What's all this gum-beating about "tests"?

[George M. Middius]

Is somebody trying to peddle some "test" equipment on the audio newsgroups?

I can't figure out the point of this discussion. Who would want to go to all
the trouble of setting up a scientifically meaningful "test" just to decide
which CD player to get? I don't think there's a shred of realism in this
ideology.

If you want "science", you can't just have a friend switch the components
back and forth, and then try to decide which is which. That's not a real
"test", it's just a crude simulation. If you want a real "test", you need
testing equipment, a truly quiet environment, and meaningful controls of
bias. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.

So I have to think that after one of these inane go-rounds about "tests",
somebody is going to pop up with an offer to sell some "test" equipment.
When it happens, we can all laugh about the salesman who tried to sell snow
to Eskimos.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message


> Is somebody trying to peddle some "test" equipment on the
> audio newsgroups?

Yes. We've got a problem here with people who seem to think
that CD players and amplifiers are test equipment that
everybody needs to buy.

> I can't figure out the point of this discussion.

Given your demonstrated lack of interest in audio Middius,
this surprises me very little.

>Who would
> want to go to all the trouble of setting up a
scientifically
> meaningful "test" just to decide which CD player to get?

Good question. People like Pinkerton and I tell people that
CD players tend to sound very much alike. Therefore they
should make their CD player choices based other factors that
are more important to them.

Unfortunately we've got the technologically backward
nay-sayers like Fella, who want people to believe that their
are mind-boggling audible differences between CD players,
amplifiers and everything else. They're the guys who are
peddling tests - in their case sighted, non-level-matched,
non-time-synched listening tests. They're the guys who are
peddling test equipment, in their case people should buy
this amplifier and test it at home, and then buy that
amplifier and test it at home, and so forth.

> I don't think there's a shred of realism in this
ideology.

Middius, you're not even a real person. How can you
logically present yourself as a judge of realism? Look at
the people around you like Art and Surf. They are so ashamed
of what they post here and their long-term close association
with you that they won't even use their real names here.

> If you want "science", you can't just have a friend switch
the
> components back and forth, and then try to decide which is
> which.

It's not about science, its about doing a reasonble
comparison. That is, if you are actually going to do the
listening tests that people lik Fella and Art keep pushing.

>That's not a real "test", it's just a crude simulation.

Agreed, what that kind of test procedure there's no
level-matching and there's no time-synching so of course
everything will sound different, which is what Art and Fella
keep pushing.

> If you want a real "test", you need testing equipment, a
truly
> quiet environment, and meaningful controls of bias.
Otherwise
> you're just spinning your wheels.

Since when are you an expert about testing, Middius? What
good listening tests have you done and where have you posted
the results? Have you written any papers or magazine
articles about testing? Since when have you been in favor of
testing audio equipment? Why the change of heart?

> So I have to think that after one of these inane go-rounds
> about "tests", somebody is going to pop up with an offer
to
> sell some "test" equipment.

Seems like a worthy business opportunity for you Middius,
given that you have no known job, no known tradem, no known
business, no known education, and no known means of support.

> When it happens, we can all laugh
> about the salesman who tried to sell snow to Eskimos.

Whatever that means.

[Ayn Marx]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Is somebody trying to peddle some "test" equipment on the audio newsgroups?
>
etc,,,,,,,,,Snip<...

Please **** off back to the Land of The Brave and Zenophobic. We have
enough nut cases of our own here on Aus.Hi-Fi.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
oups.com
> George M. Middius wrote:
>> Is somebody trying to peddle some "test" equipment on the
>> audio newsgroups?
>>
> etc,,,,,,,,,Snip<...
>
> Please **** off back to the Land of The Brave and
Zenophobic.
> We have enough nut cases of our own here on Aus.Hi-Fi.

The irony is that we have an Aussie who wants to chase all
the xenophobic Americans out of her sacred little part of
the world. Yes, she wants to chase the foreigners out!

Naah, Ayn isn't a xenophobe, no not even a little bit! ;-)

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> Good question. People like Pinkerton and I tell people that
> CD players tend to sound very much alike.

You impose your misconceptions upon people, you try to rob them of their
freedom of choice and preference, you try to rob them of their potential
audio enjoyment. It's almost criminal. There is almost a touch of evil
in ferstlers cynicism of "everything sounds the same you dumb tweakos"
attitude, for instance.

What's more, you people seem to be going after the high-end industry.
You'd be happy if they all just buckled up and whithered away into
bankruptcy. I don't want my kids to have to listen to music from wicked
sounding metallic assembly line crap gear produced with only
cost-effectiveness in mind and nothing else.

> Therefore they
> should make their CD player choices based other factors that
> are more important to them.

Thus you mislead them.

>
> Unfortunately we've got the technologically backward
> nay-sayers like Fella, who want people to believe that their
> are mind-boggling audible differences between CD players,
> amplifiers and everything else.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "mind-boggling" .. When or if a piece of
equipment introduces mind-boggling huge differences to the music, it is
IMHO, somewhat "improper". It almost leads to means taking over the end,
that is, we have audio equipment in order to be able to listen to music,
yes, but with an amp like the BAT, you have music in order to be able to
listen to the luscious, extravagant, grandiose sound of the amp! Some
might "prefer" to have things that way, OK. But to me, it's improper,
though I am not offended by it in any way.

(It was quite a surprise actually. I had expected the BAT to sound more
like the lean, fast densen but with a better, a bit more daring bass
slam. Though it was fast, not the usually flatulent, slow bass one gets
from tube amps, but it turned out it was a tube-wannabe in the midrange.)


> They're the guys who are
> peddling tests - in their case sighted, non-level-matched,
> non-time-synched listening tests.

You are the one peddling tests. I just merely say that the tests you
meddle do not work, since they kill off existing subtle differences,
what with the setup and the actual act of being subjected to them. I
just resist. I trust what I hear.



> in their case people should buy
> this amplifier and test it at home,

You do not need to buy something to test it at home. I never said that
people should constantly buy amps and switch them around. You have
trouble enough trying to express yourself, don't try it on my behalf also.


>
> Agreed, what that kind of test procedure there's no
> level-matching and there's no time-synching so of course
> everything will sound different, which is what Art and Fella
> keep pushing.

This is another example of your bull**** arny. There has been many
instances where with sighted auditioning a given piece of equipment
sounded almost identical to the piece it was supposed to better.


>
> Since when are you an expert about testing, Middius?


Compared to you my dog is an expert-shlexpert on testing. And just
think, I don't even have a dog. :)

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Good question. People like Pinkerton and I tell people
that
>> CD players tend to sound very much alike.

> You impose your misconceptions upon people,

Fella, you make it sound like Pinkerton and I have some
supernatural control over readers. Reading our posts is a
free choice. Our posts unlike yours Fella, are headed up
with our correct legal names. If people don't want to be
influenced by us, they have free control over their thoughts
and minds.

> you try to rob them of their freedom of choice and
preference,

Fella, how do we rob people of their freedom via Usenet? It
appears that you are trying to rob us of our rights to free
speech by telling lies about us.

> you try to rob them of their potential audio enjoyment.

Which audio enjoyment is that, Fella. Is it the enjoyment of
being duped into buying overpriced audio gear by nameless
aliases such as yourself who take advantage of the
untracable nature of Usenet to make elaborate claims about
expensive equipment that you show evidence of never having
even seen a proper picture of?

> It's almost criminal.

Quit hyperventillating, Fella or whatever your real legal
name is.

> There is almost a touch of evil
> in ferstlers cynicism of "everything sounds the same you
dumb
> tweakos" attitude, for instance.

Thanks Fella for showing that you can't distinguish between
what Ferstler actually says which is that some things sound
the same and what you make up for him to say, which is that
everything sound the same.


> What's more, you people seem to be going after the
high-end industry.

So what is the High End industry, a sacred cow?

> You'd be happy if they all just buckled up and
> whithered away into bankruptcy.

If you haven't noticed Fella, most of us live in
more-or-less free competitive capitalist societies. Nobody
deserves a big chunk of people's cash just because they are
high end audio dealers or manufacturers.

> I don't want my kids to have
> to listen to music from wicked sounding metallic assembly
line
> crap gear produced with only cost-effectiveness in mind
and
> nothing else.

Fella, you make it sound like we put a freeze on your bank
accounts and are stopping you from wasting your money.

>> Therefore they
>> should make their CD player choices based other factors
that
>> are more important to them.

> Thus you mislead them.

What is misleading about suggesting to people that they
should base their choices on real differences that matter to
them?

>> Unfortunately we've got the technologically backward
>> nay-sayers like Fella, who want people to believe that
their
>> are mind-boggling audible differences between CD players,
>> amplifiers and everything else.

> I wouldn't go so far as to say "mind-boggling"

Perhaps, not with the rest of us watching.

>.. When or if a
> piece of equipment introduces mind-boggling huge
differences
> to the music, it is IMHO, somewhat "improper".

Now you're splitting hairs Fella. Look at the elaborate
overblown claims you made about that BAT integrated amp
whose basic properties you didn't even know until I pointed
them out to you a few days ago.

>It almost leads

>> They're the guys who are
>> peddling tests - in their case sighted,
non-level-matched,
>> non-time-synched listening tests.

> You are the one peddling tests.

That's just a lame come-back. Try something original next
time, Fella.

> I just merely say that the tests you meddle do not work,
since they kill off existing
> subtle differences, what with the setup and the actual act
of being subjected to
> them. I just resist. I trust what I hear.

No Fella, you trust uncontrolled level differences,
auditions where the identical same music is not played over
both pieces of equipment, and equipment being in full sight;
so that your prejudices and biases can control your choices.

>> in their case people should buy
>> this amplifier and test it at home,

> You do not need to buy something to test it at home.

That may be true if you are your local hifi dealers favorite
sucker.

>I never said that people should constantly buy amps and
switch them
> around.

Well Fella you rant and rave against us for saying that is a
bad idea.

>You have trouble enough trying to express yourself,
> don't try it on my behalf also.

That's just another lame come-back. Try to say something
original next time, Fella.

>> Agreed, what that kind of test procedure there's no
>> level-matching and there's no time-synching so of course
>> everything will sound different, which is what Art and
Fella
>> keep pushing.

> This is another example of your bull**** arny. There has
been
> many instances where with sighted auditioning a given
piece of
> equipment sounded almost identical to the piece it was
> supposed to better.

Fella I note that you aren't addressing the fact that by
criticizing us for wanting levels to be matched, you are
promoting tests with mismatched levels. I note that you
aren't addressing the fact that by criticizing us for
wanting the music being matched, you are promoting tests
with mismatched music. I note that you aren't addressing the
fact that by criticizing us for sighted bias to be
controlled, you are promoting tests that are dominated by
sighted bias.

>> Since when are you an expert about testing, Middius?

> Compared to you my dog is an expert-shlexpert on testing.
And
> just think, I don't even have a dog. :)

That's just yet another insulting lame come-back. Try
something original and clever next time, Fella.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> Look at the elaborate
> overblown claims you made about that BAT integrated amp
> whose basic properties you didn't even know until I pointed
> them out to you a few days ago.
>

You dumb-schmuck, I had just auditioned that amp for two weeks. Gees,
you can be dumb.

You google skccieenctist you. :)

>
>
> Fella I note that you aren't addressing the fact that by
> criticizing us for wanting levels to be matched,

No you dumb schmuck all I am saying is sit down and listen to the audio
gear as you are supposed to and trust your ears if they tell you they
hear something. Where is the word "test" there?



> Try
> something original and clever next time, Fella.
>
>

Why? It would be wasted on you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" the anonymous alias > wrote in message


> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Look at the elaborate
>> overblown claims you made about that BAT integrated amp
>> whose basic properties you didn't even know until I
pointed
>> them out to you a few days ago.

> You dumb-schmuck, I had just auditioned that amp for two
> weeks. Gees, you can be dumb.

Given how little you actually knew about the BAT before I
corrected you Fella, that is highly doubtful. You didn't
even know its correct price. You were obviously just
dropping names, which is one of those things that people
like you that hide behind anonymous aliases can do quite
easily.

>> Fella I note that you aren't addressing the fact that by
>> criticizing us for wanting levels to be matched,

> No you dumb schmuck all I am saying is sit down and listen
to
> the audio gear as you are supposed to and trust your ears
if
> they tell you they hear something. Where is the word
"test"
> there?

The word test has been replaced by vague words and phrases
like "sit down and listen to
the audio gear as you are supposed to", and "trust your ears
if they tell you they hear something". You're just dancing
around the fact that you're talking about listening tests.

Fella, you like to joke about what my Pioneer receiver tells
me, but its not your ears but your brain that is telling you
things when you listen. One of the things that your brain
knows with your sighted evaluations is what you are
listening to. Anything that you might have been told about
the piece of equipment in the past could be affecting your
judgements.

Fella, your dismissal of the need for level-matching shows
how intellectually lazy you really are.

[George Middius]

Arnii Kroofeces, destructor of human language, plops a big stinking one on
Usenet.

>> You impose your misconceptions upon people,

>Fella, you make it sound like Pinkerton and I have some
>supernatural control over readers.

I think he meant you want to brainwash people, not that you actually do it.

>Reading our posts is a free choice.

I agree with this. If at all possible, Normals should ignore the Big **** and
the other 'borgs.

>Our posts unlike yours Fella, are headed up
>with our correct legal names.

"Headed up"? What's that, some new Krooglish term?

Who is "NYOB"? Who is "torrie****s"? Who is "Geostynch"? They're pseudonyms that
your apologists hide behind. Stop your lying, Mr. ****.


>> you try to rob them of their freedom of choice and preference,

>Fella, how do we rob people of their freedom via Usenet?

Thanks Mr. Kroo**** for admitting that you are unable to read three words in a
row without losing the thread.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message

> Arnii Kroofeces, destructor of human language, plops a big
> stinking one on Usenet.
>
>>> You impose your misconceptions upon people,
>
>> Fella, you make it sound like Pinkerton and I have some
>> supernatural control over readers.
>
> I think he meant you want to brainwash people, not that
you
> actually do it.

Middius, how can you say "I think" with a straight face?

>> Reading our posts is a free choice.

> I agree with this. If at all possible, Normals should
ignore
> the Big **** and the other 'borgs.

That seems to not even be working for your inner circle of
supporters, as important as they are to you Middius.

>> Our posts unlike yours Fella, are headed up
>> with our correct legal names.

> "Headed up"? What's that, some new Krooglish term?

Vain attempt at obfuscation noted.

> Who is "NYOB"? Who is "torrie****s"? Who is "Geostynch"?
> They're pseudonyms that your apologists hide behind. Stop
your
> lying, Mr. ****.

Thanks Middius for showing that you already forgot about
what I wrote at the top of the post about this being about
Pinkerton and I.

>>> you try to rob them of their freedom of choice and
>>> preference,

>> Fella, how do we rob people of their freedom via Usenet?

> Thanks Mr. Kroo**** for admitting that you are unable to
read
> three words in a row without losing the thread.

Totally non-responsive and irrelevant, Middius. Please post
again when your disability insurance covers prescribing you
a clue.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:50:08 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>
>> Good question. People like Pinkerton and I tell people that
>> CD players tend to sound very much alike.
>
>You impose your misconceptions upon people, you try to rob them of their
>freedom of choice and preference, you try to rob them of their potential
>audio enjoyment.

Actually no, we're providing them with useful information which could
save them enough money to buy better speakers.........

> It's almost criminal. There is almost a touch of evil
>in ferstlers cynicism of "everything sounds the same you dumb tweakos"
>attitude, for instance.
>
>What's more, you people seem to be going after the high-end industry.

Yup, that's because it's full of incompetent con artists like Mark
Levinson, George Cardas, Yves Bernard Andre and Peter Qvortrup.

>You'd be happy if they all just buckled up and whithered away into
>bankruptcy.

Yup.

> I don't want my kids to have to listen to music from wicked
>sounding metallic assembly line crap gear produced with only
>cost-effectiveness in mind and nothing else.

Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end
gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell. And you could then
buy really good speakers, which actually *do* make a difference.

>> Therefore they
>> should make their CD player choices based other factors that
>> are more important to them.
>
>Thus you mislead them.

Nope, that's top-drawer advice.
>>
>> Unfortunately we've got the technologically backward
>> nay-sayers like Fella, who want people to believe that their
>> are mind-boggling audible differences between CD players,
>> amplifiers and everything else.
>
>I wouldn't go so far as to say "mind-boggling" .. When or if a piece of
>equipment introduces mind-boggling huge differences to the music, it is
>IMHO, somewhat "improper". It almost leads to means taking over the end,
>that is, we have audio equipment in order to be able to listen to music,
>yes, but with an amp like the BAT, you have music in order to be able to
>listen to the luscious, extravagant, grandiose sound of the amp!

You just crucified your own argument. You're supposed to be listening
to the *musical performance*, you cretin!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:35:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
oups.com
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>>> Is somebody trying to peddle some "test" equipment on the
>>> audio newsgroups?
>>>
>> etc,,,,,,,,,Snip<...
>>
>> Please **** off back to the Land of The Brave and
>Zenophobic.
>> We have enough nut cases of our own here on Aus.Hi-Fi.
>
>The irony is that we have an Aussie who wants to chase all
>the xenophobic Americans out of her sacred little part of
>the world. Yes, she wants to chase the foreigners out!
>
>Naah, Ayn isn't a xenophobe, no not even a little bit! ;-)

Well, at least she's not a phukkin Abo or a Chink, Ms Hansen sorted
them out! Australia for the Australians, I say! I mean, the *real*
Australians, you know, the dregs from England's gutters.

As the New Zealanders say, anyone who emigrates from NZ to Oz is
obviously increasing the average IQ of both countries........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end
>gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell.

Said the Krell owner.

[Fella]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:50:08 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I wouldn't go so far as to say "mind-boggling" .. When or if a piece of
>>equipment introduces mind-boggling huge differences to the music, it is
>>IMHO, somewhat "improper". It almost leads to means taking over the end,
>>that is, we have audio equipment in order to be able to listen to music,
>>yes, but with an amp like the BAT, you have music in order to be able to
>>listen to the luscious, extravagant, grandiose sound of the amp!
>
>
> You just crucified your own argument. You're supposed to be listening
> to the *musical performance*, you cretin!
>

Now how does my observation about the sound of BAT "crucify" my own
argument, you dumbskull? I stated that I chose *not* to purchase the BAT
since it was exaggerating itself and getting in front of the music.
How the f.ck does that tell you that I am not listening to the musical
performance you idiot!

Were trying the "debating trade" **** that you quote out of context and
think to gain the upper hand?! That is soo cheap.

What the ****! is wrong with you borgs?! Damn, this is just phenomenal!

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>
> Given how little you actually knew about the BAT before I
> corrected you Fella, that is highly doubtful. You didn't
> even know its correct price.


You idiot, 5000 was the price it was offered to me. And I *did* mention
the tube sound since the tube stage it was in there.

You google skccientsstist you.. As if I am under some obligation to give
every gritty detail to you if I mention a piece of gear. Before that I
auditioned the PrimaLuna Prologue Two, it had bass all over the place
*and* a bloated midrange to boot. And yeah, I didn't like it too.



>
> The word test has been replaced by vague words and phrases
> like "sit down and listen to
> the audio gear as you are supposed to",


Yes, with a glass of red wine preferably. That's SOOOOOOOOOOOOO far away
from abx boxes, careful level matching with pink noise and that nauseous
tom putting a gun over your head threatning to pull the trigger if you
can't hear differences.. You dumbdumb borgs, one is called listening to
music, the other is called ABX torture!

[[email protected]]

Fella is at it again:

>I am saying is sit down and listen to the audio
>gear as you are supposed to and trust your ears if they tell you they
>hear something. Where is the word "test" there?

If a comparison is blind and level matched, then you are relying on
your ears and them alone, so why the angst? Some people use the word
test, I prefer comparison, since there is only listening for
difference.

The high end industry you speak of, is mostly myth. The knowledge on
building audio equipment is known and has been for some time. That you
did an ABX test that you yourself said did not reveal differences
should have taught you that.

Nobody can force anyone to buy or not buy expensive equipment. The
point of doing blind level matched comparisons is to discover if
there's any reason to spend more money to get better quality sound. As
it turns out, there isn't in most cases. Why that bothers so many
people is strange, since you'd think real music lovers would be pleased
to know that they can listen to their favorite music on equipment that
is within most people's budgets. That way they can afford to buy more
of their favorite music and put the money for improvements where they
really count, on speakers and/or room treatments.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Given how little you actually knew about the BAT before I
>> corrected you Fella, that is highly doubtful. You didn't
>> even know its correct price.

> You idiot, 5000 was the price it was offered to me.

You want us to believe that you were seriously considering
this device, but you didn't know its proper retail price?

> And I *did* mention the tube sound since the tube stage
it was in there.

A knowlegable person would know that it is window dressing.

[[email protected]]

The entity calling himself George Middius wrote:

>Who is "NYOB"?
You already know the answer to that question, so why do you ask it?

>Who is "torrie****s"? Who is "Geostynch"? They're pseudonyms that
>your apologists hide behind. Stop your lying, Mr. ****.

They are people who don't need the extra problems that people like you
are capable of, should they reveal themselves.

Who are you to judge, since you are doing the same thing, hiding
behaind an alias.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message


> What the F*CK! is wrong with you borgs?!

We're tired of your stupid antics, Fella.

> Damn, this is just phenomenal!

You can dish it out but you can't take it, eh?

[George Middius]

In answer to that question that keeps dogging you, Mickey: No, high-end audio is
not for Bug Eaters.

>The high end industry you speak of,[sic] is mostly myth.

That's the spirit, Mickey. If you can pretend it doesn't exist, then how can it
bother you?

[George Middius]

The Bug Eater picks at the lice.

>>Who is "NYOB"?

>You already know the answer to that question, so why do you ask it?

If nothing else, because your jerkwad response is an encore demonstration of
your epochal stupidity.

>>Who is "torrie****s"? Who is "Geostynch"? They're pseudonyms that
>>your apologists hide behind. Stop your lying, Mr. ****.

>They are people

Prove it.

[[email protected]]

Eight to five "Ayn" is another swinging dick like Margaret....
However, it's my opinion everyone serious about audio should own some
test equipment. Not a peecee, but some actual test equipment.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message


> In answer to that question that keeps dogging you, Mickey:
No,
> high-end audio is not for Bug Eaters.

How childish can you get, Middius?

I'm sure you'll give us some examples real soon now! :-(

>> The high end industry you speak of,[sic] is mostly myth.

Yet another case of Middius pulling the debating trade
gambit of picking at the details in order to distract
attention from the real issue.

> That's the spirit, Mickey. If you can pretend it doesn't
> exist, then how can it bother you?

