.
> > The lower the internal signal transit time, the faster the feedback loop
> can
> > be.
> >
> > SanDerWaal's comment about high Rdc is also relevant. But from the
> results,
> > it is apparent that there are circuit topologies that get around these
> > problems, as well as solutions that look like they might work, but
don't.
> >
> >
>
> Interesting, I'm going to have to go back and refresh myself with respect
to
> amplifier design (I mainly do acoustic measurements and loudspeaker
design).
> However, from my memory damping factor was defined as the inverse of
output
> impedence, hence my question.
>
> Unless dynamic impedance has a different connotation from what I was
taught
> was output impedance.
>
It is identical.
You are correct about the definition of damping factor, though it can be an
erroneous specification, since it is typically measured under small signal
conditions. This is why amplifiers with an apparently high damping factor
spec can fail to control some woofers.

> If you'd care to comment, I'd be interested.
[snip]
Older MOSFETs have an on resistance of about an ohm. If an output stage
consisting of such a MOSFET were driving an 8 ohm load without feedback, the
maximum obtainable damping factor would be 8. Fortunately, this is not the
case. The MOSFET is commanded to control the output voltage stiffly by the
feedback loop. If there is a large voltage differential between the output
signal and the rail, the feedback loop has no difficulty driving the output
voltage to the required value. The residual, error value, R = delta V/I, is
the dynamic impedance of the amp. The inverse of this is the damping factor.

If the signal is large, the damping factor does not accurately represent the
dynamic impedance. As the difference between the supply rail and the
required output voltage dimishes, the internal DC resistances of the
amplifier become significant obstacles, and delta V increases. Under these
circumstances, the on-resistance of the output device is a significant
problem. Bipolar transistors are superior in this regard, though newer
MOSFETs have lower Rdc.

>
> The comment about not mating well with titanium domes would seem to me to
> indicate some ultrasonic nastiness in the amp, something that the extended
> HF response of titanium domes, coupled with their tendency to breakup and
> resonate at very high freqs, could make problematic. FWIW, I think most
> metal domes are the audio incarnation of the AntiChrist, I find few that I
> can live with, and even fewer that I enjoy the sound of.
>
There is no ultrasonic nastiness in the amp. As it has a feedback loop that
is competent to at least 400 kHz, there can't be any poles in the right half
plane. It does have extremely fast rise time. Slewing rate, typically
specced for small signal conditions, diminishes rapidly for an impulse that
takes it toward the supply rails. The Acoustat design doesn't slow down as
much as most other amps. Thus, an impulsive type noise, percussion, etc.
presents a tweeter with much more energy (impulse integrated over time)
than provided by a slower amp. IMHO, this excites the resonances so
frequently heard in titanium domes (I can't stand them either, with rare
exceptions.)

severian

May 16th 05, 03:24 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> severian wrote:
>
> > The comment about not mating well with titanium domes
> would seem to
> > me to indicate some ultrasonic nastiness in the amp,
> something that
> > the extended HF response of titanium domes, coupled with
> their
> > tendency to breakup and resonate at very high freqs, could
> make
> > problematic.
>
> I suspect that the comment about not mating well with
> titanium domes is bogus.

Perhaps. Also, instability is not something I associate with Hafler amps
either by experience or reputation.

>
> > FWIW, I think most metal domes are the audio incarnation
> > of the AntiChrist, I find few that I can live with, and
> even fewer
> > that I enjoy the sound of.
>
> Often there's a resonance around 25-35 Khz. The resonance
> itself is outside the audible range, but due to its moderate
> Q, it can cause aberrations in the audible range. However,
> fabric domes can have resonances in this range as well.
>
> As always, the details of an implementation are not as
> important as how the whole implementation comes together in
> actual use.

True of course, but then, to my ears of course, there are damned few metal
drivers period that I find acceptable. Most of the ones I can tolerate are
aluminum and not titanium. Of course, the worst thing I've ever heard a
tweeter made of is that awful inverted kevlar dome Focal used to make.

I attended an ALMA meeting where a paper on driver self noise was presented
that was interesting. More rigid drivers in general tended to have more self
noise, often sub harmonics of the breakup resonance, I recall a rigid cone
and several metal tweeters being particularly bad, the noise was not that
far below signal in some of them. And of course there are soft domes that
can and do have such problems in spades, but my design and listening
preference is for a well damped fabric dome.

Clyde Slick

May 16th 05, 03:31 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Would make an interesting test.
>
>

yawn

----== 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

May 16th 05, 03:35 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> severian wrote:
>>
>> > There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's
>> much much
>> > more like what people call "real" listening, there's no
>> time limit
>> > required.
>>
>> This has been done. However, so-called *real* listening
>> which no double means sighted listening, is not the standard
>> for listening tests.
>>
>> > It generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity
>> > to small differences,
>>
>> This can be stated, but there is no proof, not even any
>> reliable evidence for the statement.
>>
>
> Don't understand, are you saying that greatly increasing the time between
> switching stimuli improves detection? My experience, along with the
> references I've read, indicate rapid switching between units under test
> maximizes ability to detect slight differences.
>
>> > but it can be done, and I've done same, with
>> > the same null results on things that shouldn't have shown
>> differences.
>>
>> DBTs produce positive results when there are audible
>> differences to hear. Self-serving anti-DBT critics have
>> claimed that there are no reliable means other than DBTs for
>> determining what the audible thresholds are. Were this true,
>> then the only means for verifying DBTs would another DBT, a
>> situation with obvious logical failings.
>>
>
> In my experience that has been true. One one test, I was surprised to be
> able to hear a difference between units under test. I intially pulled 8 of
> 10, then 10 of 10, then 9 of 10 trials. This was between two similar solid
> state amps driving speakers that were not a terribly difficult load. Upon
> investigation, I found that right before I performed the test I had
> inadvertantly bumped the setup and induced a channel imbalance in one unit
> of about 1.8 dB.
>
>> People who have studied the science of psychoacoustics,
>> including the landmark work of Zwicker and Fastl know that
>> there are means other than DBTs for determinnig what the
>> audible thresholds are. Anybody who says that only DBTs have
>> been used to determine the threshold of audiblity are simply
>> exposing their ignorance or their dishonesty.
>>

I can't wait to see the inevitble parting of the ways.

----== 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 =----

Arny Krueger

May 16th 05, 03:38 AM

severian wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> severian wrote:

>>> There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's
>> much much
>>> more like what people call "real" listening, there's no
>> time limit
>>> required.

>> This has been done. However, so-called *real* listening
>> which no double means sighted listening, is not the
standard
>> for listening tests.

>>> It generally can be stated that it REDUCES the
sensitivity
>>> to small differences,

>> This can be stated, but there is no proof, not even any
>> reliable evidence for the statement.

> Don't understand, are you saying that greatly increasing
the time
> between switching stimuli improves detection?

I didn't know that I was addressing that issue at this
point.

As a rule, quick switching at stategic points optimizes
listener sensitivity.

> My experience, along
> with the references I've read, indicate rapid switching
between units
> under test maximizes ability to detect slight differences.

Agreed.

>>> but it can be done, and I've done same, with
>>> the same null results on things that shouldn't have
shown
>>> differences.

>> DBTs produce positive results when there are audible
>> differences to hear. Self-serving anti-DBT critics have
>> claimed that there are no reliable means other than DBTs
for
>> determining what the audible thresholds are. Were this
true,
>> then the only means for verifying DBTs would another DBT,
a
>> situation with obvious logical failings.

> In my experience that has been true. One one test, I was
surprised to
> be able to hear a difference between units under test. I
intially
> pulled 8 of 10, then 10 of 10, then 9 of 10 trials. This
was between
> two similar solid state amps driving speakers that were
not a
> terribly difficult load. Upon investigation, I found that
right
> before I performed the test I had inadvertantly bumped the
setup and
> induced a channel imbalance in one unit of about 1.8 dB.

You are probably aware of the "10 Requirements for Reliable
and Sensitive Listening Tests" posted at www.pcabx.com .
Atkinson seems to find them way too difficult for a person
with his limited resources, but they do help avoid problems
such as these.

George M. Middius

May 16th 05, 03:41 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> I can't wait to see the inevitble parting of the ways.

This reminds me of the parable about the little girl who picked up the
rattlesnake.

Clyde Slick

May 16th 05, 03:50 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> severian wrote:
>
> You are probably aware of the "10 Requirements for Reliable
> and Sensitive Listening Tests" posted at www.pcabx.com .

Severian, two bows and three genuflections are the required ritual.

----== 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 =----

severian

May 16th 05, 03:59 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > Would make an interesting test.
> >
> >
>
> yawn
>

Ah yes, ignorant, intend to remain so, and damn proud of it aren't you?

severian

May 16th 05, 04:06 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> You are probably aware of the "10 Requirements for Reliable
> and Sensitive Listening Tests" posted at www.pcabx.com .
> Atkinson seems to find them way too difficult for a person
> with his limited resources, but they do help avoid problems
> such as these.
>
>
>

Hadn't read your page until now, but those are rational and in line with
what I've seen referenced before.

The channel imbalance did not appear to be a difference in loudness, it
manifested itself as a significant difference in imaging between the two
amps. Definitely detectable, once corrected my ability to discern the
differences vanished as well.

Clyde Slick

May 16th 05, 04:07 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "severian" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >
>> > Would make an interesting test.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> yawn
>>
>
> Ah yes, ignorant, intend to remain so, and damn proud of it aren't you?
>
>

Do you need know every little technical detail of all items
and issues intersecting your life? Why not try living your life,
instead of obsessively examing technical minutia.
Look at how much time you waste, when you could be
relaxing and listening to music.

At any rate, the topic of your test is of no interest to me.
When something interests me sufficiently, I will endeavor
to learn more about it.

----== 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 =----

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 04:08 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > severian wrote:
> >
> > > The comment about not mating well with titanium domes
> > would seem to
> > > me to indicate some ultrasonic nastiness in the amp,
> > something that
> > > the extended HF response of titanium domes, coupled with
> > their
> > > tendency to breakup and resonate at very high freqs, could
> > make
> > > problematic.
> >
> > I suspect that the comment about not mating well with
> > titanium domes is bogus.
>
> Perhaps. Also, instability is not something I associate with Hafler amps
> either by experience or reputation.
>
> >
> > > FWIW, I think most metal domes are the audio incarnation
> > > of the AntiChrist, I find few that I can live with, and
> > even fewer
> > > that I enjoy the sound of.
> >
> > Often there's a resonance around 25-35 Khz. The resonance
> > itself is outside the audible range, but due to its moderate
> > Q, it can cause aberrations in the audible range. However,
> > fabric domes can have resonances in this range as well.
> >
> > As always, the details of an implementation are not as
> > important as how the whole implementation comes together in
> > actual use.
>
> True of course, but then, to my ears of course, there are damned few metal
> drivers period that I find acceptable. Most of the ones I can tolerate are
> aluminum and not titanium. Of course, the worst thing I've ever heard a
> tweeter made of is that awful inverted kevlar dome Focal used to make.
>
> I attended an ALMA meeting where a paper on driver self noise was
presented
> that was interesting. More rigid drivers in general tended to have more
self
> noise, often sub harmonics of the breakup resonance, I recall a rigid cone
> and several metal tweeters being particularly bad, the noise was not that
> far below signal in some of them. And of course there are soft domes that
> can and do have such problems in spades, but my design and listening
> preference is for a well damped fabric dome.
>
We are of the same mind and ears :)

severian

May 16th 05, 04:14 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "severian" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > > How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a high
damping
> > > > factor?
> > > >
> > > Amplifier dynamic impedance is not determined by the impedance of the
> > output
> > > devices, at least not grossly.
> > > In theory, you can get any damping factor you want, provided the
output
> > > stage is part of the global feedback loop, and the feedback loop
leaves
> > the
> > > poles in the left-hand plane.
> > > The lower the internal signal transit time, the faster the feedback
loop
> > can
> > > be.
> > >
> > > SanDerWaal's comment about high Rdc is also relevant. But from the
> > results,
> > > it is apparent that there are circuit topologies that get around these
> > > problems, as well as solutions that look like they might work, but
> don't.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Interesting, I'm going to have to go back and refresh myself with
respect
> to
> > amplifier design (I mainly do acoustic measurements and loudspeaker
> design).
> > However, from my memory damping factor was defined as the inverse of
> output
> > impedence, hence my question.
> >
> > Unless dynamic impedance has a different connotation from what I was
> taught
> > was output impedance.
> >
> It is identical.
> You are correct about the definition of damping factor, though it can be
an
> erroneous specification, since it is typically measured under small signal
> conditions. This is why amplifiers with an apparently high damping factor
> spec can fail to control some woofers.
>
> > If you'd care to comment, I'd be interested.
> [snip]
> Older MOSFETs have an on resistance of about an ohm. If an output stage
> consisting of such a MOSFET were driving an 8 ohm load without feedback,
the
> maximum obtainable damping factor would be 8. Fortunately, this is not the
> case. The MOSFET is commanded to control the output voltage stiffly by the
> feedback loop. If there is a large voltage differential between the output
> signal and the rail, the feedback loop has no difficulty driving the
output
> voltage to the required value. The residual, error value, R = delta V/I,
is
> the dynamic impedance of the amp. The inverse of this is the damping
factor.
>
> If the signal is large, the damping factor does not accurately represent
the
> dynamic impedance. As the difference between the supply rail and the
> required output voltage dimishes, the internal DC resistances of the
> amplifier become significant obstacles, and delta V increases. Under these
> circumstances, the on-resistance of the output device is a significant
> problem. Bipolar transistors are superior in this regard, though newer
> MOSFETs have lower Rdc.

Interesting. Any idea what the no NFB single ended MOSFET designs Pass
builds spec out as in terms of damping factor. If they are running the
MOSFETs such that the 1 ohm resistance is dominant, that would indicate a DF
of 1.

>
> >
> > The comment about not mating well with titanium domes would seem to me
to
> > indicate some ultrasonic nastiness in the amp, something that the
extended
> > HF response of titanium domes, coupled with their tendency to breakup
and
> > resonate at very high freqs, could make problematic. FWIW, I think most
> > metal domes are the audio incarnation of the AntiChrist, I find few that
I
> > can live with, and even fewer that I enjoy the sound of.
> >
> There is no ultrasonic nastiness in the amp. As it has a feedback loop
that
> is competent to at least 400 kHz, there can't be any poles in the right
half
> plane. It does have extremely fast rise time. Slewing rate, typically
> specced for small signal conditions, diminishes rapidly for an impulse
that
> takes it toward the supply rails. The Acoustat design doesn't slow down as
> much as most other amps. Thus, an impulsive type noise, percussion, etc.
> presents a tweeter with much more energy (impulse integrated over time)
> than provided by a slower amp. IMHO, this excites the resonances so
> frequently heard in titanium domes (I can't stand them either, with rare
> exceptions.)

Interesting theory. Would definitely make an interesting test, particulary
if you picked a speaker to use in the test with an especially nasty tweeter.
Like a Focal, or one of the old Yamaha beryllium domes. Morel and Dynaudio
soft domes need not apply eh?

Performed with source material with significant HF content, should lead to
an interesting test if the theory is true.

Clyde Slick

May 16th 05, 04:19 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>

>>
> We are of the same mind and ears :)
>
>

Congratulations on your assimilation.

----== 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 =----

severian

May 16th 05, 04:20 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> George Middius wants us to believe that the most important
> parameter about a stereo is the discounted price that you
> get on it.

Perhaps, but how do you know? I mean, in the years I've seen "him" post,
I've never run across him saying ANYTHING that leads me to believe he even
HAS an audio system. Granted I've never read much he posted, and most of
that by accident, but I mean, has he ever actually talked about audio or
equipment, I've only seen him insult and spread discontent.

Maybe he has a old set of AM-5's? That would explain his irritability...<g>

severian

May 16th 05, 04:24 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "severian" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >>
>
> >>
> > We are of the same mind and ears :)
> >
> >
>
> Congratulations on your assimilation.

Spoken like a true subjectivist clone...

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 04:25 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "severian" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "severian" > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net...
> > > > > How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a high
> damping
> > > > > factor?
> > > > >
> > > > Amplifier dynamic impedance is not determined by the impedance of
the
> > > output
> > > > devices, at least not grossly.
> > > > In theory, you can get any damping factor you want, provided the
> output
> > > > stage is part of the global feedback loop, and the feedback loop
> leaves
> > > the
> > > > poles in the left-hand plane.
> > > > The lower the internal signal transit time, the faster the feedback
> loop
> > > can
> > > > be.
> > > >
> > > > SanDerWaal's comment about high Rdc is also relevant. But from the
> > > results,
> > > > it is apparent that there are circuit topologies that get around
these
> > > > problems, as well as solutions that look like they might work, but
> > don't.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Interesting, I'm going to have to go back and refresh myself with
> respect
> > to
> > > amplifier design (I mainly do acoustic measurements and loudspeaker
> > design).
> > > However, from my memory damping factor was defined as the inverse of
> > output
> > > impedence, hence my question.
> > >
> > > Unless dynamic impedance has a different connotation from what I was
> > taught
> > > was output impedance.
> > >
> > It is identical.
> > You are correct about the definition of damping factor, though it can be
> an
> > erroneous specification, since it is typically measured under small
signal
> > conditions. This is why amplifiers with an apparently high damping
factor
> > spec can fail to control some woofers.
> >
> > > If you'd care to comment, I'd be interested.
> > [snip]
> > Older MOSFETs have an on resistance of about an ohm. If an output stage
> > consisting of such a MOSFET were driving an 8 ohm load without feedback,
> the
> > maximum obtainable damping factor would be 8. Fortunately, this is not
the
> > case. The MOSFET is commanded to control the output voltage stiffly by
the
> > feedback loop. If there is a large voltage differential between the
output
> > signal and the rail, the feedback loop has no difficulty driving the
> output
> > voltage to the required value. The residual, error value, R = delta V/I,
> is
> > the dynamic impedance of the amp. The inverse of this is the damping
> factor.
> >
> > If the signal is large, the damping factor does not accurately represent
> the
> > dynamic impedance. As the difference between the supply rail and the
> > required output voltage dimishes, the internal DC resistances of the
> > amplifier become significant obstacles, and delta V increases. Under
these
> > circumstances, the on-resistance of the output device is a significant
> > problem. Bipolar transistors are superior in this regard, though newer
> > MOSFETs have lower Rdc.
>
> Interesting. Any idea what the no NFB single ended MOSFET designs Pass
> builds spec out as in terms of damping factor. If they are running the
> MOSFETs such that the 1 ohm resistance is dominant, that would indicate a
DF
> of 1.
>
If the output device had an on-resistance of 1 ohm, and there was only one
device, and the speaker had a working impedance of 8 ohms, the damping
factor would be 8.
In http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/zenlite.pdf, Pass documents the damping factor
of the original Zen design as 8 relative to 8 ohms. Since then, he has
created many variations I have not examined.

> >
> > >
> > > The comment about not mating well with titanium domes would seem to me
> to
> > > indicate some ultrasonic nastiness in the amp, something that the
> extended
> > > HF response of titanium domes, coupled with their tendency to breakup
> and
> > > resonate at very high freqs, could make problematic. FWIW, I think
most
> > > metal domes are the audio incarnation of the AntiChrist, I find few
that
> I
> > > can live with, and even fewer that I enjoy the sound of.
> > >
> > There is no ultrasonic nastiness in the amp. As it has a feedback loop
> that
> > is competent to at least 400 kHz, there can't be any poles in the right
> half
> > plane. It does have extremely fast rise time. Slewing rate, typically
> > specced for small signal conditions, diminishes rapidly for an impulse
> that
> > takes it toward the supply rails. The Acoustat design doesn't slow down
as
> > much as most other amps. Thus, an impulsive type noise, percussion,
etc.
> > presents a tweeter with much more energy (impulse integrated over time)
> > than provided by a slower amp. IMHO, this excites the resonances so
> > frequently heard in titanium domes (I can't stand them either, with rare
> > exceptions.)
>
> Interesting theory. Would definitely make an interesting test, particulary
> if you picked a speaker to use in the test with an especially nasty
tweeter.
> Like a Focal, or one of the old Yamaha beryllium domes. Morel and Dynaudio
> soft domes need not apply eh?
>
The Dynaudio tweeters work extremely well with these amps. I may have a
Morel in another box; it's a big, bare, 1" fabric dome, and it works
exquisitely.

> Performed with source material with significant HF content, should lead to
> an interesting test if the theory is true.
>
To some people, titanium resonances are a subtle effect. To me, they are
not.
I would have difficulty staying in the room long enough to perform the test
:).
You could call it a "Bob leaves the room in disgust" test.

severian

May 16th 05, 04:26 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > severian wrote:
> >
> > You are probably aware of the "10 Requirements for Reliable
> > and Sensitive Listening Tests" posted at www.pcabx.com .
>
> Severian, two bows and three genuflections are the required ritual.

First you get down on your knees, fiddle with your rosaries, bow your head
with great respect, and genuflect genuflect genuflect...

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 04:29 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "severian" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >>
> > >> "severian" > wrote in message
> > >> ink.net...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever
been
> > > part
> > >> > of
> > >> > one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous
> > >> > times.
> > >> > People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests
> they've
> > >> > never
> > >> > participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their
> > >> > opinions
> > >> > are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly
heel
> > >> > and
> > >> > toe
> > >> > downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
> > >> not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
> > >> have to participate in one to know that. It's like
> > >> bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
> > >> I would not have had to have done that to understand how
> > >> idiotic it would be.
> > >
> > > I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen to
> music,
> > > you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are making
> > > comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of
them,
> > > which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled
testing
> > > is
> > > directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't makes
> no
> > > sense at all.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You are so wrong. We are not commenting upon
> > the audibility of sounds. We are commenting upon
> > our preferences for the equipment we choose for listening to music.
>
> No, your preferences are not subject to argument, if you like X or Y,
that's
> fine. It's when comments like "Adcom amps suck" or "it sounds better
> because" occur that makes controlled testing and the results relevant.
When
> you state that your preferences are predicated on there actually being a
> difference in sound, then the ability to prove or disprove that such a
> difference exists becomes relevant to the discussion. If you don't want to
> get involved in the whole testing argument and such, just state your
> preferences, but when you attempt to make your observations transportable
to
> other people or environments, then that's a different matter.
>
I find it useful to make a distinction of the social context in which these
remarks are made. These are hifi listeners, exchanging their emotional
reactions in a free-for-all atmosphere. In this context, it's all good fun.
A designer has to be more careful. He seeks observations that, if not nailed
and pinned to absolute repeatability, at least have a meaning portable to
many possible situations.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 04:32 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
ink.net...
[snip]
>
> I get paid for audio design and acoustical measurements. The fact that in
> this area my vocation and avocation overlap is one of life's little
rewards,
> getting to do what I enjoy.
>
I would like to obtain the Beranek parameters for Philadelphia's Kimmel
Center. This is a rather new, scientifically designed venue. In particular,
I am interested in "Sunoco Hall", the main performance space for the
Philadelphia Orchestra.