Let's review a few facts like how bogus it is for Middius to
claim expertise or even minimal knowlege about what audio's
high end is all about.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message

> The Bug Eater picks at the lice.
>
>>> Who is "NYOB"?
>
>> You already know the answer to that question, so why do
you
>> ask it?
>
> If nothing else, because your jerkwad response is an
encore
> demonstration of your epochal stupidity.

ooooOOOHHHHhhhh, Middius has his panties in a bunch.

>>> Who is "torrie****s"? Who is "Geostynch"? They're
pseudonyms
>>> that your apologists hide behind. Stop your lying, Mr.
****.

>> They are people

> Prove it.

Let's start with who you really are, Middius.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Eight to five "Ayn" is another swinging dick like
Margaret....

I wouldn't bet against you with those odds.

> However, it's my opinion everyone serious about audio
should
> own some test equipment.

Been there, done that.

>Not a peecee,

This is just Cal being his usual sweet backward Luddite
self.

> but some actual test equipment.

I have a goodly collection of both PC and tranditional audio
test equipment. I get just about everything done with one or
more PCs with apropriate audio interfaces and software, as
well as a couple of audio-competent DVMs, namely a Fluke and
a Protek.

[[email protected]]

What does your lashup do an AP Portable One or ATS-1 couldn't do as
well, Arny?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> What does your lashup do an AP Portable One or ATS-1
couldn't
> do as well, Arny?

Not cost me $10,000's.

[[email protected]]

I've seen ATS-1's go in the threes on eBay, and a desktop PC with a
first rate sound card is a thousand bucks even today, times two-we're
not an order of magnitude apart. A 339 or a Potomac pair is cheaper,
used.

But a hobbyist can start with a HP200 bench osc (very cheap, eminently
repairable), a dummy load, a HP or Fluke wideband voltmeter and a
simple scope, and add on a HP 334 a little later on for the budget of a
nice PC. I'd then drag home a HP 8903 (I hate Sound Tech...my
prejudice) and a budget PC with a scrounged HPIB card. You don't need
to **** ten grand off the bat-but if you're going to, a AP makes a lot
more sense than a Krell or Mark Levinson pair, resale wise, and, for
me, enjoyment-wise as well. With good test equipment I can build and
verify my homebuilt or repaired scrounged boxes. And **** off high end
saloon salespeople too!

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> I've seen ATS-1's go in the threes on eBay, and a desktop
PC
> with a first rate sound card is a thousand bucks even
today,
> times two-we're not an order of magnitude apart. A 339 or
a
> Potomac pair is cheaper, used.
>
> But a hobbyist can start with a HP200 bench osc (very
cheap,
> eminently repairable),

You forgot that the HP200 is an obsolete piece of junk every
day of this millenium.

> a dummy load, a HP or Fluke wideband voltmeter and a
simple scope, and add on a HP 334 a little
> later on for the budget of a nice PC.

The HP334 is another one of those obsolete pieces that
needs to be sent out to pastre. I have two HP broadband
voltmeters and they stay on the shelf.

> I'd then drag home a HP 8903 (I hate Sound Tech...my
prejudice) and a budget PC with a
> scrounged HPIB card.

Seems like unecessary cost, size, weight and complexity.

Hey Cal, let us know when you wake up and find out that
we've been in the 21st century for almost 5 years!

[[email protected]]

Hey Arny, when you wake up and do your homework, and find out that
Agilent's last box that would replace a HP200 was the HP 8904, but only
with an expensive option that forfeited many capabilities of the
standard set, at a total price on the order of four grand, vis-a-vis
reworking a $25 HP200CD of which there are a half million around and
most still work and the rest easily repairable, but Corporate America
is so ****in' gullible they bought the butchered 8904's anyway, then
you will be smelling the 21st century air, and it doesn't smell too
good does it, Arny???

And the 334 is basically the receive half of a 339, a box still in
high demand.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Hey Arny, when you wake up and do your homework, and find
out
> that Agilent's last box that would replace a HP200 was the
HP
> 8904,

As if that was the only viable option.

> And the 334 is basically the receive half of a 339, a box
> still in high demand.

As if that were the only viable option.

[[email protected]]

The entity posting as George Middius said:


>In answer to that question that keeps dogging you, Mickey: No, high-end audio is
>not for Bug Eaters.



>>The high end industry you speak of is mostly myth.


>That's the spirit, Mickey. If you can pretend it doesn't exist, then how can it
>bother you?

That explains why you don't own anything that could be considered high
end. Of course not being a real person, you can't actually own
anything.

[[email protected]]

The entity posting as George Middius said:

>The Bug Eater picks at the lice.

Thanks for admitting you are a louse.

>>Who is "NYOB"?
>>You already know the answer to that question, so why do you ask it?


>If nothing else, because your jerkwad response is an encore demonstration of
>your epochal stupidity.

I see, it's jerkwad to point out that you asked a question that has
already been answered.
This would make you a world class jerkwad, no?

[Ayn Marx]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
> > What the F*CK! is wrong with you borgs?!
>
> We're tired of your stupid antics, Fella.
>
> > Damn, this is just phenomenal!
>
> You can dish it out but you can't take it, eh?

Please boys, Take your ball back to your own back-yard and play with it
there and leave us at Aus.Hi-Fi to indulge in our own particular form
of insanity.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Please **** off back to the Land of The Brave and
> Zenophobic.
> > We have enough nut cases of our own here on Aus.Hi-Fi.
>
> The irony is that we have an Aussie who wants to chase all
> the xenophobic Americans out of her sacred little part of
> the world. Yes, she wants to chase the foreigners out!

The real irony is that this thread isn't even cross posted to aus.hi-fi!!!
:-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I've seen ATS-1's go in the threes on eBay, and a desktop PC with a
> first rate sound card is a thousand bucks even today, times two-we're
> not an order of magnitude apart.

So why not compare to a S/H PC? A couple of hundred for a PC and a couple of
hundred for a pro soundcard, will do the job.
Software is another matter though, but there is reasonable freeware
available, adequate for many people.

The beauty of the PC option is that it can do the same job as a number of
test instruments, plus automatic data acquisition, plus data analysis, plus
data storage and presentation etc.

Yes dedicated instruments have their benefits, but even multi million dollar
test labs are full of PC's as well, and have been for decades.

MrT.

[Gordon]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > What the F*CK! is wrong with you borgs?!
>>
>> We're tired of your stupid antics, Fella.
>>
>> > Damn, this is just phenomenal!
>>
>> You can dish it out but you can't take it, eh?
>
> Please boys, Take your ball back to your own back-yard and play with it
> there and leave us at Aus.Hi-Fi to indulge in our own particular form
> of insanity.
Ayn ,but we know the Americans like to play in everyones backyard but their
own (with the exception of my cousins ,who are all jolly nice folk.:)
Gordon

[Mr.T]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> > Please boys, Take your ball back to your own back-yard and play with it
> > there and leave us at Aus.Hi-Fi to indulge in our own particular form
> > of insanity.
> Ayn ,but we know the Americans like to play in everyones backyard but
their
> own (with the exception of my cousins ,who are all jolly nice folk.:)

Since this is cross posted to 3 non Australian news groups, it's hardly fair
to blame them for Ayn's Xenophobia.

MrT.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>
>>Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end
>>gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell.
>
>Said the Krell owner.

Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my
Apogee Duetta Sigs.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>>
>>>Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end
>>>gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell.
>>
>>Said the Krell owner.
>
>Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my
>Apogee Duetta Sigs.

Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from
companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive
amounts of power to almost any load?

[Fella]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end
>>>>gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell.
>>>
>>>Said the Krell owner.
>>
>>Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my
>>Apogee Duetta Sigs.
>
>
> Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from
> companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive
> amounts of power to almost any load?

Or QSC amps for that matter.. And yes, isn't so that they will sound
*identical* with whatever krell or ML amp you put them up against in a
*level matched* bias adjusted nousiane approved dbt? Just make sure that
there are more than enough cheap banana connections and abx boxes and
level adjustment gear in between the speakers and the amps. Take care
NOT to hear the qsc amp on it's own prior to any testing. Thus when the
terrible sound of the qsc starts to bother you, you can say to yourself
that it sounded the same with the krell. Or do like arny. Get an $80
yamaha reciever of some sorts. When *frequently* you can't stand the
sound of the qsc, you can just escape to the pioneer (which will ****
the music over in a different way then the qsc). When the sound of the
pioneer starts to f.ck with you, run back to the krell.. :) All the
while, remember that they all sound the same.

But seriously though, it seems that only pinkerton is allowed to indulge
in "audiophilia". He can own krell amps, he can construct exotic cables
*and* _boast_ about them on petty internet "check out my system y'all"
sites. :(

Do as u preach pinkerton. Sell your krell amp to some "gullible
audiophile". Buy a qsc amp to drive those barn door speakers of yours.
They all ound the saaamee. Sell those silver clad exotic "interconnects"
and use those stock grade rca's you surely have lying around. They all
sound the saameee. Wire is WIIIiiiiiiiiIIreeee! You'll be in profit too.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message


>> Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial
amps
>> from companies like Behringer don't have any problems
>> delivering massive amounts of power to almost any load?

Note that Weil again demonstrates his willful ignorance of
the facts by vastly (20%) understating the street prices of
Behringer power amps.

> Or QSC amps for that matter..

Please compare the specs posted at

http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ (300 wpc @ 4
ohms)

to

http://www.behringerdownload.de/EP1500_EP2500/EP1500_SPECS_Rev_A.pdf

(450 wpc @ 4 ohms, 700wpc @ 2 ohms)

> And yes, isn't so that they will sound
> *identical* with whatever krell or ML amp you put them up
against in a
> *level matched* bias adjusted nousiane approved dbt?

So it seems.

> Just make
> sure that there are more than enough cheap banana
connections
> and abx boxes and level adjustment gear in between the
> speakers and the amps.

In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way
binding posts that were available at the time. If 5-way
binding posts are so terrible, why does BAT use them on the
VK-300?

> Take care NOT to hear the qsc amp on it's own prior to
any testing.

At this point true to his Middius affiliation, Fella
launches into a overheated libelous tirade based only on his
personal paranoia and fear <snipped>

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u

> > wrote in message
>
ups.com...

>> I've seen ATS-1's go in the threes on eBay, and a desktop
PC
>> with a first rate sound card is a thousand bucks even
today,
>> times two-we're not an order of magnitude apart.

> So why not compare to a S/H PC? A couple of hundred for a
PC
> and a couple of hundred for a pro soundcard, will do the
job.
> Software is another matter though, but there is reasonable
> freeware available, adequate for many people.

> The beauty of the PC option is that it can do the same job
as
> a number of test instruments, plus automatic data
acquisition,
> plus data analysis, plus data storage and presentation
etc.

> Yes dedicated instruments have their benefits, but even
multi
> million dollar test labs are full of PC's as well, and
have
> been for decades.

For example, Dolby Labs is said to own 100's of PC equipped
with Card Deluxe audio interfaces.

You've got to remember that Cal's mind is locked in the
1960s, right down to his proud ownership of Klipsch La
Scalas as his primary high end speaker system.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> Please compare the specs posted at
>
> http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ (300 wpc @ 4
> ohms)
>
> to
>
> http://www.behringerdownload.de/EP1500_EP2500/EP1500_SPECS_Rev_A.pdf
>
> (450 wpc @ 4 ohms, 700wpc @ 2 ohms)
>


I am talking about pinkerton changing his hig-end exoctic krell amp with
a qsc you dumdum borg. What's with comparing some behringer specs and
bat? You *are* losing it.


>
>
> In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way
> binding posts that were available at the time.

Why does it use such posts? There is no need. They all sound the same,
right?



> At this point true to his Middius affiliation, Fella
> launches into a overheated libelous tirade

What in the f.ck's name are you talking about?

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message


> Arny Krueger wrote:

>>> Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial
amps
>>> from companies like Behringer don't have any problems
>>> delivering massive amounts of power to almost any load?

>Note that Weil again demonstrates his willful ignorance of
>the facts by vastly (20%) understating the street prices of
>Behringer power amps.

> Or QSC amps for that matter..

>> Please compare the specs posted at

>> http://www.balanced.com/products/amp/Vk-300x/ (300 wpc @
4
>> ohms)

>> to

>>
http://www.behringerdownload.de/EP1500_EP2500/EP1500_SPECS_Rev_A.pdf

>> (450 wpc @ 4 ohms, 700wpc @ 2 ohms)

> I am talking about pinkerton changing his hig-end exoctic
> krell amp with a qsc you dumdum borg.

Fella Sue me for addressing the text you posted. Some of it
came from someone else, but that doesn't mean that it isn't
there, now does it?

Fella you complain about people using fancy editing and
debating trade tricks, and then you turn around and do the
very same thing. I had to restore a bunch of text you
deleted from the post you made that I was responding to. You
obviously deleted it to justify your "dumdum borg" whine.

> What's with comparing
> some behringer specs and bat? You *are* losing it.

Just because you deleted the comment about Behringer doesn't
mean that it wasn't in the post I responded to. It was in
your post. Don't you read the text you post?

>> In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way
>> binding posts that were available at the time.

> Why does it use such posts?

To give people a free choice of speaker cable.

> There is no need. They all sound the same, right?

Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker
cables come in different lengths and its often good to use
the shorter cable to gets the job done.

>> At this point true to his Middius affiliation, Fella
>> launches into a overheated libelous tirade

> What in the f.ck's name are you talking about?

Good question Fella, given that you hide behind an anonymous
alias! Now that's a nice little Middius sockpuppet!

Obviously Fella, Middius is training you well. You're
getting really good at that hypocrisy thing.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:02:54 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end
>>>>gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell.
>>>
>>>Said the Krell owner.
>>
>>Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my
>>Apogee Duetta Sigs.
>
>Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from
>companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive
>amounts of power to almost any load?

I already have the Krell, so I don't need a Behringer. If someone
wants to bring one round, however, I'll be glad to set up a
comparison.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:55:33 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:39:34 -0500, dave weil >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Pity that, since it sounds just the same as *well designed* high end
>>>>>gear such as you can buy from Meridian or Krell.
>>>>
>>>>Said the Krell owner.
>>>
>>>Indeed - but not many modern speakers are as hard to drive as my
>>>Apogee Duetta Sigs.
>>
>>
>> Don't you know that Arnold claims that $200 commercial amps from
>> companies like Behringer don't have any problems delivering massive
>> amounts of power to almost any load?
>
>Or QSC amps for that matter.. And yes, isn't so that they will sound
>*identical* with whatever krell or ML amp you put them up against in a
>*level matched* bias adjusted nousiane approved dbt? Just make sure that
>there are more than enough cheap banana connections and abx boxes and
>level adjustment gear in between the speakers and the amps.

If that puts a bug up your ass, just swap cables and put a high
quality attenuator in series with the higher gain amp.

>Take care
>NOT to hear the qsc amp on it's own prior to any testing.

Why not? remember, one of the basic principles of ABX is that you
*always* have both A and B available as known quantities. Shame that
your peanut brain doesn't understand these basics.

> Thus when the
>terrible sound of the qsc starts to bother you, you can say to yourself
>that it sounded the same with the krell.

What makes you think that a QSC will sound terrible? Have you ever
actually *listened* to one?

> Or do like arny. Get an $80
>yamaha reciever of some sorts. When *frequently* you can't stand the
>sound of the qsc, you can just escape to the pioneer (which will ****
>the music over in a different way then the qsc). When the sound of the
>pioneer starts to f.ck with you, run back to the krell.. :) All the
>while, remember that they all sound the same.

That's the fun part of it. Mostly, they *do* sound the same. It takes
a truly outrageously priced 'high end' amp to really **** up the
sound!

>But seriously though, it seems that only pinkerton is allowed to indulge
>in "audiophilia". He can own krell amps, he can construct exotic cables
>*and* _boast_ about them on petty internet "check out my system y'all"
>sites. :(

Oh dear, I do believe that you're turning a particularly bilious shade
of green....................... :-)

>Do as u preach pinkerton. Sell your krell amp to some "gullible
>audiophile". Buy a qsc amp to drive those barn door speakers of yours.
>They all ound the saaamee. Sell those silver clad exotic "interconnects"
>and use those stock grade rca's you surely have lying around.

The homebrew interconnects are required because the 'preamp' is all
XLR, due to the fact that RCA connectors suck harder than a
hundred-dollar hooker. The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)

> They all sound the saameee. Wire is WIIIiiiiiiiiIIreeee!

Well, at least you got *something* right! OTOH, some cable
constructions are more resistant than others to RFI. Having said that,
I use standard 'studio grade' screened twisted pair at around a buck a
foot for my TV sound system, where the levels of RFI are much higher
than around my main music system. So yup, wire is wire.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:46:24 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Arny Krueger wrote:

>> In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way
>> binding posts that were available at the time.
>
>Why does it use such posts? There is no need. They all sound the same,
>right?

Actually no, 99% of all reported problems with 'bad sound' come down
to poor connections, so top-quality connectors are always a good idea.
Unfortunately, we're mostly stuck with the pathetic RCA. :-((((

If homebrewing, *always* use XLRs, and hardwire where you can (as I do
from pickup arm to RIAA preamp).

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:58:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>Note that Weil again demonstrates his willful ignorance of
>>the facts by vastly (20%) understating the street prices of
>>Behringer power amps.

Now THAT'S hilarious. 20% is "vastly"? Even if the figure was
accurate, which it isn't.

And who said one has to buy "new" anyway?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Behringer-Europower-EP1500-Power-Amp-MINT-NO-RESERVE_W0QQitemZ7333663642QQcategoryZ23787QQssPag eNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Here's one that you could have received delivered for a little more
than 10% over my off-handed "quoted price":

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-BEHRINGER-EUROPOWER-EP1500-POWER-AMP-RMX_W0QQitemZ7333877391QQcategoryZ3278QQssPageName ZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

It's been relisted Arnold, so why don't you go after it? After all,
you NEED that amp.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:58:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker
>cables come in different lengths and its often good to use
>the shorter cable to gets the job done.

Even when the distance is longer?

<chuckle>

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:46:24 +0300, Fella >
> wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> In fact the ABX comparator uses some of the finest 5-way
>>> binding posts that were available at the time.

>> Why does it use such posts? There is no need. They all
sound
>> the same, right?

> Actually no, 99% of all reported problems with 'bad sound'
> come down to poor connections, so top-quality connectors
are
> always a good idea. Unfortunately, we're mostly stuck with
the
> pathetic RCA. :-((((

Note that the ABX Comparator never used RCA connectors - it
supported balanced I/O and used TRS connectors for
line-level signals.

[Fella]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> If that puts a bug up your ass,...


Stop trying to act like some italian mafioso prick and answer this
question: When subjected to an ABX, would the krell sound identical with
a qsc?

And

Is that enough for you?


>
> Why not?

The ABX premise (The whole enchillada) makes them sound the same.

>
> Oh dear, I do believe that you're turning a particularly bilious shade
> of green....................... :-)

How can you even dare to imagine that I might be envious of your system
when I have sonus fabers for speakers, for instance, instead of those
barn doors of yours. ;)

>
>
>>Do as u preach pinkerton. Sell your krell amp to some "gullible
>>audiophile". Buy a qsc amp to drive those barn door speakers of yours.
>>They all ound the saaamee. Sell those silver clad exotic "interconnects"
>>and use those stock grade rca's you surely have lying around.
>
>
> The homebrew interconnects are required because the 'preamp' is all
> XLR, due to the fact that RCA connectors suck harder than a
> hundred-dollar hooker.

Prove it! All connections sound the same! Connection is connection! :)


The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
> I sold it, then brain-dead clowns

Watch yer language..

> like you would say that I only say
> the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp.

No one would say that. Any high-end boutique is chock full of decent
amps. Just go in and listen!


> Besides, I like
> the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)

Mafioso wanna be geekish low-income nerd. Ok, nice.

Now stop being a creepy mafioso wanna be corksucker and sell that
expensive krell of yours. When arny outlaws all high-end you are going
to have to give it up anyway. PS: with the money you will get you can
permission from the misuss and buy that tonearm whatever you are craving
after.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message


> Stop trying to act like some italian mafioso prick and
answer
> this question: When subjected to an ABX, would the krell
sound
> identical with a qsc?

Pretty good chance.

> The ABX premise (The whole enchillada) makes them sound
the
> same.

No, they always sounded as they sounded and keep on sounding
that way in an ABX test.

ABX just eliminates the usual means you use to judge
amplifier sound quality Fella, being

(1) Visual and other non-audible cues

(2) Bad level matching

(3) Comparing amps when different music is playing on each

Note that John Atkinson appears to consistently fall prey to
at minimum, items 1 and 3. I suspect he and his reviewers
fudge item 2 a lot.

[Sander deWaal]

Stewart Pinkerton > said:

>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)


So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?

--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> Stewart Pinkerton > said:
>
>> The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>> I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that
I
>> only say the things I do because I've never heard a
decent
>> amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big
>> mother****er! :-)

> So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people
select
> certain components not only for their sound, but also for
> their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality,
> whatever.

> So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an
average
> consumer again?

DBTs are good for resolving controversies relating to sound
quality.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:40:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Fella" > wrote in message

>
>> Stop trying to act like some italian mafioso prick and
>answer
>> this question: When subjected to an ABX, would the krell
>sound
>> identical with a qsc?
>
>Pretty good chance.
>
>> The ABX premise (The whole enchillada) makes them sound
>the
>> same.
>
>No, they always sounded as they sounded and keep on sounding
>that way in an ABX test.
>
>ABX just eliminates the usual means you use to judge
>amplifier sound quality Fella, being
>
>(1) Visual and other non-audible cues
>
>(2) Bad level matching
>
>(3) Comparing amps when different music is playing on each

(4) The ACTUAL signal from the amp.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton > said:
>
>>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)
>
>
>So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
>their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>
>So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>consumer again?

Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth
a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile
for the kitchen.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>> certain components not only for their sound, but also for
>> their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality,
>> whatever.

>> So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>> consumer again?

>DBTs are good for resolving controversies relating to sound
>quality.


That's all good and well, Arny, but as I have been saying now for
about the 8-odd years that I'm on usenet:

When one likes a certain component, because of whatever property, that
one will automatically "sound better" because it makes the owner feel
good. Even when it is objectively less good (!)

That's entirely subjective indeed, but one can NOT go around and deny
that influence.

And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction
'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse.
One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which
in itself is debatable).

As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area.

--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people
>>> select certain components not only for their sound, but
also
>>> for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build
quality,
>>> whatever.
>
>>> So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an
>>> average consumer again?
>
>> DBTs are good for resolving controversies relating to
sound
>> quality.
>
>
> That's all good and well, Arny, but as I have been saying
now
> for about the 8-odd years that I'm on usenet:

<redundant post deleted>

[George Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

>>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)

>So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
>their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>
>So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>consumer again?

Lip service to scientism.

[George Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

>And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction
>'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse.
>One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which
>in itself is debatable).
>
>As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area.

That's fine for you, but if Krooger were to admit that was true, he'd have no
more reason to go on living.

Right, Arnii? ;-)

[[email protected]]

>> Agilent's last box that would replace a HP200 was the
> HP
> > 8904,
>
> As if that was the only viable option.
>
> > And the 334 is basically the receive half of a 339, a box
> > still in high demand.
>
> As if that were the only viable option.<<

It must have been for HP Agilent's clientele, loving those first tier
vendors as they do-but what else new were they going to buy? The only
other thing that would drive the loads the 200CD would was the Potomac
gen side box-that was about three grand, and Potomac doesn't really
want your business if you are not a broadcaster. (Audemat is kicking
their ass, so I'm going to enjoy FIM prices coming down-it's a great
hobby toy at the right price).

The only other solution is a small generator and a bench power amp-now
you are into cables, two boxes, and other issues. The 200CD is still,
all these decades later, the simple, cheap, elegant solution, toobs or
no toobs. (HP built a solid state Wien bridge AF gen, but it would not
drive the same loads. The small signal toobs can be replaced by a solid
state circuit in the 200CD and the outputs changed to popular guitar
amp types if continued availability was an issue for a new build 200CD.
Cal issues (no pun intended) could be solved easily by leaving the
numbers off the bank vault dial and providing an isolated sample port
for a counter.

If I were Agilent, _would_ I? Dunno. Half a million old ones that
still work is stiff competition.

[[email protected]]

My LaScalas are on their way out the door as we speak, having been
replaced by a homebuilt Klipsch horn klone pair which I have discussed
elsewhere.

PCs (and Macs and Sun SPARC boxes) are fine in their place. They are
not test equipment. They may be built into test equipment as in the
case of the HP Infiinium scope or the National Instruments line

( http://www.ni.com/pxi/ )

but if Arny were correct the above wouldn't exist.

The commodisumer PC is not a piece of test equipment. It is
unbenchworthy for many reasons.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message

> Sander deWaal said:
>
>> And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl
>> reproduction 'inferior", just because it performs
objectively
>> worse.
>> One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi
>> standard (which in itself is debatable).
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a
subjective
>> area.
>
> That's fine for you, but if Krooger were to admit that was
> true, he'd have no more reason to go on living.
>
> Right, Arnii? ;-)

Just more proof Midius that you're even more stupid and
clueless than you were several years ago.

Audio has always been largely subjective. ABX is known as a
subjective listening test methodology. That's probably what
burns you jokers the most - that ABX is undeniably
subjective.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message

> Sander deWaal said:
>
>>> The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>> I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say
that I
>>> only say the things I do because I've never heard a
decent
>>> amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big
>>> mother****er! :-)
>
>> So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people
>> select certain components not only for their sound, but
also
>> for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build
quality,
>> whatever.

>> So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an
average
>> consumer again?

> Lip service to scientism.

This would be in contrast to George's whole-hearted
commitment to idiocy, right?

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal >
>wrote:
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton > said:
>>
>>>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>>>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>>>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)
>>
>>
>>So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>>certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
>>their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>>
>>So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>>consumer again?
>
>Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth
>a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile
>for the kitchen.

Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
floor. As noted, it's also a useful reference, and keeps the peanut
gallery at bay.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 15 Jul 2005 13:49:53 -0700, wrote:

> My LaScalas are on their way out the door as we speak, having been
>replaced by a homebuilt Klipsch horn klone pair which I have discussed
>elsewhere.

So, you're going from crap commercial speakers to homebuilt copies of
them. And we are supposed to take this as an indication that you are
progressing?

> PCs (and Macs and Sun SPARC boxes) are fine in their place. They are
>not test equipment. They may be built into test equipment as in the
>case of the HP Infiinium scope or the National Instruments line
>
>( http://www.ni.com/pxi/ )
>
>but if Arny were correct the above wouldn't exist.
>
> The commodisumer PC is not a piece of test equipment. It is
>unbenchworthy for many reasons.

Clearly, you're not a professional engineer. The *vast* majority of
modern testgear is PC-based. Note that the excellent NI line is mostly
built into a PC, not the other way round as you suggest. The PXI line
is a subset of the NI range and even then is still PC-based, although
using a rack system for easier interchangeability of modules.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton > said:
>
>>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)
>
>So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
>their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>
>So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>consumer again?

It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
different than my Sony or Pioneer.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[George M. Middius]

Stewart Pinkerton said:

> It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.

If you think "tests" are the only thing "stopping people wasting money", you
must be a different species from homo sapiens.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal >
>wrote:
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton > said:
>>
>>>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>>>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>>>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)
>>
>>So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>>certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
>>their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>>
>>So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>>consumer again?
>
>It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
>I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
>different than my Sony or Pioneer.

DBT details please.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Stewart Pinkerton > said:
>>>
>>>>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>>>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>>>>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>>>>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>>>certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
>>>their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>>>
>>>So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>>>consumer again?
>>
>>Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth
>>a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile
>>for the kitchen.
>
>Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
>floor.

So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.

> As noted, it's also a useful reference, and keeps the peanut
>gallery at bay.

Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost
vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
the gear, just as YOU aren't.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>>It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
>>I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
>>different than my Sony or Pioneer.
>
>DBT details please.

Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
> >floor.
>
> So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
> hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
> something that you disagree with.
>

Why resort to Kroologic to make your point?

Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you
become a mirror of what you despise.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:49:51 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>>It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
>>>I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
>>>different than my Sony or Pioneer.
>>
>>DBT details please.
>
>Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.

Well, it *wouldn't* be appropriate if we didn't care about this
statement as applicable to anyone other than Stewart. And if this were
the case, then his statement doesn't mean anything really.

Surely you or Stewart would be demanding a dbt if someone was claiming
that they knew that the Oracle kicked the Sony or Pioneer's ass. It
works the other way as well.

[dave weil]

On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
>> >floor.
>>
>> So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
>> hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
>> something that you disagree with.
>>
>
> Why resort to Kroologic to make your point?

It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it,
since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear
that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound.

> Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you
>become a mirror of what you despise.

I don't see how you figure. I didn't say that I agreed with Howard.

Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me?

[George M. Middius]

Don Pearce said:

> >DBT details please.
>
> Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.

Trouble reading, Don?

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:23:54 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Stewart Pinkerton said:
>
>> It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
>
>If you think "tests" are the only thing "stopping people wasting money", you
>must be a different species from homo sapiens.

Correct, I am a member of homo sapiens sapiens.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Stewart Pinkerton > said:
>>>
>>>>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>>>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>>>>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>>>>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)
>>>
>>>So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>>>certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
>>>their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>>>
>>>So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>>>consumer again?
>>
>>It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
>>I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
>>different than my Sony or Pioneer.
>
>DBT details please.

No need to overstate the bleedin' obvious.

That's also why cable tests will never appear in AES Reviews.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:47:15 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stewart Pinkerton > said:
>>>>
>>>>>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>>>>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>>>>>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>>>>>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>>>>certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
>>>>their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>>>>
>>>>So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>>>>consumer again?
>>>
>>>Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth
>>>a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile
>>>for the kitchen.
>>
>>Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
>>floor.
>
>So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
>hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
>something that you disagree with.

No, I got the Krell/Apogee pair from the same dealer at a really good
price.

>> As noted, it's also a useful reference, and keeps the peanut
>>gallery at bay.
>
>Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost
>vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
>for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
>outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
>the gear, just as YOU aren't.

Indeed, but they get *really* crap sound! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:35:47 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:49:51 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
>>>>I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
>>>>different than my Sony or Pioneer.
>>>
>>>DBT details please.
>>
>>Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.
>
>Well, it *wouldn't* be appropriate if we didn't care about this
>statement as applicable to anyone other than Stewart. And if this were
>the case, then his statement doesn't mean anything really.
>
>Surely you or Stewart would be demanding a dbt if someone was claiming
>that they knew that the Oracle kicked the Sony or Pioneer's ass. It
>works the other way as well.

Not really. I've proved to my *own* satisfaction that my Pioneer
sounds as good as anything on the market, so purchasing an Oracle - to
run through a Benchmark DAC-1 - would simply be an indulgence for the
sheer beauty of the thing. No expectation of superior sound required.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[George M. Middius]

Drunkie said:

> >> It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
> >
> >If you think "tests" are the only thing "stopping people wasting money", you
> >must be a different species from homo sapiens.
>
> Correct, I am a member of homo sapiens sapiens.

Top off the laird, innkeeper.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stewart Pinkerton > said:
>>>>
>>>>>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>>>>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>>>>>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>>>>>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)
>>>>
>>>>So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>>>>certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
>>>>their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>>>>
>>>>So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>>>>consumer again?
>>>
>>>It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
>>>I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
>>>different than my Sony or Pioneer.
>>
>>DBT details please.
>
>No need to overstate the bleedin' obvious.

Well, the obvious would be, "Did you actually DO a head to head dbt
between these three players"? I don't think it's an "overstatement" to
wonder.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:25:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>>So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
>>hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
>>something that you disagree with.
>
>No, I got the Krell/Apogee pair from the same dealer at a really good
>price.

So? You could sell the Krell, buy a Behringer or similar "PA" amp that
will perform just as well and have a few thousand left over for cases
of Lagavulin (surely one NEVER has enough of that).

Of course, Howard doesn't take HIS own advice either, since he's got
plenty of "expensive" or superceded equipment.

>>Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost
>>vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
>>for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
>>outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
>>the gear, just as YOU aren't.

>Indeed, but they get *really* crap sound! :-)

DBT info please. Perhaps you might not even be able to tell the
difference.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:29:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:35:47 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:49:51 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
>>>>>I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
>>>>>different than my Sony or Pioneer.
>>>>
>>>>DBT details please.
>>>
>>>Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.
>>
>>Well, it *wouldn't* be appropriate if we didn't care about this
>>statement as applicable to anyone other than Stewart. And if this were
>>the case, then his statement doesn't mean anything really.
>>
>>Surely you or Stewart would be demanding a dbt if someone was claiming
>>that they knew that the Oracle kicked the Sony or Pioneer's ass. It
>>works the other way as well.
>
>Not really. I've proved to my *own* satisfaction that my Pioneer
>sounds as good as anything on the market, so purchasing an Oracle - to
>run through a Benchmark DAC-1 - would simply be an indulgence for the
>sheer beauty of the thing. No expectation of superior sound required.

So, you HAVEN'T performed a dbt. Very well. I think that we can simply
chalk this up to 'expectation effects".

I hope you're willing to grant *others* their *own* satisfaction
without grousing.

[[email protected]]

No, I am not an engineer and don't claim to be. The NI line consists
of very expensive PCI and CompactPCI modules that are not what Arny is
talking about and almost invariably go int ATE setups, not what a bench
tech would use. The bare backplane and chassis for CompactPCI costs
several times what a loaded commodity PC does.

Having an x86-instruction set microcontroller is a long way from being
"PC-based." Most test equipment is based on a off the shelf embedded
platform, but does not run an OS that can be accessed as one would a
computer-the Infiniium scopes and some Tek/R&S logic analyzers and comm
boxes are an exception, and, I would argue, unfortunate ones. A local
organization had to format and reload a half dozen of the infiniiums
when the Sasser worm got in them and rendered them inoperative.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:06:48 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Don Pearce said:
>
>> >DBT details please.
>>
>> Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.
>
>Trouble reading, Don?
>
>
>
None at all, George. You?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George M. Middius]

Don Pearce said:

> >> >DBT details please.

> >> Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.

> >Trouble reading, Don?

> None at all, George. You?

Pardon?

In case you ain't seen it, this issue done been hashed to death. Why won't
Ferstler admit his crackpot pseudo-tests are worthless? Because the
"results" confirm what he already "knows". Why does Pukey rail on and on
about "wasting" money on audio gear when he has some super-expensive stuff
of his own? Because he knows how ridiculous it is to mix personal preference
in the same pot with "objective tests" (even though they're not really
objective and not really tests).

Maybe you really haven't seen Pukey's ranting and raving about DBTs. He
prescribes them for everybody else, you see. That's because he claims he did
a series of tests once upon a time. Those tests, whose details remain
unknown to this day, are alleged by Pukey to have established that his Krell
and his Yamahaha and his something or other all sound indistinguishable when
he doesn't know which one is playing. That's when he got religion.

In the real world, if two amps have a sonic performance that's so close to
indistinguishable that you really do need a DBT to see if you can tell them
apart, well then, the choice isn't really about sonics, is it? Any human
being would be much better off choosing one of the amps on some other basis.
That's what being human is all about. That's what sets us apart from
machines. Of course, some might wish they were machines instead of flesh and
blood. Nothing to be done about that except shake your head.

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
> >> >floor.
> >>
> >> So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
> >> hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
> >> something that you disagree with.
> >>
> >
> > Why resort to Kroologic to make your point?
>
> It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it,

If you wonder ask... instead you make statements of conslusion that
extrapolate beyond the facts.
Always playing the game, always portraying people as something other
than what they are rather than accepting them for themselves.

> since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear
> that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound.
>
> > Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you
> >become a mirror of what you despise.
>
> I don't see how you figure.

Do you like being portrayed as something you're not?

> I didn't say that I agreed with Howard.
>
> Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me?

I rest my case. You never stop with the portrayals.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>>>It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
>>>I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
>>>different than my Sony or Pioneer.
>>
>>DBT details please.
>
> Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.

Guaranteed Ferstler result....no difference.

ScottW

[Mr.T]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> >Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker
> >cables come in different lengths and its often good to use
> >the shorter cable that gets the job done.
>
> Even when the distance is longer?

Wouldn't get the job done then, would it?

> <chuckle>
You are easily amused it seems.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
> certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
> their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>
> So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
> consumer again?

So you know that the extra kiloDollar or whatever, is mainly for looks and
profit.
Then you can make an INFORMED choice.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction
> 'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse.

Of course you can.
(It is OK to prefer inferior though if you want.)

> One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which
> in itself is debatable).

The only debate is whether YOU want that level of performance.

> As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area.

Of course. Much more so in music PRODUCTION though.
It is generally accepted by most intelligent people however, that in audio
*REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an output as faithful to the input as
is possible, within the imposed constraints such as cost.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
> for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
> outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
> the gear, just as YOU aren't.

So good luck to them. People don't buy a Rolls Royce because of it's
performance either.
At least they don't pretend it will beat a Ferrari, or even a Subaru WRX
around a race track.

I don't think many people buy a Rolex for their time keeping accuracy
either!

One should at least know WHAT you are buying IMO.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> The commodisumer PC is not a piece of test equipment. It is
> unbenchworthy for many reasons.

Strange then that most test labs are full of them.
A real test/measurement/calibration engineer knows when and how to select
appropriate equipment for his intended purpose.

Those that don't are better off sticking with what is cheapest, often a PC
solution. At least then their useless results don't cost them so much.

MrT.

[dave weil]

On 16 Jul 2005 19:02:33 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >dave weil wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
>> >> >floor.
>> >>
>> >> So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
>> >> hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
>> >> something that you disagree with.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why resort to Kroologic to make your point?
>>
>> It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it,
>
>If you wonder ask... instead you make statements of conslusion that
>extrapolate beyond the facts.
> Always playing the game, always portraying people as something other
>than what they are rather than accepting them for themselves.
>
>> since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear
>> that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound.
>>
>> > Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you
>> >become a mirror of what you despise.
>>
>> I don't see how you figure.
>
> Do you like being portrayed as something you're not?
>
>> I didn't say that I agreed with Howard.
>>
>> Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me?
>
> I rest my case. You never stop with the portrayals.

Are you not constantly going after me?

You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting
stones.

This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of
your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR
conversations. Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:59:30 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> >Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker
>> >cables come in different lengths and its often good to use
>> >the shorter cable that gets the job done.
>>
>> Even when the distance is longer?
>
>Wouldn't get the job done then, would it?
>
>> <chuckle>
>You are easily amused it seems.

Well, yes. Aren't you?

BTW, this was a play on a previous post, so Johnny-come-latelys
probably DO have trouble seeing the joke.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:24:45 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
>> for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
>> outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
>> the gear, just as YOU aren't.
>
>So good luck to them. People don't buy a Rolls Royce because of it's
>performance either.
>At least they don't pretend it will beat a Ferrari, or even a Subaru WRX
>around a race track.

If everyone had the same objective hearing system, you could equate
absolute sound to track times. Unfortunately for your argument, people
respond to musical stimuli differently, either because of variations
in the hearing organ itself, cognitive differences, or cultural
biases.

You also can't pretend that a Ferarri will carry four people and a
week's worth of luggage either. This is part of the "performance"
aspect of the car. You can't pretend that a Ferarri will outperform a
Rolls-Royce in the cabin noise parameter either. Nor can you claim
that the Ferarri performs as well in stop and go traffic either.

>I don't think many people buy a Rolex for their time keeping accuracy
>either!

Although they're accurate enough for wrist wear.

>One should at least know WHAT you are buying IMO.

Somoeone spending $60,000 for an Audio Note amplifier is likely top
know what they are buying.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:29:54 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Don Pearce said:
>
>> >> >DBT details please.
>
>> >> Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate.
>
>> >Trouble reading, Don?
>
>> None at all, George. You?
>
>Pardon?
>
>In case you ain't seen it, this issue done been hashed to death. Why won't
>Ferstler admit his crackpot pseudo-tests are worthless? Because the
>"results" confirm what he already "knows". Why does Pukey rail on and on
>about "wasting" money on audio gear when he has some super-expensive stuff
>of his own? Because he knows how ridiculous it is to mix personal preference
>in the same pot with "objective tests" (even though they're not really
>objective and not really tests).
>
>Maybe you really haven't seen Pukey's ranting and raving about DBTs. He
>prescribes them for everybody else, you see. That's because he claims he did
>a series of tests once upon a time. Those tests, whose details remain
>unknown to this day, are alleged by Pukey to have established that his Krell
>and his Yamahaha and his something or other all sound indistinguishable when
>he doesn't know which one is playing. That's when he got religion.
>
>In the real world, if two amps have a sonic performance that's so close to
>indistinguishable that you really do need a DBT to see if you can tell them
>apart, well then, the choice isn't really about sonics, is it? Any human
>being would be much better off choosing one of the amps on some other basis.
>That's what being human is all about. That's what sets us apart from
>machines. Of course, some might wish they were machines instead of flesh and
>blood. Nothing to be done about that except shake your head.
>
>

George, I've no idea what you are talking about. My post was
addressing a specific point raised by Weil. I'm not interested in as
you say - all the other rantings and ravings. I was pointing out that
there is no value in subjecting to DBT somebody who hears no
difference sighted; it will tell you nothing. DBT only has a purpose
in testing a claim of difference.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:44:13 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stewart Pinkerton > said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
>>>>>>I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
>>>>>>the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
>>>>>>the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
>>>>>certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
>>>>>their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.
>>>>>
>>>>>So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
>>>>>consumer again?
>>>>
>>>>It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality.
>>>>I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any
>>>>different than my Sony or Pioneer.
>>>
>>>DBT details please.
>>
>>No need to overstate the bleedin' obvious.
>
>Well, the obvious would be, "Did you actually DO a head to head dbt
>between these three players"? I don't think it's an "overstatement" to
>wonder.

OK, let me rephrase - I *hope* it won't sound any different than my
Sony or Pioneer, because then it would be broken. When you've done a
couple of dozen comparisons, and only the whacko stuff like the
seriously broken Audio Note sounds different, then you get a degree of
confidence that all well-designed players sound the same. This leaves
you free to buy on other criteria. I've no reason to suppose that the
Oracle isn't a good standard player, so I can happily consider
purchase for the sheer beauty of it. If push comes to shove, I'd
probably go for the transport only, and hook it up to a Benchmark
DAC-1. That way, I can *guarantee* SOTA sound.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:48:48 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:25:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>
>>>So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
>>>hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
>>>something that you disagree with.
>>
>>No, I got the Krell/Apogee pair from the same dealer at a really good
>>price.
>
>So? You could sell the Krell, buy a Behringer or similar "PA" amp that
>will perform just as well and have a few thousand left over for cases
>of Lagavulin (surely one NEVER has enough of that).

Actually, I doubt that I'd get more than a grand for the Krell. OTOH,
that's what I paid for it. And a grand won't buy me anything with the
same current reserves as that old Krell.

>Of course, Howard doesn't take HIS own advice either, since he's got
>plenty of "expensive" or superceded equipment.
>
>>>Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost
>>>vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
>>>for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
>>>outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
>>>the gear, just as YOU aren't.
>
>>Indeed, but they get *really* crap sound! :-)
>
>DBT info please. Perhaps you might not even be able to tell the
>difference.

Oh yeah, I can tell the difference, it's not in *any* way subtle! SET
amps are absolutely hopeless unless you use them with ultrasensitive
speakers, which brings its own raft of sonic problems.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 16 Jul 2005 15:10:20 -0700, wrote:

> No, I am not an engineer and don't claim to be. The NI line consists
>of very expensive PCI and CompactPCI modules that are not what Arny is
>talking about and almost invariably go int ATE setups, not what a bench
>tech would use.

Hey Chalky, a PC-based test setup *is* an ATE. I designed them for
fifteen years at Marconi and Hughes, so I know wherof I speak!

> The bare backplane and chassis for CompactPCI costs
>several times what a loaded commodity PC does.

Yes, but NI make ordinary PC cards too.

> Having an x86-instruction set microcontroller is a long way from being
>"PC-based." Most test equipment is based on a off the shelf embedded
>platform, but does not run an OS that can be accessed as one would a
>computer-the Infiniium scopes and some Tek/R&S logic analyzers and comm
>boxes are an exception, and, I would argue, unfortunate ones. A local
>organization had to format and reload a half dozen of the infiniiums
>when the Sasser worm got in them and rendered them inoperative.

The OS is a different matter. The old HP 9000 series (pretty similar
architecture to a Mac) used an extremely efficient OS that did
*exactly* what you told it to, right away, no second chances, no namby
pamby "are you absolutely definitely sure" intermediate steps. The
command del *.* did exactly what it said on the tin - probably the
first user-hostile OS................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella:
Speaker
>>> cables come in different lengths and its often good to
use
>>> the shorter cable that gets the job done.
>>
>> Even when the distance is longer?
>
> Wouldn't get the job done then, would it?
>
>> <chuckle>
> You are easily amused it seems.