For a number of years, I have had season tickets to the Orchestra, and would
like to approximate reproduction on my home system, which has various
surround synthesizers.

Can you offer points of contact, or suggestions on how to proceed?

severian

May 16th 05, 04:33 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "severian" > wrote in message
> >> nk.net...
> >> >
> >> > Would make an interesting test.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> yawn
> >>
> >
> > Ah yes, ignorant, intend to remain so, and damn proud of it aren't you?
> >
> >
>
> Do you need know every little technical detail of all items
> and issues intersecting your life? Why not try living your life,
> instead of obsessively examing technical minutia.
> Look at how much time you waste, when you could be
> relaxing and listening to music.

I don't get into the nits over everything, and believe me I listen to plenty
of music. But, when even a halfway reasonable theory is proposed for
something (as is the case here about interaction with driver resonance),
that is one that's credible and not of the type of "we painted the output
caps blue and it mellowed the sound," since this is an area where I have
technical curiousity, I find it interesting. I wouldn't find that a waste of
time.

> At any rate, the topic of your test is of no interest to me.
> When something interests me sufficiently, I will endeavor
> to learn more about it.

So, audio and testing is something that interests you enough to argue about,
but not to learn about? Whatever floats your boat.

severian

May 16th 05, 04:35 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "severian" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >>
> > > >> "severian" > wrote in message
> > > >> ink.net...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever
> been
> > > > part
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have, numerous
> > > >> > times.
> > > >> > People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests
> > they've
> > > >> > never
> > > >> > participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation.
Their
> > > >> > opinions
> > > >> > are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly
> heel
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > toe
> > > >> > downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to
drive.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
> > > >> not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
> > > >> have to participate in one to know that. It's like
> > > >> bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
> > > >> I would not have had to have done that to understand how
> > > >> idiotic it would be.
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen to
> > music,
> > > > you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are
making
> > > > comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of
> them,
> > > > which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled
> testing
> > > > is
> > > > directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't
makes
> > no
> > > > sense at all.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are so wrong. We are not commenting upon
> > > the audibility of sounds. We are commenting upon
> > > our preferences for the equipment we choose for listening to music.
> >
> > No, your preferences are not subject to argument, if you like X or Y,
> that's
> > fine. It's when comments like "Adcom amps suck" or "it sounds better
> > because" occur that makes controlled testing and the results relevant.
> When
> > you state that your preferences are predicated on there actually being a
> > difference in sound, then the ability to prove or disprove that such a
> > difference exists becomes relevant to the discussion. If you don't want
to
> > get involved in the whole testing argument and such, just state your
> > preferences, but when you attempt to make your observations
transportable
> to
> > other people or environments, then that's a different matter.
> >
> I find it useful to make a distinction of the social context in which
these
> remarks are made. These are hifi listeners, exchanging their emotional
> reactions in a free-for-all atmosphere. In this context, it's all good
fun.
> A designer has to be more careful. He seeks observations that, if not
nailed
> and pinned to absolute repeatability, at least have a meaning portable to
> many possible situations.

I'd say that is a good way of putting it. The main problem occurs when
non-technical people try and make definitive statements about technical
issues, which also often happens. Not surprising, most people if they are
curious enough to comment on something tend to want to know why it happens,
but also don't **** on my head and tell me it's raining. ;-)

Clyde Slick

May 16th 05, 04:38 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "severian" > wrote in message
>> > k.net...
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>> > We are of the same mind and ears :)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Congratulations on your assimilation.
>
> Spoken like a true subjectivist clone...
>
>

Go back to your lab and test that hypothesis.
I'm sure it will bring you hours of delight.

----== 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

May 16th 05, 04:39 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > severian wrote:
>> >
>> > You are probably aware of the "10 Requirements for Reliable
>> > and Sensitive Listening Tests" posted at www.pcabx.com .
>>
>> Severian, two bows and three genuflections are the required ritual.
>
> First you get down on your knees, fiddle with your rosaries, bow your head
> with great respect, and genuflect genuflect genuflect...
>

Don't forget to keep your mouth open.

----== 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

May 16th 05, 04:40 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
> I find it useful to make a distinction of the social context in which
> these
> remarks are made. These are hifi listeners, exchanging their emotional
> reactions in a free-for-all atmosphere. In this context, it's all good
> fun.
> A designer has to be more careful. He seeks observations that, if not
> nailed
> and pinned to absolute repeatability, at least have a meaning portable to
> many possible situations.
>
>

A glimmer of understanding. I take back my
remark about your being completely assimilated.

----== 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 =----

severian

May 16th 05, 04:42 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> [snip]
> >
> > I get paid for audio design and acoustical measurements. The fact that
in
> > this area my vocation and avocation overlap is one of life's little
> rewards,
> > getting to do what I enjoy.
> >
> I would like to obtain the Beranek parameters for Philadelphia's Kimmel
> Center. This is a rather new, scientifically designed venue. In
particular,
> I am interested in "Sunoco Hall", the main performance space for the
> Philadelphia Orchestra.
>
> For a number of years, I have had season tickets to the Orchestra, and
would
> like to approximate reproduction on my home system, which has various
> surround synthesizers.
>
> Can you offer points of contact, or suggestions on how to proceed?

Not off the top of my head, I don't measure in such a rarified atmosphere
nor do I require such level of detail about response, decay times, specral
decay and reflection properties, etc. I'm fascinated by the measurements
companies like Yamaha and such do to arrive at their hall models though. (I
mostly deal in quasi anechoic loudspeaker measurements, and some small
club/home acoustic measurements and treatments, pretty basic stuff.)

If I see any journal articles or hear of anything I'll try and get back to
post it. I'd start with a literature search to see if any articles have been
written with respect to the hall design in architectural or acoustic
journals. Hmmm...will have to think about this, it's an interesting issue.

I once attended a concert at a hall I would have loved to see an analysis of
though, trumpets sounded like they were playing in a cotton stuffed box, but
every, and I mean every chair creak and shoe leather shuffle was amplified
and audible. Strangest acoustics I've ever heard.

severian

May 16th 05, 04:44 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > severian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > You are probably aware of the "10 Requirements for Reliable
> >> > and Sensitive Listening Tests" posted at www.pcabx.com .
> >>
> >> Severian, two bows and three genuflections are the required ritual.
> >
> > First you get down on your knees, fiddle with your rosaries, bow your
head
> > with great respect, and genuflect genuflect genuflect...
> >
>
>
> Don't forget to keep your mouth open.

Nah, I'll leave that for you and the Middiot to do to each other. Twit.

severian

May 16th 05, 04:46 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "severian" > wrote in message
> >> > k.net...
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> > We are of the same mind and ears :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Congratulations on your assimilation.
> >
> > Spoken like a true subjectivist clone...
> >
> >
>
> Go back to your lab and test that hypothesis.
> I'm sure it will bring you hours of delight.

So, tell me, what's it like having so many identical brothers around?

Clyde Slick

May 16th 05, 04:47 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "severian" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "severian" > wrote in message
>> >> nk.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > Would make an interesting test.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> yawn
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ah yes, ignorant, intend to remain so, and damn proud of it aren't you?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Do you need know every little technical detail of all items
>> and issues intersecting your life? Why not try living your life,
>> instead of obsessively examing technical minutia.
>> Look at how much time you waste, when you could be
>> relaxing and listening to music.
>
> I don't get into the nits over everything, and believe me I listen to
> plenty
> of music. But, when even a halfway reasonable theory is proposed for
> something (as is the case here about interaction with driver resonance),
> that is one that's credible and not of the type of "we painted the output
> caps blue and it mellowed the sound," since this is an area where I have
> technical curiousity, I find it interesting. I wouldn't find that a waste
> of
> time.
>
>> At any rate, the topic of your test is of no interest to me.
>> When something interests me sufficiently, I will endeavor
>> to learn more about it.
>
> So, audio and testing is something that interests you enough to argue
> about,
> but not to learn about? Whatever floats your boat.
>
>

My argument is that any time any one opens his mouth to offer an opinion
about a set up, your ilk gets out your flogging whip, and denies
that anybody could or should have any opinion not based
upon blind testing. Do you make the same arguments
about cars, wine, food, and all other items used for
consumer enjoyment?

My argument is that for the purpose of putting together
a system to be used for the enjoyment of listenng to
music, such testing is irrelevant.

----== 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

May 16th 05, 04:50 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Not surprising, most people if they are
> curious enough to comment on something tend to want to know why it
> happens,
> but also don't **** on my head and tell me it's raining. ;-)
>
>

When you get the inevitble load of Kroo**** dunped on you,
just preten that it's snowing.

----== 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

May 16th 05, 04:56 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "severian" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "severian" > wrote in message
>> >> > k.net...
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> > We are of the same mind and ears :)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Congratulations on your assimilation.
>> >
>> > Spoken like a true subjectivist clone...
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Go back to your lab and test that hypothesis.
>> I'm sure it will bring you hours of delight.
>
> So, tell me, what's it like having so many identical brothers around?
>
>

The only thing I have in common with my so-called brothers
is the belief that enjoyment of our audio systems does
not require the rituals of DBT,
Middius is gay, I am not.
Weil and Boone like modern progressive rock, I don't
Scott Wheeler, Middius and Weil are much more liberal in their political
outlook than am I.
We are not alike, not at all.

----== 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 =----

jeffc

May 16th 05, 05:02 AM

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> I want to replace my speakers at some point in the future too, so I
> thought perfect opportunity to swap an integrated for a pre/power combo.
>
> I'm looking for a relatively cheap used power amp right now - eBay and
> Audiogon are my destinations. I was thinking about the Adcom GFA-545 II.
> Any opinions or experiences with this? It's got pretty decent reviews on
> audioreview.com.

I used to own a GFA-555 (though can't remember if it as a "II"). I listened
to that and the 545 in my home. The 555 actually sounded better. There was
a bit of "hash" or grain in the 545 treble. After the 555 took a lightning
hit, I replaced it with a Rotel. I think the Rotel sounds better, but I
never compared them side by side.

jeffc

May 16th 05, 05:04 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unless the Adcom has some gross design problems (unlikely)
> or is defective or broken (also unlikely), it should sound
> as good as any other good amp up to its overload point.
> Don't let these idiots give you a bum steer about amplifier
> sound.

It's funny how one person's failure to hear differences between amplifiers
implies that other people are idiots.

jeffc

May 16th 05, 05:06 AM

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> Or assuming that my next set of speakers will also be bookshelfs, am I
> just better off with an integrated from Arcam or Rotel?

Probably.

severian

May 16th 05, 05:07 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "severian" > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "severian" > wrote in message
> >> >> > k.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > We are of the same mind and ears :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Congratulations on your assimilation.
> >> >
> >> > Spoken like a true subjectivist clone...
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Go back to your lab and test that hypothesis.
> >> I'm sure it will bring you hours of delight.
> >
> > So, tell me, what's it like having so many identical brothers around?
> >
> >
>
> The only thing I have in common with my so-called brothers
> is the belief that enjoyment of our audio systems does
> not require the rituals of DBT,

On that issue I'd agree with you, and if a person really really likes
playing with green pens and wires, etc. that's fine. But, the results of
DBTs can and are of use to people in trying to tell what the best way to
spend money is (or the best way to get the sound they want regardless of
price), or if they are curious about something more than just sitting and
listening to music.

> Middius is gay, I am not.

Never would have suspected it...

> Weil and Boone like modern progressive rock, I don't

Not exactly my cup of tea either...

> Scott Wheeler, Middius and Weil are much more liberal in their political
> outlook than am I.

Figures, they are particularly disingenous and agressively insulting...

> We are not alike, not at all.

Neither are people you so charmingly refer to as "borgs" or "assimilated."

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 05:17 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>
> > I find it useful to make a distinction of the social context in which
> > these
> > remarks are made. These are hifi listeners, exchanging their emotional
> > reactions in a free-for-all atmosphere. In this context, it's all good
> > fun.
> > A designer has to be more careful. He seeks observations that, if not
> > nailed
> > and pinned to absolute repeatability, at least have a meaning portable
to
> > many possible situations.
> >
> >
>
> A glimmer of understanding. I take back my
> remark about your being completely assimilated.
>
Thank you.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 05:28 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "severian" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "severian" > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "severian" > wrote in message
> > > > >> ink.net...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever
> > been
> > > > > part
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > one, let alone set them up themselves correctly? I have,
numerous
> > > > >> > times.
> > > > >> > People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests
> > > they've
> > > > >> > never
> > > > >> > participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation.
> Their
> > > > >> > opinions
> > > > >> > are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly
> > heel
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > toe
> > > > >> > downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to
> drive.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What is wrong with the test is that it is simply
> > > > >> not relevant to the purpose at hand. One does not
> > > > >> have to participate in one to know that. It's like
> > > > >> bringing a baseball bat to a football game.
> > > > >> I would not have had to have done that to understand how
> > > > >> idiotic it would be.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't agree. If the purpose at hand is just to sit and listen
to
> > > music,
> > > > > you'd be right, it's not required. However, you and others are
> making
> > > > > comments about the audibility of certain things, and the cause of
> > them,
> > > > > which is most definitely NOT just listening to music. Controlled
> > testing
> > > > > is
> > > > > directly relevant to issues of audibility, and claiming it isn't
> makes
> > > no
> > > > > sense at all.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are so wrong. We are not commenting upon
> > > > the audibility of sounds. We are commenting upon
> > > > our preferences for the equipment we choose for listening to music.
> > >
> > > No, your preferences are not subject to argument, if you like X or Y,
> > that's
> > > fine. It's when comments like "Adcom amps suck" or "it sounds better
> > > because" occur that makes controlled testing and the results relevant.
> > When
> > > you state that your preferences are predicated on there actually being
a
> > > difference in sound, then the ability to prove or disprove that such a
> > > difference exists becomes relevant to the discussion. If you don't
want
> to
> > > get involved in the whole testing argument and such, just state your
> > > preferences, but when you attempt to make your observations
> transportable
> > to
> > > other people or environments, then that's a different matter.
> > >
> > I find it useful to make a distinction of the social context in which
> these
> > remarks are made. These are hifi listeners, exchanging their emotional
> > reactions in a free-for-all atmosphere. In this context, it's all good
> fun.
> > A designer has to be more careful. He seeks observations that, if not
> nailed
> > and pinned to absolute repeatability, at least have a meaning portable
to
> > many possible situations.
>
> I'd say that is a good way of putting it. The main problem occurs when
> non-technical people try and make definitive statements about technical
> issues, which also often happens.

Yes, it does. People do it because they are less aware of what they don't
know than what they do. They are unconcious and unappreciative of the modes
of thought they don't use. The artist, mystic, or layman may speculate
wildly on the origin of scientific advances, while the engineer is mystified
by Jackson Pollack.

But the people you're arguing with are, IMHO, harmless, even if they buy
into blue LEDs a bit too heavily. The real damage is done by people who know
enough to give something the appearance of science, but not the
truthfulness.

As I said to Lionel, the reason they are so mad at Arny is, he gives them no
room to breathe. He would like to put the "high end" to the torch like a
rabid revolutionary. Presumably, a lot of quackery would be swept away. But
it's not worth the loss. Your speculations about resonances are significant,
and DBT's would be interesting. Arny's mind is not open about this at all.

> Not surprising, most people if they are
> curious enough to comment on something tend to want to know why it
happens,
> but also don't **** on my head and tell me it's raining. ;-)
>
>

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 05:29 AM

"jeffc" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I want to replace my speakers at some point in the future too, so I
> > thought perfect opportunity to swap an integrated for a pre/power combo.
> >
> > I'm looking for a relatively cheap used power amp right now - eBay and
> > Audiogon are my destinations. I was thinking about the Adcom GFA-545 II.
> > Any opinions or experiences with this? It's got pretty decent reviews on
> > audioreview.com.
>
> I used to own a GFA-555 (though can't remember if it as a "II"). I
listened
> to that and the 545 in my home. The 555 actually sounded better. There
was
> a bit of "hash" or grain in the 545 treble. After the 555 took a
lightning
> hit, I replaced it with a Rotel. I think the Rotel sounds better, but I
> never compared them side by side.
>
Both are a bit too grainy for my taste.
How did the 555 get destroyed? Through the AC ?

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 05:32 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:gqLhe.6237$It1.1817@lakeread02...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
> >>Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
> >>Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
> >>and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.
> >
> > Opinion stated as fact.
>
> My opinion: my Yamaha M-50 doesn't sound any different on my Legacy focus
or
> my Original large Advents than my Krell KSA-150. However, both amps are
> rated at 150W, Krell is supposedly pure class A but I have heard that
> debated... I think the Yamaha is AB. At normal listening I don't think I
> can differentiate either from a 35 W Sansui AU-6500 that I've had for 30+
> years. If I wanted to get a different sound from my system by changing
> amplifiers I'd explore different technologies, perhaps some of the better
> Class D amps (I don't have any real experience there) or enter the world
of
> tubes.
>
> ScottW
>
The M-50 is an exceptional amp. I had one, and got rid of it only because of
those pain-in-the-ass clip connectors.
However, I'm surprised the Sansui satisfies. It was designed at a time that
predates modern amplification, which started approximately 1981.

severian

May 16th 05, 05:48 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "severian" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > I'd say that is a good way of putting it. The main problem occurs when
> > non-technical people try and make definitive statements about technical
> > issues, which also often happens.
>
> Yes, it does. People do it because they are less aware of what they don't
> know than what they do. They are unconcious and unappreciative of the
modes
> of thought they don't use. The artist, mystic, or layman may speculate
> wildly on the origin of scientific advances, while the engineer is
mystified
> by Jackson Pollack.
>
> But the people you're arguing with are, IMHO, harmless, even if they buy
> into blue LEDs a bit too heavily. The real damage is done by people who
know
> enough to give something the appearance of science, but not the
> truthfulness.
>
> As I said to Lionel, the reason they are so mad at Arny is, he gives them
no
> room to breathe. He would like to put the "high end" to the torch like a
> rabid revolutionary. Presumably, a lot of quackery would be swept away.
But
> it's not worth the loss. Your speculations about resonances are
significant,
> and DBT's would be interesting. Arny's mind is not open about this at all.
>

That's an excellent analysis of the problem here, and a good way of putting
it. The most damage IS done by those who know enough to appear to be
technical or scientific. Ultimately, if someone wants to do something I
consider a waste of money, say expensive wire or other things, it's their
money. However, I don't think those of us with more technical understanding
and credentials should refrain from offering an opinion about the wisdom of
some purchases, especially when a clueless newbie is in danger of being
misinformed in a way that costs serious bucks for little or no effect, which
is what I get the impression some subjectivists would like to happen. OTOH,
I'm also nowhere near as hard over as Arny or Ferstler or some of the
others, in that I don't believe we need a torch carrying mob to storm the
High End castle. In the end, all I can do is offer my view/opinion and
technical advice. If someone chooses to ignore it, at least I offered a
point of view. I don't take it personally if they choose to do something I
consider a vast waste of money or time.

Ultimately it's all supposed to be about the music and enjoyment, which is
one reason I'm still sitting in this studio, using a friend's computer and
his setup to finish cleaning up a couple of CD recordings of a few of my
treasured old LPs that will never ever see the light of CD release. I'm
about done, all de-clicked and de-popped, surface noise filtered, and a
somewhat annoying muddiness in the bass/midbass from the cartridge/arm/table
combo supressed. Tomorrow's gonna be a fun listening day.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 06:22 AM

"severian" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
[snip]
> Ultimately it's all supposed to be about the music and enjoyment, which is
> one reason I'm still sitting in this studio, using a friend's computer and
> his setup to finish cleaning up a couple of CD recordings of a few of my
> treasured old LPs that will never ever see the light of CD release. I'm
> about done, all de-clicked and de-popped, surface noise filtered, and a
> somewhat annoying muddiness in the bass/midbass from the
cartridge/arm/table
> combo supressed. Tomorrow's gonna be a fun listening day.
>
You are using the Waves "ARS" Audio Restoration Suite?

dave weil

May 16th 05, 06:40 AM

On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:26:53 GMT, "severian" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:36 GMT, "severian" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to claim, even
>> >> using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant result.
>> >
>> >Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is, REGARDLESS
>of
>> >whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly conducted,
>he
>> >FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is not
>OPINION,
>> >but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt understanding
>the
>> >difference.
>>
>> So, your opinion is that if a test isn't conducted to the standards
>> that are demanded of that specific test, the results of that test are
>> valid?
>>
>> I disagree totally. There are specific guidelines that are required BY
>> PROPONENTS OF SUCH TESTING that are necessary to insure the validity
>> of the testing. This particular test violated several of them.
>
>Are you really that reading or logically challenged? The validity of the
>test in question has absolutely nothing to do with the original statement
>you made. See if you can parse this train of thought:
>
>Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care if it was
>a bogus test or not).
>
>A statement was made to that effect.
>
>You said Opinion Stated as Fact.
>
>The FACT is he couldn't hear a difference in THAT test, regardless of what
>you think of the validity of that test.
>
>Ergo, it is not OPINION stated as fact, it is FACT.

Parse THIS:

It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin it.
for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means he
*could* tell a difference sometimes. "But wait"! you might argue, it's
not reliable because it didn't meet the statistical criteria". Well,
that's only part of assuring a test that can even MAKE that
determination. Other factors must be met as well. They weren't. So the
RELIABILITY of the test itself is suspect. Therefore you can't make a
determination based on the test.

>Argue about the merits of lack thereof of that test all you want, it is a
>FACT that he couldn't hear a difference, not an OPINION! Jesus Christ on a
>pogo stick, I've hardly ever seen such a combination of pedantic mixed with
>confused logic mixed with obsfucation in my life.