Weil is desperately in need of attention from me, not to
mention he needs a life.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:35:47 -0500, dave weil
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:49:51 GMT,
(Don
>> Pearce) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve
>>>>> sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I
know it
>>>>> won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer.
>>>>
>>>> DBT details please.
>>>
>>> Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be
>>> appropriate.
>>
>> Well, it *wouldn't* be appropriate if we didn't care
about
>> this statement as applicable to anyone other than
Stewart.
>> And if this were the case, then his statement doesn't
mean
>> anything really.
>>
>> Surely you or Stewart would be demanding a dbt if someone
was
>> claiming that they knew that the Oracle kicked the Sony
or
>> Pioneer's ass. It works the other way as well.
>
> So you don't understand DBTs.

You said a mouthful!

>If you did you would know that
> they are inapplicable in a situation where the putative
> subject has expressed an opinion that there is NO
difference.

True, but it won't stop Weil from trolling.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message


> George, I've no idea what you are talking about.

George is proselytizing for his know-nothing religion again.

> My post was
> addressing a specific point raised by Weil. I'm not
interested
> in as you say - all the other rantings and ravings. I was
> pointing out that there is no value in subjecting to DBT
> somebody who hears no difference sighted; it will tell you
> nothing. DBT only has a purpose in testing a claim of
> difference.

DBTs are also good for preference testing when it is known
that a difference exists to base preference on.

[Sander deWaal]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> said:


>> And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction
>> 'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse.

>Of course you can.
>(It is OK to prefer inferior though if you want.)


"Inferior" implies a judgement on all accounts, including preference.


>> One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which
>> in itself is debatable).

>The only debate is whether YOU want that level of performance.


The entire "hifi" standard is debatable. See below.


>> As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area.

>Of course. Much more so in music PRODUCTION though.
>It is generally accepted by most intelligent people however, that in audio
>*REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an output as faithful to the input as
>is possible, within the imposed constraints such as cost.


This standard is debatable in the way that what YOU are looking for,
by the above admission, is 'fidelity" from source to speakers only.
That leaves out: a: the recording and mastering in all its stages,
b. the room and speaker interaction.

True fidelity is an exact reproduction of what a certain band,
orchestra or performer sounded like during the recodring, where we
still have a choice in listening position.
True fidelity is NOT, IMHO, taking just a "perfect" source spinning a
disk of whatever kind, combined with a "perfect" amplifier.

From all this follows that "high fidelity" in itself doesn't exist, at
its best it's is strictly personal and might very well ask for
components with deviating behaviour from the "ideal".

Thinking that "high fidelity" can be achieved with 0.0001% THD and a
frequency response from DC to light is simply absurd.
This is something that not may people are ready to accept, especially
when they're some kind of audio "professional" ( usually with blinders
on).

--

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

[dave weil]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 06:18:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella:
>Speaker
>>>> cables come in different lengths and its often good to
>use
>>>> the shorter cable that gets the job done.
>>>
>>> Even when the distance is longer?
>>
>> Wouldn't get the job done then, would it?
>>
>>> <chuckle>
>> You are easily amused it seems.
>
>Weil is desperately in need of attention from me, not to
>mention he needs a life.
>

Wow, right on schedule. Thanks for the attention, Arnold.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:12:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:35:47 -0500, dave weil
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:49:51 GMT,
>(Don
>>> Pearce) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve
>>>>>> sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I
>know it
>>>>>> won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer.
>>>>>
>>>>> DBT details please.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be
>>>> appropriate.
>>>
>>> Well, it *wouldn't* be appropriate if we didn't care
>about
>>> this statement as applicable to anyone other than
>Stewart.
>>> And if this were the case, then his statement doesn't
>mean
>>> anything really.
>>>
>>> Surely you or Stewart would be demanding a dbt if someone
>was
>>> claiming that they knew that the Oracle kicked the Sony
>or
>>> Pioneer's ass. It works the other way as well.
>>
>> So you don't understand DBTs.
>
>You said a mouthful!
>
>>If you did you would know that
>> they are inapplicable in a situation where the putative
>> subject has expressed an opinion that there is NO
>difference.
>
>True, but it won't stop Weil from trolling.

You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL
expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there
are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the
test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and
Stewart.

Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if
you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to
do such a thing.

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL
>expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there
>are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the
>test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and
>Stewart.
>
A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive. A
badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be
hard put to give a false negative.

>Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if
>you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to
>do such a thing.

As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine
won't strain any further, please enlighten.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[dave weil]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:11:08 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL
>>expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there
>>are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the
>>test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and
>>Stewart.
>>
>A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive.

See below as to how a dbt *could* prove disprove a negative.

>A badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be
>hard put to give a false negative.
>
>>Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if
>>you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to
>>do such a thing.
>
>As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine
>won't strain any further, please enlighten.

Let me propose this test.

Howard Ferstler claims that he can't hear the difference between
"properly designed amps". He also claims that, not only are SETs NOT
properly designed amps because they introduce onerous distortions that
run counter to "hi-fi" and let's take this further and say that he
claims that he could identify them based on these characterizations
(these are restatements of the very things that Howard has said on
this newsgroup).

All one would have to do to test this is a variation of what an
"objectivist" talked about recently (Stewart, I think) whereby you
fake switching between two components that the listener THINKS are
different, while all the time they are listening to the same component
and they end up "hearing a difference". Sure, the score would probably
prove them wrong.

But, flip this on its head and take two components that Howard thinks
*should* sound the same, such as a Yamaha amp and Stewart's Krell
(operating within parameters of course), but secretely substitute an
SET that is measurably and audibly quite different for one of the
amps. I'd suggest that there's a good chance that someone convinced of
their ability to judge the SET inferior wouldn't find any differences
and would score randomly (as a matter of fact, Howard claims to have
just started guessing during a test of amplifiers after a few trials),
because they wouldn't trust their own ears, plus, they would be
inclined to support their bias.

Now, you've cast doubt on two things - their honesty in conducting the
test (are they simply SAYING that they think everything sounds the
same and basically just guessing randomly?) and their ability to
actually determine differences in the first place.

One could easily construct the same sort of test with Stewart secretly
substituting a NAIM CD player that he thinks has a "signature sound".

The upshot of this? If someone were as disabused of their abilities as
you claim that someone like Zip should have been after his amp test,
theoretically, they might actually take the next test with fewer
preconceptions and might lose the "dishonest" aspect of their trials
by actually being FORCED to listen for differences that they might
have overlooked in the past.

In any case, you've cast doubt on their ability to discern
differences. All of this is assuming, of course, that they wouldn't be
able to tell the difference, and I'm sure that until such a test is
made, that they would continue to insist that there is no way that
they wouldn't. But now we're back to bias and pure, untested opinion.
Of course, *my* comments fall into the same speculation, and I grant
this. But, the test *could* be constructed in such a manner and that's
what you asked.

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:42:51 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:11:08 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL
>>>expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there
>>>are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the
>>>test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and
>>>Stewart.
>>>
>>A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive.
>
>See below as to how a dbt *could* prove disprove a negative.
>
>>A badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be
>>hard put to give a false negative.
>>
>>>Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if
>>>you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to
>>>do such a thing.
>>
>>As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine
>>won't strain any further, please enlighten.
>
>Let me propose this test.
>
>Howard Ferstler claims that he can't hear the difference between
>"properly designed amps". He also claims that, not only are SETs NOT
>properly designed amps because they introduce onerous distortions that
>run counter to "hi-fi" and let's take this further and say that he
>claims that he could identify them based on these characterizations
>(these are restatements of the very things that Howard has said on
>this newsgroup).
>
>All one would have to do to test this is a variation of what an
>"objectivist" talked about recently (Stewart, I think) whereby you
>fake switching between two components that the listener THINKS are
>different, while all the time they are listening to the same component
>and they end up "hearing a difference". Sure, the score would probably
>prove them wrong.
>
> But, flip this on its head and take two components that Howard thinks
>*should* sound the same, such as a Yamaha amp and Stewart's Krell
>(operating within parameters of course), but secretely substitute an
>SET that is measurably and audibly quite different for one of the
>amps. I'd suggest that there's a good chance that someone convinced of
>their ability to judge the SET inferior wouldn't find any differences
>and would score randomly (as a matter of fact, Howard claims to have
>just started guessing during a test of amplifiers after a few trials),
>because they wouldn't trust their own ears, plus, they would be
>inclined to support their bias.
>
Well, you have two possible outcomes here. Either he hears the
difference and reports it, or he doesn't.

In neither case have you proved anything other than that he couldn't
(or wouldn't) identify a difference. Now it is up to you to prove
which it is - and you can't.

>Now, you've cast doubt on two things - their honesty in conducting the
>test (are they simply SAYING that they think everything sounds the
>same and basically just guessing randomly?) and their ability to
>actually determine differences in the first place.
>
>One could easily construct the same sort of test with Stewart secretly
>substituting a NAIM CD player that he thinks has a "signature sound".
>
>The upshot of this? If someone were as disabused of their abilities as
>you claim that someone like Zip should have been after his amp test,
>theoretically, they might actually take the next test with fewer
>preconceptions and might lose the "dishonest" aspect of their trials
>by actually being FORCED to listen for differences that they might
>have overlooked in the past.
>
>In any case, you've cast doubt on their ability to discern
>differences. All of this is assuming, of course, that they wouldn't be
>able to tell the difference, and I'm sure that until such a test is
>made, that they would continue to insist that there is no way that
>they wouldn't. But now we're back to bias and pure, untested opinion.
>Of course, *my* comments fall into the same speculation, and I grant
>this. But, the test *could* be constructed in such a manner and that's
>what you asked.
>
>
None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to
hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is
still patently absurd however you look at it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[dave weil]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:53:03 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:42:51 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:11:08 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL
>>>>expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there
>>>>are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the
>>>>test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and
>>>>Stewart.
>>>>
>>>A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive.
>>
>>See below as to how a dbt *could* prove disprove a negative.
>>
>>>A badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be
>>>hard put to give a false negative.
>>>
>>>>Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if
>>>>you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to
>>>>do such a thing.
>>>
>>>As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine
>>>won't strain any further, please enlighten.
>>
>>Let me propose this test.
>>
>>Howard Ferstler claims that he can't hear the difference between
>>"properly designed amps". He also claims that, not only are SETs NOT
>>properly designed amps because they introduce onerous distortions that
>>run counter to "hi-fi" and let's take this further and say that he
>>claims that he could identify them based on these characterizations
>>(these are restatements of the very things that Howard has said on
>>this newsgroup).
>>
>>All one would have to do to test this is a variation of what an
>>"objectivist" talked about recently (Stewart, I think) whereby you
>>fake switching between two components that the listener THINKS are
>>different, while all the time they are listening to the same component
>>and they end up "hearing a difference". Sure, the score would probably
>>prove them wrong.
>>
>> But, flip this on its head and take two components that Howard thinks
>>*should* sound the same, such as a Yamaha amp and Stewart's Krell
>>(operating within parameters of course), but secretely substitute an
>>SET that is measurably and audibly quite different for one of the
>>amps. I'd suggest that there's a good chance that someone convinced of
>>their ability to judge the SET inferior wouldn't find any differences
>>and would score randomly (as a matter of fact, Howard claims to have
>>just started guessing during a test of amplifiers after a few trials),
>>because they wouldn't trust their own ears, plus, they would be
>>inclined to support their bias.
>>
>Well, you have two possible outcomes here. Either he hears the
>difference and reports it, or he doesn't.
>
>In neither case have you proved anything other than that he couldn't
>(or wouldn't) identify a difference. Now it is up to you to prove
>which it is - and you can't.

It really doesn't matter in this case. You have shown that he can't
even tell a difference when there *is* a verifiable difference. I
think this is an important point.
>>Now, you've cast doubt on two things - their honesty in conducting the
>>test (are they simply SAYING that they think everything sounds the
>>same and basically just guessing randomly?) and their ability to
>>actually determine differences in the first place.
>>
>>One could easily construct the same sort of test with Stewart secretly
>>substituting a NAIM CD player that he thinks has a "signature sound".
>>
>>The upshot of this? If someone were as disabused of their abilities as
>>you claim that someone like Zip should have been after his amp test,
>>theoretically, they might actually take the next test with fewer
>>preconceptions and might lose the "dishonest" aspect of their trials
>>by actually being FORCED to listen for differences that they might
>>have overlooked in the past.
>>
>>In any case, you've cast doubt on their ability to discern
>>differences. All of this is assuming, of course, that they wouldn't be
>>able to tell the difference, and I'm sure that until such a test is
>>made, that they would continue to insist that there is no way that
>>they wouldn't. But now we're back to bias and pure, untested opinion.
>>Of course, *my* comments fall into the same speculation, and I grant
>>this. But, the test *could* be constructed in such a manner and that's
>>what you asked.
>>
>>
>None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to
>hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is
>still patently absurd however you look at it.

But what you HAVE proved is that he can't hear differences even then
there *are* differences. This casts doubt on his ability to make the
first claim.

And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
differences).

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:30 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>
>And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
>the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
>differences).

But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you
need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather
than unable to identify a difference.

And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say
about the possible result of another test.

Stick to using these DBTs where they demonstrably have value - in
testing an identified difference.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
>
> Are you not constantly going after me?

Did you not just make a gratuitous reference to me in another thread?
You inspired this.

>
> You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting
> stones.
>
> This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of
> your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR
> conversations.

Like you haven't? Get real Dave.

But unlike you I don't expect a usenet exchange to be a private or
one-on-one. You want that... take if offline.

>Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently.

We've all heard far too much about the struggles in your life. I'm
not going there.

ScottW

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
>
> You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY,

How can anyone other than the subject know they did that?

In this scenario you were calling for DBT results from someone who said
"no difference". DBT results from them that say "no difference" don't
really have any significance as DB is irrelevant to that conclusion.

You really should examine your argument closely before the gratuitous
insults start flying.

ScottW

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> >>
> >None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to
> >hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is
> >still patently absurd however you look at it.
>
> But what you HAVE proved is that he can't hear differences even then
> there *are* differences.

No you didn't. All you did was prove that you could bias the listener
to a false negative through sighted perception. He doesn't think he
heard a difference sighted... why should he hear one blind? You have
attacked his mental stamina and degraded his motivation for critical
listening and then you call the outcome "rotten". Give us a break,
Dave.

But show how you can accomplish the reverse when the listener believes
he hears a difference sighted. This bias is what the test is designed
to confirm or deny and nothing else.

>This casts doubt on his ability to make the
> first claim.
>
> And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
> the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
> differences).

I can think on no more "rotten behavior" than what you propose to do
as a test administrator and the conclusion you erroneously claim a no
difference outcome would demonstrate.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Don Pearce said:

> >And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
> >the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
> >differences).
>
> But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you
> need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather
> than unable to identify a difference.

With certain individuals, it's laughably easy to demonstrate the
unwillingness -- just ask them.

> And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say
> about the possible result of another test.

Absolutely true. Perhaps the 'borgs will take note of this small caveat.
Tommi, are you listening? Harold, ten-HUT!

[dave weil]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:35:28 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:30 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
>>the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
>>differences).
>
>But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you
>need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather
>than unable to identify a difference.
>
>And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say
>about the possible result of another test.
>
>Stick to using these DBTs where they demonstrably have value - in
>testing an identified difference.

You're actually testing the ability of the listener to determine a
claimed difference, even if it is a left-handed way of doing it. I
think this is the same thing as testing whether a listener can tell
the difference between two things that YOU think they shouldn't.

[dave weil]

On 17 Jul 2005 09:39:30 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> Are you not constantly going after me?
>
>Did you not just make a gratuitous reference to me in another thread?

I don't know. You tell me.

>You inspired this.

We can go back and forth on this. You've been taking me on for several
years now. A this point, who knows who inspired what?

>> You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting
>> stones.
>>
>> This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of
>> your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR
>> conversations.
>
>Like you haven't? Get real Dave.

I DON'T. As you know. You are participating in two threads right now
that I'm not participating in AT ALL. I'm not jumping in to tell you
how full of **** you are.

>But unlike you I don't expect a usenet exchange to be a private or
>one-on-one. You want that... take if offline.

All I know that you're obsessed with me. That's *your* issue, not
mine. I only point it out.

>>Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently.
>
> We've all heard far too much about the struggles in your life. I'm
>not going there.

Yeah, life is a real struggle for me. I've got a job that I like, I
have flexibility in the hours that I work, I have a house that's
appreciating like nobody's business and I have fun.

And I live smack dab in the middle of BBQ country, where BBQ is real
and not some imported affair.

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:13:34 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:35:28 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:30 -0500, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
>>>the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
>>>differences).
>>
>>But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you
>>need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather
>>than unable to identify a difference.
>>
>>And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say
>>about the possible result of another test.
>>
>>Stick to using these DBTs where they demonstrably have value - in
>>testing an identified difference.
>
>You're actually testing the ability of the listener to determine a
>claimed difference, even if it is a left-handed way of doing it. I
>think this is the same thing as testing whether a listener can tell
>the difference between two things that YOU think they shouldn't.

Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
prove them either right or wrong.

But I repeat. There is absolutely nothing you can do with "no
difference" claims by way of DBT - they are simply inapplicable.


d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[dave weil]

On 17 Jul 2005 09:56:33 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> >>
>> >None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to
>> >hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is
>> >still patently absurd however you look at it.
>>
>> But what you HAVE proved is that he can't hear differences even then
>> there *are* differences.
>
> No you didn't. All you did was prove that you could bias the listener
>to a false negative through sighted perception. He doesn't think he
>heard a difference sighted... why should he hear one blind? You have
>attacked his mental stamina and degraded his motivation for critical
>listening and then you call the outcome "rotten". Give us a break,
>Dave.
>
>But show how you can accomplish the reverse when the listener believes
>he hears a difference sighted. This bias is what the test is designed
>to confirm or deny and nothing else.
>
>>This casts doubt on his ability to make the
>> first claim.
>>
>> And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
>> the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
>> differences).
>
> I can think on no more "rotten behavior" than what you propose to do
>as a test administrator and the conclusion you erroneously claim a no
>difference outcome would demonstrate.
>
>ScottW

Four replies this morning. I rest my case about "obsession".

[ScottW]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> said:
>
>
>>> And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction
>>> 'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse.
>
>>Of course you can.
>>(It is OK to prefer inferior though if you want.)
>
>
> "Inferior" implies a judgement on all accounts, including preference.
>
>
>>> One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which
>>> in itself is debatable).
>
>>The only debate is whether YOU want that level of performance.
>
>
> The entire "hifi" standard is debatable. See below.
>
>
>>> As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area.
>
>>Of course. Much more so in music PRODUCTION though.
>>It is generally accepted by most intelligent people however, that in audio
>>*REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an output as faithful to the input as
>>is possible, within the imposed constraints such as cost.
>
>
> This standard is debatable in the way that what YOU are looking for,
> by the above admission, is 'fidelity" from source to speakers only.
> That leaves out: a: the recording and mastering in all its stages,
> b. the room and speaker interaction.
>
> True fidelity is an exact reproduction of what a certain band,
> orchestra or performer sounded like during the recodring, where we
> still have a choice in listening position.
> True fidelity is NOT, IMHO, taking just a "perfect" source spinning a
> disk of whatever kind, combined with a "perfect" amplifier.
>
> From all this follows that "high fidelity" in itself doesn't exist, at
> its best it's is strictly personal and might very well ask for
> components with deviating behaviour from the "ideal".
>
> Thinking that "high fidelity" can be achieved with 0.0001% THD and a
> frequency response from DC to light is simply absurd.
> This is something that not may people are ready to accept, especially
> when they're some kind of audio "professional" ( usually with blinders
> on).

Well said. Personally.. I've abondoned the quest for true fidelity.
I get much more satisfaction from my own personal preference
than true fidelity.

ScottW

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 Jul 2005 19:02:33 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >dave weil wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
>>> >> >floor.
>>> >>
>>> >> So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
>>> >> hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
>>> >> something that you disagree with.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Why resort to Kroologic to make your point?
>>>
>>> It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it,
>>
>>If you wonder ask... instead you make statements of conslusion that
>>extrapolate beyond the facts.
>> Always playing the game, always portraying people as something other
>>than what they are rather than accepting them for themselves.
>>
>>> since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear
>>> that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound.
>>>
>>> > Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you
>>> >become a mirror of what you despise.
>>>
>>> I don't see how you figure.
>>
>> Do you like being portrayed as something you're not?
>>
>>> I didn't say that I agreed with Howard.
>>>
>>> Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me?
>>
>> I rest my case. You never stop with the portrayals.
>
> Are you not constantly going after me?
>
> You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting
> stones.
>
> This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of
> your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR
> conversations. Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently.

If you were having a conversation with Mr. Pinkerton, and didn't want other
people barging in, you'd be doing it by e-mail.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:21:29 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:13:34 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:35:28 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:30 -0500, dave weil >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
>>>>the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
>>>>differences).
>>>
>>>But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you
>>>need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather
>>>than unable to identify a difference.
>>>
>>>And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say
>>>about the possible result of another test.
>>>
>>>Stick to using these DBTs where they demonstrably have value - in
>>>testing an identified difference.
>>
>>You're actually testing the ability of the listener to determine a
>>claimed difference, even if it is a left-handed way of doing it. I
>>think this is the same thing as testing whether a listener can tell
>>the difference between two things that YOU think they shouldn't.
>
>Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.

I've shown that it can expose the claims of such listeners.

>They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
>you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
>the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
>prove them either right or wrong.
>
>But I repeat. There is absolutely nothing you can do with "no
>difference" claims by way of DBT - they are simply inapplicable.

We disagree. I've shown how it can expose a no difference claim as
dubious.

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:35:28 GMT, (Don Pearce)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:30 -0500, dave weil >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e.
> >>the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are*
> >>differences).
> >
> >But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you
> >need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather
> >than unable to identify a difference.
> >
> >And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say
> >about the possible result of another test.
> >
> >Stick to using these DBTs where they demonstrably have value - in
> >testing an identified difference.
>
> You're actually testing the ability of the listener to determine a
> claimed difference, even if it is a left-handed way of doing it.

But where is the need to be fraudulent? You want to honestly evaluate
listener sensitivity.. do it.

But you can't ignore the results sighted bias can carry over into a
blind test. A blind test can refute a "different" sighted bias.. but
it can't refute "same" sighted bias.

> I
> think this is the same thing as testing whether a listener can tell
> the difference between two things that YOU think they shouldn't.

You advocate a test with no training and no pretest sighted bias
established. Ok. Why not?

ScottW

[Fella]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want

Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.

What a shameless prick, disgusting.

[[email protected]]

HP9000's ran HP-UX which was Unix, or HP BASIC or HP PASCAL which were
interpreted languages with a program loader under them. Early ones were
68K based, later ones had the PA-RISC architecture.

Marconi Instruments-weren't you bought out by IFR under the
sociopathic Fred Hunt, who in turn sold to Aeroflex??

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:18:29 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want
>
>Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
>lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
>that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
>prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.
>
You really are a brain-dead clown, Fella. What makes anyone 'not a
music lover' because they actually went out and bought all the music
they wanted? If something new and interesting comes out, I'll buy it,
but until then, I already bought everything I want to listen to.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 17 Jul 2005 16:19:48 -0700, wrote:

> HP9000's ran HP-UX which was Unix, or HP BASIC or HP PASCAL which were
>interpreted languages with a program loader under them. Early ones were
>68K based, later ones had the PA-RISC architecture.

We had the 68000 machines running HP Basic. This was in the mid 80s
and I misspoke - I was with Hughes at the time. Marconi ran DECs,
PDP-9, PDP-11 and then Vax.

> Marconi Instruments-weren't you bought out by IFR under the
>sociopathic Fred Hunt, who in turn sold to Aeroflex??

Not on my watch. I worked for the Simulators, Trainers and ATE
division of Marconi Space and Defence, which later became part of MI.
I was at Hillend in Fife (plus lots of time in Portsmouth), from '74
to '83. GEC sold MI to IFR fifteen years later, in 1998.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>
> Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
> They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
> you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
> the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
> prove them either right or wrong.



How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?


> But I repeat. There is absolutely nothing you can do with "no
> difference" claims by way of DBT - they are simply inapplicable.
>
>
> d
>
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:50:10 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>> Don Pearce wrote
>>
>> Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
>> They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
>> you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
>> the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
>> prove them either right or wrong.
>
>
>
>How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?
>

If they can't identify the difference they claim under double blind
conditions then they are wrong.

Easy.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>
>>
>>> Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
>>> They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
>>> you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
>>> the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
>>> prove them either right or wrong.
>>
>>How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?
>
> If they can't identify the difference they claim under double blind
> conditions then they are wrong.
>
> Easy.


How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
of listeners?


> d
>
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:33:45 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>> Don Pearce wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>> Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
>>>> They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
>>>> you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
>>>> the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
>>>> prove them either right or wrong.
>>>
>>>How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?
>>
>> If they can't identify the difference they claim under double blind
>> conditions then they are wrong.
>>
>> Easy.
>
>
>How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
>of listeners?
>

DBTs test the claim of difference. If there is no difference then the
abilities of the listeners are irrelevant, and will not be tested.

Being deluded about a possible difference is unrelated to ability - it
just happens, to the best as well as the worst. The difference that
comes from experience is that after it has happened to you a couple of
times, you get the message and make the intelligent choice of not
shooting your mouth off before you have checked whether you may have
been deluded.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:18:29 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want
>>
>>Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
>>lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
>>that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
>>prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.
>>
>
> You really are a brain-dead clown, Fella. What makes anyone 'not a
> music lover' because they actually went out and bought all the music
> they wanted? If something new and interesting comes out, I'll buy it,
> but until then, I already bought everything I want to listen to.
>


I did give you three choices, didn't I? No matter what kind of music you
listen to, if you think that some 50-60 cd's you have covers all the
music you *would* want to hear in this planet then you don't know what
you are missing out on. So one of the alternatives above is correct: you
are an idiot.

I have an inclination though that it must be the silent fourth select,
the "all of the above" option.

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
>>>>> They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
>>>>> you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
>>>>> the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
>>>>> prove them either right or wrong.
>>>>
>>>>How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?
>>>
>>> If they can't identify the difference they claim under double blind
>>> conditions then they are wrong.
>>>
>>> Easy.
>>
>>How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
>>of listeners?
>
> DBTs test the claim of difference. If there is no difference then the
> abilities of the listeners are irrelevant, and will not be tested.


Ok, the abilities of the listeners are "irrelevant" if there's no difference
detected. But how did your DBTs prove they are wrong ?



> Being deluded about a possible difference is unrelated to ability - it
> just happens, to the best as well as the worst. The difference that
> comes from experience is that after it has happened to you a couple of
> times, you get the message and make the intelligent choice of not
> shooting your mouth off before you have checked whether you may have
> been deluded.


Allright, so audiphiles must check ( with DBT ?) before shooting their
mouth off.



> d
>
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:22:11 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>> Don Pearce wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
>>>>>> They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
>>>>>> you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
>>>>>> the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
>>>>>> prove them either right or wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?
>>>>
>>>> If they can't identify the difference they claim under double blind
>>>> conditions then they are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Easy.
>>>
>>>How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
>>>of listeners?
>>
>> DBTs test the claim of difference. If there is no difference then the
>> abilities of the listeners are irrelevant, and will not be tested.
>
>
>Ok, the abilities of the listeners are "irrelevant" if there's no difference
>detected. But how did your DBTs prove they are wrong ?
>

If they claim that two items produce a different sound - a difference
that they can hear, frequently with terms like "night and day", but
can not tell them apart when they don't know which they are listening
to, then that DBT has proved them wrong.

>
>
>> Being deluded about a possible difference is unrelated to ability - it
>> just happens, to the best as well as the worst. The difference that
>> comes from experience is that after it has happened to you a couple of
>> times, you get the message and make the intelligent choice of not
>> shooting your mouth off before you have checked whether you may have
>> been deluded.
>
>
>Allright, so audiphiles must check ( with DBT ?) before shooting their
>mouth off.
>
>
>
>> d
>>

No. Audiophiles can do whatever they want. Of course, if they are
doing it in a public forum, such as this, they may want to check first
for the sake of their own credibility.

Where DBT checking is absolutely vital is in the press, where the
articles are claiming some sort of authority. If such an article is
not based on anything other than potentially delusional data, there is
a danger that some perfectly competent manufacturer will be done
actual commercial harm. This amounts to something like slander against
a product and should be actionable in law - a kind of "put up or
retract" sort of thing.

To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message

>> Don Pearce wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities
of
>>>>>> listeners. They are for testing whether identified
>>>>>> differences actually exist. If you believe your
listeners
>>>>>> aren't good enough, get new listeners. If the
listeners
>>>>>> are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
prove
>>>>>> them either right or wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?
>>>>
>>>> If they can't identify the difference they claim under
>>>> double blind conditions then they are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Easy.
>>>
>>> How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the
>>> abilities of listeners?
>>
>> DBTs test the claim of difference. If there is no
difference
>> then the abilities of the listeners are irrelevant, and
will
>> not be tested.
>
>
> Ok, the abilities of the listeners are "irrelevant" if
there's
> no difference detected. But how did your DBTs prove they
are
> wrong ?
>
>
>
>> Being deluded about a possible difference is unrelated to
>> ability - it just happens, to the best as well as the
worst.
>> The difference that comes from experience is that after
it
>> has happened to you a couple of times, you get the
message
>> and make the intelligent choice of not shooting your
mouth
>> off before you have checked whether you may have been
deluded.
>
>
> Allright, so audiphiles must check ( with DBT ?) before
> shooting their mouth off.

Actually, audiophiles are generally known to not be credible
sources of information about what sounds better, worse or
even different. Therefore very few people expect audiophiles
to back their claims up with any kind of evidence.

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
>>>>>>> They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
>>>>>>> you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
>>>>>>> the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
>>>>>>> prove them either right or wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> If they can't identify the difference they claim under double blind
>>>>> conditions then they are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy.
>>>>
>>>>How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
>>>>of listeners?
>>>
>>> DBTs test the claim of difference. If there is no difference then the
>>> abilities of the listeners are irrelevant, and will not be tested.
>>
>>
>>Ok, the abilities of the listeners are "irrelevant" if there's no difference
>>detected. But how did your DBTs prove they are wrong ?
>>
>
> If they claim that two items produce a different sound - a difference
> that they can hear, frequently with terms like "night and day", but
> can not tell them apart when they don't know which they are listening
> to, then that DBT has proved them wrong.






Mr. Pearce, if they can't tell 'em apart "when they don't know which
they're listening to" does not prove they're wrong.



It proves that your DBT can be effective in making them confused.







>>> Being deluded about a possible difference is unrelated to ability - it
>>> just happens, to the best as well as the worst. The difference that
>>> comes from experience is that after it has happened to you a couple of
>>> times, you get the message and make the intelligent choice of not
>>> shooting your mouth off before you have checked whether you may have
>>> been deluded.
>>
>>
>>Allright, so audiphiles must check ( with DBT ?) before shooting their
>>mouth off.
>
>
> No. Audiophiles can do whatever they want. Of course, if they are
> doing it in a public forum, such as this, they may want to check first
> for the sake of their own credibility.


Oh no !



> Where DBT checking is absolutely vital is in the press, where the
> articles are claiming some sort of authority. If such an article is
> not based on anything other than potentially delusional data, there is
> a danger that some perfectly competent manufacturer will be done
> actual commercial harm. This amounts to something like slander against
> a product and should be actionable in law - a kind of "put up or
> retract" sort of thing.
>
>
> To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
> against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
> DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.


But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.



> d
>
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:55:00 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>Mr. Pearce, if they can't tell 'em apart "when they don't know which
>they're listening to" does not prove they're wrong.
>
>
>
>It proves that your DBT can be effective in making them confused.
>
>
>

No need for confusion. The DBT can be performed in their normal
listening environment, with their normal gear, listening to their
normal, favourite music. They can listen for as long as they like on
each trial. The only requirement is that they don't know which sample
they are listening to.

If that causes them confusion, then their competence as witnesses must
be questioned.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Mr. Pearce, if they can't tell 'em apart "when they don't know which
>>they're listening to" does not prove they're wrong.
>>
>>It proves that your DBT can be effective in making them confused.
>
> No need for confusion. The DBT can be performed in their normal
> listening environment, with their normal gear, listening to their
> normal, favourite music. They can listen for as long as they like on
> each trial. The only requirement is that they don't know which sample
> they are listening to.


How does the above "normal" listening environment for "testing"
prevents the listener from becoming confused during actual comparison
when your foremost requirement is that they're are not allowed to know
which sample they're listening to.

How does the environment prevents it ?



> If that causes them confusion, then their competence as witnesses must
> be questioned.


How could you question the listeners competence when you have provided
proof above that the DBT can be effective in making them confused ?


> d
>
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com



Again, as I have ask before, how did your DBTs prove they are wrong?

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message

>> Don Pearce wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:

>>> Mr. Pearce, if they can't tell 'em apart "when they
don't
>>> know which they're listening to" does not prove they're
>>> wrong.

>>> It proves that your DBT can be effective in making them
>>> confused.

Never has been a real problem.

>> No need for confusion. The DBT can be performed in their
>> normal listening environment, with their normal gear,
>> listening to their normal, favourite music. They can
listen
>> for as long as they like on each trial. The only
requirement
>> is that they don't know which sample they are listening
to.

> How does the above "normal" listening environment for
"testing"
> prevents the listener from becoming confused during actual
> comparison when your foremost requirement is that they're
are
> not allowed to know which sample they're listening to.

Identify the reference samples and only keep the unknowns
unknown.

> How does the environment prevents it ?

We often did it with a device that shows A, B, and X in big
red lights.

Failing that, a friendly voice says:


"This is...."

>> If that causes them confusion, then their competence as
>> witnesses must be questioned.

> How could you question the listeners competence when you
have
> provided proof above that the DBT can be effective in
making
> them confused ?

no such thing happened.

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:35:26 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>> Don Pearce wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mr. Pearce, if they can't tell 'em apart "when they don't know which
>>>they're listening to" does not prove they're wrong.
>>>
>>>It proves that your DBT can be effective in making them confused.
>>
>> No need for confusion. The DBT can be performed in their normal
>> listening environment, with their normal gear, listening to their
>> normal, favourite music. They can listen for as long as they like on
>> each trial. The only requirement is that they don't know which sample
>> they are listening to.
>
>
>How does the above "normal" listening environment for "testing"
>prevents the listener from becoming confused during actual comparison
>when your foremost requirement is that they're are not allowed to know
>which sample they're listening to.
>
>How does the environment prevents it ?
>
>
>
>> If that causes them confusion, then their competence as witnesses must
>> be questioned.
>
>
>How could you question the listeners competence when you have provided
>proof above that the DBT can be effective in making them confused ?
>
>
>> d
>>
>> Pearce Consulting
>> http://www.pearce.uk.com
>
>
>
>Again, as I have ask before, how did your DBTs prove they are wrong?
>

Look - you are calling it "confused", and I was showing you how the
environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.

In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>
>
>

With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.


> Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]


So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not confused...


> [...] and I was showing you how the
> environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
> environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.


That is incorrect.


> In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
> AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
> don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.


In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.



> d
>
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com



--

All quiet in the eastern front ..... be back later.

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:22:51 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>> Don Pearce wrote
>>
>>
>>
>
>With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.
>
>
>> Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]
>
>
>So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not confused...
>
>
>> [...] and I was showing you how the
>> environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
>> environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.
>
>
>That is incorrect.
>
>
>> In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
>> AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
>> don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.
>
>
>In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.
>
>
>
>> d
>>
>> Pearce Consulting
>> http://www.pearce.uk.com

So in your world, if a test doesn't yield the result you want, there
must be something wrong with it.

OK please define a test protocol which wouldn't lead to "confusion"
but would still leave the subject judging on sound alone.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:33:45 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>> Don Pearce wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>> Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
>>>> They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
>>>> you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
>>>> the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
>>>> prove them either right or wrong.
>>>
>>>How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?
>>
>> If they can't identify the difference they claim under double blind
>> conditions then they are wrong.
>>
>> Easy.
>
>How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
>of listeners?

If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
actually *know* what's connected.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:55:00 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>> To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
>> against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
>> DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.
>
>
>But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
>makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.

And you *know* this how, exactly?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:15:36 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:18:29 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want
>>>
>>>Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
>>>lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
>>>that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
>>>prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.
>>>
>> You really are a brain-dead clown, Fella. What makes anyone 'not a
>> music lover' because they actually went out and bought all the music
>> they wanted? If something new and interesting comes out, I'll buy it,
>> but until then, I already bought everything I want to listen to.
>>
>I did give you three choices, didn't I?

No, dickbrain, you didn't 'give' me anything at all, that is not
within your extremely limited capability.

> No matter what kind of music you
>listen to, if you think that some 50-60 cd's you have covers all the
>music you *would* want to hear in this planet then you don't know what
>you are missing out on. So one of the alternatives above is correct: you
>are an idiot.

857, actually......................

And that's after disposing of a few hundred a few years ago, at the
same time as I drastically slashed my vinyl collection from a couple
of thousand to a couple of hundred. Of course, I'm always happy to
make the acquaintance of something interesting which I haven't
previously encountered. At 57 years old, that's not a lot..........

Scarily, I also now have close to half that number of movie DVDs......

>I have an inclination though that it must be the silent fourth select,
>the "all of the above" option.

I have an inclination that you have the brainpower of a headless
chicken.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:22:51 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>> Don Pearce wrote
>>
>With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.

With due respect, he's providing cogent arguments, you're ducking and
diving like you're in the ring with Amir Khan.............
>
>> Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]
>
>So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not confused...

Why would anyone be 'confused'? The whole point of an ABX test is that
you can *always* call on the known A and B signals, it's only 'X'
which is unknown.

>> [...] and I was showing you how the
>> environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
>> environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.
>
>That is incorrect.

In what way?

>> In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
>> AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
>> don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.
>
>In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.

Into what conclusion is he jumping? In an ABX test, the *only*
difference from 'normal' listening is that the subject does not
actually *know* what is connected when they're listening to 'X'.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:15:36 +0300, Fella >
> wrote:
> 857, actually......................
>
> And that's after disposing of a few hundred a few years
ago,
> at the same time as I drastically slashed my vinyl
collection
> from a couple of thousand to a couple of hundred. Of
course,
> I'm always happy to make the acquaintance of something
> interesting which I haven't previously encountered. At 57
> years old, that's not a lot..........

> Scarily, I also now have close to half that number of
movie
> DVDs......

>> I have an inclination though that it must be the silent
>> fourth select, the "all of the above" option.

> I have an inclination that you have the brainpower of a
> headless chicken.

Fella certainly does have a very narrow view of life, audio
in particular.

[Fella]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:15:36 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:18:29 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want
>>>>
>>>>Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
>>>>lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
>>>>that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
>>>>prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You really are a brain-dead clown, Fella. What makes anyone 'not a
>>>music lover' because they actually went out and bought all the music
>>>they wanted? If something new and interesting comes out, I'll buy it,
>>>but until then, I already bought everything I want to listen to.
>>>
>>
>>I did give you three choices, didn't I?
>
>
> No, dickbrain, you didn't 'give' me anything at all,


Learn to read you cocksucker, I gave you THREE choices, and that's that.
You cockroach brain number 1 was that you listen to your barn doors, 2
was that you are a simpl e liar, 3 was that you were an idiot.


>
> 857, actually......................

Ok, an idiot *and* the liar confirmed.

With a little push and shove you'll get to the "all of the above" ..

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

>

> Learn to read you cocksucker, I gave you THREE choices,
and
> that's that. You cockroach brain number 1 was that you
listen
> to your barn doors, 2 was that you are a simpl e liar, 3
was
> that you were an idiot.

Well Fella, Scotty has accused me of being lax because I
don't come down on people with obvious mouth filth and anger
problems like you.

So Fella, be a good boy or *else*.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> Well Fella, Scotty

Who the hell is scotty? The scottish accented guy in star trek? The
engineer?

> has accused me of being lax

He's accused you of being a fish of some sorts? He never really did come
across as all that bright of a boy, but he might have something there,
worth an investigation.

> because I
> don't come down on people

Well there goes my day. You coming down on people... Disgusting. I feel
as if I've accidentally exposed myself to one of those american porn
flicks, you know the kind with over****ed american women carrying
biological waste bags for breasts, zombie plastic lips and all, filthy
****, disgusting.

> with obvious mouth filth and anger
> problems like you.

People get *exactly* what they deserve arny.

>
> So Fella, be a good boy or *else*.
>
>

You threatning me boy? Keep it up and you too will get *exactly* what
you deserve. You crumbled under the my words many times you fool, so
stop asking for it. This is the second time..

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

>
> People get *exactly* what they deserve arny.

Fella I'm sure you tell that to all the victims of birth
defects, congenital diseases, AIDS, etc. You're quite a guy!

[Mr.T]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...

> If everyone had the same objective hearing system, you could equate
> absolute sound to track times. Unfortunately for your argument, people
> respond to musical stimuli differently, either because of variations
> in the hearing organ itself, cognitive differences, or cultural
> biases.

Totally irrelevant as long as their hearing is the same for both live sound
and reproduced sound.

> >I don't think many people buy a Rolex for their time keeping accuracy
> >either!
>
> Although they're accurate enough for wrist wear.

Yes, you pay a fortune for "good enough" or you can pay a pittance. The
choice is yours.

> >One should at least know WHAT you are buying IMO.
>
> Somoeone spending $60,000 for an Audio Note amplifier is likely top
> know what they are buying.

You would think so, but not from the bull**** they then sprout to justify
it's purchase.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> >It is generally accepted by most intelligent people however, that in
audio
> >*REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an output as faithful to the input
as
> >is possible, within the imposed constraints such as cost.
>
> This standard is debatable in the way that what YOU are looking for,
> by the above admission, is 'fidelity" from source to speakers only.
> That leaves out: a: the recording and mastering in all its stages,

Yes, that's usually part of the *production* process, something the average
listener has no control over.

> b. the room and speaker interaction.

Not at all. That *is* part of the *reproduction* chain.

> From all this follows that "high fidelity" in itself doesn't exist, at
> its best it's is strictly personal and might very well ask for
> components with deviating behaviour from the "ideal".

Yes, just as I said, it is OK to *prefer* a different sound. IMO it has
nothing to do with the definition of fidelity though.

> Thinking that "high fidelity" can be achieved with 0.0001% THD and a
> frequency response from DC to light is simply absurd.
> This is something that not may people are ready to accept, especially
> when they're some kind of audio "professional" ( usually with blinders
> on).

Thinking that a persons individual preferences should define fidelity is
even more absurd IMO.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:1kxCe.46789$up5.15794@lakeread02...
> > Thinking that "high fidelity" can be achieved with 0.0001% THD and a
> > frequency response from DC to light is simply absurd.
> > This is something that not may people are ready to accept, especially
> > when they're some kind of audio "professional" ( usually with blinders
> > on).
>
> Well said.

You are NOT agreeing with him below though.

>Personally.. I've abondoned the quest for true fidelity.
> I get much more satisfaction from my own personal preference
> than true fidelity.

Which is what I said, it is OK to prefer something else.
One does *not* have to change the definition of fidelity.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

> wrote in message
...
> > This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of
> > your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR
> > conversations. Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently.
>
> If you were having a conversation with Mr. Pinkerton, and didn't want
other
> people barging in, you'd be doing it by e-mail.

Unfortunately not everyone appears to grasp the concept of an open forum
though :-).

MrT.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:57:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:15:36 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:18:29 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want
>>>>>
>>>>>Now this statement *proves* once and for all that you are not a music
>>>>>lover, perhaps you just love it when those barn doors make sound. Or
>>>>>that you are an idiot. Or that you are just a simple liar, that you are
>>>>>prepared to do and say anything to "win" an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You really are a brain-dead clown, Fella. What makes anyone 'not a
>>>>music lover' because they actually went out and bought all the music
>>>>they wanted? If something new and interesting comes out, I'll buy it,
>>>>but until then, I already bought everything I want to listen to.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I did give you three choices, didn't I?
>>
>>
>> No, dickbrain, you didn't 'give' me anything at all,
>
>
>Learn to read you cocksucker, I gave you THREE choices, and that's that.
>You cockroach brain number 1 was that you listen to your barn doors, 2
>was that you are a simpl e liar, 3 was that you were an idiot.

It all just flies over your pointy head, doesn't it? :-)

>> 857, actually......................
>
>Ok, an idiot *and* the liar confirmed.

You have no clue, do you? I have friends with ten times that many
albums. So, I'm guessing you have about forty albums and a Sony
Walkman?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Fella]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:57:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>

>>>857, actually......................
>>
>>Ok, an idiot *and* the liar confirmed.
>
>
> You have no clue, do you? I have friends with ten times that many
> albums. So, I'm guessing you have about forty albums and a Sony
> Walkman?

I am *NOT* going into a **** contest with you on the count of my CD's (I
have no LP's). First off, I never sat down (or went around the room)
counting my CD's. Second off, there are piles of CD's which I haven't
yet found the time to listen to, as it takes for me at least, a half a
day (depending on the cd) to digest one. Suffice to say that I order
from amazon, cdon, etc, at a steady pace based on those introductory
listens. And everytime I get around to opening a fresh CD and having a
go at it, it's a personal holiday.