Nope. YOU'RE the pedant. The test was flawed from the get go and to
argue that just because he took a "test" means that he couldn't hear a
difference is just pedantry at its finest.

>Now you can go on and argue to your hearts content about the relative merits
>or validity of that test, but that doesn't affect the facts.

No it doesn't. The fact is, the test was flawed on many levels.
Therefore it should be discarded.

>And I've heard and seen the whole thing real time the first time around, and
>all the post test whining doesn't alter it, I think the test was reasonable
>enough that he should have been able to hear a difference, after all, he was
>confident he could, and was allegedly getting 10 out of 10 before they
>showed up and level matched the systems. A reasonable person would have at
>least been forced to come to the conclusion that whatever differences were
>apparent between the amps before the test, they obviously were in large part
>due to level imbalances and were nowhere near as large or easy to discern as
>was thought.

I don't necessarily argue the last point.

>That at least should point to the relative magnitude of these
>allegedly night and day differences between amps. You can quibble then over
>if the test was sensitive or masking enough due to talking, etc. to make it
>hard to hear subtle differences, but you can't continue with any degree of
>common sense or logic to continue to claim that the differences are as huge
>as they are claimed to be.

I never claimed that last statement. You're just making stuff up now.

>And how many of the most vociferous opponents of DBTs have ever been part of
>one, let alone set them up themselves correctly?

Irrelevant to the point being discussed.

>I have, numerous times.

A statement that you can't prove. After all, you're just another
anonymous twit coming out of the woodwork.

>People who continue to tell others what's wrong with the tests they've never
>participated in are engaging in serious mental masturbation. Their opinions
>are as relevant as Ralph Nader's opinions about how to properly heel and toe
>downshift into a corner, considering he doesn't know how to drive.

Standards are standards. One doesn't have to be on-site to tell
whether or not a test was done to standards. Here are some of the
standards that weren't met, according to Arnold Krueger's quoting of
the standards:

(3) Listeners must be trained to listen systematically so that audible
problems are heard.

Wasn't done.

(6) A suitable listening environment must be provided. It can't be too
dull, too bright, too noisy, too reverberant, or too harsh. The
speakers and other components have to be sufficiently free from
distortion, the room must be noise-free, etc..

This one wasn't violated too bad, as I think that Steve exaggerated
the distractions, but still, proper care wasn't taken.

(7) Listeners need to be in a good mood for listening, in good
physical condition (no blocked-up ears!), and be well-trained for
hearing deficiencies in the reproduced sound.

Obviously not the case the first day. No matter that it was Steve's
fault. That doesn't matter.

(9) Non-audible influences need to be controlled so that the listener
reaches his conclusions due to "Just listening".

I'd maintain that the conditions of the test weren't neutral enough to
comply. Still, again, not that onerous.

(10) Listeners should control as many of the aspects of the listening
test as possible. Self-controlled tests usually facilitate this. Most
importantly, they should be able to switch among the alternatives at
times of their choosing. The switchover should be as instantaneous and
non-disruptive as possible.

This one was DEFINITELY not met. On the first day, they manually
switched the equipment, and Steve actually left the room while they
were doing it. No "quick switching" involved at all. and it's obvious
that it was possible to do the switchover much quicker than they
actually did it. There was no reason to have the subject vacate the
premises while a quick switch was done.

that's half of the "conditions" not met (and 3 of them definitely not
met at all, with 2 of them being borderline and open to
interpretation), which is plenty to disqualify the test in terms of
providing a reliable result.

Keep in mind that I didn't make up these requirements. This is the
game played by YOUR rules, not mine.

dave weil

May 16th 05, 06:41 AM

On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:29:54 GMT, "severian" >
wrote:

>
>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Sander deWaal a écrit :
>>
>> >>
>> >> As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening,
>> >
>> > This is and will be surely the only pertinent comment of this thread.
>> >
>>
>> But for reasons that are completely over your head.
>>
>
>There's no reason a DBT can't be conducted so that it's much much more like
>what people call "real" listening, there's no time limit required. It
>generally can be stated that it REDUCES the sensitivity to small
>differences, but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
>results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.

But it WASN'T done in the case of the Zipser test.

dave weil

May 16th 05, 06:43 AM

On Sun, 15 May 2005 21:24:24 GMT, "severian" >
wrote:

>> If you call the Zippy exercise a "test", then you can take home the trophy
>> on this one.
>
>It was a test, you may not think it was a good test, but it meets the
>definition of test.

Well, his "sighted" listening comparisons were tests too. He found
differences in THOSE tests.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 07:23 AM

Schizoid Man

May 16th 05, 07:37 AM

"jeffc" > wrote in message

> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message

>> Or assuming that my next set of speakers will also be bookshelfs, am I
>> just better off with an integrated from Arcam or Rotel?
>
> Probably.

Thanks, Jeff. I did research some equipment today and have more or less
settled on my purchase. Thanks for your input.

Lionel

May 16th 05, 08:45 AM

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>;-)
>>
>>
>>>but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
>>>results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.
>>
>>
>
> Where do they manufacture 'ponderation systems',
> on the Ponderosa?

My post was about listening pleasure, Sackman. I'm not
surprised that you don't understand it.

With all the other RAO alleged "audiophiles" (Middius,
Weil...) you prefer to argue about the minor details in the
protocol of the test rather than on how to quantify the
pleasure loss it can cause to the listener.

Sander has explicitly told you that, audio and listening is
*only* about pleasure.
It was very funny to see you all splitting hairs around a
technic that you don't understand correctly and continuing
to call Arnold the "Krooborg".
Nice exercise of self-mockery thank you Sackman...

:-D

EddieM

May 16th 05, 09:57 AM

> Schizoid Man wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>
>
>> Schiz, having auditioned amps/preamps from Adcom spanning the
>> past ten years, I've grown weary of them. To me, their contributing
>> sound is akin to a huge Sony boomboxes suffering from bulimia.
>> Their sound is clean and lean, but thin on dynamics.
>
> Thanks, Eddie. Any experience with Arcam or Audio Refinement? I think that I
> am steering towards an integrated now.

I just came accros this thread again, but I hope you weren't steering
away from Adcom because, among other things, of the experience
I had with them.

These were encounters I had happened under circumtances and
conditions that is without doubt will be different from yours. There's
also no doubt that I've audition only a tiny fraction of their products
wrt amps and preamps starting back in '95, and that I listen to them
in my system that differs from everyone here.

EddieM

May 16th 05, 10:02 AM

> severian wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> If you'd care to comment, I'd be interested. I am not sure how much
> longer I'm going to be at this machine (probably thru tomorrow at least).

> [...] After that I usually don't get on Usenet much.

That is so unfortunate. I should say that I truly enjoy much of your
commentary along this thread, and I sure wish to know more about
your views and observation wrt subtle differences among audio gear.

EddieM

May 16th 05, 10:08 AM

> severian wrote
>
>
>
>
> You were saying?
> Calling it an exercise is disingenous at best.
> Or is it your assertion that he wasn't attempting to show his ability with
> it.
>
> He sure was claiming he was going to ace that TEST in his posts leading up
> to the event. Attempting to artificially and semantically shift the purpose
> of it is not going to change the fact that he failed miserably, and wasn't
> honest enough to admit it.

I am sorry to interject but for the love of God, you seem
exceedingly harsh to reprimand the soul of a man who died
quite so unexpectedly not so many years ago.

Lionel

May 16th 05, 11:13 AM

EddieM a écrit :
>>severian wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>You were saying?
>>Calling it an exercise is disingenous at best.
>>Or is it your assertion that he wasn't attempting to show his ability with
>>it.
>>
>>He sure was claiming he was going to ace that TEST in his posts leading up
>>to the event. Attempting to artificially and semantically shift the purpose
>>of it is not going to change the fact that he failed miserably, and wasn't
>>honest enough to admit it.
>
>
>
> I am sorry to interject but for the love of God, you seem
> exceedingly harsh to reprimand the soul of a man who died
> quite so unexpectedly not so many years ago.

We have already read really, worst things on RAO, you
know... :-(

Clyde Slick

May 16th 05, 12:01 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
>>>>results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Where do they manufacture 'ponderation systems',
>> on the Ponderosa?
>
> My post was about listening pleasure, Sackman. I'm not surprised that you
> don't understand it.
>
> With all the other RAO alleged "audiophiles" (Middius, Weil...) you prefer
> to argue about the minor details in the protocol of the test rather than
> on how to quantify the pleasure loss it can cause to the listener.
>
> Sander has explicitly told you that, audio and listening is *only* about
> pleasure.
> It was very funny to see you all splitting hairs around a technic that you
> don't understand correctly and continuing to call Arnold the "Krooborg".
> Nice exercise of self-mockery thank you Sackman...
>

Its time to send your ponderation system back for
recalibration.

----== 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 =----

George M. Middius

May 16th 05, 12:26 PM

severianborg said:

> > "10 Requirements

> those are rational and in line with

Arnii, congratulations! I'll bet this is the first time in the last 30 years
that anybody has used the word "rational" within half a mile of you. Never
mind that severianborg is as toasty as Dickie Maleclownski -- what counts is
the Usenet record now shows you've gotten something like praise from
someone.

George M. Middius

May 16th 05, 12:38 PM

severianborg said:

> The main problem occurs when
> non-technical people try and make definitive statements about technical
> issues, which also often happens.

Your religious zeal is quite disgusting, you know. All those dirty sinners
talking about their stereos and making [gasp!] incorrect technical
statements ... what's a 'borg to do?

You remind me of the Christian Landlady From Hell. A real person, she was,
as recounted to me by my friend Brian, who went to look at the house she was
renting. It was a small house. Brian didn't have a roommate yet and he asked
C.L.F.H. if he could get one later. He said at that point, C.L.F.H. got all
red in the face and started muttering, then she said only if it was another
guy. Brian asked why as long as their credit was good. C.L.F.H. said she
wouldn't put up with sinfulness under her roof. The only thing missing from
the story is that signing a lease would mean mandatory attendance at church.

So you keep on looking for those sinners, sevvy. Stamp out those
nontechnical discussions. Enforce mandatory "testing" requirements for
anybody and everybody. Let the M&M brigade run wild!

George M. Middius

May 16th 05, 12:53 PM

severianborg said:

> > We are not alike, not at all.

> Neither are people you so charmingly refer to as "borgs" or "assimilated."

Like the Krooborg, you're too thick to figure out what we mean when we call
you 'borg. In fact, Sacky described the essence of audio 'borgism in another
post in this thread, but your tiny mind is stuck on the "clone" metaphor, so
you can't shift gears and try to understand a viewpoint different from your
own.

Here's a question to ponder: Despite all of your gilded "technical
credentials", why do Normals consider your presence unwanted in their
conversations? Take as much time as you need.™

Lionel

May 16th 05, 12:54 PM

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
>>>>>results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Where do they manufacture 'ponderation systems',
>>>on the Ponderosa?
>>
>>My post was about listening pleasure, Sackman. I'm not surprised that you
>>don't understand it.
>>
>>With all the other RAO alleged "audiophiles" (Middius, Weil...) you prefer
>>to argue about the minor details in the protocol of the test rather than
>>on how to quantify the pleasure loss it can cause to the listener.
>>
>>Sander has explicitly told you that, audio and listening is *only* about
>>pleasure.
>>It was very funny to see you all splitting hairs around a technic that you
>>don't understand correctly and continuing to call Arnold the "Krooborg".
>>Nice exercise of self-mockery thank you Sackman...
>>
>
>
>
> Its time to send your ponderation system back for
> recalibration.

Poor Sackman.
Too late for you, once again you have done an ass of yourself.

;-)

George M. Middius

May 16th 05, 01:03 PM

Robert Morein said:

> > Sorry, pinhead, but words have meanings. Just because you don't know the
> > correct word for something doesn't mean you get to choose whichever word you
> > want. It was not a test. It was an exercise, a prelude to a demonstration, a
> > mockup of a test.... pick your poison. But a test it was not.

> Maybe the two of you have not bothered to agree on what was being tested.
> I get this impression:
> Severian assumes it was a test of amplifiers.
> George assumes it was a test of ABX.

Not.

It was not a real test. If it had been a real test, it would have been a
test of Zippy's ability to distinguish amplifiers.

The problem with calling that debacle a "test" is that the word becomes so
diluted that it's meaningless. If Zippy's exercise was a test, how do you
distinguish it from tests that adhere to accepted principles, and whose
results might therefore have some meaning?

The Zippy exercise proved nothing. It flouted any scientific principles with
which you might wish to imbue a real test.

Sander deWaal

May 16th 05, 01:59 PM

"severian" > said:

>How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a high damping
>factor?

The output stage without NFB has a rather highish output impedance, as
compared to a BJT stage in common emitter.
It gets worse: Zout is dependent on the idle current through the
devices, one of the reasons my hybrid tube/MOSFET design uses high
bias (700 mA per device), that's fairly high in class A.

The TNT200 used, among other design tricks, a special GNFB design to
overcome the classic Rds problem, and with success I might add.
Most conventional MOSFET amps use the output devices as source
followers, and add a little GNFB to lower the output impedance.

Hence the almost "tube-like" character of some MOSFET amps.
NOT the TNT200, you will note.

--

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

Sander deWaal

May 16th 05, 02:09 PM

"Robert Morein" > said:

>> Unless dynamic impedance has a different connotation from what I was
>taught
>> was output impedance.

>It is identical.
>You are correct about the definition of damping factor, though it can be an
>erroneous specification, since it is typically measured under small signal
>conditions. This is why amplifiers with an apparently high damping factor
>spec can fail to control some woofers.

Even worse, damping factor is often measured at 1 kHz at just one
level with a fixed resistive load.
Hardly enough to determine the realistic Zout of an amplifier, and
certainly not enough under real-world load conditions.

>> If you'd care to comment, I'd be interested.
>[snip]
>Older MOSFETs have an on resistance of about an ohm. If an output stage
>consisting of such a MOSFET were driving an 8 ohm load without feedback, the
>maximum obtainable damping factor would be 8. Fortunately, this is not the
>case. The MOSFET is commanded to control the output voltage stiffly by the
>feedback loop. If there is a large voltage differential between the output
>signal and the rail, the feedback loop has no difficulty driving the output
>voltage to the required value. The residual, error value, R = delta V/I, is
>the dynamic impedance of the amp. The inverse of this is the damping factor.

It is also dependable on the idle current and even frequency.
The gate driver has to be able to sink and source current for the gate
caoacitors as well (which are in the nF range for 2SK135/2SJ50 types).
Putting 3 pairs in parallel push pull puts some strain on the driver
design.

>If the signal is large, the damping factor does not accurately represent the
>dynamic impedance. As the difference between the supply rail and the
>required output voltage dimishes, the internal DC resistances of the
>amplifier become significant obstacles, and delta V increases. Under these
>circumstances, the on-resistance of the output device is a significant
>problem. Bipolar transistors are superior in this regard, though newer
>MOSFETs have lower Rdc.

This can be observed as compression of the output signal.

--

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

Sander deWaal

May 16th 05, 02:11 PM

"severian" > said:

>Interesting theory. Would definitely make an interesting test, particulary
>if you picked a speaker to use in the test with an especially nasty tweeter.
>Like a Focal, or one of the old Yamaha beryllium domes. Morel and Dynaudio
>soft domes need not apply eh?

Maybe that's why I prefer series filters for loudspeakers in
combination with my hybrid MOSFET amp.

--

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

Sander deWaal

May 16th 05, 02:12 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>severian wrote:

>> How can this amp have both a high output impedence AND a
>high damping
>> factor?

>Violate the well-known laws of physics.

>The person making said claim could have a hard time passing
>a 2nd year undergraduate electrical engineering course in
>electrical circuits.

"The opposite of a false statement obviously is a true statement.
The opposite of a profound truth could well be another profound
truth." - Niels Bohr.

--

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

John Stone

May 16th 05, 02:19 PM

On 5/16/05 7:03 AM, in article ,
"George M. Middius" > wrote:

> The Zippy exercise proved nothing. It flouted any scientific principles with
> which you might wish to imbue a real test.
>
And the fact that he's no longer with us doesn't bode well for a follow-up
discussion.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 04:47 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > Sorry, pinhead, but words have meanings. Just because you don't know
the
> > > correct word for something doesn't mean you get to choose whichever
word you
> > > want. It was not a test. It was an exercise, a prelude to a
demonstration, a
> > > mockup of a test.... pick your poison. But a test it was not.
>
> > Maybe the two of you have not bothered to agree on what was being
tested.
> > I get this impression:
> > Severian assumes it was a test of amplifiers.
> > George assumes it was a test of ABX.
>
> Not.
>
> It was not a real test. If it had been a real test, it would have been a
> test of Zippy's ability to distinguish amplifiers.
>
> The problem with calling that debacle a "test" is that the word becomes so
> diluted that it's meaningless. If Zippy's exercise was a test, how do you
> distinguish it from tests that adhere to accepted principles, and whose
> results might therefore have some meaning?
>
> The Zippy exercise proved nothing. It flouted any scientific principles
with
> which you might wish to imbue a real test.
>
Given that Zippy had cardiac problems, and implicitly, artheriosclerosis,
which affects hearing, you may well be right.

dave weil

May 16th 05, 04:48 PM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 04:07:46 GMT, "severian" >
wrote:

>> Scott Wheeler, Middius and Weil are much more liberal in their political
>> outlook than am I.
>
>Figures, they are particularly disingenous and agressively insulting...

And you are upfront and cuddly, *especially* when talking about dead
people.

Right.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 05:18 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick a écrit :
> >>
> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>but it can be done, and I've done same, with the same null
> >>>>>results on things that shouldn't have shown differences.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Where do they manufacture 'ponderation systems',
> >>>on the Ponderosa?
> >>
> >>My post was about listening pleasure, Sackman. I'm not surprised that
you
> >>don't understand it.
> >>
> >>With all the other RAO alleged "audiophiles" (Middius, Weil...) you
prefer
> >>to argue about the minor details in the protocol of the test rather than
> >>on how to quantify the pleasure loss it can cause to the listener.
> >>
> >>Sander has explicitly told you that, audio and listening is *only* about
> >>pleasure.
> >>It was very funny to see you all splitting hairs around a technic that
you
> >>don't understand correctly and continuing to call Arnold the "Krooborg".
> >>Nice exercise of self-mockery thank you Sackman...
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Its time to send your ponderation system back for
> > recalibration.
>
> Poor Sackman.
> Too late for you, once again you have done an ass of yourself.
>
> ;-)
>
I didn't know he paints.

Mike McKelvy

May 16th 05, 05:21 PM

EddieM said:

>I am sorry to interject but for the love of God, you seem
>exceedingly harsh to reprimand the soul of a man who died
>quite so unexpectedly not so many years ago.

If you mean Zip, he was an obnoxious, self-serving asshole, who was not
above spamming.
He behaved much more like a petulant child than a professional
grown-up. Once in awhile he could be helpful outside his own sales
interests, but in general he was a pain in the ass.

Mike McKelvy

May 16th 05, 05:29 PM

Robt. Morein said:

>Maybe the two of you have not bothered to agree on what was being
tested.
>I get this impression:
>Severian assumes it was a test of amplifiers.
>George assumes it was a test of ABX.

It was a test of Zip's alligator mouth overloading his canary ass.
He swore up and down that he could tell the the difference between a
midfi Yamaha amp and his megabuck monoblocks. HE FAILED! Naturally he
then began dissing everything and everybody including his own
recuperitive powers, not to mention his common sense in getting drunk
before needing to use his brain.

Lionel

May 16th 05, 05:31 PM

Robert Morein a écrit :
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Robert Morein said:
>>
>>
>>>>Sorry, pinhead, but words have meanings. Just because you don't know
>
> the
>
>>>>correct word for something doesn't mean you get to choose whichever
>
> word you
>
>>>>want. It was not a test. It was an exercise, a prelude to a
>
> demonstration, a
>
>>>>mockup of a test.... pick your poison. But a test it was not.
>>
>>>Maybe the two of you have not bothered to agree on what was being
>
> tested.
>
>>>I get this impression:
>>>Severian assumes it was a test of amplifiers.
>>>George assumes it was a test of ABX.
>>
>>Not.
>>
>>It was not a real test. If it had been a real test, it would have been a
>>test of Zippy's ability to distinguish amplifiers.
>>
>>The problem with calling that debacle a "test" is that the word becomes so
>>diluted that it's meaningless. If Zippy's exercise was a test, how do you
>>distinguish it from tests that adhere to accepted principles, and whose
>>results might therefore have some meaning?
>>
>>The Zippy exercise proved nothing. It flouted any scientific principles
>
> with
>
>>which you might wish to imbue a real test.
>>
>
> Given that Zippy had cardiac problems, and implicitly, artheriosclerosis,
> which affects hearing, you may well be right.

You can doubt as you want of Zippy hearing accuracy but
cardiac problems don't imply systematic artheriosclerosis.

Mike McKelvy

May 16th 05, 05:33 PM

Goerge Middius lied:

>It was not a real test. If it had been a real test, it would have been
a
>test of Zippy's ability to distinguish amplifiers.

It was a test of Zip's claim he could tell the difference between his
amps and any "lesser" amp.

>The problem with calling that debacle a "test" is that the word
becomes so
>diluted that it's meaningless. If Zippy's exercise was a test, how do
you
>distinguish it from tests that adhere to accepted principles, and
whose
>results might therefore have some meaning?

The problem with calling it a test is that the outcome doesn't fit your
preconceived idea of the outcome.

>The Zippy exercise proved nothing. It flouted any scientific
principles with
>which you might wish to imbue a real test.

It proved that ZIp was full of ****, as usual. It was rigourous enough
that any aduible differences should have been easily preceived.

ScottW

May 16th 05, 05:40 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> severianborg said:
>
> > > We are not alike, not at all.
>
> > Neither are people you so charmingly refer to as "borgs" or
"assimilated."
>
> Like the Krooborg, you're too thick to figure out what we mean when
we call
> you 'borg. In fact, Sacky described the essence of audio 'borgism in
another
> post in this thread, but your tiny mind is stuck on the "clone"
metaphor, so
> you can't shift gears and try to understand a viewpoint different
from your
> own.
>
> Here's a question to ponder: Despite all of your gilded "technical
> credentials", why do Normals consider your presence unwanted in their
> conversations? Take as much time as you need.=99

Why don't you reveal the "Normals" perspective on that question? I'd
like to hear it.

ScottW

Schizoid Man

May 16th 05, 05:44 PM

"EddieM" > wrote in message

>> Schizoid Man wrote
>>> EddieM wrote
>>
>>
>>> Schiz, having auditioned amps/preamps from Adcom spanning the
>>> past ten years, I've grown weary of them. To me, their contributing
>>> sound is akin to a huge Sony boomboxes suffering from bulimia.
>>> Their sound is clean and lean, but thin on dynamics.
>>
>> Thanks, Eddie. Any experience with Arcam or Audio Refinement? I think
>> that I am steering towards an integrated now.
>
>
>
> I just came accros this thread again, but I hope you weren't steering
> away from Adcom because, among other things, of the experience
> I had with them.
>
> These were encounters I had happened under circumtances and
> conditions that is without doubt will be different from yours. There's
> also no doubt that I've audition only a tiny fraction of their products
> wrt amps and preamps starting back in '95, and that I listen to them
> in my system that differs from everyone here.

I think for my current needs, a separate pre/power combo might be overkill.
Since I am planning to use bookshelfs for the the immediate future I think I
could live with a good integrated.

ScottW

May 16th 05, 06:01 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> severianborg said:
>
> > The main problem occurs when
> > non-technical people try and make definitive statements about
technical
> > issues, which also often happens.
>
> Your religious zeal is quite disgusting, you know. All those dirty
sinners
> talking about their stereos and making [gasp!] incorrect technical
> statements ... what's a 'borg to do?
>
> You remind me of the Christian Landlady From Hell. A real person, she
was,
> as recounted to me by my friend Brian, who went to look at the house
she was
> renting. It was a small house. Brian didn't have a roommate yet and
he asked
> C.L.F.H. if he could get one later. He said at that point, C.L.F.H.
got all
> red in the face and started muttering, then she said only if it was
another
> guy. Brian asked why as long as their credit was good. C.L.F.H. said
she
> wouldn't put up with sinfulness under her roof. The only thing
missing from
> the story is that signing a lease would mean mandatory attendance at
church.
>
> So you keep on looking for those sinners, sevvy. Stamp out those
> nontechnical discussions. Enforce mandatory "testing" requirements
for
> anybody and everybody. Let the M&M brigade run wild!

So let me get this straight. Telling someone they have made a
technical error is now akin to imposing morality on them?

Mankind is doomed. The process of natural selection is broken and now
any effort to correct someones error is moral imposition.

Well, to be fair there is a silver lining... George has to shut the
hell up about spelling and grammer. No more moral imposition from the
English Teachers Inquisition.

ScottW

Arny Krueger

May 16th 05, 06:07 PM

severian wrote:

>> There is no ultrasonic nastiness in the amp.

Unsupported claim.

>>As it has a feedback
>> loop that is competent to at least 400 kHz, there can't
be any poles
>> in the right half plane.

Current tech test on amp would be required to support this
claim.

>>It does have extremely fast rise time.

So do a lot of amps, but without quantification, who knows?

>> Slewing rate, typically specced for small signal
conditions,
>> diminishes rapidly for an impulse that takes it toward
the supply
>> rails.

In fact most modern amps slow down only a little as output
approaches rail voltage.

>> The Acoustat design doesn't slow down as much as most
other
>> amps.

Unsupported claim, no supporting data provided.

>>Thus, an impulsive type noise, percussion, etc. presents
a
>> tweeter with much more energy (impulse integrated over
time) than
>> provided by a slower amp.

If slow amps are currently much of a problem, which they are
not.

>> IMHO, this excites the resonances so
>> frequently heard in titanium domes (I can't stand them
either, with
>> rare exceptions.)

In fact Morein has no humble opinons.

> Interesting theory. Would definitely make an interesting
test,
> particulary if you picked a speaker to use in the test
with an
> especially nasty tweeter. Like a Focal, or one of the old
Yamaha
> beryllium domes. Morel and Dynaudio soft domes need not
apply eh?

Some of the fastest, extended bandwidth domes around are
fabric.

> Performed with source material with significant HF
content, should
> lead to an interesting test if the theory is true.

Morien has all these theories about amps, most circa 70s and
80s. I'ce never seen him provide even the tinyist amount of
reliable current data to support his claims.

ScottW

May 16th 05, 06:08 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:26:53 GMT, "severian" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:36 GMT, "severian" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to
claim, even
> >> >> using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant
result.
> >> >
> >> >Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is,
REGARDLESS
> >of
> >> >whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly
conducted,
> >he
> >> >FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is
not
> >OPINION,
> >> >but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt
understanding
> >the
> >> >difference.
> >>
> >> So, your opinion is that if a test isn't conducted to the
standards
> >> that are demanded of that specific test, the results of that test
are
> >> valid?
> >>
> >> I disagree totally. There are specific guidelines that are
required BY
> >> PROPONENTS OF SUCH TESTING that are necessary to insure the
validity
> >> of the testing. This particular test violated several of them.
> >
> >Are you really that reading or logically challenged? The validity of
the
> >test in question has absolutely nothing to do with the original
statement
> >you made. See if you can parse this train of thought:
> >
> >Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care
if it was
> >a bogus test or not).
> >
> >A statement was made to that effect.
> >
> >You said Opinion Stated as Fact.
> >
> >The FACT is he couldn't hear a difference in THAT test, regardless
of what
> >you think of the validity of that test.
> >
> >Ergo, it is not OPINION stated as fact, it is FACT.
>
> Parse THIS:
>
> It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
> determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin it.
> for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means he
> *could* tell a difference sometimes.

Pardon the moral imposition but... No it doesn't. Really absurd
statement.

If you really believe this, I must impose some technically morality on
you and suggest some pennance (homework) is required.

ScottW

Arny Krueger

May 16th 05, 06:10 PM

severian wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> You are probably aware of the "10 Requirements for
Reliable
>> and Sensitive Listening Tests" posted at www.pcabx.com .
>> Atkinson seems to find them way too difficult for a
person
>> with his limited resources, but they do help avoid
problems
>> such as these.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hadn't read your page until now, but those are rational
and in line
> with what I've seen referenced before.
>
> The channel imbalance did not appear to be a difference in
loudness,
> it manifested itself as a significant difference in
imaging between
> the two amps.

Very believable, as that is how things often work out.

> Definitely detectable, once corrected my ability to
> discern the differences vanished as well.

Again, consistent with years of observations of small level
and channel balance differences.

Lionel

May 16th 05, 06:38 PM

ScottW a écrit :
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>severianborg said:
>>
>>
>>>The main problem occurs when
>>>non-technical people try and make definitive statements about
>
> technical
>
>>>issues, which also often happens.
>>
>>Your religious zeal is quite disgusting, you know. All those dirty
>
> sinners
>
>>talking about their stereos and making [gasp!] incorrect technical
>>statements ... what's a 'borg to do?
>>
>>You remind me of the Christian Landlady From Hell. A real person, she
>
> was,
>
>>as recounted to me by my friend Brian, who went to look at the house
>
> she was
>
>>renting. It was a small house. Brian didn't have a roommate yet and
>
> he asked
>
>>C.L.F.H. if he could get one later. He said at that point, C.L.F.H.
>
> got all
>
>>red in the face and started muttering, then she said only if it was
>
> another
>
>>guy. Brian asked why as long as their credit was good. C.L.F.H. said
>
> she
>
>>wouldn't put up with sinfulness under her roof. The only thing
>
> missing from
>
>>the story is that signing a lease would mean mandatory attendance at
>
> church.
>
>>So you keep on looking for those sinners, sevvy. Stamp out those
>>nontechnical discussions. Enforce mandatory "testing" requirements
>
> for
>
>>anybody and everybody. Let the M&M brigade run wild!
>
>
> So let me get this straight. Telling someone they have made a
> technical error is now akin to imposing morality on them?
>
> Mankind is doomed. The process of natural selection is broken and now
> any effort to correct someones error is moral imposition.
>
> Well, to be fair there is a silver lining... George has to shut the
> hell up about spelling and grammer.

Is it why you have written "grammer" instead of "grammar" ?

> No more moral imposition from the
> English Teachers Inquisition.

Have you find the time to learn the difference between
"hubris" and "pride" Mr Moralist ?

:-D

Lionel

May 16th 05, 06:41 PM

Lionel

May 16th 05, 06:43 PM

ScottW a écrit :

>>It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
>>determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin it.
>>for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means he
>>*could* tell a difference sometimes.
>
>
>
> Pardon the moral imposition but... No it doesn't. Really absurd
> statement.
>
> If you really believe this, I must impose some technically morality on
> you and suggest some pennance (homework) is required.

Poor Dave, even Scott "The Môron" is spanking your butt.

;-)

Lionel

May 16th 05, 06:49 PM

ScottW a écrit :
> dave weil wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:26:53 GMT, "severian" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:36 GMT, "severian" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>There were way too many flaws in the testing procedure to
>
> claim, even
>
>>>>>>using dbt proponents own standards, any sort of significant
>
> result.
>
>>>>>Yada yada yada. I remember it all too well, and the point is,
>
> REGARDLESS
>
>>>of
>>>
>>>>>whether or not you or anyone else feels the test was properly
>
> conducted,
>
>>>he
>>>
>>>>>FAILED to discern the difference IN THIS TEST, therefore it is
>
> not
>
>>>OPINION,
>>>
>>>>>but FACT. Obviously you have a significant challenge wrt
>
> understanding
>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>difference.
>>>>
>>>>So, your opinion is that if a test isn't conducted to the
>
> standards
>
>>>>that are demanded of that specific test, the results of that test
>
> are
>
>>>>valid?
>>>>
>>>>I disagree totally. There are specific guidelines that are
>
> required BY
>
>>>>PROPONENTS OF SUCH TESTING that are necessary to insure the
>
> validity
>
>>>>of the testing. This particular test violated several of them.
>>>
>>>Are you really that reading or logically challenged? The validity of
>
> the
>
>>>test in question has absolutely nothing to do with the original
>
> statement
>
>>>you made. See if you can parse this train of thought:
>>>
>>>Zipser failed to detect a difference in the test (and I don't care
>
> if it was
>
>>>a bogus test or not).
>>>
>>>A statement was made to that effect.
>>>
>>>You said Opinion Stated as Fact.
>>>
>>>The FACT is he couldn't hear a difference in THAT test, regardless
>
> of what
>
>>>you think of the validity of that test.
>>>
>>>Ergo, it is not OPINION stated as fact, it is FACT.
>>
>>Parse THIS:
>>
>>It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
>>determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin it.
>>for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means he
>>*could* tell a difference sometimes.
>
>
>
> Pardon the moral imposition but... No it doesn't. Really absurd
> statement.
>
> If you really believe this, I must impose some technically morality on
> you and suggest some pennance (homework) is required.

Ooops I forgot... "Penance" one "n" only !!!

:-D

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 06:50 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein a écrit :
> > "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Robert Morein said:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Sorry, pinhead, but words have meanings. Just because you don't know
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>>correct word for something doesn't mean you get to choose whichever
> >
> > word you
> >
> >>>>want. It was not a test. It was an exercise, a prelude to a
> >
> > demonstration, a
> >
> >>>>mockup of a test.... pick your poison. But a test it was not.
> >>
> >>>Maybe the two of you have not bothered to agree on what was being
> >
> > tested.
> >
> >>>I get this impression:
> >>>Severian assumes it was a test of amplifiers.
> >>>George assumes it was a test of ABX.
> >>
> >>Not.
> >>
> >>It was not a real test. If it had been a real test, it would have been a
> >>test of Zippy's ability to distinguish amplifiers.
> >>
> >>The problem with calling that debacle a "test" is that the word becomes
so
> >>diluted that it's meaningless. If Zippy's exercise was a test, how do
you
> >>distinguish it from tests that adhere to accepted principles, and whose
> >>results might therefore have some meaning?
> >>
> >>The Zippy exercise proved nothing. It flouted any scientific principles
> >
> > with
> >
> >>which you might wish to imbue a real test.
> >>
> >
> > Given that Zippy had cardiac problems, and implicitly,
artheriosclerosis,
> > which affects hearing, you may well be right.
>
> You can doubt as you want of Zippy hearing accuracy but
> cardiac problems don't imply systematic artheriosclerosis.

He was a heavy smoker, and died of a heart attack.
You're saying there is no statistical association?
I demand we exhume the body and do an autopsy!
We must get to the bottom of this.

dave weil

May 16th 05, 07:37 PM

On 16 May 2005 10:08:03 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
>> determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin it.
>> for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means he
>> *could* tell a difference sometimes.
>
>
>Pardon the moral imposition but... No it doesn't. Really absurd
>statement.

That was my point. My statement is the logical extention of his
argument that just because there was a test of *any* sort, that one
could draw a conclusion based on it simply because there *was* a test,
regardless whether or not it was given properly and that you can draw
whatever conclusions you like regardless of the protocol.

These sort of tests have specific guidelines that must be met to be
valid. They aren't *my* guidelines, note.

>If you really believe this, I must impose some technically morality on
>you and suggest some pennance (homework) is required.

You need to reread the statement again.

dave weil

May 16th 05, 07:39 PM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:43:08 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>ScottW a écrit :
>
>>>It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
>>>determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin it.
>>>for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means he
>>>*could* tell a difference sometimes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pardon the moral imposition but... No it doesn't. Really absurd
>> statement.
>>
>> If you really believe this, I must impose some technically morality on
>> you and suggest some pennance (homework) is required.
>
>Poor Dave, even Scott "The Môron" is spanking your butt.

Well, since he completely misinterpreted the statement, my butt is
fine, thank you.

Thanks for the interest in my butt, but, it's not available to people
with your chromosome set.

dave weil

May 16th 05, 07:40 PM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:38:41 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>Have you find the time to learn the difference between
>"hubris" and "pride" Mr Moralist ?

If only you could get your tenses correct.

Lionel

May 16th 05, 08:23 PM

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:43:08 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>ScottW a écrit :
>>
>>>>It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
>>>>determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin it.
>>>>for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means he
>>>>*could* tell a difference sometimes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pardon the moral imposition but... No it doesn't. Really absurd
>>> statement.
>>>
>>> If you really believe this, I must impose some technically morality on
>>> you and suggest some pennance (homework) is required.
>>
>>Poor Dave, even Scott "The Môron" is spanking your butt.
>
> Well, since he completely misinterpreted the statement, my butt is
> fine, thank you.
>
> Thanks for the interest in my butt, but, it's not available to people
> with your chromosome set.

Do you mean that some people with other chromosome set have had some fun
with your butt ?
You have strange sexual pratices Dave... :-)

Lionel

May 16th 05, 08:27 PM

In >, Robert Morein wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Morein a écrit :
>> > "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Robert Morein said:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>Sorry, pinhead, but words have meanings. Just because you don't know
>> >
>> > the
>> >
>> >>>>correct word for something doesn't mean you get to choose whichever
>> >
>> > word you
>> >
>> >>>>want. It was not a test. It was an exercise, a prelude to a
>> >
>> > demonstration, a
>> >
>> >>>>mockup of a test.... pick your poison. But a test it was not.
>> >>
>> >>>Maybe the two of you have not bothered to agree on what was being
>> >
>> > tested.
>> >
>> >>>I get this impression:
>> >>>Severian assumes it was a test of amplifiers.
>> >>>George assumes it was a test of ABX.
>> >>
>> >>Not.
>> >>
>> >>It was not a real test. If it had been a real test, it would have been
>> >>a test of Zippy's ability to distinguish amplifiers.
>> >>
>> >>The problem with calling that debacle a "test" is that the word becomes
> so
>> >>diluted that it's meaningless. If Zippy's exercise was a test, how do
> you
>> >>distinguish it from tests that adhere to accepted principles, and whose
>> >>results might therefore have some meaning?
>> >>
>> >>The Zippy exercise proved nothing. It flouted any scientific principles
>> >
>> > with
>> >
>> >>which you might wish to imbue a real test.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Given that Zippy had cardiac problems, and implicitly,
> artheriosclerosis,
>> > which affects hearing, you may well be right.
>>
>> You can doubt as you want of Zippy hearing accuracy but
>> cardiac problems don't imply systematic artheriosclerosis.
>
> He was a heavy smoker, and died of a heart attack.

A heavy smoker with a soft spot for strong alcohols ?
I'm afraid that your diagnostic was correct Bob.

> You're saying there is no statistical association?

This is not what I wrote. I just wrote that it is not systematic

> I demand we exhume the body and do an autopsy!
> We must get to the bottom of this.

Let him sleep quietly.

Lionel

May 16th 05, 08:35 PM

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:38:41 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>Have you find the time to learn the difference between
>>"hubris" and "pride" Mr Moralist ?
>
> If only you could get your tenses correct.

I'm afraid that even with that you would remain very boring. ;-)

George Middius

May 16th 05, 08:42 PM

Scottieborg barked:

>> Here's a question to ponder: Despite all of your gilded "technical
>> credentials", why do Normals consider your presence unwanted in their
>> conversations? Take as much time as you need.=99

> Why don't you reveal the "Normals" perspective on that question? I'd
>like to hear it.

Sacky just said it twice in this thread. No treat for you, Terrierborg!

BTW, you're not as obnoxious with your religious agenda as severianborg is. Same
agenda, different levels of religious fervor.

George Middius

May 16th 05, 08:47 PM

Slut whined:

>With all the other RAO alleged "audiophiles" (Middius,

Still fixated on me, I see. Are you aware this is the first time I've replied to
one of your whines in several months?

If you want some advice <g>, I'd suggest forgetting about me and stick to
yapping at dave weil. He enjoys toying with you.

Robert Morein

May 16th 05, 09:10 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Robert Morein wrote :
>
> >
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Robert Morein a écrit :
> >> > "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>Robert Morein said:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>Sorry, pinhead, but words have meanings. Just because you don't
know
> >> >
> >> > the
> >> >
> >> >>>>correct word for something doesn't mean you get to choose whichever
> >> >
> >> > word you
> >> >
> >> >>>>want. It was not a test. It was an exercise, a prelude to a
> >> >
> >> > demonstration, a
> >> >
> >> >>>>mockup of a test.... pick your poison. But a test it was not.
> >> >>
> >> >>>Maybe the two of you have not bothered to agree on what was being
> >> >
> >> > tested.
> >> >
> >> >>>I get this impression:
> >> >>>Severian assumes it was a test of amplifiers.
> >> >>>George assumes it was a test of ABX.
> >> >>
> >> >>Not.
> >> >>
> >> >>It was not a real test. If it had been a real test, it would have
been
> >> >>a test of Zippy's ability to distinguish amplifiers.
> >> >>
> >> >>The problem with calling that debacle a "test" is that the word
becomes
> > so
> >> >>diluted that it's meaningless. If Zippy's exercise was a test, how do
> > you
> >> >>distinguish it from tests that adhere to accepted principles, and
whose
> >> >>results might therefore have some meaning?
> >> >>
> >> >>The Zippy exercise proved nothing. It flouted any scientific
principles
> >> >
> >> > with
> >> >
> >> >>which you might wish to imbue a real test.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Given that Zippy had cardiac problems, and implicitly,
> > artheriosclerosis,
> >> > which affects hearing, you may well be right.
> >>
> >> You can doubt as you want of Zippy hearing accuracy but
> >> cardiac problems don't imply systematic artheriosclerosis.
> >
> > He was a heavy smoker, and died of a heart attack.
>
> A heavy smoker with a soft spot for strong alcohols ?
> I'm afraid that your diagnostic was correct Bob.
>
> > You're saying there is no statistical association?
>
> This is not what I wrote. I just wrote that it is not systematic
>
> > I demand we exhume the body and do an autopsy!
> > We must get to the bottom of this.
>
> Let him sleep quietly.

There's no indication he wanted this.
I think he would prefer to be in a glass case, gesticulating wildly :).

Lionel

May 16th 05, 09:30 PM

George "Betty Boop" Middius wrote :

> Still fixated on me...

Are you trying to revitalize your libido George ?

> ...dave weil. He enjoys toying with you.

Dave Weil is exclusively toying Kleenex... ;-)

dave weil

May 16th 05, 09:34 PM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:23:22 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>> Thanks for the interest in my butt, but, it's not available to people
>> with your chromosome set.
>
>Do you mean that some people with other chromosome set have had some fun
>with your butt ?

Why yes.

>You have strange sexual pratices Dave... :-)

For a Frenchman, you're awfully unimaginative.

dave weil

May 16th 05, 09:35 PM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:35:06 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:38:41 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Have you find the time to learn the difference between
>>>"hubris" and "pride" Mr Moralist ?
>>
>> If only you could get your tenses correct.
>
>I'm afraid that even with that you would remain very boring. ;-)

You're the one who seems to only know the missionary position.

Lionel

May 16th 05, 09:44 PM

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:23:22 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>> Thanks for the interest in my butt, but, it's not available to people
>>> with your chromosome set.
>>
>>Do you mean that some people with other chromosome set have had some fun
>>with your butt ?
>
> Why yes.

Just to know.

>>You have strange sexual pratices Dave... :-)
> For a Frenchman, you're awfully unimaginative.

It's not a problem of imagination Dave, just a problem of sensation... Note
that if you like that it's up to you.

Why for a Frenchman ?
You are living in comic strip full of cheap stereotypes. This one isn't good
for your inferiority complex... ;-)

Lionel

May 16th 05, 09:45 PM

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:35:06 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>In >, dave weil wrote :
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:38:41 +0200, Lionel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Have you find the time to learn the difference between
>>>>"hubris" and "pride" Mr Moralist ?
>>>
>>> If only you could get your tenses correct.
>>
>>I'm afraid that even with that you would remain very boring. ;-)
>
> You're the one who seems to only know the missionary position.

You're the one who would like to pratice it more often... :-)

dave weil

May 16th 05, 09:48 PM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:44:36 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:23:22 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Thanks for the interest in my butt, but, it's not available to people
>>>> with your chromosome set.
>>>
>>>Do you mean that some people with other chromosome set have had some fun
>>>with your butt ?
>>
>> Why yes.
>
>Just to know.
>
>>>You have strange sexual pratices Dave... :-)
>> For a Frenchman, you're awfully unimaginative.
>
>
>It's not a problem of imagination Dave, just a problem of sensation... Note
>that if you like that it's up to you.
>
>Why for a Frenchman ?
>You are living in comic strip full of cheap stereotypes. This one isn't good
>for your inferiority complex... ;-)

BTW, condolences for the passing of Pierre Moerlen. He was a fine
drummer.