Now the *reason* why you exposed yourself to be an idiot is that you
claimed you have all the cd's you want. Only an idiot would think to
that he has all the music in the world he would possibly like. The
reason why you exposed yourself as a liar is that your music/living room
had this one equipment rack/cd/lp storage shelf thingy. And there were
no 857 Cd's there. :)

And who the hell would sit down and count 800 odd cd's anyways. One two
three.. gees.

[dave weil]

On 17 Jul 2005 13:21:40 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> You're actually testing the ability of the listener to determine a
>> claimed difference, even if it is a left-handed way of doing it.
>
>But where is the need to be fraudulent? You want to honestly evaluate
>listener sensitivity.. do it.

The whole idea of blind testing is "fraudulent" in the respect that
you aren't disclosing what's being listened to (or injesting, in the
case of medical testing). I think this is a red herring.

You folks seem to think that that "sighted listening" is the only
thing that can bias a test. However, a person's preconceptions can
also bias a listener as well, and anything that exposes this bias can
be helpful.

>But you can't ignore the results sighted bias can carry over into a
>blind test.

But you are ignoring OTHER biases such as amps=amps or CD players=CD
players. Why is that?

>A blind test can refute a "different" sighted bias.. but
>it can't refute "same" sighted bias.

But it CAN expose it, as I have shown. The thing is, I'm talking about
a bias that you don't want to expose.

If the listener doesn't learn from such a "deceptive test", that's HIS
or HER problem, not the tester's.

One final thing, Tom Nousaine, Arnold Kruger, and most recently
Stewart Pinkerton have all described such "deceptive tests" (informal
tests to be sure) but I didn't see you taking THEM to task.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> said:

>>> And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl
>>> reproduction 'inferior", just because it performs
>>> objectively worse.

You forgot the part where they sound bad.

>> Of course you can.
>> (It is OK to prefer inferior though if you want.)

> "Inferior" implies a judgement on all accounts, including
> preference.

In the interests of having a managable question to discuss,
I think that "all accounts" should be narrowed down to
"sound quality".

>>> One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi
>>> standard (which in itself is debatable).

> The only debate is whether YOU want that level of
performance.

There's no question that really bad performance results in
bad sound quality. One of the problems with people's current
ideas about sound quality and specs is that some have been
mislead to believe that 0.0001% THD has to sound better than
0.001% THD. In fact Sander you make this mistake below.

> The entire "hifi" standard is debatable. See below.

There's no generally agreed-upon standard, so there is
nothing to debate until a realistic standard has been set.

>>> As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a
subjective area.

In the end, the desired result is subjective. So, there's no
getting away from subjectivity. OTOH, quite a bit is known
about the relationship between objective and subjective
measures, so the exact proportion is fluid.

>> Of course. Much more so in music PRODUCTION though.
>> It is generally accepted by most intelligent people
however,
>> that in audio *REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an
output
>> as faithful to the input as is possible, within the
imposed
>> constraints such as cost.

The current problem with the goal of pure reproduction is
the fact that from microphone to ear, there is nothing like
exact reproduction. Not even close.

> This standard is debatable in the way that what YOU are
> looking for, by the above admission, is 'fidelity" from
source
> to speakers only.

At this time, we can't even come close.

> That leaves out: a: the recording and
> mastering in all its stages,

A process that is at best a gross approximation.

> b. the room and speaker interaction.

A process that is almost always highly flawed.

> True fidelity is an exact reproduction of what a certain
band,
> orchestra or performer sounded like during the recodring,
> where we still have a choice in listening position.

That would imply multichannel.

> True fidelity is NOT, IMHO, taking just a "perfect" source
> spinning a disk of whatever kind, combined with a
"perfect"
> amplifier.

Yes, the speaker and room situation needs to be considered
very carefully.

However, we can bypass the problems with rooms and speakers
with headphones and earphones. Problem is, they are highly
inexact as well.

> From all this follows that "high fidelity" in itself
doesn't
> exist, at its best it's is strictly personal and might
very
> well ask for components with deviating behaviour from the
> "ideal".

For many it seems that they have missed the point that an
audio system is a system. Therefore the components need to
be considered in terms of how adaptable they are to the goal
of obtaining the best possible system.

> Thinking that "high fidelity" can be achieved with 0.0001%
THD
> and a frequency response from DC to light is simply
absurd.

OTOH, its not very feasible to try to obtain high fidelity
with 10% THD.

> This is something that not may people are ready to accept,

Not really.

> especially when they're some kind of audio "professional"
(
> usually with blinders on).

It's the audiophiles who mostly have the blinders on.

[EddieM]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
>>>>> They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If
>>>>> you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If
>>>>> the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
>>>>> prove them either right or wrong.
>>>>
>>>>How does straight forward DBT prove them wrong?
>>>
>>> If they can't identify the difference they claim under double blind
>>> conditions then they are wrong.
>>>
>>> Easy.
>>
>>How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
>>of listeners?
>
> If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
> they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
> and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
> actually *know* what's connected.


As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another
here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences
only and NOT a test about the ability to identify.

Simply put, in your commentary above, you're attributing the incorrect
reason to uphold your conclusion -- and that conclusion being base
from the resulting consequenses of the listeners "inability" to know or
distinguish between the unit under test.




> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[EddieM]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
>>> against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
>>> DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.
>>
>>
>>But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
>>makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.
>
> And you *know* this how, exactly?



I know this base on what I hear.





> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:22:35 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>>>How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
>>>of listeners?
>>
>> If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
>> they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
>> and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
>> actually *know* what's connected.
>
>
>As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another
>here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences
>only and NOT a test about the ability to identify.
>
>Simply put, in your commentary above, you're attributing the incorrect
>reason to uphold your conclusion -- and that conclusion being base
>from the resulting consequenses of the listeners "inability" to know or
>distinguish between the unit under test.

How can you misread what people write so completely? Or are you
deliberately trying to twist because you can't "win" this argument any
other way.

The ability to identify is decided by the listener who has said "I can
hear a difference". That must be taken for granted from that point on.
If the identification doesn't follow during the trial it is because
there was no difference - the listener was deluded by non-audible
factors.

"Ability to hear a difference" is a term which can be taken one of two
ways. First is the facility to hear a difference where a difference
exists. Second is the tendency to hear a difference where one may, or
may not exist. The first describes the trained listener who is able to
hear and identify real differences, and who may occasionally be fooled
into hearing non-existent differences because of sighted bias. The
second describes the purely deluded, who is either unable or unwilling
to find out which he is.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:30:46 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
>>>> against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
>>>> DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
>>>makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.
>>
>> And you *know* this how, exactly?
>
>
>
>I know this base on what I hear.
>
>

Based on what you hear? So you could identify which cable you are
listening to by sound alone. Care to accept that challenge - or would
you get "confused"?

It would be well worth your while, of course, because Stewart will
give you a large wedge of cash if you can do it. He is willing, in
fact, to put his money where his mouth is. Are you that confident in
your position?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[EddieM]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.
>
> With due respect, he's providing cogent arguments, you're ducking and
> diving like you're in the ring with Amir Khan.............


'cuse me?


Could you provide a convincing example of this, "coward."


>>> Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]
>>
>>So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not
>>confused...
>
> Why would anyone be 'confused'? The whole point of an ABX test is that
> you can *always* call on the known A and B signals, it's only 'X'
> which is unknown.


When I said confused, I was referring to confusion. Anyway, I've talk to
Fertsler, Krooger, The Bug eater, Uncle Norm, Tom Nousaine and
mini-borgs ...etc..etc about this particular matter and all of which just
ended
up running away with their tails neatly and safely in-tuck between their legs
and I'm just so tired of it . Don't forget to add yourself to the above names
though, although in your case, it was under a totally different subject
matter,
remember ?


>>> [...] and I was showing you how the
>>> environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
>>> environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.
>>
>>That is incorrect.
>
> In what way?


It has not avoid the pressure of a penalty impose by making a guess.


That's one.


>>> In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
>>> AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
>>> don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.
>>
>>In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.
>
>
> Into what conclusion is he jumping? [...]

<jesus>

" In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there
is no AUDIBLE difference."





> In an ABX test, the *only*
> difference from 'normal' listening is that the subject does not
> actually *know* what is connected when they're listening to 'X'.


LoL!


That's the only difference ?





> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message


> When I said confused, I was referring to confusion.
Anyway,
> I've talk to Fertsler, Krooger, The Bug eater, Uncle Norm,
Tom
> Nousaine and
> mini-borgs ...etc..etc about this particular matter and
all of
> which just ended
> up running away with their tails neatly and safely in-tuck
> between their legs and I'm just so tired of it .

It's not fear Eddie, its the fact that you're
near-impossible to reason with.

> It has not avoid the pressure of a penalty impose by
making a guess.

In ABX there's no extra penalty for guessing wrong.

>> In an ABX test, the *only*
>> difference from 'normal' listening is that the subject
does
>> not actually *know* what is connected when they're
listening
>> to 'X'.

> That's the only difference ?

That's the only difference that needs to be.

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.
>>
>>> Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]
>>
>>So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not
>>confused...
>>
>>> [...] and I was showing you how the
>>> environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
>>> environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.
>>
>>That is incorrect.
>>
>>> In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
>>> AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
>>> don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.
>>
>>In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.
>
>
> So in your world, if a test doesn't yield the result you want, there
> must be something wrong with it.


LoL! That's Ferstlernianism.


> OK please define a test protocol which wouldn't lead to "confusion"
> but would still leave the subject judging on sound alone.


What for ?



> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:06:25 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>> Don Pearce wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.
>>>
>>>> Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]
>>>
>>>So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not
>>>confused...
>>>
>>>> [...] and I was showing you how the
>>>> environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
>>>> environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.
>>>
>>>That is incorrect.
>>>
>>>> In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
>>>> AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
>>>> don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.
>>>
>>>In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.
>>
>>
>> So in your world, if a test doesn't yield the result you want, there
>> must be something wrong with it.
>
>
>LoL! That's Ferstlernianism.
>
No, a valid comment on your unsupportable position.

>
>> OK please define a test protocol which wouldn't lead to "confusion"
>> but would still leave the subject judging on sound alone.
>
>
>What for ?
>

Because you are bitching about all the normal, scientifically accepted
protocols that have been laid before you. Time to put up or shut up.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Sander deWaal]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> said:


>> >It is generally accepted by most intelligent people however, that in
>audio
>> >*REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an output as faithful to the input
>as
>> >is possible, within the imposed constraints such as cost.


>> This standard is debatable in the way that what YOU are looking for,
>> by the above admission, is 'fidelity" from source to speakers only.
>> That leaves out: a: the recording and mastering in all its stages,


>Yes, that's usually part of the *production* process, something the average
>listener has no control over.


But nevertheless it is part of the entire chain.
Corrections may be made afterwards in the reproduction chain.

*I* don't take for granted the insights of the recording/mastering
engineers.

>> b. the room and speaker interaction.

>Not at all. That *is* part of the *reproduction* chain.


Fidelity in reproduction, by your admission above, leaves out room and
room/speaker interaction.


>> From all this follows that "high fidelity" in itself doesn't exist, at
>> its best it's is strictly personal and might very well ask for
>> components with deviating behaviour from the "ideal".


>Yes, just as I said, it is OK to *prefer* a different sound. IMO it has
>nothing to do with the definition of fidelity though.


Indeed it has not, never claimed that.


>> Thinking that "high fidelity" can be achieved with 0.0001% THD and a
>> frequency response from DC to light is simply absurd.
>> This is something that not may people are ready to accept, especially
>> when they're some kind of audio "professional" ( usually with blinders
>> on).


>Thinking that a persons individual preferences should define fidelity is
>even more absurd IMO.


What else should define it?
We just agreed upon the fact that "hi fi" doesn't exist.

That leaves us with "my-fi", as far as I'm concerned.

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> said:

>>Personally.. I've abondoned the quest for true fidelity.
>> I get much more satisfaction from my own personal preference
>> than true fidelity.

>Which is what I said, it is OK to prefer something else.
>One does *not* have to change the definition of fidelity.


Which is what? A true representation of what's on the disc?
Or what it sounded like during the recording?
Or what it sounds like in the Concertgebouw Amsterdam, or perhaps the
Scala in Milan?
From what row/seat?

--

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

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:24:42 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:57:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>
>>>>857, actually......................
>>>
>>>Ok, an idiot *and* the liar confirmed.
>>
>>
>> You have no clue, do you? I have friends with ten times that many
>> albums. So, I'm guessing you have about forty albums and a Sony
>> Walkman?
>
>I am *NOT* going into a **** contest with you on the count of my CD's (I
>have no LP's). First off, I never sat down (or went around the room)
>counting my CD's.

So, forty might well be an overestimate?

I'm an engineer, cataloguing is second nature to me. :-)

>Second off, there are piles of CD's which I haven't
>yet found the time to listen to, as it takes for me at least, a half a
>day (depending on the cd) to digest one. Suffice to say that I order
>from amazon, cdon, etc, at a steady pace based on those introductory
>listens. And everytime I get around to opening a fresh CD and having a
>go at it, it's a personal holiday.

Jeeeeezus H. Keeerist, you are truly pathetic!

>Now the *reason* why you exposed yourself to be an idiot is that you
>claimed you have all the cd's you want. Only an idiot would think to
>that he has all the music in the world he would possibly like.

Not really, if you've spent more than forty years building your
collection. You're a sad little git, aren't you? BTW, how can you want
something you've never heard of?

> The
>reason why you exposed yourself as a liar is that your music/living room
>had this one equipment rack/cd/lp storage shelf thingy. And there were
>no 857 Cd's there. :)

Correct, there are about 250 in the lounge, as SWMBO won't let me have
any more in there. The bulk of the collection is in here in the
library with the PC, but the 'most listened to' are in the lounge.
Typical that you're dumb enough to think that one photograph shows you
an entire house. Imagine where the 377 DVDs are kept................

>And who the hell would sit down and count 800 odd cd's anyways. One two
>three.. gees.

I just add them to the PC database as I buy them. It's not exactly
rocket science to check the exact number, but clearly way over the top
of *your* pointy head.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:22:35 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote

>> If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
>> they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
>> and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
>> actually *know* what's connected.
>
>As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another
>here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences
>only and NOT a test about the ability to identify.
>
>Simply put, in your commentary above, you're attributing the incorrect
>reason to uphold your conclusion -- and that conclusion being base
>from the resulting consequenses of the listeners "inability" to know or
>distinguish between the unit under test.

Time to change the meds, Eddie....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:30:46 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
>>>> against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
>>>> DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
>>>makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.
>>
>> And you *know* this how, exactly?
>
>
>
>I know this base on what I hear.

You mean, based on what you *see*. No one, and I mean *no one*, can
hear differences among nominally competent cable. That's *no one*, and
I've put £1,000 of my own money behind this for five years, with no
takers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Fella]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> BTW, how can you want
> something you've never heard of?

Ever heard of something called in INTERNET!?!?! See, told you you were
an idiot.. Now do you beleive me?

> The bulk of the collection is in here in the
> library with the PC,

And I told you were a friggin liar, didn't I?

Now lemme see, what was the third one? :)

[Michael Conzo]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote:

>
> What else should define it?
> We just agreed upon the fact that "hi fi" doesn't exist.
>
> That leaves us with "my-fi", as far as I'm concerned.

Generally, that's the only thing available to anyone. An infinate number of
systems in an infinate number of rooms (with their resultant colourations).

Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see.

[Fella]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:24:42 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>

>> And everytime I get around to opening a fresh CD and having a
>>go at it, it's a personal holiday.
>
>
> Jeeeeezus H. Keeerist, you are truly pathetic!

There you have it, that's the third point proved. I dont know what you
understand from the words "personal holiday" but to me it's like some
private, personal space where you and your music, new music, are alone
and there is this slight excitement of expectation that you are going to
consume something new. Even if it is not a new CD, sitting down for a
listen after the day has been dealt with is always something somewhat
intimate and sentimental. Now I can hear you chuckle "jeesuss f.
keeriste, fella, you pathetic girly sentimental mushy fag fella", etc.
You are no music lover, you are an assembly line "all your bases are
belong to us" borg.. You probably listen to pink noise from those barn
doors of yours more than music.

So ALL THREE POINTS PROVEN!

[George M. Middius]

Bwian said:

> An infinate number of
> systems in an infinate number of rooms

How many twitterers can fit into one of your pet 901 Birdhouses?

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>How can they be wrong if DBTs are not about testing the abilities
>>>>of listeners?
>>>
>>> If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
>>> they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
>>> and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
>>> actually *know* what's connected.
>>
>>
>>As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another
>>here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences
>>only and NOT a test about the ability to identify.
>>
>>
>>Simply put, in your commentary above, you're attributing the incorrect
>>reason to uphold your conclusion -- and that conclusion being base
>>from the resulting consequenses of the listeners "inability" to know or
>>distinguish between the unit under test.
>
>
> How can you misread what people write so completely? Or are you
> deliberately trying to twist because you can't "win" this argument any
> other way.




For clarification, please allow me to re-insert part of the post you had
"snipped" above in your reply in order to see if whether it is you or me
who misread what you wrote.


You said:

" Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist..."


So there you're saying that DBT aren't about testing the abilities of
listeners
which they use in able to identify (hence, claim) a difference. Rather, you
are saying that DBT are use for testing whether those identified differences
actually exist. AND you do this by asking the listeners during a DBT to
identify those differences between two "UNKNOWN" equipment without
using those abilities which they use in able to identify (hence, claim) a
difference.


Further, you add that:


" If you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners.
If the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
prove them either right or wrong. "



How crazy can you get Mr. Pearce ?


May I ask the nature of your consulting business ?






> The ability to identify is decided by the listener who has said "I can
> hear a difference". That must be taken for granted from that point on.

No problem !


> If the identification doesn't follow during the trial it is because
> there was no difference - the listener was deluded by non-audible
> factors.


Already ? !


> "Ability to hear a difference" is a term which can be taken one of two
> ways. First is the facility to hear a difference where a difference
> exists. Second is the tendency to hear a difference where one may, or
> may not exist. The first describes the trained listener who is able to
> hear and identify real differences, and who may occasionally be fooled
> into hearing non-existent differences because of sighted bias. The
> second describes the purely deluded, who is either unable or unwilling
> to find out which he is.


Mr. Pearce, if I may, you're just like a trans-atlantic ballistic missile that
keeps returning back, due to faulty designs, from where you were sent.
..




> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

[EddieM]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>
>
>
>
>>> If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then
>>> they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night
>>> and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't
>>> actually *know* what's connected.
>>
>>As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another
>>here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences
>>only and NOT a test about the ability to identify.
>>
>>Simply put, in your commentary above, you're attributing the incorrect
>>reason to uphold your conclusion -- and that conclusion being base
>>from the resulting consequenses of the listeners "inability" to know or
>>distinguish between the unit under test.
>
>
>
> Time to change the meds, Eddie....................


No rebuttal ? "Koward."



> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[EddieM]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
>>>>> against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
>>>>> DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
>>>>makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.
>>>
>>> And you *know* this how, exactly?
>>
>>
>>
>>I know this base on what I hear.
>
> You mean, based on what you *see*. No one, and I mean *no one*, can
> hear differences among nominally competent cable. That's *no one*, and
> I've put £1,000 of my own money behind this for five years, with no
> takers.


Yak, yak, yak.


> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> To take a trivial example, zip-cord manufacturers could take action
>>>>> against a magazine that claims that a boutique cable sounds better. A
>>>>> DBT organised by the libel court could settle the matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But my cables and wires from Audioquest, Cardas, WireWorlds ...etc.
>>>>makes my system sounds so much better than zip-cords.
>>>
>>> And you *know* this how, exactly?
>>
>>I know this base on what I hear.
>>
>>
>
> Based on what you hear? So you could identify which cable you are
> listening to by sound alone. Care to accept that challenge - or would
> you get "confused"?
>
> It would be well worth your while, of course, because Stewart will
> give you a large wedge of cash if you can do it. He is willing, in
> fact, to put his money where his mouth is. Are you that confident in
> your position?


Yes, I'm confident about my position in DeeBeeTee.


> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:35:10 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>> Based on what you hear? So you could identify which cable you are
>> listening to by sound alone. Care to accept that challenge - or would
>> you get "confused"?
>>
>> It would be well worth your while, of course, because Stewart will
>> give you a large wedge of cash if you can do it. He is willing, in
>> fact, to put his money where his mouth is. Are you that confident in
>> your position?
>
>
>Yes, I'm confident about my position in DeeBeeTee.

In that case, go claim your money, and you can report back here on
your success.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>> Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]
>>>>
>>>>So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not
>>>>confused...
>>>>
>>>>> [...] and I was showing you how the
>>>>> environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
>>>>> environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.
>>>>
>>>>That is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>> In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
>>>>> AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
>>>>> don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.
>>>>
>>>>In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>> So in your world, if a test doesn't yield the result you want, there
>>> must be something wrong with it.
>>
>>
>>LoL! That's Ferstlernianism.
>>
> No, a valid comment on your unsupportable position.
>
>
>>> OK please define a test protocol which wouldn't lead to "confusion"
>>> but would still leave the subject judging on sound alone.
>>
>>
>>What for ?
>>
>
> Because you are bitching about all the normal, scientifically accepted
> protocols that have been laid before you. Time to put up or shut up.


First you accuse me of having unsupportable position.
Then you ask me to define a test protocol that prevents confusion.
After that, you ask me to put up or shut up.


Is this the way of the United Kingdom ?



> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:20:19 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>You said:
>
> " Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners.
> They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist..."
>
>
>So there you're saying that DBT aren't about testing the abilities of
>listeners
>which they use in able to identify (hence, claim) a difference. Rather, you
>are saying that DBT are use for testing whether those identified differences
>actually exist. AND you do this by asking the listeners during a DBT to
>identify those differences between two "UNKNOWN" equipment without
>using those abilities which they use in able to identify (hence, claim) a
>difference.
>
>
>Further, you add that:
>
>
> " If you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners.
> If the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will
> prove them either right or wrong. "
>
>
>
>How crazy can you get Mr. Pearce ?

Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias - of whatever kind. The DBT
will sort that out very nicely. Quite often the result will be a
feeling of confusion on the part of the subject, when the difference
he was sure he heard, suddenly disappears (as I have suggested to many
people, go find the McGurk effect to witness an almost unbelievable
demonstration of sighted bias - you will be confused, believe me).

My "further" bit covers the eventuality that you yourself believe
there is a difference, and you recruit others to test it for you. This
is a pretty stupid scenario, but I thought I'd mention it.

If you continue with the personal invective yo have started here,
though, I will quite the thread, because I am not interested in that.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:39:11 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>> Because you are bitching about all the normal, scientifically accepted
>> protocols that have been laid before you. Time to put up or shut up.
>
>
>First you accuse me of having unsupportable position.
>Then you ask me to define a test protocol that prevents confusion.
>After that, you ask me to put up or shut up.
>
>
>Is this the way of the United Kingdom ?