ScottW

May 16th 05, 09:51 PM

George Middius wrote:
> Scottieborg barked:
>
> >> Here's a question to ponder: Despite all of your gilded "technical
> >> credentials", why do Normals consider your presence unwanted in
their
> >> conversations? Take as much time as you need.=99
>
> > Why don't you reveal the "Normals" perspective on that question?
I'd
> >like to hear it.
>
> Sacky just said it twice in this thread. No treat for you,
Terrierborg!

Chicken.

>
> BTW, you're not as obnoxious with your religious agenda as
severianborg is. Same agenda, different levels of religious fervor.

You may have a different agenda but equally religious fervor as
severian.

ScottW

Lionel

May 16th 05, 10:02 PM

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:44:36 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>In >, dave weil wrote :
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:23:22 +0200, Lionel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the interest in my butt, but, it's not available to people
>>>>> with your chromosome set.
>>>>
>>>>Do you mean that some people with other chromosome set have had some fun
>>>>with your butt ?
>>>
>>> Why yes.
>>
>>Just to know.
>>
>>>>You have strange sexual pratices Dave... :-)
>>> For a Frenchman, you're awfully unimaginative.
>>
>>
>>It's not a problem of imagination Dave, just a problem of sensation...
>>Note that if you like that it's up to you.
>>
>>Why for a Frenchman ?
>>You are living in comic strip full of cheap stereotypes. This one isn't
>>good for your inferiority complex... ;-)
>
> BTW, condolences for the passing of Pierre Moerlen. He was a fine
> drummer.

Yes he was.

ScottW

May 16th 05, 10:04 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 16 May 2005 10:08:03 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
> >> determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin
it.
> >> for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means he
> >> *could* tell a difference sometimes.
> >
> >
> >Pardon the moral imposition but... No it doesn't. Really absurd
> >statement.
>
> That was my point. My statement is the logical extention of his
> argument that just because there was a test of *any* sort, that one
> could draw a conclusion based on it simply because there *was* a
test,
> regardless whether or not it was given properly and that you can draw
> whatever conclusions you like regardless of the protocol.

My comment was regarding this statement "he got some identifications
correct. That means he *could* tell a difference sometimes."

Not true under any circumstances, valid test, invalid test. You can't
conclude anything from "some" responses. This idea that one can create
a legit argument based on false statements is religiously offensive to
me.

>
> These sort of tests have specific guidelines that must be met to be
> valid. They aren't *my* guidelines, note.
>
> >If you really believe this, I must impose some technically morality
on
> >you and suggest some pennance (homework) is required.
>
> You need to reread the statement again.

I read it, you can't make the claim you made under any circumstances.
I declare my religious right to call bull****.... so bull****.

ScottW

Lionel

May 16th 05, 10:09 PM

ScottW wrote :

> You may have a different agenda but equally religious fervor as
> severian.

This perfectly applies to George M. Middius, but his religious fervor isn't
about "audio" or this would be known since a long time...

For example George has put his Zealotry to the service of George W. Bush
electoral forces with the success that everybody know...

dave weil

May 16th 05, 10:15 PM

On 16 May 2005 14:04:39 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 16 May 2005 10:08:03 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >> It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
>> >> determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin
>it.
>> >> for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means he
>> >> *could* tell a difference sometimes.
>> >
>> >
>> >Pardon the moral imposition but... No it doesn't. Really absurd
>> >statement.
>>
>> That was my point. My statement is the logical extention of his
>> argument that just because there was a test of *any* sort, that one
>> could draw a conclusion based on it simply because there *was* a
>test,
>> regardless whether or not it was given properly and that you can draw
>> whatever conclusions you like regardless of the protocol.
>
> My comment was regarding this statement "he got some identifications
>correct. That means he *could* tell a difference sometimes."
>
> Not true under any circumstances, valid test, invalid test. You can't
>conclude anything from "some" responses. This idea that one can create
>a legit argument based on false statements is religiously offensive to
>me.

Well then, you should agree with my original statement that drawing
conclusions on the basis of the flawed "test" that Zip took
constituted an opinion ONLY, not a statement of "fact".

Let me help you out by rewriting my statement thusly:

> It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
>determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin
>it.

> for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means
___using the sort of logic that you are employing,__
> he *could* tell a difference sometimes.

>> These sort of tests have specific guidelines that must be met to be
>> valid. They aren't *my* guidelines, note.
>>
>> >If you really believe this, I must impose some technically morality
>on
>> >you and suggest some pennance (homework) is required.
>>
>> You need to reread the statement again.
>
> I read it, you can't make the claim you made under any circumstances.
>I declare my religious right to call bull****.... so bull****.

Jeez...read the ****ing thing again. My point was exactly THAT. It was
just as "valid" as the statement that this "test" was proof of anyhing
other someone being willing to fly somewhere for a ****ing contest
with someone else.

[email protected]

May 16th 05, 10:20 PM

severian wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "severian" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >>
> > >> "severian" > wrote in message
> > >> ink.net...
> > >> >
> > >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > >> > ...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
message
> > >> >> ...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "severian" > wrote in message
> > >> >> > k.net...
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> > We are of the same mind and ears :)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Congratulations on your assimilation.
> > >> >
> > >> > Spoken like a true subjectivist clone...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Go back to your lab and test that hypothesis.
> > >> I'm sure it will bring you hours of delight.
> > >
> > > So, tell me, what's it like having so many identical brothers
around?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The only thing I have in common with my so-called brothers
> > is the belief that enjoyment of our audio systems does
> > not require the rituals of DBT,
>
> On that issue I'd agree with you, and if a person really really likes
> playing with green pens and wires, etc. that's fine. But, the results
of
> DBTs can and are of use to people in trying to tell what the best way
to
> spend money is (or the best way to get the sound they want regardless
of
> price), or if they are curious about something more than just sitting
and
> listening to music.
>
> > Middius is gay, I am not.
>
> Never would have suspected it...
>
> > Weil and Boone like modern progressive rock, I don't
>
> Not exactly my cup of tea either...
>
> > Scott Wheeler, Middius and Weil are much more liberal in their
political
> > outlook than am I.
>
> Figures, they are particularly disingenous and agressively
insulting...

Gee You've now insulted me (along with all liberals) and I don't think
we have even been introduced. Are you yhis charming in person?

Scott Wheeler

ScottW

May 16th 05, 10:30 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 16 May 2005 14:04:39 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On 16 May 2005 10:08:03 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:
> >>
> >> >> It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference". To make that
> >> >> determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin
> >it.
> >> >> for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means
he
> >> >> *could* tell a difference sometimes.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Pardon the moral imposition but... No it doesn't. Really absurd
> >> >statement.
> >>
> >> That was my point. My statement is the logical extention of his
> >> argument that just because there was a test of *any* sort, that
one
> >> could draw a conclusion based on it simply because there *was* a
> >test,
> >> regardless whether or not it was given properly and that you can
draw
> >> whatever conclusions you like regardless of the protocol.
> >
> > My comment was regarding this statement "he got some
identifications
> >correct. That means he *could* tell a difference sometimes."
> >
> > Not true under any circumstances, valid test, invalid test. You
can't
> >conclude anything from "some" responses. This idea that one can
create
> >a legit argument based on false statements is religiously offensive
to
> >me.
>
> Well then, you should agree with my original statement that drawing
> conclusions on the basis of the flawed "test" that Zip took
> constituted an opinion ONLY, not a statement of "fact".

I'll put a bit more credence in Zips claims that he wasn't doing well
due to his hangover as much as the test being flawed.

>
> Let me help you out by rewriting my statement thusly:
>
> > It was said "couldn't RELIABLY hear a difference".

during the test. What else is there?

> To make that
> >determination, the test has to be valid, no matter HOW you spin
> >it.
>
> > for instance, he got some identifications correct. That means
> ___using the sort of logic that you are employing,__
> > he *could* tell a difference sometimes.

Convoluted logic is not my forte.

>
> >> These sort of tests have specific guidelines that must be met to
be
> >> valid. They aren't *my* guidelines, note.
> >>
> >> >If you really believe this, I must impose some technically
morality
> >on
> >> >you and suggest some pennance (homework) is required.
> >>
> >> You need to reread the statement again.
> >
> > I read it, you can't make the claim you made under any
circumstances.
> >I declare my religious right to call bull****.... so bull****.
>
> Jeez...read the ****ing thing again. My point was exactly THAT. It
was
> just as "valid"

Nope... it was obviously false on it's own as written.

>as the statement that this "test" was proof of anyhing
> other someone being willing to fly somewhere for a ****ing contest
> with someone else.

Pretty much proved Zip was full of it, but not much else. Wasn't that
the point of the test anyway?

ScottW

Lionel

May 16th 05, 10:32 PM

ScottW " The mÔron wrote :
> dave weil wrote:

> My comment was regarding this statement "he got some identifications
> correct. That means he *could* tell a difference sometimes."
>
> Not true under any circumstances, valid test, invalid test. You can't
> conclude anything from "some" responses. This idea that one can create
> a legit argument based on false statements is religiously offensive to
> me.

[....]

>> You need to reread the statement again.
>
> I read it, you can't make the claim you made under any circumstances.
> I declare my religious right to call bull****.... so bull****.

You are very lucky, Dave's statements are usually more unprecise, more
blurred and keep him an emergency exit somewhere. This one is clear concise
and obviously absurd. You are very, very lucky...

NB : I would not be surprised that Dave argues soon on the usage of the
conditional mode in "...he could tell a difference..."

:-)

George M. Middius

May 16th 05, 11:01 PM

Scott said:

> Gee You've now insulted me (along with all liberals) and I don't think
> we have even been introduced. Are you yhis charming in person?

This 'borg admits to being trained by Pierced Dick. That's why it's proud of
its nastiness.

George M. Middius

May 16th 05, 11:09 PM

Scottieborg said:

> > So you keep on looking for those sinners, sevvy. Stamp out those
> > nontechnical discussions. Enforce mandatory "testing" requirements for
> > anybody and everybody. Let the M&M brigade run wild!

> So let me get this straight. Telling someone they have made a
> technical error is now akin to imposing morality on them?

I don't have any extra words (or time to summon them) to explain how you're
being doltish again. Suffice it to say that nobody this stupid should be
allowed to mix in society without a keeper.

This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

Arny Krueger

May 17th 05, 02:17 AM

severian wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> George Middius wants us to believe that the most
important
>> parameter about a stereo is the discounted price that you
>> get on it.
>
> Perhaps, but how do you know?

Based on a post he made here a few weeks back.

He won't tell us the make and model of his equipment, but he
made a big point about the discount from list price.

>I mean, in the years I've seen "him"
> post, I've never run across him saying ANYTHING that leads
me to
> believe he even HAS an audio system.

Whatever it is, he's very pleased with the discount that he
got on it.

> Granted I've never read much he
> posted, and most of that by accident, but I mean, has he
ever
> actually talked about audio or equipment, I've only seen
him insult
> and spread discontent.

Yup that's the George Middius we know and love!

> Maybe he has a old set of AM-5's? That would explain his
> irritability...<g>

I suspect he's deaf.

ScottW

May 17th 05, 02:58 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scottieborg said:
>
>> > So you keep on looking for those sinners, sevvy. Stamp out those
>> > nontechnical discussions. Enforce mandatory "testing" requirements for
>> > anybody and everybody. Let the M&M brigade run wild!
>
>> So let me get this straight. Telling someone they have made a
>> technical error is now akin to imposing morality on them?
>
> I don't have any extra words (or time to summon them) to explain how
> you're
> being doltish again. Suffice it to say that nobody this stupid should be
> allowed to mix in society without a keeper.

You said the same thing the last time I pointed out your hypocrisy. Is this
a reflex response?

ScottW

Clyde Slick

May 17th 05, 03:19 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> You need to reread the statement again.

First he has to reread it once, before he rereads it again.

----== 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

May 17th 05, 03:20 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:43:08 +0200, Lionel >
>
> Thanks for the interest in my butt, but, it's not available to people
> with your chromosome set.
>

You don't do Mongoloid idiots?

----== 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 =----

Arny Krueger

May 17th 05, 10:00 AM

Robert Morein wrote:

> As I said to Lionel, the reason they are so mad at Arny
is, he gives
> them no room to breathe. He would like to put the "high
end" to the
> torch like a rabid revolutionary.

Morein, given what a ****-poor job you do of speaking for
yourself, you should think better than to speak for me.

I don't want to put the whole high end to the torch. I've
long said that I see a place, even a prized place for high
end audio products that provide reliable performance
advantages.

There's low end snake oil like the Monster Cable products
they sell at Circuit City, and there's high end snake oil
like I saw at HE2005. The problem is not that its high end,
the problem is that it is snake oil.

> resumably, a lot of quackery would be swept away.

....at both the high end and the low end of the audio
marketplace.

> But it's not worth the loss.

There ain't no loss when snake oil is swept away.

> Your speculations about
> resonances are significant, and DBT's would be
interesting. Arny's
> mind is not open about this at all.

Morien, you've long confused having holes in your head with
being open minded.

>> Not surprising, most people if they are
>> curious enough to comment on something tend to want to
know why it
>> happens, but also don't **** on my head and tell me it's
raining. ;-)

You do a fine job of doing that for yourself, Robert.

Lionel

May 17th 05, 01:04 PM

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:43:08 +0200, Lionel >
>>
>> Thanks for the interest in my butt, but, it's not available to people
>> with your chromosome set.
>>
>
> You don't do Mongoloid idiots?

....Nor the pervert old pederasts !

;-)

dave weil

May 17th 05, 03:29 PM

On 16 May 2005 14:30:22 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Pretty much proved Zip was full of it, but not much else. Wasn't that
>the point of the test anyway?

It didn't prove ANYTHING. Which was my original claim.

dave weil

May 17th 05, 03:31 PM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:32:43 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>
>ScottW " The mÔron wrote :
>> dave weil wrote:
>
>> My comment was regarding this statement "he got some identifications
>> correct. That means he *could* tell a difference sometimes."
>>
>> Not true under any circumstances, valid test, invalid test. You can't
>> conclude anything from "some" responses. This idea that one can create
>> a legit argument based on false statements is religiously offensive to
>> me.
>
>[....]
>
>>> You need to reread the statement again.
>>
>> I read it, you can't make the claim you made under any circumstances.
>> I declare my religious right to call bull****.... so bull****.
>
>You are very lucky, Dave's statements are usually more unprecise, more
>blurred and keep him an emergency exit somewhere. This one is clear concise
>and obviously absurd

Yes. That was the point. That it was as absurd as the statement that
that the test "proved" that Zip couldn't hear a difference.

John Atkinson

May 17th 05, 04:52 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same cop-out. They
> failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the number of
> trials they attempted.

It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that in
the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an inadequate
number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence level.

This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that the
results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
differences existed.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 17th 05, 06:51 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message
oups.com...

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same cop-out.
They
> > failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the number of
> > trials they attempted.

> It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that in
> the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
> the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
> Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
inadequate
> number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence
level.

So why not do an adequate number of trials?

> This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that the
> results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> differences existed.

Oh come on now John. You know that it's difficult or
impossible to prove a negative hypothesis.

[email protected]

May 17th 05, 07:13 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> message
> oups.com...
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same cop-out.
> They
> > > failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the number of
> > > trials they attempted.
>
> > It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that in
> > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
> > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
> > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> inadequate
> > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence
> level.
>
> So why not do an adequate number of trials?
>
> > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that the
> > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> > differences existed.
>
> Oh come on now John. You know that it's difficult or
> impossible to prove a negative hypothesis.

You should address these issues to the idiot who proctored the test and
then made bogus assertions based on it. It's not John's fault that
David Clark is trying to pass this crap off as good science and
meaningful evidence.

Scott Wheeler

Robert Morein

May 17th 05, 07:31 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> > message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same cop-out.
> > They
> > > > failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the number of
> > > > trials they attempted.
> >
> > > It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that in
> > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
> > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
> > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> > inadequate
> > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence
> > level.
> >
> > So why not do an adequate number of trials?
> >
> > > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that the
> > > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> > > differences existed.
> >
> > Oh come on now John. You know that it's difficult or
> > impossible to prove a negative hypothesis.
>
> You should address these issues to the idiot who proctored the test and
> then made bogus assertions based on it. It's not John's fault that
> David Clark is trying to pass this crap off as good science and
> meaningful evidence.
>

Arny Krueger=BAD SCIENTIST

I've been saying it all along. This is PROOF.

Schizoid Man

May 17th 05, 07:50 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message

>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same cop-out. They
>> failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the number of
>> trials they attempted.
>
> It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that in
> the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
> the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
> Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an inadequate
> number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence level.
>
> This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that the
> results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> differences existed.

John,

I can understand why you reject DBTs and they are not part of Stereophile's
editorial philosophy.

However, if I remeber correctly, a large part of the British press does do
blind testing on their component - Hi-Fi Choice come to mind, though I am
not sure about What Hi-Fi.

What are they doing different?

Schiz.

Arny Krueger

May 17th 05, 11:38 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "John Atkinson" >
wrote in
> > message
> >
oups.com...
> >
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same
cop-out.
> > They
> > > > failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the number
of
> > > > trials they attempted.
> >
> > > It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that
in
> > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES
Convention,
> > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate
David
> > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
inadequate
> > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > identifications correct would not reach the 95%
confidence
> > level.
> >
> > So why not do an adequate number of trials?
> >
> > > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that
the
> > > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> > > differences existed.
> >
> > Oh come on now John. You know that it's difficult or
> > impossible to prove a negative hypothesis.
>
> You should address these issues to the idiot who proctored
the test and
> then made bogus assertions based on it.

That would be Fremer and Atkinson?

>It's not John's fault that David Clark is trying to pass
this crap off as good science and
> meaningful evidence.

Prove that David Clark is trying to pass this crap off as
good science and
meaningful evidence.

Arny Krueger

May 17th 05, 11:39 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in
message ...
>
> > wrote in message
>
oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "John Atkinson" >
wrote in
> > > message
> > >
oups.com...
> > >
> > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > > Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same
cop-out.
> > > They
> > > > > failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the
number of
> > > > > trials they attempted.
> > >
> > > > It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that
in
> > > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES
Convention,
> > > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate
David
> > > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> > > inadequate
> > > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > > identifications correct would not reach the 95%
confidence
> > > level.
> > >
> > > So why not do an adequate number of trials?
> > >
> > > > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact
that the
> > > > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > > > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> > > > differences existed.
> > >
> > > Oh come on now John. You know that it's difficult or
> > > impossible to prove a negative hypothesis.
> >
> > You should address these issues to the idiot who
proctored the test and
> > then made bogus assertions based on it. It's not John's
fault that
> > David Clark is trying to pass this crap off as good
science and
> > meaningful evidence.

> Arny Krueger=BAD SCIENTIST

Thanks Bob for proving that you can't distinguish between
Arnold Krueger and David Clark.

> I've been saying it all along. This is PROOF.

Say what? How am I connected to this?
>

Robert Morein

May 18th 05, 12:16 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> message ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> >
> oups.com...
> > >
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > "John Atkinson" >
> wrote in
> > > > message
> > > >
> oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > > > Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same
> cop-out.
> > > > They
> > > > > > failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the
> number of
> > > > > > trials they attempted.
> > > >
> > > > > It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that
> in
> > > > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES
> Convention,
> > > > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate
> David
> > > > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> > > > inadequate
> > > > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > > > identifications correct would not reach the 95%
> confidence
> > > > level.
> > > >
> > > > So why not do an adequate number of trials?
> > > >
> > > > > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact
> that the
> > > > > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > > > > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> > > > > differences existed.
> > > >
> > > > Oh come on now John. You know that it's difficult or
> > > > impossible to prove a negative hypothesis.
> > >
> > > You should address these issues to the idiot who
> proctored the test and
> > > then made bogus assertions based on it. It's not John's
> fault that
> > > David Clark is trying to pass this crap off as good
> science and
> > > meaningful evidence.
>
> > Arny Krueger=BAD SCIENTIST
>
> Thanks Bob for proving that you can't distinguish between
> Arnold Krueger and David Clark.
>
> > I've been saying it all along. This is PROOF.
>
> Say what? How am I connected to this?
> >
By this duplicitous quote:
" Oh come on now John. You know that it's difficult or
impossible to prove a negative hypothesis."

[email protected]

May 18th 05, 01:32 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "John Atkinson" >
> wrote in
> > > message
> > >
> oups.com...
> > >
> > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > > Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same
> cop-out.
> > > They
> > > > > failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the number
> of
> > > > > trials they attempted.
> > >
> > > > It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that
> in
> > > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES
> Convention,
> > > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate
> David
> > > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> inadequate
> > > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > > identifications correct would not reach the 95%
> confidence
> > > level.
> > >
> > > So why not do an adequate number of trials?
> > >
> > > > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that
> the
> > > > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > > > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> > > > differences existed.
> > >
> > > Oh come on now John. You know that it's difficult or
> > > impossible to prove a negative hypothesis.
> >
> > You should address these issues to the idiot who proctored
> the test and
> > then made bogus assertions based on it.
>
> That would be Fremer and Atkinson?

No. That would be David Clark.

>
> >It's not John's fault that David Clark is trying to pass
> this crap off as good science and
> > meaningful evidence.
>
> Prove that David Clark is trying to pass this crap off as
> good science and
> meaningful evidence.

Keep your head in the sand for all I care. You've been told enough
times by two eye witnesses. Considering how many times they have gone
over this with you, it is truly weird that you still haven't retained
such basic information on the subject such as who proctored the test.

Scott Wheeler

Arny Krueger

May 18th 05, 02:19 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> >
oups.com...
> > >
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > "John Atkinson" >
> > wrote in
> > > > message
> > > >
> >
oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > > > Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same
> > cop-out.
> > > > They
> > > > > > failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the
number
> > of
> > > > > > trials they attempted.
> > > >
> > > > > It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
that
> > in
> > > > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES
> > Convention,
> > > > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your
associate
> > David
> > > > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> > inadequate
> > > > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > > > identifications correct would not reach the 95%
> > confidence
> > > > level.
> > > >
> > > > So why not do an adequate number of trials?
> > > >
> > > > > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact
that
> > the
> > > > > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > > > > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no
audible
> > > > > differences existed.
> > > >
> > > > Oh come on now John. You know that it's difficult or
> > > > impossible to prove a negative hypothesis.
> > >
> > > You should address these issues to the idiot who
proctored
> > the test and
> > > then made bogus assertions based on it.
> >
> > That would be Fremer and Atkinson?
>
>
> No. That would be David Clark.
>
>
>
> >
> > >It's not John's fault that David Clark is trying to
pass
> > this crap off as good science and
> > > meaningful evidence.
> >
> > Prove that David Clark is trying to pass this crap off
as
> > good science and
> > meaningful evidence.
>
>
> Keep your head in the sand for all I care. You've been
told enough
> times by two eye witnesses.

What have I been told? Prove it with direct quotes!

jeffc

May 18th 05, 02:40 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Both are a bit too grainy for my taste.
> How did the 555 get destroyed? Through the AC ?

Yeah, I had no line protection at the time. Several other things in the
house got trashed too (TV etc.).

[email protected]

May 18th 05, 04:02 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > >
> oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > > "John Atkinson" >
> > > wrote in
> > > > > message
> > > > >
> > >
> oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > > > > Zipser, Fremer and Atkinson all took the same
> > > cop-out.
> > > > > They
> > > > > > > failed to do a proper DBT, right down to the
> number
> > > of
> > > > > > > trials they attempted.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
> that
> > > in
> > > > > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES
> > > Convention,
> > > > > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your
> associate
> > > David
> > > > > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> > > inadequate
> > > > > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > > > > identifications correct would not reach the 95%
> > > confidence
> > > > > level.
> > > > >
> > > > > So why not do an adequate number of trials?
> > > > >
> > > > > > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > > > > > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no
> audible
> > > > > > differences existed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh come on now John. You know that it's difficult or
> > > > > impossible to prove a negative hypothesis.
> > > >
> > > > You should address these issues to the idiot who
> proctored
> > > the test and
> > > > then made bogus assertions based on it.
> > >
> > > That would be Fremer and Atkinson?
> >
> >
> > No. That would be David Clark.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >It's not John's fault that David Clark is trying to
> pass
> > > this crap off as good science and
> > > > meaningful evidence.
> > >
> > > Prove that David Clark is trying to pass this crap off
> as
> > > good science and
> > > meaningful evidence.
> >
> >
> > Keep your head in the sand for all I care. You've been
> told enough
> > times by two eye witnesses.
>
> What have I been told?

Amoung other things...."It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
that in
the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an inadequate
number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence level.

This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that the
results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
differences existed."

Prove it with direct quotes!

"It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that in
the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an inadequate
number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence level.

This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that the
results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
differences existed."

I guess you are having trouble remembering things Arny. I took this
quote, as per your request, straight from *this* thread. This should
clue you in on the relevant information should you forget the subject
we are debating here. "the number of trials was set at 5 by your
associate David
Clark." Oh and there is this bit you love to forget/ignore/ pretend
never happened. "This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that
the
results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
incorrectly proclaimed as *proving* that no audible
differences existed." Had enough proof that you've been told by eye
witnesses? Had enough quotes?

Scott Wheeler

Mike McKelvy

May 18th 05, 08:00 AM

What are they doing different?

Schiz.

Being thurough.

Arny Krueger

May 18th 05, 01:01 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:

> > > Keep your head in the sand for all I care. You've been
> > told enough
> > > times by two eye witnesses.
> >
> > What have I been told?

> Amoung other things...."It should be noted for the record,
Mr. Krueger, that in
> the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
> the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
> Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
inadequate
> number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence
level.

Oh, the Atkinson AES DBT whine #463.

I think this 1988 demonstration of ABX is the trivial
historical event that upsets Fremer so badly that even
almost 20 years later at the HE2005 debate, he loudly
proclaimed that I should attempt some anatomically
impossible act.

Obvious to me is the fact that poor Fremer is suffering from
some acute form of post traumatic stress syndrome which
caused his childish behavior at the HE2005 debate. Perhaps
Dr. Bruce Richman should accompany him to such events. OTOH,
Dr. Bruce has a few issues of his own.

IMO Fremer may need some medical attention for his malady.
He must have been sufferingt his way ever since 1988. Just
guessing, but there are some anti-anxiety medications that
might be administered to make Fremer fit for being in
public. I defer to Dr. Bruce Richman's expertise in this
matter.

> This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that the
> results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> differences existed."

> Prove it with direct quotes!

> "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that in
> the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
> the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
> Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
inadequate
> number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence
level.

Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
misapprehensions, and lacking proof that anybody proclaimed
it as "proving" that no audible differences existed.

What this quote does prove is that my friend David Clark,
who is not lacking in persuasive powers, failed to get that
wiley old fox named John Atkinson to do a statistically
significant number of trials, which would be required for
this to even be a test. It was obviously a demonstration!
The fact that Atkinson represents this demonstration as a
test speaks to his poor understanding of scientific testing
methodologies.

You can play again, Scott but this time get your act
together!

[email protected]

May 18th 05, 05:43 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > > > Keep your head in the sand for all I care. You've been
> > > told enough
> > > > times by two eye witnesses.
> > >
> > > What have I been told?
>
> > Amoung other things...."It should be noted for the record,
> Mr. Krueger, that in
> > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
> > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
> > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> inadequate
> > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence
> level.
>
> Oh, the Atkinson AES DBT whine #463.

I'd call it the David Clark pseudoscience soapbox demonstration #25.
How embarrassing to the AES that it would take place at their
convention with their members.

>
> I think this 1988 demonstration of ABX is the trivial
> historical event that upsets Fremer so badly that even
> almost 20 years later at the HE2005 debate, he loudly
> proclaimed that I should attempt some anatomically
> impossible act.

I would agree with you there. I think the entire objectivist movement
in audio has been trivial for the high end.

>
> Obvious to me is the fact that poor Fremer is suffering from
> some acute form of post traumatic stress syndrome which
> caused his childish behavior at the HE2005 debate. Perhaps
> Dr. Bruce Richman should accompany him to such events. OTOH,
> Dr. Bruce has a few issues of his own.

You are one to talk about childish behavior.

>
> IMO Fremer may need some medical attention for his malady.

You might want to see a doctor about your memory problems.

> He must have been sufferingt his way ever since 1988.

Yeah. Maybe. I have come to my own coclusion on that. Objectivists are
not worth getting worked up about. They just don't matter when it comes
to high end audio.

Just
> guessing, but there are some anti-anxiety medications that
> might be administered to make Fremer fit for being in
> public. I defer to Dr. Bruce Richman's expertise in this
> matter.

I don't think he spends *that* much time worrying about it. It's not
like he has spent the last seven years of his life posting rants and
gibberish on Usenet 100,000 times.

>
> > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that the
> > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> > differences existed."
>
> > Prove it with direct quotes!
>
> > "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that in
> > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES Convention,
> > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate David
> > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> inadequate
> > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > identifications correct would not reach the 95% confidence
> level.
>
> Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> misapprehensions, and lacking proof that anybody proclaimed
> it as "proving" that no audible differences existed.

Yep, keep that head burried in the sand.

>
> What this quote does prove is that my friend David Clark,
> who is not lacking in persuasive powers, failed to get that
> wiley old fox named John Atkinson to do a statistically
> significant number of trials, which would be required for
> this to even be a test.

I see, you are just as dishonest as David Clark. What a shame some
audiophiles think you dorks really represent science. You know you
could raise your game to Ferstler's level and just submit some
fraudulant dbts that prove all amps sound the same and be king of the
pseudoscience hill. I know you are an underachiever by nature by why
not go for the gold? When you get called on it you can blame everyone
and everything including a lying ggogle for your dishonesty.

It was obviously a demonstration!

So says the guy that wasn't there. PROVE IT!!! GIVE ME DIRECT QUOTES!!!

> The fact that Atkinson represents this demonstration as a
> test speaks to his poor understanding of scientific testing
> methodologies.

The fact that you play so loosely with facts speaks to your poor
understanding of integrity. Or maybe you don't care about that. You
have yet to call Ferstler on his fraduulant published dbts.

>
> You can play again, Scott but this time get your act
> together!

You are an idiot. I answered your question and gave you the quote you
asked for. Let's see you do the same. Fat chance.

Scott Wheeler

Arny Krueger

May 18th 05, 05:59 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> >
oups.com...
> > >
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > > > > Keep your head in the sand for all I care. You've
been
> > > > told enough
> > > > > times by two eye witnesses.
> > > >
> > > > What have I been told?
> >
> > > Amoung other things...."It should be noted for the
record,
> > Mr. Krueger, that in
> > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES
Convention,
> > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate
David
> > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> > inadequate
> > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > identifications correct would not reach the 95%
confidence
> > level.
> >
> > Oh, the Atkinson AES DBT whine #463.

> I'd call it the David Clark pseudoscience soapbox
demonstration #25.
> How embarrassing to the AES that it would take place at
their
> convention with their members.

Since David Clark has no way been quoted in this discussion,
I'd take this as exhibit #2,968 that Scott Wheeler is
totally clueless about the concept of proof.

> > I think this 1988 demonstration of ABX is the trivial
> > historical event that upsets Fremer so badly that even
> > almost 20 years later at the HE2005 debate, he loudly
> > proclaimed that I should attempt some anatomically
> > impossible act.

> I would agree with you there. I think the entire
objectivist movement
> in audio has been trivial for the high end.

Nahh, its that the high end is too stupid and bull-headed to
be lead to the fountain of science, let alone drink.

> > Obvious to me is the fact that poor Fremer is suffering
from
> > some acute form of post traumatic stress syndrome which
> > caused his childish behavior at the HE2005 debate.
Perhaps
> > Dr. Bruce Richman should accompany him to such events.
OTOH,
> > Dr. Bruce has a few issues of his own.

> You are one to talk about childish behavior.

True, all of my surviving children have become productive
adults. So far there are two long-lasting self-sustaining
family units with children of their own, a PhD, two BSs,
with another PhD and a MBA on the way.

Hey Scott, how's the wife and kids?

> > IMO Fremer may need some medical attention for his
malady.

> You might want to see a doctor about your memory problems.

So far the only lapses appear to be due to Scott Wheeler,
who confuses quotes of John Atkinson with statements by
Davcid Clark.

> > He must have been suffering this way ever since 1988.

> Yeah. Maybe. I have come to my own coclusion on that.

So much for Scott Wheeler's lexicon which is composed of
non-existent words! ;-)

>Objectivists are
> not worth getting worked up about. They just don't matter
when it comes
> to high end audio.

You've got it reversed Scott. High end audio just doesn't
matter when it comes to things that do really matter. Now
that I've been to HE2005 which is supposed to be the
defining High End conclave, I've seen the fruits and nuts in
all their glory.

> > Just
> > guessing, but there are some anti-anxiety medications
that
> > might be administered to make Fremer fit for being in
> > public. I defer to Dr. Bruce Richman's expertise in this
> > matter.

> I don't think he spends *that* much time worrying about
it.

Well he should start worrying...

> It's not like he has spent the last seven years of his
life posting rants and
> gibberish on Usenet 100,000 times.

I guess that is a definative statement that Fremer does not
post as George Middius.

> > > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that
the
> > > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> > > differences existed."

> > > Prove it with direct quotes!

> > > "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that
in
> > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES
Convention,
> > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate
David
> > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> > inadequate
> > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > identifications correct would not reach the 95%
confidence
> > level.
>
> > Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> > misapprehensions, and lacking proof that anybody
proclaimed
> > it as "proving" that no audible differences existed.

> Yep, keep that head burried in the sand.

Oh that's why Atkinson looks the way he did in the HE2005
PIX - he had sand in his eyes!

> > What this quote does prove is that my friend David
Clark,
> > who is not lacking in persuasive powers, failed to get
that
> > wiley old fox named John Atkinson to do a statistically
> > significant number of trials, which would be required
for
> > this to even be a test.

> I see, you are just as dishonest as David Clark.

No evidence provided to support this claim.

> What a shame some audiophiles think you dorks really
represent science.

Childish name-calling noted.

> You know you
> could raise your game to Ferstler's level and just submit
some
> fraudulant dbts that prove all amps sound the same and be
king of the
> pseudoscience hill.

I'm not Ferstler's daddy and he tells us he is nobody's
daddy at all.

> I know you are an underachiever by nature by why
> not go for the gold? When you get called on it you can
blame everyone
> and everything including a lying ggogle for your
dishonesty.

No evidence provided to support this claim.

> > It was obviously a demonstration!
>
>
> So says the guy that wasn't there. PROVE IT!!! GIVE ME
DIRECT QUOTES!!!

Your quote from Atkinson seems damning enough ---- of
Atkinson!

> > The fact that Atkinson represents this demonstration as
a
> > test speaks to his poor understanding of scientific
testing
> > methodologies.

> The fact that you play so loosely with facts speaks to
your poor
> understanding of integrity.

No evidence provided to support this claim.

>Or maybe you don't care about that. You
> have yet to call Ferstler on his fraduulant published
dbts.

There are no such things as fraduulant published dbts.

> > You can play again, Scott but this time get your act
> > together!

> You are an idiot.

Childish name-calling noted.

>I answered your question and gave you the quote you
> asked for. Let's see you do the same. Fat chance.

Been there, done that!

John Atkinson

May 18th 05, 06:38 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > quoted me in message
> oups.com...
> > "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
> > that in the tests that were performed at the 1988
> > AES Convention, the number of trials was set at 5 by
> > your associate David Clark. I have already pointed
> > out that this is an inadequate number of trials, as
> > even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications correct
> > would not reach the 95% confidence level.
>
> Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> misapprehensions...

I fear you don't seem to have comprehended what I
wrote about the 1988 Clark AES test, Mr. Krueger.
My correctly pointing out that scoring 5 correct
out of 5 trials, as Michael Fremer did, doesn't
reach the 95% confidence level is factually correct.
Period.

> and lacking proof that anybody proclaimed it as
> "proving" that no audible differences existed.

Not only has this series of tests been widely cited
in the years since it took place as "proving" the
amplifiers didn't sound different from one another,
it was said so by David Clark and others in the AES
workshop that followed the tests. I was present at
that workshop, as was Michael Fremer, and the event
was discussed both in Stereophile in the JAES.
However, as you were not present at the test or the
workshop, Mr. Krueger, and had no involvement in the
organization of either, it is diffcult to see
what factual basis exists to support your denials.

> What this quote does prove is that my friend
> David Clark, who is not lacking in persuasive powers,
> failed to get that wiley old fox named John Atkinson
> to do a statistically significant number of trials,
> which would be required for this to even be a test.

As explained in the magaizne and journal coverage at
that time, far from trying to persuade listeners to
perform more than 5 trials, it was Clark himself who
limited the number of trials any one listener could do
at one time to 5. Yes it was possible for someone to
perform a second set of 5 trials. However, this would
have involved standing in line for an hour or more for
a second time, and people do have other matters to
attend to at an AES Convention.

> It was obviously a demonstration! The fact that
> Atkinson represents this demonstration as a test
> speaks to his poor understanding of scientific
> testing methodologies.

Clark himself described it as a test, _not_ a
demonstration. The AES referred to the event
as a test, both in the program and in the workshop
where the results were discussed. For Mr. Krueger
to _continue_ to insist that this event, at which he
was not present and had no connection with, was
not intended to be a test is, shall I say,
illogical if not downright absurd.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[email protected]

May 18th 05, 08:16 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > >
> oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Keep your head in the sand for all I care. You've
> been
> > > > > told enough
> > > > > > times by two eye witnesses.
> > > > >
> > > > > What have I been told?
> > >
> > > > Amoung other things...."It should be noted for the
> record,
> > > Mr. Krueger, that in
> > > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES
> Convention,
> > > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate
> David
> > > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> > > inadequate
> > > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > > identifications correct would not reach the 95%
> confidence
> > > level.
> > >
> > > Oh, the Atkinson AES DBT whine #463.
>
> > I'd call it the David Clark pseudoscience soapbox
> demonstration #25.
> > How embarrassing to the AES that it would take place at
> their
> > convention with their members.
>
> Since David Clark has no way been quoted in this discussion,
> I'd take this as exhibit #2,968 that Scott Wheeler is
> totally clueless about the concept of proof.

Another windmill bites the dust. I guess Arny doesn't know that
eyewitnesses are considered proof.

>
> > > I think this 1988 demonstration of ABX is the trivial
> > > historical event that upsets Fremer so badly that even
> > > almost 20 years later at the HE2005 debate, he loudly
> > > proclaimed that I should attempt some anatomically
> > > impossible act.
>
> > I would agree with you there. I think the entire
> objectivist movement
> > in audio has been trivial for the high end.
>
> Nahh, its that the high end is too stupid and bull-headed to
> be lead to the fountain of science, let alone drink.

Riiiiight. Thanks for admitting you think the pseudoscience crap that
Clark, Ferstler and the like are pimping is actual science. That puts
all your opinions in perspective.

>
> > > Obvious to me is the fact that poor Fremer is suffering
> from
> > > some acute form of post traumatic stress syndrome which
> > > caused his childish behavior at the HE2005 debate.
> Perhaps
> > > Dr. Bruce Richman should accompany him to such events.
> OTOH,
> > > Dr. Bruce has a few issues of his own.
>
> > You are one to talk about childish behavior.
>
> True.

Thanks for the admission. ;-)

>
> Hey Scott, how's the wife and kids?

Still confused about the status of my family I see. But my wife and
daughter are doing quite well thanks for asking.

>
> > > IMO Fremer may need some medical attention for his
> malady.
>
> > You might want to see a doctor about your memory problems.
>
> So far the only lapses appear to be due to Scott Wheeler,

You are blaming me for your memory problems? Wierd.

> who confuses quotes of John Atkinson with statements by
> Davcid Clark.

Who is Davcid Clark? By the way you didn't ask for a quote from David
Clark you asked for a quote citing what *you* had been told. Was this
another case of you not meaning what you said?

>
> > > He must have been suffering this way ever since 1988.
>
> > Yeah. Maybe. I have come to my own coclusion on that.
>
> So much for Scott Wheeler's lexicon which is composed of
> non-existent words! ;-)

Tell it to Davcid. ;-)

>
> >Objectivists are
> > not worth getting worked up about. They just don't matter
> when it comes
> > to high end audio.
>
> You've got it reversed Scott.

No.

High end audio just doesn't
> matter when it comes to things that do really matter.

OK you are indeed not the sharpest knife in the drawer. The reverse
would be that high end audio doesn't matter to objectivists. And to a
large degree I think this is ture with the exception of the bitter
losers who can't let go of their sour grapes and as a result spend much
of their life posting vile and gibberish on Usenet and the like. Dude,
if the opposite is true and high end audio doesn't matter to
objectivists I suggest you move on and get over something that doesn't
matter to you.

Now
> that I've been to HE2005 which is supposed to be the
> defining High End conclave, I've seen the fruits and nuts in
> all their glory.

You mean that after all these years of bitching and whinning about high
end audio you have never bothered to expose yourself to it until HE2005
and now you think *that* represents the zenith of performance for high
end audio? Your opinion simply does not count then. You are clueless.

>
> > > Just
> > > guessing, but there are some anti-anxiety medications
> that
> > > might be administered to make Fremer fit for being in
> > > public. I defer to Dr. Bruce Richman's expertise in this
> > > matter.
>
> > I don't think he spends *that* much time worrying about
> it.
>
> Well he should start worrying...

Oh yeah, I'm sure you have him shaking in his boots. LOL.

>
> > It's not like he has spent the last seven years of his
> life posting rants and
> > gibberish on Usenet 100,000 times.
>
> I guess that is a definative statement that Fremer does not
> post as George Middius.

"definately" ;-)

>
> > > > This would not matter if it weren't for the fact that
> the
> > > > results of these 1988 tests have been widely but
> > > > incorrectly proclaimed as "proving" that no audible
> > > > differences existed."
>
> > > > Prove it with direct quotes!
>
> > > > "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger, that
> in
> > > > the tests that were performed at the 1988 AES
> Convention,
> > > > the number of trials was set at 5 by your associate
> David
> > > > Clark. I have already pointed out that this is an
> > > inadequate
> > > > number of trials, as even a listener scoring 5/5
> > > > identifications correct would not reach the 95%
> confidence
> > > level.
> >
> > > Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> > > misapprehensions, and lacking proof that anybody
> proclaimed
> > > it as "proving" that no audible differences existed.
>
> > Yep, keep that head burried in the sand.
>
> Oh that's why Atkinson looks the way he did in the HE2005
> PIX - he had sand in his eyes!

Is that your idea of humor? Keep your day job Arny. Ooops, never mind.

>
> > > What this quote does prove is that my friend David
> Clark,
> > > who is not lacking in persuasive powers, failed to get
> that
> > > wiley old fox named John Atkinson to do a statistically
> > > significant number of trials, which would be required
> for
> > > this to even be a test.
>
> > I see, you are just as dishonest as David Clark.
>
> No evidence provided to support this claim.

Over your head.

>
> > What a shame some audiophiles think you dorks really
> represent science.
>
> Childish name-calling noted.

You are the expert.

>
> > You know you
> > could raise your game to Ferstler's level and just submit
> some
> > fraudulant dbts that prove all amps sound the same and be
> king of the
> > pseudoscience hill.
>
> I'm not Ferstler's daddy and he tells us he is nobody's
> daddy at all.

That makes sense. NOT. You *are* selective in your targets. It clearly
has nothing to do with anyone upholding of good science unless you
think fraud is a part of good science.

>
> > I know you are an underachiever by nature by why
> > not go for the gold? When you get called on it you can
> blame everyone
> > and everything including a lying ggogle for your
> dishonesty.
>
> No evidence provided to support this claim.

LOL Maybe you should google the records of your 100,000+ posts. The
evidence is there.

>
>
> > > It was obviously a demonstration!
> >
> >
> > So says the guy that wasn't there. PROVE IT!!! GIVE ME
> DIRECT QUOTES!!!
>
> Your quote from Atkinson seems damning enough ---- of
> Atkinson!

I see. No proof, no quotes. As usual, no substance.

>
> > > The fact that Atkinson represents this demonstration as
> a
> > > test speaks to his poor understanding of scientific
> testing
> > > methodologies.
>
> > The fact that you play so loosely with facts speaks to
> your poor
> > understanding of integrity.
>
> No evidence provided to support this claim.