Yes. If you don't like the protocol I propose, suggest one that would
suit you. Is that so unreasonable? I don't propose to pursue this much
further if all you can do is say that you get confused - that just
isn't productive.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[EddieM]

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Don Pearce wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>With due respect, you seems prone into jumping to conclusion.
>
> With due respect, he's providing cogent arguments, you're ducking and diving
> like you're in the ring with Amir Khan.............

'cuse me?

Could you provide a convincing example of this, "coward."

>>> Look - you are calling it "confused", [...]
>>
>>So, could you, without jumping to conclusion, tell why they're not
>>confused...
>
> Why would anyone be 'confused'? The whole point of an ABX test is that you
> can *always* call on the known A and B signals, it's only 'X'
> which is unknown.


When I said confused, I was referring to confusion. Anyway, I've talk to
Fertsler, Krooger, The Bug eater, Uncle Norm, Tom Nousaine and
mini-borgs ...etc..etc about this particular matter and all of which just
ended up running away with their tails neatly and safely in-tuck between
their legs and I'm just so tired of it . Don't forget to add yourself to the
above names though, although in your case, it was under a totally
different subject matter, remember ?


>>> [...] and I was showing you how the
>>> environment of the test can be arranged so that there are no
>>> environmental pressures that the subject could possibly object to.
>>
>>That is incorrect.
>
> In what way?

It has not avoid the pressure of a penalty impose by making a guess.

That's one.


>>> In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there is no
>>> AUDIBLE difference. You want to call that confused, go ahead - but
>>> don't thereby claim that the test is invalid; it isn't.
>>
>>In my reality, for test to be valid, no jumping into conclusion.
>
>
> Into what conclusion is he jumping? [...]

<jesus>

" In reality, they simply can't tell which is which because there
is no AUDIBLE difference."

> In an ABX test, the *only*
> difference from 'normal' listening is that the subject does not
> actually *know* what is connected when they're listening to 'X'.

LoL!

That's the only difference ?


> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


--


All quiet in the eastern front

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Based on what you hear? So you could identify which cable you are
>>> listening to by sound alone. Care to accept that challenge - or would
>>> you get "confused"?
>>>
>>> It would be well worth your while, of course, because Stewart will
>>> give you a large wedge of cash if you can do it. He is willing, in
>>> fact, to put his money where his mouth is. Are you that confident in
>>> your position?
>>
>>
>>Yes, I'm confident about my position in DeeBeeTee.
>
> In that case, go claim your money, and you can report back here on
> your success.


Objection!

You're outta order.



> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:00:15 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>> Don Pearce wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Based on what you hear? So you could identify which cable you are
>>>> listening to by sound alone. Care to accept that challenge - or would
>>>> you get "confused"?
>>>>
>>>> It would be well worth your while, of course, because Stewart will
>>>> give you a large wedge of cash if you can do it. He is willing, in
>>>> fact, to put his money where his mouth is. Are you that confident in
>>>> your position?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I'm confident about my position in DeeBeeTee.
>>
>> In that case, go claim your money, and you can report back here on
>> your success.
>
>
>Objection!
>
>You're outta order.
>

That is the first time I've ever encountered anybody who would object
to being given money. It lends a new perspective to your position.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:

>
> Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
> has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
> granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
> he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
> internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking. :)

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
>> has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
>> granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
>> he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>> internal difference based on sighted bias
>
>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
> you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
>whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
>this "bias" the invention of the borg?
>
>I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
>make those high-end gear so good looking. :)

Never mind academic papers, experience it for yourself - then you will
know rather than merely having been told. And why did you delete that
part of my post that told you how to achieve what you demand - scared
to find out, perhaps?

http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[EddieM]

> Don Pearce wrote
>
>snip
>
>
> Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
> has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
> granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
> he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
> internal difference based on sighted bias - of whatever kind. The DBT
> will sort that out very nicely. Quite often the result will be a
> feeling of confusion on the part of the subject, when the difference
> he was sure he heard, suddenly disappears (as I have suggested to many
> people, go find the McGurk effect to witness an almost unbelievable
> demonstration of sighted bias - you will be confused, believe me).
>
> My "further" bit covers the eventuality that you yourself believe
> there is a difference, and you recruit others to test it for you. This
> is a pretty stupid scenario, but I thought I'd mention it.
>
> If you continue with the personal invective yo have started here,
> though, I will quite the thread, because I am not interested in that.
>
> d
>
>
>
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com


I have nothing further Mr. Pearce.

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
>>>has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
>>>granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
>>>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>>>internal difference based on sighted bias
>>
>>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
>> you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
>>whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
>>this "bias" the invention of the borg?
>>
>>I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
>>make those high-end gear so good looking. :)
>
>
> Never mind academic papers,


Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok. :)


> experience it for yourself


Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, and
when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
world sound similar in an artificial abx environment.

I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you..


> And why did you delete that
> part of my post that told you how to achieve what you demand - scared
> to find out, perhaps?

I opened a new discussion on the subject with the header:

Attn pinkerton, wire is not wire.

You are cordially invited.

>
> http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html

eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da".. :)

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:00:55 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
>>>>has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
>>>>granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
>>>>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>>>>internal difference based on sighted bias
>>>
>>>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
>>> you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
>>>whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
>>>this "bias" the invention of the borg?
>>>
>>>I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
>>>make those high-end gear so good looking. :)
>>
>>
>> Never mind academic papers,
>
>
>Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
>science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok. :)
>
>
>> experience it for yourself
>
>
>Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
>sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
>when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
>observations to RAO also.
>
>In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
>in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
>THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
>ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
>guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, and
>when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
>tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
>world sound similar in an artificial abx environment.
>
>I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
>"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you..
>
>
>> And why did you delete that
>> part of my post that told you how to achieve what you demand - scared
>> to find out, perhaps?
>
>I opened a new discussion on the subject with the header:
>
>Attn pinkerton, wire is not wire.
>
>You are cordially invited.
>
>>
>> http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html
>
>eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da".. :)

You are trolling. Not interested.

And just for your information he was actually saying "ba ba ba ba". If
you heard "da" while you weren't looking, then your hearing is
seriously impaired.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
>>>has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
>>>granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
>>>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>>>internal difference based on sighted bias
>>
>>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
>> you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
>>whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
>>this "bias" the invention of the borg?
>>
>>I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
>>make those high-end gear so good looking. :)
>
>
> Never mind academic papers

I just can't get over this, Mr Pierce. You say:

"we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias"

as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
come about?

I remeber once reading, was it from pinkerton or the krooborg, about an
incident where this mixing engineer thinks he has flipped some switch
and he hears the differences he is expecting to hear in the sound
whereas all the while it was a wrong switch. So hearsay anecdotes like
this and non-applicable, faulty abx/dbt:ing made you people lose faith
in your own ears then? Am I correct?

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Don Pearce wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we
must
>> presume he has the ability to hear that difference - we
must
>> take that for granted. When we do the DBT on that claim,
we
>> are testing whether what he hears is an audible
difference,
>> or a psychosomatically generated internal difference
based on
>> sighted bias
>
> "psychosomatically generated internal difference based on
> sighted bias" you say.. Is there any academic paper,
study,
> book, etc, that examines whether or not such a phenomenon
> exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is this "bias" the
invention
> of the borg?

Great practical example suggested by a bright guy:

http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html

Sighted bias can make you *hear* something that was never
said.

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:00:55 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
>>>>>has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
>>>>>granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
>>>>>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>>>>>internal difference based on sighted bias
>>>>
>>>>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
>>>>you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
>>>>whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
>>>>this "bias" the invention of the borg?
>>>>
>>>>I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
>>>>make those high-end gear so good looking. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Never mind academic papers,
>>
>>
>>Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
>>science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>experience it for yourself
>>
>>
>>Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
>>sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
>>when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
>>observations to RAO also.
>>
>>In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
>>in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
>>THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
>>ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
>>guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, and
>>when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
>>tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
>>world sound similar in an artificial abx environment.
>>
>>I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
>>"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you..
>>
>>
>>
>>>And why did you delete that
>>>part of my post that told you how to achieve what you demand - scared
>>>to find out, perhaps?
>>
>>I opened a new discussion on the subject with the header:
>>
>>Attn pinkerton, wire is not wire.
>>
>>You are cordially invited.
>>
>>
>>>http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html
>>
>>eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da".. :)
>
>
> You are trolling. Not interested.
>

Ok, Mr. Pearce sneaks back into his comfortable hive. :) Sorry Mr.
Pearce, I should have uttered a cuss word or two here and there with my
previous posts, you'd have had a better excuse. I'll remember next time. :)

The truth is, Mr. Pearcce, you been handed your ass on a platter. :)

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we
>
> must
>
>>>presume he has the ability to hear that difference - we
>
> must
>
>>>take that for granted. When we do the DBT on that claim,
>
> we
>
>>>are testing whether what he hears is an audible
>
> difference,
>
>>>or a psychosomatically generated internal difference
>
> based on
>
>>>sighted bias
>>
>>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on
>> sighted bias" you say.. Is there any academic paper,
>
> study,
>
>>book, etc, that examines whether or not such a phenomenon
>>exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is this "bias" the
>
> invention
>
>>of the borg?
>
>
> Great practical example suggested by a bright guy:
>
> http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html
>
> Sighted bias can make you *hear* something that was never
> said.
>
>

Ouh, this dude here proves once and for all that one should'nt ever see
what is making the sounds one hears, lest he get's "confused" .. :)

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:34 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
>>>>has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
>>>>granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
>>>>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>>>>internal difference based on sighted bias
>>>
>>>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
>>> you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
>>>whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
>>>this "bias" the invention of the borg?
>>>
>>>I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
>>>make those high-end gear so good looking. :)
>>
>>
>> Never mind academic papers
>
>I just can't get over this, Mr Pierce. You say:
>
>"we are testing whether what
>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>internal difference based on sighted bias"
>
>as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
>observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
>based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
>phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
>research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
>WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
>come about?

Because I have no confidence that you would believe an academic paper,
no matter how learned. I offered you instead the possibility of doing
your own, very quick, "academic" research. Did you try it? Convincing,
isn't it?

>
>I remeber once reading, was it from pinkerton or the krooborg, about an
>incident where this mixing engineer thinks he has flipped some switch
>and he hears the differences he is expecting to hear in the sound
>whereas all the while it was a wrong switch. So hearsay anecdotes like
>this and non-applicable, faulty abx/dbt:ing made you people lose faith
>in your own ears then? Am I correct?

What is well known is that most recording engineers have a "producer
control" - a disconnected pot they can twiddle when some busybody
producer feels his ego being threatened and wants to put his stamp on
the music. "Give me a bit more presence" he might say. The engineer
will then carefully twiddle the pot, asking "is that how you want
it?". The producer will be a happy bunny.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
>
> You are trolling. Not interested.
>

This is "trolling" according to Mr. Pearce, the consultant:

"Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, and
when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
world sound similar in an artificial abx environment."

I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you.."


Oh my, what a troll. :)

Now now fella, either you accept the borg assertions without question
and have *blind* *faith* in the (pun intended) or then you will be
deemed a troll. :)

> And just for your information he was actually saying "ba ba ba ba". If
> you heard "da" while you weren't looking, then your hearing is
> seriously impaired.

Aand "seriously hearing impared" to boot! :)

>
> d
> Pearce Consulting

I feel sorry for those you consult. :(

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:24:08 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>> You are trolling. Not interested.
>>
>
>This is "trolling" according to Mr. Pearce, the consultant:
>
>"Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
>sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
>when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
>observations to RAO also.
>
>In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
>in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. And
>THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
>ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. So when you
>guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, and
>when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
>tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
>world sound similar in an artificial abx environment."
>
>I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
>"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you.."
>
>
>Oh my, what a troll. :)

Can't you even read your own posts? The trolling reference was to your
new thread "wire is not wire" or whatever. Anyway, I haven't even seen
it, so I presume you haven't posted it on RAT. Is it by any chance on
RAO? If so, I won't see it, because I don't go there.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:34 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
>>>>>has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
>>>>>granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
>>>>>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>>>>>internal difference based on sighted bias
>>>>
>>>>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
>>>>you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
>>>>whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
>>>>this "bias" the invention of the borg?
>>>>
>>>>I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
>>>>make those high-end gear so good looking. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Never mind academic papers
>>
>>I just can't get over this, Mr Pierce. You say:
>>
>>"we are testing whether what
>>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>>internal difference based on sighted bias"
>>
>>as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
>>observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
>>based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
>>phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
>>research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
>>WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
>>come about?
>
>
> Because I have no confidence that you would believe an academic paper,
> no matter how learned. I offered you instead the possibility of doing
> your own, very quick, "academic" research. Did you try it? Convincing,
> isn't it?

I told you I tried it and eyes open or shut I heard dadadaa. I'll get me
coat (as they say in the "faast show") and go for an ear check-up to the
doctor. :)

>
>
> What is well known is that most recording engineers have a "producer
> control" - a disconnected pot they can twiddle when some busybody
> producer feels his ego being threatened and wants to put his stamp on
> the music. "Give me a bit more presence" he might say. The engineer
> will then carefully twiddle the pot, asking "is that how you want
> it?". The producer will be a happy bunny.
>

Ok, there is no doubt in my mind anymore, all audio equipment sound the
same. :)

But seriously. Here is one anecdote for you. Take it on face value.
Beleive it or not. On one of our tests we used an amp (two of them) that
has tone controls. A cambrdige audio 340a model. We modified the tone
controls on one, and left the other at flat. We listened *without* abx
gear in between, *sighted* and as expected, and *of course* they sounded
different. The we put back the ANX stuff in between and did an ABX, they
sounded quite similar, almost the same so much so that none of us got a
statistically acceptable result..

Ok ok, I'll stop this "trolling".

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:31:41 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>But seriously. Here is one anecdote for you. Take it on face value.
>Beleive it or not. On one of our tests we used an amp (two of them) that
>has tone controls. A cambrdige audio 340a model. We modified the tone
>controls on one, and left the other at flat. We listened *without* abx
>gear in between, *sighted* and as expected, and *of course* they sounded
>different. The we put back the ANX stuff in between and did an ABX, they
>sounded quite similar, almost the same so much so that none of us got a
>statistically acceptable result..
>
>Ok ok, I'll stop this "trolling".

I believe you absolutely - this is very typical of the effects of
sighted bias. While you were aware of the modified tone response, your
brain magnified the effect in your perception.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:34 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
>>observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
>>based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
>>phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
>>research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
>>WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
>>come about?
>
>
> Because I have no confidence that you would believe an academic paper,

Ah ah, Mr Pierce if *only* you had that confidence, you'd be flooding
this place now with reports and *proven* observations and academic
esearch incidents of "psychosomatically generated internal difference
based on sighted bias" .. LOL! :)


> I offered you instead the possibility of doing
> your own, very quick, "academic" research. Did you try it? Convincing,
> isn't it?
>

Yes, and you had the confidence to do so. I congratulate you, Mr Pearce,
you are one hell of a consultant and you do not fall prey to trolls. :)

Keep the faith, Mr Pearce.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message


> In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of
> volume levels, in a variety rooms, with varying speakers
of
> reactionary loads.

As do good ABX testers

> And THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana
> connections, level matching boxes, ABX relay boxes, etc in
> between the amps and the speakers.

We've tested all those things carefully, and done right none
of them mask audible differences.

> So when you guys
> effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx
> premise,

Which is a figment of your imagination, Fella. We've done
ABX with no banana jacks, no matching boxes, no relay boxes
and it didn't make any difference. We also did non-ABX blind
tests.


> and when you add memory effects, learning effects,
> and the strain of the tested to the equation the amps that
> sound vastly different in the real world sound similar in
an
> artificial abx environment."

Memory effects, learning effects and strain can be present
in *any* listening test and usually are.

So-called audiophile tests reduce strain by making the right
answer obvious, by both non-audible and audible means.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> We've done
> ABX with no banana jacks, no matching boxes, no relay boxes
> and it didn't make any difference. We also did non-ABX blind
> tests.
>

Yes Arny, I'll take your word for it. :)

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message


> But seriously. Here is one anecdote for you. Take it on
face
> value. Beleive it or not. On one of our tests we used an
amp
> (two of them) that has tone controls. A cambrdige audio
340a
> model. We modified the tone controls on one, and left the
> other at flat.

However, you don't say how much FR difference was involved.

> We listened *without* abx gear in between,
> *sighted* and as expected, and *of course* they sounded
> different. The we put back the ANX stuff in between and
did an
> ABX, they sounded quite similar, almost the same so much
so
> that none of us got a statistically acceptable result..

Then there's

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/dips_pips_tips/index.htm

which provides known "tone control" effects, some of which
are audible, some are not.

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:31:41 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>>But seriously. Here is one anecdote for you. Take it on face value.
>>Beleive it or not. On one of our tests we used an amp (two of them) that
>>has tone controls. A cambrdige audio 340a model. We modified the tone
>>controls on one, and left the other at flat. We listened *without* abx
>>gear in between, *sighted* and as expected, and *of course* they sounded
>>different. The we put back the ANX stuff in between and did an ABX, they
>>sounded quite similar, almost the same so much so that none of us got a
>>statistically acceptable result..
>>
>>Ok ok, I'll stop this "trolling".
>
>
> I believe you absolutely - this is very typical of the effects of
> sighted bias. While you were aware of the modified tone response, your
> brain magnified the effect in your perception.

Mr Pearce, carefull now, we might be finding a path to agreement here.

This is interesting, QUITE!

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>But seriously. Here is one anecdote for you. Take it on
>
> face
>
>>value. Beleive it or not. On one of our tests we used an
>
> amp
>
>>(two of them) that has tone controls. A cambrdige audio
>
> 340a
>
>>model. We modified the tone controls on one, and left the
>>other at flat.
>
>
> However, you don't say how much FR difference was involved.
>

We did not measure that. On one amp the bass and treble controls were
flat, while on the other they were half way between full open and flat.
And beleive you me, they *did* sound different. The fact that the ABX
procedure effectively screened this huge difference told us a lot. :)

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:40:18 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:34 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>>
>>>as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
>>>observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
>>>based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
>>>phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
>>>research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
>>>WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
>>>come about?
>>
>>
>> Because I have no confidence that you would believe an academic paper,
>
>Ah ah, Mr Pierce if *only* you had that confidence, you'd be flooding
>this place now with reports and *proven* observations and academic
>esearch incidents of "psychosomatically generated internal difference
>based on sighted bias" .. LOL! :)
>
>
>> I offered you instead the possibility of doing
>> your own, very quick, "academic" research. Did you try it? Convincing,
>> isn't it?
>>
>
>Yes, and you had the confidence to do so. I congratulate you, Mr Pearce,
>you are one hell of a consultant and you do not fall prey to trolls. :)
>
>Keep the faith, Mr Pearce.

I haven't the slightest idea what this post means.

Nevertheless, congratulations on hedging your bets on the spelling of
my name.

And please carry right on with your personal policy of never letting
things like facts come between you and what you know.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
>
>
> Can't you even read your own posts?

No, Mr Pearce, I can only write, haven't learned how to read yet. As
soon as I get my severely impaired hearing fixed, I am going to learn to
how read also. Thank you Mr Pearce, you are a valuable consultant. :)

> The trolling reference was to your
> new thread "wire is not wire" or whatever. Anyway, I haven't even seen
> it, so I presume you haven't posted it on RAT.

I did cross post it to RAT. Something must ha´ve went wrong. Hmm.. here
is a copy paste of it for your convenience, Mr Pearce, this time in RAT!:

Start copy ----------------------------------------------


>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>>
>>
>> No one, and I mean *no one*, can
>>hear differences among nominally competent cable. That's *no one*, and
>>I've put £1,000 of my own money behind this for five years, with no
>>takers.
>

I challenged the "Randi challenge" a while back with speaker cables in
mind. The cables I use against zip cord, said I. James Randi answered
back that he acknowledges that "wire is not wire" ... He did not accept
my challenge. Furthermore, I then found out from the krooborg that the
wire = wire equation is applicable only when the wires in question are
of the same length, gauge and construct. :)

So I am SURE pinky that if I swing around to your part of woods to take
you on with that challenge you will define that term "nominally
competent cable" as to mean some lamp cord bought from radioshack. The
vowen teflon shielded home-made cables that I use would somehow be out
of the realm of "nominally competent cable". :) Just as if two CD
players, for instance, do not sound the same one of them is
"malfunctioning" !! ... :)

You borgs .. Killfile the lot'of'em, says I.

Here is the link to the discussion on the subject:

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=James+Randi:+%22Wire+is+not+wire.+I+accep t+that

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:55:52 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>
>> Can't you even read your own posts?
>
>No, Mr Pearce, I can only write, haven't learned how to read yet. As
>soon as I get my severely impaired hearing fixed, I am going to learn to
>how read also. Thank you Mr Pearce, you are a valuable consultant. :)
>
>> The trolling reference was to your
>> new thread "wire is not wire" or whatever. Anyway, I haven't even seen
>> it, so I presume you haven't posted it on RAT.
>
>I did cross post it to RAT. Something must ha´ve went wrong. Hmm.. here
>is a copy paste of it for your convenience, Mr Pearce, this time in RAT!:
>
>Start copy ----------------------------------------------
>
>
> >>Stewart Pinkerton wrote
> >>
> >>
> >> No one, and I mean *no one*, can
> >>hear differences among nominally competent cable. That's *no one*, and
> >>I've put £1,000 of my own money behind this for five years, with no
> >>takers.
> >
>
>I challenged the "Randi challenge" a while back with speaker cables in
>mind. The cables I use against zip cord, said I. James Randi answered
>back that he acknowledges that "wire is not wire" ... He did not accept
>my challenge. Furthermore, I then found out from the krooborg that the
>wire = wire equation is applicable only when the wires in question are
>of the same length, gauge and construct. :)
>
>So I am SURE pinky that if I swing around to your part of woods to take
>you on with that challenge you will define that term "nominally
>competent cable" as to mean some lamp cord bought from radioshack. The
>vowen teflon shielded home-made cables that I use would somehow be out
>of the realm of "nominally competent cable". :) Just as if two CD
>players, for instance, do not sound the same one of them is
>"malfunctioning" !! ... :)
>
>You borgs .. Killfile the lot'of'em, says I.
>
>Here is the link to the discussion on the subject:
>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=James+Randi:+%22Wire+is+not+wire.+I+accep t+that

Sorry - your tone is just far too rude for me to join this one. If you
can't be even a little civilized, I'm not interested.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>>So when you guys
>>effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx
>>premise,
>
>
> Which is a figment of your imagination, Fella. We've done
> ABX with no banana jacks, no matching boxes, no relay boxes
> and it didn't make any difference. We also did non-ABX blind
> tests.
>

Arny, if one were to do an ABX (for whatever reason!) between two
sprinters, for instance, one would restrict the speed and distance of
the run to a level where the both are the lowest common denominator.
After the test, one would end up with the conclusion that "all runners
run at the same speed".. :) Silly, ain't it?