As usual, it went over your head.

>
> >Or maybe you don't care about that. You
> > have yet to call Ferstler on his fraduulant published
> dbts.
>
> There are no such things as fraduulant published dbts.

Is that a "definative" statement?

>
> > > You can play again, Scott but this time get your act
> > > together!
>
> > You are an idiot.
>
> Childish name-calling noted.

I suppose calling people pedophiles is more grown up? How about this?
Hypocrite.

>
> >I answered your question and gave you the quote you
> > asked for. Let's see you do the same. Fat chance.
>
> Been there, done that!

Bull****.

Scott Wheeler

Arny Krueger

May 19th 05, 03:53 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > quoted me in message
> >
oups.com...
> > > "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
> > > that in the tests that were performed at the 1988
> > > AES Convention, the number of trials was set at 5 by
> > > your associate David Clark. I have already pointed
> > > out that this is an inadequate number of trials, as
> > > even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications correct
> > > would not reach the 95% confidence level.

> > Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> > misapprehensions...

I'm tired of screwing with your butchering of my posts John.

End.

Margaret von B.

May 19th 05, 04:23 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > > quoted me in message
>> >
> oups.com...
>> > > "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
>> > > that in the tests that were performed at the 1988
>> > > AES Convention, the number of trials was set at 5 by
>> > > your associate David Clark. I have already pointed
>> > > out that this is an inadequate number of trials, as
>> > > even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications correct
>> > > would not reach the 95% confidence level.
>
>> > Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
>> > misapprehensions...
>
> I'm tired of screwing with your butchering of my posts John.
>
> End.
>
>

End? Horse****! If ONLY that was true....

Cheers,

Margaret

Arny Krueger

May 19th 05, 11:09 AM

"Margaret von B." > wrote
in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Atkinson" >
wrote in
> > message
> >
oups.com...
> >>
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > > quoted me in message
> >> >
> >
oups.com...
> >> > > "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
> >> > > that in the tests that were performed at the 1988
> >> > > AES Convention, the number of trials was set at 5
by
> >> > > your associate David Clark. I have already pointed
> >> > > out that this is an inadequate number of trials, as
> >> > > even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications correct
> >> > > would not reach the 95% confidence level.
> >
> >> > Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> >> > misapprehensions...
> >
> > I'm tired of screwing with your butchering of my posts
John.
> >
> > End.
> >
> >
>
> End? Horse****! If ONLY that was true....
>

Yup Maggie, you keep coming back like a herpes.

John Atkinson

May 19th 05, 12:12 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > quoted me in message
> > oups.com...
> >>> "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
> >>> that in the tests that were performed at the 1988
> >>> AES Convention, the number of trials was set at 5 by
> >>> your associate David Clark. I have already pointed
> >>> out that this is an inadequate number of trials, as
> >>> even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications correct
> >>> would not reach the 95% confidence level.
> >
> >> Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> >> misapprehensions...
> >
> >I fear you don't seem to have comprehended what I
> >wrote about the 1988 Clark AES test, Mr. Krueger.
> >My correctly pointing out that scoring 5 correct
> >out of 5 trials, as Michael Fremer did, doesn't
> >reach the 95% confidence level is factually correct.
> >Period.
> > >
> > >and lacking proof that anybody proclaimed it as
> > >"proving" that no audible differences existed.
> >
> >Not only has this series of tests been widely cited
> >in the years since it took place as "proving" the
> >amplifiers didn't sound different from one another,
> >it was said so by David Clark and others in the AES
> >workshop that followed the tests. I was present at
> >that workshop, as was Michael Fremer, and the event
> >was discussed both in Stereophile in the JAES.
> >However, as you were not present at the test or the
> >workshop, Mr. Krueger, and had no involvement in the
> >organization of either, it is diffcult to see
> >what factual basis exists to support your denials.
> > >
> >>What this quote does prove is that my friend
> >>David Clark, who is not lacking in persuasive powers,
> >>failed to get that wiley old fox named John Atkinson
> >>to do a statistically significant number of trials,
> >>which would be required for this to even be a test.
> >
> >As explained in the magaizne and journal coverage at
> >that time, far from trying to persuade listeners to
> >perform more than 5 trials, it was Clark himself who
> >limited the number of trials any one listener could do
> >at one time to 5. Yes it was possible for someone to
> >perform a second set of 5 trials. However, this would
> >have involved standing in line for an hour or more for
> >a second time, and people do have other matters to
> >attend to at an AES Convention.
> > >
> >>It was obviously a demonstration! The fact that
> >>Atkinson represents this demonstration as a test
> >>speaks to his poor understanding of scientific
> >>testing methodologies.
> >
> >Clark himself described it as a test, _not_ a
> >demonstration. The AES referred to the event
> >as a test, both in the program and in the workshop
> >where the results were discussed. For Mr. Krueger
> >to _continue_ to insist that this event, at which he
> >was not present and had no connection with, was
> >not intended to be a test is, shall I say,
> >illogical if not downright absurd.
>
> I'm tired of screwing with your butchering of my posts John.
> End.

_What_ butchering? I reinstated the text of mine that you
deleted to show that I responded to each of your points, Mr.
Krueger.

But let's postulate that you are correct: that this test of
David Clark's was so poorly designed and performed that the
results should be discarded, as you insist. In that case,
then, should't you admit that all the commentators who
have cited this tests as "proving" there were no audible
differences between the amplifiers were _wrong_ to have made
that claim?

Going further, if you dsiqualify this 1988 test, then
shouldn't you also then disqualify _all_ the tests that produced
null results but failed to meet your 10 Minimum Requirements
as reproduced on pcabx.com? The Nousaine/Zipser tests, for
example? If you do so, then by your own logic, there no
longer exists any of the blind tests that Tom Nousaine, for
example, has loudly and longly proclaimed as being strong
circumstantial evidence for the absence of audible amplifier
differences.

_That_, Mr. Krueger, is the "End" of your argument, surely.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Margaret von B.

May 19th 05, 05:27 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote
> in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "John Atkinson" >
> wrote in
>> > message
>> >
> oups.com...
>> >>
>> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> > > quoted me in message
>> >> >
>> >
> oups.com...
>> >> > > "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
>> >> > > that in the tests that were performed at the 1988
>> >> > > AES Convention, the number of trials was set at 5
> by
>> >> > > your associate David Clark. I have already pointed
>> >> > > out that this is an inadequate number of trials, as
>> >> > > even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications correct
>> >> > > would not reach the 95% confidence level.
>> >
>> >> > Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
>> >> > misapprehensions...
>> >
>> > I'm tired of screwing with your butchering of my posts
> John.
>> >
>> > End.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> End? Horse****! If ONLY that was true....
>>
>
> Yup Maggie, you keep coming back like a herpes.
>

I'm truly saddened to hear that you suffer from such a disease. Did you get
it from your wife? They advertise some drug on TV these days that is
supposed to reduce the number of outbreaks. You should check into it. Maybe
responding to my *audio* post "RAO systems" would take your mind at least
temporarily of off your venereal diseases.

BTW, what happened to the "end"? Well, I'm always happy to correctly predict
someone's behavior.... :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

Howard Ferstler

May 19th 05, 10:14 PM

jeffc wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Unless the Adcom has some gross design problems (unlikely)
> > or is defective or broken (also unlikely), it should sound
> > as good as any other good amp up to its overload point.
> > Don't let these idiots give you a bum steer about amplifier
> > sound.

> It's funny how one person's failure to hear differences between amplifiers
> implies that other people are idiots.

It might be a good thing if you bothered to at least do some
level-matched DBT work with amps before you assume that your
preconceptions are valid. The comparisons are not all that
hard to do.

Actually, they might not be idiots. They might be
level-headed as can be out there in the real world and just
become goofy when it comes to their hobby.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

May 19th 05, 10:25 PM

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > I built a box using double-throw switches that I got from
> > Radio shack.

> A really bad idea.
> I actually made this mistake. I was interested in exploring ABX, so I put
> together remote controlled relay boxes using Radio Shack relays.

I did not use relays. I used rather noisy mechanical
switches. I did not use the box for DBT work, but instead
used it for sighted comparisons. Now, I did install a second
set of switches on the same box that were not hooked to
anything, and there have been times when I used the box for
standard blind comparing with amps and the subject did not
know if I was throwing the wired switches or the unwired
ones. A cheap trick that sometimes pays off.

> These cheap relays have iridium plated contacts, which have signficant (to
> audio) contact resistance. While entirely adequate for switching power, I am
> convinced they are not transparent for audio.

I wonder how well configured the tape-monitor and other
switches within a typical preamp would happen to be. If a
switch has significant contact resistance (easy to measure,
I think) then obviously there would be problems. More likely
than not, however, a switch will be an either/or device.
Either it makes contact adequately or else it does not make
contact at all. If there is a switch-contact problem that is
"iffy," the result would be clearly audible as an
intermittent signal or serious hash.

> As I recall, Arny did a more thorough job. He used silver relays, which
> probably means silver/silver oxide, which have a much better chance of audio
> transparency.

The ABX device I used was made by QSC and had rather durable
contacts as I recall.

While you are obviously interested in doing some rather
precise comparing, it is remarkable how so many other
individuals will do sloppy comparing work (or no comparing
at all) when coming to conclusions about the sound of
preferred components, and then get all technical and
hypercritical when critiquing how ABX or DBT (or even
single-blind) proponents do their comparing work.

Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
true believers who have no particular interest at all in
doing careful comparing. They have a faith to defend.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

May 19th 05, 10:34 PM

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:22:22 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >Note that when Nousaine visited our little friend down in
> >Miami some time back, the DBT involved a pair of expensive
> >Pass monoblocks and a rather vintage Yamaha integrated amp,
> >and Zipser could not reliably hear a difference.
>
> Opinion stated as fact.

If this comparison had involved the Pass monoblocks and
another high-end amp combo I would have to cut you some
slack.

However, the other amp was that old Yamaha integrated unit.
The Pass monoblocks (if the tweakos are correct) should have
mopped up the floor with that Yamaha. However, no matter
what anyone might think about Zipser's excuses or even
Nousaine's excuses (they obviously ended up disagreeing
about what went on), the fact is that Zipser HAD REAL
TROUBLE (even by his own admission) hearing differences. And
he was listening for differences and not just happily
listening to music for pleasure. If he had been doing the
latter with the Yamaha amp (without knowing it was playing),
my guess is that he would never have been able to be
anything but happy with the sound.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

May 19th 05, 10:39 PM

wrote:
>
> severian wrote:

> > The fact is that Zipser could not tell the difference, he amply
> demonstrated
> > that in the test. How is that "opinion?" Let alone "opinion stated as
> fact?"
> >
> >
> Generic excuse: blind tests make the listener(s) "stress out",
> rendering their golden ears tin and making them unable to tell ****
> fron shineola.
> >
> Specific excuses:
> 1)Zipser had a hangover
> 2)the testers made "noises"
> 3)Zipser was just "getting it" when the test was ended by a bad ABX
> box.
> >
> >
> Excuses, excuses!!

The most dramatic thing about the comparison is that we had
two expensive monoblocks vs a pretty mainstream (and old)
Yamaha integrated unit. By tweako standards (including
Zipser's own professed standards), Zipser should have been
able to easily hear differences. (Most tweakos claim to be
able to even hear differences between two upscale amps, and
so hearing differences between an upscale unit and a cheapo
unit should have been easy as hell.) However, even though he
claimed that he eventually was zeroing in on the differences
(his claim to fame), even he admitted that those so-called
differences were extremely hard to hear.

For me, this is proof enough that when tweakos start lauding
the "clearly obvious" superior sound of an amp they are just
fabricating and basically externalizing wishful thinking.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

May 19th 05, 10:42 PM

dave weil wrote:

> Perhaps you should go back and review the record. It is clear, and
> even the "objectivists" were forced to admit it, that the Zipser tests
> weren't conducted to the normal "gold standard" of dbts. It is also
> clear that the trend, when the test was prematurely stopped, was that
> Mr. Zipser was approaching getting a statistically signignicant number
> of trials correct.

You miss the point. Tweakos often state that they can easily
hear differences between amps - even between upscale amps.
Yet, even Zipser admitted that he was having serious
problems hearing differences between those Pass monoblocks
and a rather mundane and old Yamaha integrated unit. By
tweako standards he should have aced the comparison right
off the bat.

Yet, he could not do this.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

May 19th 05, 10:44 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:

> What's the big deal?
> I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are no audible differences
> between the Yamaha and the Pass amps in a DBT.

Good for you. In spite of your professed love of genuine
colorations in amps (that you build into the things), I am
at least happy to realize that you are not a member of the
lunatic fringe.

> As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening, any difference heard in
> sighted listening is valid to the listener, regardless whether visual
> or other clues are responsible for that. End of story.

Oops, I take it all back.

Howard Ferstler

Robert Morein

May 20th 05, 01:28 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > quoted me in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >>> "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
> > >>> that in the tests that were performed at the 1988
> > >>> AES Convention, the number of trials was set at 5 by
> > >>> your associate David Clark. I have already pointed
> > >>> out that this is an inadequate number of trials, as
> > >>> even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications correct
> > >>> would not reach the 95% confidence level.
> > >
> > >> Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> > >> misapprehensions...
> > >
> > >I fear you don't seem to have comprehended what I
> > >wrote about the 1988 Clark AES test, Mr. Krueger.
> > >My correctly pointing out that scoring 5 correct
> > >out of 5 trials, as Michael Fremer did, doesn't
> > >reach the 95% confidence level is factually correct.
> > >Period.
> > > >
> > > >and lacking proof that anybody proclaimed it as
> > > >"proving" that no audible differences existed.
> > >
> > >Not only has this series of tests been widely cited
> > >in the years since it took place as "proving" the
> > >amplifiers didn't sound different from one another,
> > >it was said so by David Clark and others in the AES
> > >workshop that followed the tests. I was present at
> > >that workshop, as was Michael Fremer, and the event
> > >was discussed both in Stereophile in the JAES.
> > >However, as you were not present at the test or the
> > >workshop, Mr. Krueger, and had no involvement in the
> > >organization of either, it is diffcult to see
> > >what factual basis exists to support your denials.
> > > >
> > >>What this quote does prove is that my friend
> > >>David Clark, who is not lacking in persuasive powers,
> > >>failed to get that wiley old fox named John Atkinson
> > >>to do a statistically significant number of trials,
> > >>which would be required for this to even be a test.
> > >
> > >As explained in the magaizne and journal coverage at
> > >that time, far from trying to persuade listeners to
> > >perform more than 5 trials, it was Clark himself who
> > >limited the number of trials any one listener could do
> > >at one time to 5. Yes it was possible for someone to
> > >perform a second set of 5 trials. However, this would
> > >have involved standing in line for an hour or more for
> > >a second time, and people do have other matters to
> > >attend to at an AES Convention.
> > > >
> > >>It was obviously a demonstration! The fact that
> > >>Atkinson represents this demonstration as a test
> > >>speaks to his poor understanding of scientific
> > >>testing methodologies.
> > >
> > >Clark himself described it as a test, _not_ a
> > >demonstration. The AES referred to the event
> > >as a test, both in the program and in the workshop
> > >where the results were discussed. For Mr. Krueger
> > >to _continue_ to insist that this event, at which he
> > >was not present and had no connection with, was
> > >not intended to be a test is, shall I say,
> > >illogical if not downright absurd.
> >
> > I'm tired of screwing with your butchering of my posts John.
> > End.
>
> _What_ butchering? I reinstated the text of mine that you
> deleted to show that I responded to each of your points, Mr.
> Krueger.
>
> But let's postulate that you are correct: that this test of
> David Clark's was so poorly designed and performed that the
> results should be discarded, as you insist. In that case,
> then, should't you admit that all the commentators who
> have cited this tests as "proving" there were no audible
> differences between the amplifiers were _wrong_ to have made
> that claim?
>
> Going further, if you dsiqualify this 1988 test, then
> shouldn't you also then disqualify _all_ the tests that produced
> null results but failed to meet your 10 Minimum Requirements
> as reproduced on pcabx.com? The Nousaine/Zipser tests, for
> example? If you do so, then by your own logic, there no
> longer exists any of the blind tests that Tom Nousaine, for
> example, has loudly and longly proclaimed as being strong
> circumstantial evidence for the absence of audible amplifier
> differences.
>
> _That_, Mr. Krueger, is the "End" of your argument, surely.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
John, don't get too frustrated. The only point of responding to him is to
make a proper exhibit of Arny to others.

[email protected]

May 20th 05, 01:37 AM

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> > "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
> true believers who have no particular interest at all in
> doing careful comparing.

Lets consider Howard's idea of "careful comparing."
I just kept pushing the button and making wild stabs at what I thought
I heard. After a while, I did not bother to listen at all. I just kept
pressing the same choice over and over."

They have a faith to defend.

"If irony killed."

Scott Wheeler

Arny Krueger

May 20th 05, 01:39 AM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...

> As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening, any difference
heard in
> sighted listening is valid to the listener, regardless
whether visual
> or other clues are responsible for that. End of story.

Self-delusion 101. A mind, no matter how drug-damaged, is a
terrible thing to waste.

[email protected]

May 20th 05, 01:50 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > As DBTs don't resemble everyday listening, any difference
> heard in
> > sighted listening is valid to the listener, regardless
> whether visual
> > or other clues are responsible for that. End of story.
>
> Self-delusion 101. A mind, no matter how drug-damaged, is a
> terrible thing to waste.

A cry for help? Try this and good luck.
http://www.drug-rehabilitation.com/

Scott Wheeler

Arny Krueger

May 20th 05, 01:54 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "John Atkinson" >
wrote
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > quoted me in message
> > >
oups.com.
...
> > >>> "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
> > >>> that in the tests that were performed at the 1988
> > >>> AES Convention, the number of trials was set at 5 by
> > >>> your associate David Clark. I have already pointed
> > >>> out that this is an inadequate number of trials, as
> > >>> even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications correct
> > >>> would not reach the 95% confidence level.
> > >
> > >> Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> > >> misapprehensions...
> > >
> > >I fear you don't seem to have comprehended what I
> > >wrote about the 1988 Clark AES test, Mr. Krueger.
> > >My correctly pointing out that scoring 5 correct
> > >out of 5 trials, as Michael Fremer did, doesn't
> > >reach the 95% confidence level is factually correct.
> > >Period.
> > > >
> > > >and lacking proof that anybody proclaimed it as
> > > >"proving" that no audible differences existed.
> > >
> > >Not only has this series of tests been widely cited
> > >in the years since it took place as "proving" the
> > >amplifiers didn't sound different from one another,
> > >it was said so by David Clark and others in the AES
> > >workshop that followed the tests. I was present at
> > >that workshop, as was Michael Fremer, and the event
> > >was discussed both in Stereophile in the JAES.
> > >However, as you were not present at the test or the
> > >workshop, Mr. Krueger, and had no involvement in the
> > >organization of either, it is diffcult to see
> > >what factual basis exists to support your denials.
> > > >
> > >>What this quote does prove is that my friend
> > >>David Clark, who is not lacking in persuasive powers,
> > >>failed to get that wiley old fox named John Atkinson
> > >>to do a statistically significant number of trials,
> > >>which would be required for this to even be a test.

> > >As explained in the magaizne and journal coverage at
> > >that time, far from trying to persuade listeners to
> > >perform more than 5 trials, it was Clark himself who
> > >limited the number of trials any one listener could do
> > >at one time to 5. Yes it was possible for someone to
> > >perform a second set of 5 trials. However, this would
> > >have involved standing in line for an hour or more for
> > >a second time, and people do have other matters to
> > >attend to at an AES Convention.

I guess we can take this as proof that to this day, Atkinson
can't look at a set of 5 results and determine that it is
too small of a sample for finding a conclusive result. So
what was it John, were you blinded by the pretense of
Science so badly that you couldn't see that this was
actually a demonstration?

> > >>It was obviously a demonstration! The fact that
> > >>Atkinson represents this demonstration as a test
> > >>speaks to his poor understanding of scientific
> > >>testing methodologies.
> > >
> > >Clark himself described it as a test, _not_ a
> > >demonstration.

Just goes to show that if David Clark told John Atkinson
that a pile of crap was cake, Atkinson would eat it.

> > >The AES referred to the event
> > >as a test, both in the program and in the workshop
> > >where the results were discussed.

Just goes to show that if the AES told John Atkinson that a
pile of crap was cake, Atkinson would eat it.

> > >For Mr. Krueger
> > >to _continue_ to insist that this event, at which he
> > >was not present and had no connection with, was
> > >not intended to be a test is, shall I say,
> > >illogical if not downright absurd.

I guess that Atkinson wants us to believe that neither he
nor David Clark nor the AES knows how many trials it takes
to be a statisticallt-significant test.

> But let's postulate that you are correct: that this test
of
> David Clark's was so poorly designed and performed that
the
> results should be discarded, as you insist. In that case,
> then, should't you admit that all the commentators who
> have cited this tests as "proving" there were no audible
> differences between the amplifiers were _wrong_ to have
made
> that claim?

These events were what they were, which is that they were
demonstrations. They are inadequte as the only evidence that
would prove a far-reaching conclusion such as "all good
amplifiers sound the same"

> Going further, if you dsiqualify this 1988 test, then
> shouldn't you also then disqualify _all_ the tests that
produced
> null results but failed to meet your 10 Minimum
Requirements
> as reproduced on pcabx.com?

At this time, this would seem to be a reasonable thing to
do. As you shortly admit, Nousaine's collection of null
results (which go well beyond the three or four examples
cited in this post) is just a collection of circumstantial
evidence. Note that Nousaine's paper never sucessfully made
it through the AES referee process for publication in the
journal.

> The Nousaine/Zipser tests, for example?

Those were about a failure by Zipser to prove Zipser's
hypothesis that the amps sounded mind-blowingly different.
The most damning evaluation of those tests was posted by
Zipser on RAO. Then Zippy had his dramatic change of
heart...

>If you do so, then by your own logic, there no
> longer exists any of the blind tests that Tom Nousaine,
for
> example, has loudly and longly proclaimed as being strong
> circumstantial evidence for the absence of audible
amplifier
> differences.

This claim rather vastly understates the total amount of
evidence that Nousaine has presented. But, john Atkinson has
always based his claims on weak, what most more
statististically-sophisticated persons would call small to
the point of being inconclusive sets of results.

> _That_, Mr. Krueger, is the "End" of your argument,
surely.

No John, its just the conclusion of your latest flight of
fancy.

The bottom line John is that you have yet again sucessfully
evaded doing a conclusive set of DBTs for what, 28 years?
Congratulations John - your flight from reality is likely to
continue indefinately. You seem to have managed to churn
evading reality into a profitable life style.

Robert Morein

May 20th 05, 04:47 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
[snip]
>
> Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
> true believers who have no particular interest at all in
> doing careful comparing. They have a faith to defend.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Howard, if I were to admit you were 25% right, I would be doing the
audiophile community a disservice. Like Arny, you have been polarized by the
absurdity of "snake oil", to the extent that you are really blind to the
many subleties that actually do exist.

Together with Arny, you constitute the French Terror of audio. You willingly
put to the torch any idea that doesn't fit into your scheme of things. You
may kill afew rats, but it isn't worth the many fine houses you destroy in
the process.

Robert Morein

May 20th 05, 04:50 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "John Atkinson" >
> wrote
> > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > > quoted me in message
> > > >
> oups.com.
> ..
> > > >>> "It should be noted for the record, Mr. Krueger,
> > > >>> that in the tests that were performed at the 1988
> > > >>> AES Convention, the number of trials was set at 5 by
> > > >>> your associate David Clark. I have already pointed
> > > >>> out that this is an inadequate number of trials, as
> > > >>> even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications correct
> > > >>> would not reach the 95% confidence level.
> > > >
> > > >> Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> > > >> misapprehensions...
> > > >
> > > >I fear you don't seem to have comprehended what I
> > > >wrote about the 1988 Clark AES test, Mr. Krueger.
> > > >My correctly pointing out that scoring 5 correct
> > > >out of 5 trials, as Michael Fremer did, doesn't
> > > >reach the 95% confidence level is factually correct.
> > > >Period.
> > > > >
> > > > >and lacking proof that anybody proclaimed it as
> > > > >"proving" that no audible differences existed.
> > > >
> > > >Not only has this series of tests been widely cited
> > > >in the years since it took place as "proving" the
> > > >amplifiers didn't sound different from one another,
> > > >it was said so by David Clark and others in the AES
> > > >workshop that followed the tests. I was present at
> > > >that workshop, as was Michael Fremer, and the event
> > > >was discussed both in Stereophile in the JAES.
> > > >However, as you were not present at the test or the
> > > >workshop, Mr. Krueger, and had no involvement in the
> > > >organization of either, it is diffcult to see
> > > >what factual basis exists to support your denials.
> > > > >
> > > >>What this quote does prove is that my friend
> > > >>David Clark, who is not lacking in persuasive powers,
> > > >>failed to get that wiley old fox named John Atkinson
> > > >>to do a statistically significant number of trials,
> > > >>which would be required for this to even be a test.
>
> > > >As explained in the magaizne and journal coverage at
> > > >that time, far from trying to persuade listeners to
> > > >perform more than 5 trials, it was Clark himself who
> > > >limited the number of trials any one listener could do
> > > >at one time to 5. Yes it was possible for someone to
> > > >perform a second set of 5 trials. However, this would
> > > >have involved standing in line for an hour or more for
> > > >a second time, and people do have other matters to
> > > >attend to at an AES Convention.
>
> I guess we can take this as proof that to this day, Atkinson
> can't look at a set of 5 results and determine that it is
> too small of a sample for finding a conclusive result. So
> what was it John, were you blinded by the pretense of
> Science so badly that you couldn't see that this was
> actually a demonstration?
>
> > > >>It was obviously a demonstration! The fact that
> > > >>Atkinson represents this demonstration as a test
> > > >>speaks to his poor understanding of scientific
> > > >>testing methodologies.
> > > >
> > > >Clark himself described it as a test, _not_ a
> > > >demonstration.
>
> Just goes to show that if David Clark told John Atkinson
> that a pile of crap was cake, Atkinson would eat it.
>
> > > >The AES referred to the event
> > > >as a test, both in the program and in the workshop
> > > >where the results were discussed.
>
> Just goes to show that if the AES told John Atkinson that a
> pile of crap was cake, Atkinson would eat it.
>
> > > >For Mr. Krueger
> > > >to _continue_ to insist that this event, at which he
> > > >was not present and had no connection with, was
> > > >not intended to be a test is, shall I say,
> > > >illogical if not downright absurd.
>
> I guess that Atkinson wants us to believe that neither he
> nor David Clark nor the AES knows how many trials it takes
> to be a statisticallt-significant test.
>
> > But let's postulate that you are correct: that this test
> of
> > David Clark's was so poorly designed and performed that
> the
> > results should be discarded, as you insist. In that case,
> > then, should't you admit that all the commentators who
> > have cited this tests as "proving" there were no audible
> > differences between the amplifiers were _wrong_ to have
> made
> > that claim?
>
> These events were what they were, which is that they were
> demonstrations. They are inadequte as the only evidence that
> would prove a far-reaching conclusion such as "all good
> amplifiers sound the same"
>
> > Going further, if you dsiqualify this 1988 test, then
> > shouldn't you also then disqualify _all_ the tests that
> produced
> > null results but failed to meet your 10 Minimum
> Requirements
> > as reproduced on pcabx.com?
>
> At this time, this would seem to be a reasonable thing to
> do. As you shortly admit, Nousaine's collection of null
> results (which go well beyond the three or four examples
> cited in this post) is just a collection of circumstantial
> evidence. Note that Nousaine's paper never sucessfully made
> it through the AES referee process for publication in the
> journal.
>
> > The Nousaine/Zipser tests, for example?
>
> Those were about a failure by Zipser to prove Zipser's
> hypothesis that the amps sounded mind-blowingly different.
> The most damning evaluation of those tests was posted by
> Zipser on RAO. Then Zippy had his dramatic change of
> heart...
>
> >If you do so, then by your own logic, there no
> > longer exists any of the blind tests that Tom Nousaine,
> for
> > example, has loudly and longly proclaimed as being strong
> > circumstantial evidence for the absence of audible
> amplifier
> > differences.
>
> This claim rather vastly understates the total amount of
> evidence that Nousaine has presented. But, john Atkinson has
> always based his claims on weak, what most more
> statististically-sophisticated persons would call small to
> the point of being inconclusive sets of results.
>
>
> > _That_, Mr. Krueger, is the "End" of your argument,
> surely.
>
> No John, its just the conclusion of your latest flight of
> fancy.
>
> The bottom line John is that you have yet again sucessfully
> evaded doing a conclusive set of DBTs for what, 28 years?
> Congratulations John - your flight from reality is likely to
> continue indefinately. You seem to have managed to churn
> evading reality into a profitable life style.
>
So you're saying that you've done all this BAD SCIENCE while JA has done
none?
HAHAHAHAAHA!!!!

Stereophile is a potpourri of eclectic opinions. The guy you're criticizing
does the bench work for the magazine, and it's very good work.

John Atkinson

May 20th 05, 04:09 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "John Atkinson" >
> wrote
> > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > > quoted me in message
> > > > oups.com.
> ..
> > > >>> "It should be noted for the record, Mr.
> > > >>> Krueger, that in the tests that were
> > > >>> performed at the 1988 AES Convention, the
> > > >>> number of trials was set at 5 by your
> > > >>> associate David Clark. I have already pointed
> > > >>> out that this is an inadequate number of trials,
> > > >>> as even a listener scoring 5/5 identifications
> > > >>> correct would not reach the 95% confidence level.
> > > >
> > > >> Obviously, just one of Atkinson's anti-scientific
> > > >> misapprehensions...
> > > >
> > > >I fear you don't seem to have comprehended what I
> > > >wrote about the 1988 Clark AES test, Mr. Krueger.
> > > >My correctly pointing out that scoring 5 correct
> > > >out of 5 trials, as Michael Fremer did, doesn't
> > > >reach the 95% confidence level is factually
> > > > correct. Period.
> > > > >
> > > > >and lacking proof that anybody proclaimed it as
> > > > >"proving" that no audible differences existed.
> > > >
> > > >Not only has this series of tests been widely cited
> > > >in the years since it took place as "proving" the
> > > >amplifiers didn't sound different from one another,
> > > >it was said so by David Clark and others in the AES
> > > >workshop that followed the tests. I was present at
> > > >that workshop, as was Michael Fremer, and the event
> > > >was discussed both in Stereophile [and] in the JAES.
> > > >However, as you were not present at the test or the
> > > >workshop, Mr. Krueger, and had no involvement in the
> > > >organization of either, it is diffcult to see
> > > >what factual basis exists to support your denials.
> > > >>
> > > >>What this quote does prove is that my friend
> > > >>David Clark, who is not lacking in persuasive
> > > >>powers, failed to get that wiley old fox named
> > > >>John Atkinson to do a statistically significant
> > > >>number of trials, which would be required for
> > > >>this to even be a test.
> > > >
> > > >As explained in the magazine and journal coverage
> > > >at that time, far from trying to persuade listeners
> > > >to perform more than 5 trials, it was Clark himself
> > > >who limited the number of trials any one listener
> > > >could do at one time to 5. Yes it was possible for
> > > >someone to perform a second set of 5 trials.
> > > >However, this would have involved standing in line
> > > >for an hour or more for a second time, and people
> > > >do have other matters to attend to at an AES
> > > >Convention.
> > > >
> I guess can take this as proof that to this day,
> Atkinson can't look at a set of 5 results and
> determine that it is too small of a sample for finding
> a conclusive result.

I have repeatedly staed that a test of 5 trials is
too small for a positive result to reach the
statistical confidence level to ve considered
conclusive. I have also stated that this was, I
believe, arranged deliberately by the organizer of
the test so that no one listener's results could be
used to produce anything but a null result. When
_all_ the listeners' results were lumped together,
then the number of trials is large enough to
be considered statistically, of course. But then
the inability of the test's designer to limit the
variables led to the expected null result. Which
still does not "prove" the amplifiers sounded the
same, just as you correctly point out on your
website, Mr. Krueger.

> So what was it John, were you blinded by the pretense
> of Science so badly that you couldn't see that this
> was actually a demonstration?

No, Mr. Krueger, it was a_test_, as Michael Fremer
and I have repeatedly informed you. It was described
as a test by David Clark and by the AES. The only
one who insists it wasn't is you and you have no
evidence for that opinion.
[i]
> > > >>It was obviously a demonstration! The fact
> > > >>that Atkinson represents this demonstration as
> > > >>a test speaks to his poor understanding of
> > > >>scientific testing methodologies.
> > > >
> > > >Clark himself described it as a test, _not_ a
> > > >demonstration.
>
> Just goes to show that if David Clark told John
> Atkinson that a pile of crap was cake, Atkinson would
> eat it.

It appears your argument devolves to an accusation
leveled at your associate David Clark that he was lying
to both to the AES and to the listeners like myself
who agreed to take part in his test. Perhaps you'd
better make that point to Mr. Clark's face.

> > But let's postulate that you are correct: that this
> > test of David Clark's was so poorly designed and
> > performed that the results should be discarded, as
> > you insist. In that case, then, should't you admit
> > that all the commentators who have cited this test
> > as "proving" there were no audible differences
> > between the amplifiers were _wrong_ to have made
> > that claim?
> >
> These events were what they were, which is that they
> were demonstrations.

No, Mr. Krueger, they were a test, as described by
David Clark. You propose that Clark was lying to me
about this, which I (and probably he) reject.

> They are inadequte as the only evidence that
> would prove a far-reaching conclusion such as "all
> good amplifiers sound the same"

My point exactly, Mr. Krueger.

> > Going further, if you dsiqualify this 1988 test,
> > then shouldn't you also then disqualify _all_ the
> > tests that produced null results but failed to meet
> > your 10 Minimum Requirements as reproduced on
> > pcabx.com?
>
> At this time, this would seem to be a reasonable thing
> to do.

Exactly my point, Mr. Krueger. It is indeed reasonable
to reject the results of poorly designed, poorly
performed blind tests as "proving" any specific result.

> As you shortly admit, Nousaine's collection of null
> results (which go well beyond the three or four
> examples cited in this post) is just a collection of
> circumstantial evidence.

Despite your admission, Mr. Krueger, Nousaine has
strenuously argued that the null results of all
these tests _do_ so prove that amplifiers cannot
be distinguished by ear. Was he lying also? Or
does he just lack your own scientific insight?

> Note that Nousaine's paper never sucessfully made
> it through the AES referee process for publication
> in the journal.

If you say so, Mr. Krueger. I have no knowledge of
Mr. Nousaine's tribulations at the hands of the
AES referees.

> > The Nousaine/Zipser tests, for example?
>
> Those were about a failure by Zipser to prove
> Zipser's hypothesis that the amps sounded
> mind-blowingly different.

But the Zipser test clearly failed to meet the
criteria for a properly designed blind test. As
you said above, Mr. Krueger, it is therefore
"reasonable" to dismiss the results of that
test as meaningless.

> The most damning evaluation of those tests was
> posted by Zipser on RAO. Then Zippy had his
> dramatic change of heart...

The late Steve Zipser's opinion is hardly relevant
as he neither designed the test nor did he proctor it.
You and others have proclaimed that this test "proved"
Steve could not distinguish the amplifiers by ear. Yet
now you agree that the test was so poorly designed
and performed that the results are meaningless. You
can't have it both ways, Mr. Krueger.

> > If you do so, then by your own logic, there no
> > longer exists any of the blind tests that Tom
> > Nousaine, for example, has loudly and longly
> > proclaimed as being strong circumstantial evidence
> > for the absence of audible amplifier differences.
>
> This claim rather vastly understates the total amount
> of evidence that Nousaine has presented.

No, I have read Mr. Nousaine's writings on this subject.
His circumstantial evidence is merely a list of anecdotes
about blind tests that each, individually, can be
dismissed on the grounds that they do not meet your own
requirements for a test to produce meaningful results.

So given that in one post you retreat into declaring
David Clark a liar and Tom Nousaine an incompetent
tester in order to support your arguments, Mr.
Krueger, I fail to see what else needs to be said. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson

May 20th 05, 04:22 PM

wrote:
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > Let's be realistic, most serious high-end audio buffs are
> > true believers who have no particular interest at all in
> > doing careful comparing.
>
> Let's consider Howard's idea of "careful comparing":
> "I just kept pushing the button and making wild stabs
> at what I thought I heard. After a while, I did not
> bother to listen at all. I just kept pressing the same
> choice over and over."

Don't forget that in the first round of trials, before
Howard Ferstler decided to randomize his scoring as
described above, proper statistical analysis revealed
that he did indeed hear a difference between the
amplifiers under test. However, he rejected that result
because it didn't not conform to his preconceived notions,
surely the mark of a "true believer." :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 20th 05, 05:07 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:

> > I guess can take this as proof that to this day,
> > Atkinson can't look at a set of 5 results and
> > determine that it is too small of a sample for finding
> > a conclusive result.
>
> I have repeatedly stated that a test of 5 trials is
> too small for a positive result to reach the
> statistical confidence level to ve considered
> conclusive.

So then John, why do you keep using the word test in
conjunction with events composed of 5 trials or less?

> I have also stated that this was, I
> believe, arranged deliberately by the organizer of
> the test so that no one listener's results could be
> used to produce anything but a null result.

If it ain't a test then the results are of no major
consequence, right?

> When _all_ the listeners' results were lumped together,
> then the number of trials is large enough to
> be considered statistically, of course.

Subject to the reasonable constraint that the consolidation
of results must have been planned in detail before any
trials were run. Where is the statement by Clark that
pre-defined this critical variable?

> But then the inability of the test's designer to limit the
> variables led to the expected null result.

I see this gratuitous and cryptic statement as a shabby
attempt to invent a claim that null results were the desired
outcome of the event.

> Which
> still does not "prove" the amplifiers sounded the
> same, just as you correctly point out on your
> website, Mr. Krueger.

Let's stipulate that I have devoted a number of years of my
life and a substantial part of a popular web site to doing
proper listening tests that would show, if possible that
there are audible differences between so-called good power
amplifiers.

> > So what was it John, were you blinded by the pretense
> > of Science so badly that you couldn't see that this
> > was actually a demonstration?

> No, Mr. Krueger, it was a_test_, as Michael Fremer
> and I have repeatedly informed you.

The facts that you have presented seem to paint a vastly
different picture. The event was contrived so that it would
be difficult for any participant to obtain statistical
signficant results. You yourself John just complained about
a natural 5 trial limit that was built into the event. You
just wrote:

"I have repeatedly stated that a test of 5 trials is too
small for a positive result to reach the
statistical confidence level to ve considered conclusive."

> It was described
> as a test by David Clark and by the AES.

If that is true then they did so in error or subject to some
other variables that haven't been sufficiently discussed
yet.

>The only one who insists it wasn't is you and you have no
> evidence for that opinion.

For better or worse I have statements by John Atkinson as my
evidence.
[i]
> > > > >>It was obviously a demonstration! The fact
> > > > >>that Atkinson represents this demonstration as
> > > > >>a test speaks to his poor understanding of
> > > >>scientific testing methodologies.

> > > > >Clark himself described it as a test, _not_ a
> > > > >demonstration.

> > Just goes to show that if David Clark told John
> > Atkinson that a pile of crap was cake, Atkinson would
> > eat it.

> It appears your argument devolves to an accusation
> leveled at your associate David Clark that he was lying
> to both to the AES and to the listeners like myself
> who agreed to take part in his test.

My arguement is that if they did so, then they did so in
error or subject to some other variables that haven't been
sufficiently discussed yet.

> Perhaps you'd better make that point to Mr. Clark's face.

I certainly did so right in Mr. Nousaine's face, in your
presence John. Neither Nousaine nor Clark nor myself have
any secrets from each other in this matter.

> > > But let's postulate that you are correct: that this
> > > test of David Clark's was so poorly designed and
> > > performed that the results should be discarded, as
> > > you insist. In that case, then, should't you admit
> > > that all the commentators who have cited this test
> > > as "proving" there were no audible differences
> > > between the amplifiers were _wrong_ to have made
> > > that claim?

> > These events were what they were, which is that they
> > were demonstrations.

> No, Mr. Krueger, they were a test, as described by
> David Clark. You propose that Clark was lying to me
> about this, which I (and probably he) reject.

What's unclear about "...if they did so, then they did so
in error or subject to some other variables that haven't
been sufficiently discussed yet"?

> > They are inadequte as the only evidence that
> > would prove a far-reaching conclusion such as "all
> > good amplifiers sound the same"

> My point exactly, Mr. Krueger.

Then we agree about this. Noisily perhaps, but some kind of
agreement nevertheless.

> > > Going further, if you disqualify this 1988 test,
> > > then shouldn't you also then disqualify _all_ the
> > > tests that produced null results but failed to meet
> > > your 10 Minimum Requirements as reproduced on
> > > pcabx.com?

> > At this time, this would seem to be a reasonable thing
> > to do.

> Exactly my point, Mr. Krueger. It is indeed reasonable
> to reject the results of poorly designed, poorly
> performed blind tests as "proving" any specific result.

Then we agree about this. Noisily perhaps, but some kind of
agreement nevertheless.

Of course we are discussing something that happened about 20
years ago. This was before the publication of recommendation
BS 1116, before publication of the details of ABC/hr, before
JJ's coder tests, and before the opening of the
www.pcabx.com web site.

To summarize, the so-called objectivists listed above have
made a lot of progress, while leading self-proclaimed
subjectivists are still basing all their current work on 27
years old poorly-done blind and sighted evaluations. Despite
all the scientific progress that has been made, it remains
true that there is no evidence for the idea that good power
amps sound the same, despite present and future claims in
Stereophile.

> > As you shortly admit, Nousaine's collection of null
> > results (which go well beyond the three or four
> > examples cited in this post) is just a collection of
> > circumstantial evidence.
>
> Despite your admission, Mr. Krueger, Nousaine has
> strenuously argued that the null results of all
> these tests _do_ so prove that amplifiers cannot
> be distinguished by ear. Was he lying also? Or
> does he just lack your own scientific insight?

What you seemingly don't want to admit John is that you
still have your head in the sand, and there still is no
evidence that good power amps sound different as generally
used.

> > > The Nousaine/Zipser tests, for example?
> >
> > Those were about a failure by Zipser to prove
> > Zipser's hypothesis that the amps sounded
> > mind-blowingly different.
>
> But the Zipser test clearly failed to meet the
> criteria for a properly designed blind test. As
> you said above, Mr. Krueger, it is therefore
> "reasonable" to dismiss the results of that
> test as meaningless.

In the the light of current science the Zipser tests
themselves proved nothing. However, Zipser responded to the
situation in a highly dishonorable fashion, one that while
different is at least as dishonorable as Stereophile's
current equipment testing policy.

> > The most damning evaluation of those tests was
> > posted by Zipser on RAO. Then Zippy had his
> > dramatic change of heart...

> The late Steve Zipser's opinion is hardly relevant
> as he neither designed the test nor did he proctor it.

False claim, as Zippy had control over many important test
parameters and had the freedom to agree or disagree with the
rest.

> You and others have proclaimed that this test "proved"
> Steve could not distinguish the amplifiers by ear.

Prove it.

It is quite clear that despite Zippy's claims of
mind-blowing audible differences between the amps, he failed
to support the hypothesis that they sounded different.

> Yet now you agree that the test was so poorly designed
> and performed that the results are meaningless.

That was due to intransigence on Zippy's part.

> You can't have it both ways, Mr. Krueger.

I decline to take responsibility for Zipser's behavioir.

> > > If you do so, then by your own logic, there no
> > > longer exists any of the blind tests that Tom
> > > Nousaine, for example, has loudly and longly
> > > proclaimed as being strong circumstantial evidence
> > > for the absence of audible amplifier differences.

> > This claim rather vastly understates the total amount
> > of evidence that Nousaine has presented.

> No, I have read Mr. Nousaine's writings on this subject.
> His circumstantial evidence is merely a list of anecdotes
> about blind tests that each, individually, can be
> dismissed on the grounds that they do not meet your own
> requirements for a test to produce meaningful results.

Mr. Nousaine's paper said quite clearly that the anecdotes
should be considered as a group. This casts serious doubts
on your remaining analysis of it, John.

> So given that in one post you retreat into declaring
> David Clark a liar and Tom Nousaine an incompetent
> tester in order to support your arguments, Mr.
> Krueger, I fail to see what else needs to be said. :-)

A joke, of course.