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:40:18 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:34 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>>
>>>>as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
>>>>observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
>>>>based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
>>>>phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
>>>>research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
>>>>WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
>>>>come about?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because I have no confidence that you would believe an academic paper,
>>
>>Ah ah, Mr Pierce if *only* you had that confidence, you'd be flooding
>>this place now with reports and *proven* observations and academic
>>esearch incidents of "psychosomatically generated internal difference
>>based on sighted bias" .. LOL! :)
>>
>>
>>
>>> I offered you instead the possibility of doing
>>>your own, very quick, "academic" research. Did you try it? Convincing,
>>>isn't it?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, and you had the confidence to do so. I congratulate you, Mr Pearce,
>>you are one hell of a consultant and you do not fall prey to trolls. :)
>>
>>Keep the faith, Mr Pearce.
>
>
> I haven't the slightest idea what this post means.

Yes, it seems that my list is growing. First I have been diagnosed (from
a distance!) as having severely impared hearing, then my non-ability to
*read* surfaced and now it is perhaps my usage of the English language
is being proven to be defective. I'll go get me some emglish study
books, Mr Pieaaecerrce. Thank you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> But seriously. Here is one anecdote for you. Take it on
>>
>> face
>>
>>> value. Beleive it or not. On one of our tests we used an
>>
>> amp
>>
>>> (two of them) that has tone controls. A cambrdige audio
>>
>> 340a
>>
>>> model. We modified the tone controls on one, and left
the
>>> other at flat.
>>
>>
>> However, you don't say how much FR difference was
involved.

> We did not measure that.

That means that the test was missing control over a highly
important variable.

>On one amp the bass and treble
> controls were flat, while on the other they were half way
> between full open and flat. And beleive you me, they *did*
> sound different. The fact that the ABX procedure
effectively
> screened this huge difference told us a lot. :)

Intersting how vaguely similar but far better controlled
tests done by so many many other people show that ABX
detects FR differences that are at the limits of audibility,
as determined by other means.

Anybody who wants to see the truth about how ABX picks up FR
differences should listen for themselves to files they can
download freely from
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/dips_pips_tips/index.htm
which provides properly-measured "tone control" effects,
some of which
are audible, some are not.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>> So when you guys
>>> effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx
>>> premise,
>>
>>
>> Which is a figment of your imagination, Fella. We've done
>> ABX with no banana jacks, no matching boxes, no relay
boxes
>> and it didn't make any difference. We also did non-ABX
blind
>> tests.
>>
>
> Arny, if one were to do an ABX (for whatever reason!)
between
> two sprinters, for instance, one would restrict the speed
and
> distance of the run to a level where the both are the
lowest
> common denominator. After the test, one would end up with
the
> conclusion that "all runners run at the same speed".. :)
> Silly, ain't it?

It's silly because you made it up, Fella.

Please post again when you rejoin us here on Earth.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:03:05 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>>So when you guys
>>>effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx
>>>premise,
>>
>>
>> Which is a figment of your imagination, Fella. We've done
>> ABX with no banana jacks, no matching boxes, no relay boxes
>> and it didn't make any difference. We also did non-ABX blind
>> tests.
>>
>
>Arny, if one were to do an ABX (for whatever reason!) between two
>sprinters, for instance, one would restrict the speed and distance of
>the run to a level where the both are the lowest common denominator.
>After the test, one would end up with the conclusion that "all runners
>run at the same speed".. :) Silly, ain't it?

Sounds pretty silly to me - so why did you say it? A moment of thought
and you would have gone for the delete key instead of send.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:55:52 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry - your tone is just far too rude for me to join this one. If you
> can't be even a little civilized, I'm not interested.

Oh my! A fourth item to the list: I need to learn some manners too I
guess. :)

Here is a copy-paste of the ORIGINAL post, Mr Pearce, no cuss words
there, dig in:

-------------------------------------------------------------


Fella Jan 19, 8:25 am
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: Fella > -
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:25:56 +0200
Local: Wed,Jan 19 2005 8:25 am
Subject: James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that."

I sent this email to: '

"Greetings,

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

I do have my reservations though:

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

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

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

James Randi replied that:

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

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

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:06:40 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>> I haven't the slightest idea what this post means.
>
>Yes, it seems that my list is growing. First I have been diagnosed (from
>a distance!) as having severely impared hearing, then my non-ability to
>*read* surfaced and now it is perhaps my usage of the English language
>is being proven to be defective. I'll go get me some emglish study
>books, Mr Pieaaecerrce. Thank you.

Not at all - thank you.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:03:05 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>"Fella" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>So when you guys
>>>>effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx
>>>>premise,
>>>
>>>
>>>Which is a figment of your imagination, Fella. We've done
>>>ABX with no banana jacks, no matching boxes, no relay boxes
>>>and it didn't make any difference. We also did non-ABX blind
>>>tests.
>>>
>>
>>Arny, if one were to do an ABX (for whatever reason!) between two
>>sprinters, for instance, one would restrict the speed and distance of
>>the run to a level where the both are the lowest common denominator.
>>After the test, one would end up with the conclusion that "all runners
>>run at the same speed".. :) Silly, ain't it?
>
>
> Sounds pretty silly to me

ABX:ing amps is *as* silly. Fixed volume, level matching, etc, produce
the same effect. And to boot, you make the amps run with combat boots,
what with all the relays and extra level matching junk in between the
amps and the speakers..

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:10:42 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:55:52 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry - your tone is just far too rude for me to join this one. If you
>> can't be even a little civilized, I'm not interested.
>
>Oh my! A fourth item to the list: I need to learn some manners too I
>guess. :)
>
>Here is a copy-paste of the ORIGINAL post, Mr Pearce, no cuss words
>there, dig in:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Fella Jan 19, 8:25 am
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
>From: Fella > -
>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:25:56 +0200
>Local: Wed,Jan 19 2005 8:25 am
>Subject: James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that."
>
>I sent this email to: '
>
>"Greetings,
>
>I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic differences
>between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire. Is your
>challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables? The self made
>speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to measure and examine
>these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting them to the test) against
>radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I can hear the difference as
>to which is employed each and every time. Since "wire is wire" this must
>fall into the realm of your challenge.
>
>I do have my reservations though:
>
>!) A revealing amplifier (densen beat b 100 mk5, for instance), high
>quality speakers (sonus faber cremona floorstanders for instance) and a
>decent CD player will be used to conduct the test.
>
>!!) No abx comparator boxes in between, the wires should be interchanged
>manually.
>
>!!!) Someone I trust (but of course I will not have any sort of eye
>contact, or any form of other contact with him/her duration of the test)
>to actually observe that the wires are being changed (or not) and the
>data recorded"
>
>James Randi replied that:
>
>"There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable.
>That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that."
>
>More on "challenging the million dollar challenge" later. :) This post,
>on a FYI basis. :)

So you already got your answer from Randi. What more do you need?
Nobody argues that wire is wire. What you will hear here is that as
long as your wire reaches a minimum standard of competence and
suitability for its task, then going more expensive into "boutique"
cables gives you no further benefit.

There are boutique cables, of course, with little boxes of inductors
and capacitors attached which will give you a noticeably *worse*
performance on the basis of their being low pass filters.

What is there to discuss?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:14:05 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:03:05 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Fella" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So when you guys
>>>>>effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx
>>>>>premise,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which is a figment of your imagination, Fella. We've done
>>>>ABX with no banana jacks, no matching boxes, no relay boxes
>>>>and it didn't make any difference. We also did non-ABX blind
>>>>tests.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Arny, if one were to do an ABX (for whatever reason!) between two
>>>sprinters, for instance, one would restrict the speed and distance of
>>>the run to a level where the both are the lowest common denominator.
>>>After the test, one would end up with the conclusion that "all runners
>>>run at the same speed".. :) Silly, ain't it?
>>
>>
>> Sounds pretty silly to me
>
>ABX:ing amps is *as* silly. Fixed volume, level matching, etc, produce
>the same effect. And to boot, you make the amps run with combat boots,
>what with all the relays and extra level matching junk in between the
>amps and the speakers..

Is this what your argument boils down to? More powerful amps will
sound different because they can go louder.

Sigh!

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:

> Nobody argues that wire is wire.
>

Absolutely nobody, yes. :)

> What is there to discuss?
>


Under the circumstances, Nothing!

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:14:05 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Arny, if one were to do an ABX (for whatever reason!) between two
>>>>sprinters, for instance, one would restrict the speed and distance of
>>>>the run to a level where the both are the lowest common denominator.
>>>>After the test, one would end up with the conclusion that "all runners
>>>>run at the same speed".. :) Silly, ain't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sounds pretty silly to me
>>
>>ABX:ing amps is *as* silly. Fixed volume, level matching, etc, produce
>>the same effect. And to boot, you make the amps run with combat boots,
>>what with all the relays and extra level matching junk in between the
>>amps and the speakers..
>
>
> Is this what your argument boils down to? More powerful amps will
> sound different because they can go louder.


Not entirely, lemme'splain (as ricky ricardo would put it). An amps job
is to amplify and not break up, clip, lose focus, strain, etc, when
faced with a growing load and resistance (anything under 3.5 ohms) as
the volume grows, and the necessary current to be delivered should be
increased.. It's an essential, fundemental aspect of being an "amp".
When you restrict the volume level to a relaxed low common denominator
volume catering to the weak side (say you are abx:ing a Mark Levinson
monster no:335, whatever, against a 7 watt tube job) you take away one
important aspect from the equation. An amp is not all about how it
sounds feeding a *fixed* volume level, it's only a *part* of the deal.
So, not entirely.


>
> Sigh!

What?

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:51:17 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:14:05 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Arny, if one were to do an ABX (for whatever reason!) between two
>>>>>sprinters, for instance, one would restrict the speed and distance of
>>>>>the run to a level where the both are the lowest common denominator.
>>>>>After the test, one would end up with the conclusion that "all runners
>>>>>run at the same speed".. :) Silly, ain't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sounds pretty silly to me
>>>
>>>ABX:ing amps is *as* silly. Fixed volume, level matching, etc, produce
>>>the same effect. And to boot, you make the amps run with combat boots,
>>>what with all the relays and extra level matching junk in between the
>>>amps and the speakers..
>>
>>
>> Is this what your argument boils down to? More powerful amps will
>> sound different because they can go louder.
>
>
>Not entirely, lemme'splain (as ricky ricardo would put it). An amps job
>is to amplify and not break up, clip, lose focus,

No - not a clue what this means. Explain please

> strain, etc, when
>faced with a growing load

When would an amplifier ever face a growing load? I've never seen a
speaker that would do this.

>and resistance (anything under 3.5 ohms) as
>the volume grows, and the necessary current to be delivered should be
>increased.

What do you mean "should be"? It will be - that is fundamental to how
amplifiers work.

>It's an essential, fundemental aspect of being an "amp".

>When you restrict the volume level to a relaxed low common denominator
>volume catering to the weak side (say you are abx:ing a Mark Levinson
>monster no:335, whatever, against a 7 watt tube job) you take away one
>important aspect from the equation.

As I said - a more powerful amp goes louder. So what?

>An amp is not all about how it
>sounds feeding a *fixed* volume level, it's only a *part* of the deal.
>So, not entirely.
>
S are you saying that even within their linear range, different
amplifiers deliver different volumes depending on level setting? That
would imply horrendous distortion. I need to see some evidence of
this, I'm afraid, because it constitutes an extraordinary claim.

>
>>
>> Sigh!
>
>What?

It is a noise I make when confronted by somebody stating the
blindingly obvious as if it were an insight.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Fella]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:51:17 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Not entirely, lemme'splain (as ricky ricardo would put it). An amps job
>>is to amplify and not break up, clip, lose focus,
>
>
> No - not a clue what this means. Explain please
>
>
>>strain, etc, when
>>faced with a growing load
>
>
> When would an amplifier ever face a growing load? I've never seen a
> speaker that would do this.

I am talking about the motor effect and it's detrimental (to amplifiers)
consequences, ie, the backwards (towards equilibrium) motion of the
driver effectively creates a signal which drives the amplifier output
backwards. With increasing volumes these "detrimental consequences" also
increase.

Plese don't cut sentences in the middle and claim ignorance as to what
they mean. I am losing my patience with you.

>
>
>>>Sigh!
>>
>>What?
>
>
> It is a noise I make when confronted by somebody stating the
> blindingly obvious as if it were an insight.

Is it a "blindingly obvious" thing then that amplifiers that sound
vastly different in the real world sound similar under the ABX premise?
Will you sigh! now also, Mr. Pearce?

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:35:17 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:51:17 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not entirely, lemme'splain (as ricky ricardo would put it). An amps job
>>>is to amplify and not break up, clip, lose focus,
>>
>>
>> No - not a clue what this means. Explain please
>>
>>
>>>strain, etc, when
>>>faced with a growing load
>>
>>
>> When would an amplifier ever face a growing load? I've never seen a
>> speaker that would do this.
>
>I am talking about the motor effect and it's detrimental (to amplifiers)
>consequences, ie, the backwards (towards equilibrium) motion of the
>driver effectively creates a signal which drives the amplifier output
>backwards. With increasing volumes these "detrimental consequences" also
>increase.

You are talking about speaker impedance - nothing more. And no, it
doesn't increase with increasing volume. It is a constant.

>
>Plese don't cut sentences in the middle and claim ignorance as to what
>they mean. I am losing my patience with you.
>

I will claim whatever I please, whenever I please and I don't need
your permission.

Now, try again. What does "lose focus" mean? I have no idea
personally, but I presume you do. Now stop being so rude and explain -
then I will know and we can discuss it in a civilized manner.

>>
>>
>>>>Sigh!
>>>
>>>What?
>>
>>
>> It is a noise I make when confronted by somebody stating the
>> blindingly obvious as if it were an insight.
>
>Is it a "blindingly obvious" thing then that amplifiers that sound
>vastly different in the real world sound similar under the ABX premise?
>Will you sigh! now also, Mr. Pearce?

Of course it is blindingly obvious. Sighted bias leads directly to it.
Have you really not been listening all this time?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:05:16 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:24:42 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>
>>> And everytime I get around to opening a fresh CD and having a
>>>go at it, it's a personal holiday.
>>
>>
>> Jeeeeezus H. Keeerist, you are truly pathetic!
>
>There you have it, that's the third point proved. I dont know what you
>understand from the words "personal holiday" but to me it's like some
>private, personal space where you and your music, new music, are alone
>and there is this slight excitement of expectation that you are going to
>consume something new. Even if it is not a new CD, sitting down for a
>listen after the day has been dealt with is always something somewhat
>intimate and sentimental. Now I can hear you chuckle "jeesuss f.
>keeriste, fella, you pathetic girly sentimental mushy fag fella", etc.
>You are no music lover, you are an assembly line "all your bases are
>belong to us" borg.. You probably listen to pink noise from those barn
>doors of yours more than music.
>
>So ALL THREE POINTS PROVEN!

Fella - a legend in his own mind................

Lemme guess, your surname is Tio, right?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
>> has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
>> granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
>> he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>> internal difference based on sighted bias
>
>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
> you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
>whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
>this "bias" the invention of the borg?

Try the classic 'false sighted AAX' test for a perfect example of
sighted bias in audio. Not many academic papers get written about the
bleedin' obvious!

>I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
>make those high-end gear so good looking. :)

Exactly - it doesn't actually *sound* any different at all, as a DBT
can easily prove.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:

>> http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html

>eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da".. :)


Strange.....all I heard was "BaBaBaBa", either with my eyes open or
closed.

Is there a conclusion to draw from this?

--

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

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:00:55 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
>>>>has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
>>>>granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
>>>>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>>>>internal difference based on sighted bias
>>>
>>>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
>>> you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
>>>whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
>>>this "bias" the invention of the borg?
>>>
>>>I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
>>>make those high-end gear so good looking. :)
>>
>>
>> Never mind academic papers,
>
>
>Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
>science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok. :)

Academic papers are not written about the bleedin' obvious!
>
>
>> experience it for yourself
>
>
>Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
>sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
>when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
>observations to RAO also.

That's because what you hear in an ABX test *is* the real world. What
you *think* you hear in a sighted comparison is mostly happening
*inside* your head.

>In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
>in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads.

Indeed they do - so what?

> And
>THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes,
>ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers.

Nor need there be in an ABX test. Indeed, for a cable test you don't
usually need any level-matching at all, you can simply swap the cables
over. What's 'confusing' about that?

>So when you
>guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise,

Utter bull**** - you're pathetically clinging to a baseless fantasy.

> and
>when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the
>tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real
>world sound similar in an artificial abx environment.

No, they simply sound as they always did. If they really *do* sound
different, then quick-switched DBTs are proven to tbe the *most*
sensitive method of revealing subtle, but *real*, sonic differences.

That brain-dead clowns like you imagine that they hear all kinds of
things in sighted comparisons, does not change reality.

>I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you
>"objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you..

We ain't the ones who are confused here, Fella! :-)

>> And why did you delete that
>> part of my post that told you how to achieve what you demand - scared
>> to find out, perhaps?
>
>I opened a new discussion on the subject with the header:
>
>Attn pinkerton, wire is not wire.

No, you didn't - and wire most definitely is just wire, you cretin.
>
>You are cordially invited.
>>
>> http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html
>
>eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da".. :)

That proves that you're deaf, as well as an idiot.........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:01:02 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>Fella > said:
>
>>> http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html
>
>>eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da".. :)
>
>
>Strange.....all I heard was "BaBaBaBa", either with my eyes open or
>closed.
>
>Is there a conclusion to draw from this?

Fella has poor hearing and you have lousy eyesight?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:

>> I believe you absolutely - this is very typical of the effects of
>> sighted bias. While you were aware of the modified tone response, your
>> brain magnified the effect in your perception.

>Mr Pearce, carefull now, we might be finding a path to agreement here.

>This is interesting, QUITE!


Very true.
First we had Stewart Pinkerton saying that "I just like the way my
Krell looks", now we have Donald Pearce stating that "While you were
aware of the modified tone response, your brain magnified the effect
in your perception."

Something we all knew before, I'm sure.

So I ask the experts again: how relevant is double blind testing of
components for the end consumer?
And why has it to be forced upon people discussing audio gear in an
audio hobby- or opinion group?

--

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

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:14:05 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:03:05 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Fella" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So when you guys
>>>>>effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx
>>>>>premise,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which is a figment of your imagination, Fella. We've done
>>>>ABX with no banana jacks, no matching boxes, no relay boxes
>>>>and it didn't make any difference. We also did non-ABX blind
>>>>tests.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Arny, if one were to do an ABX (for whatever reason!) between two
>>>sprinters, for instance, one would restrict the speed and distance of
>>>the run to a level where the both are the lowest common denominator.
>>>After the test, one would end up with the conclusion that "all runners
>>>run at the same speed".. :) Silly, ain't it?
>>
>>
>> Sounds pretty silly to me
>
>ABX:ing amps is *as* silly. Fixed volume, level matching, etc, produce
>the same effect.

Bull****, you don't even understand the basics. You can vary the
volume as much as you want - the only conditions are that neither amp
must go so loud as to clip, and the *gains* of both amps must be
matched.

> And to boot, you make the amps run with combat boots,
>what with all the relays and extra level matching junk in between the
>amps and the speakers..

What 'junk'? A bypass test easily demonstrates that such equipment is
sonically transparent, and you don't need it for cables. You just
can't handle the *fact* that all your fantasising about so-called
'high end' cables and amplifiers is just that - fantasy.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:51:17 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:14:05 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Arny, if one were to do an ABX (for whatever reason!) between two
>>>>>sprinters, for instance, one would restrict the speed and distance of
>>>>>the run to a level where the both are the lowest common denominator.
>>>>>After the test, one would end up with the conclusion that "all runners
>>>>>run at the same speed".. :) Silly, ain't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sounds pretty silly to me
>>>
>>>ABX:ing amps is *as* silly. Fixed volume, level matching, etc, produce
>>>the same effect. And to boot, you make the amps run with combat boots,
>>>what with all the relays and extra level matching junk in between the
>>>amps and the speakers..
>>
>>
>> Is this what your argument boils down to? More powerful amps will
>> sound different because they can go louder.
>
>
>Not entirely, lemme'splain (as ricky ricardo would put it). An amps job
>is to amplify and not break up, clip, lose focus, strain, etc, when
>faced with a growing load and resistance (anything under 3.5 ohms) as
>the volume grows, and the necessary current to be delivered should be
>increased.. It's an essential, fundemental aspect of being an "amp".
>When you restrict the volume level to a relaxed low common denominator
>volume catering to the weak side (say you are abx:ing a Mark Levinson
>monster no:335, whatever, against a 7 watt tube job) you take away one
>important aspect from the equation. An amp is not all about how it
>sounds feeding a *fixed* volume level, it's only a *part* of the deal.
>So, not entirely.

Yes, but the clowns who buy those 7 watt tube amps tend to argue that
'the first watt is all-important'. Hence, it doesn't *matter* that the
Levinson can go louder, the important thing is that below a watt of
output, it will sound just the same as the tube amp - given that the
tube amp's not *totally* incompetent - as many seem to be.

I've actually never heard anyone in an ABX test go in thinking that
the less powerful amp will sound worse, when the more powerful amp is
not allowed to *use* its extra power. They're usually delighted about
the 'no clipping' rule - until the awful truth reveals itself! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:14:38 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>Fella > said:
>
>>> I believe you absolutely - this is very typical of the effects of
>>> sighted bias. While you were aware of the modified tone response, your
>>> brain magnified the effect in your perception.
>
>>Mr Pearce, carefull now, we might be finding a path to agreement here.
>
>>This is interesting, QUITE!
>
>
>Very true.
>First we had Stewart Pinkerton saying that "I just like the way my
>Krell looks", now we have Donald Pearce stating that "While you were
>aware of the modified tone response, your brain magnified the effect
>in your perception."
>
>Something we all knew before, I'm sure.
>
>So I ask the experts again: how relevant is double blind testing of
>components for the end consumer?
>And why has it to be forced upon people discussing audio gear in an
>audio hobby- or opinion group?

It is of no relevance at all. Anyone is free to buy what he wants, for
whatever reason he wants.

But here we are on rec.audio.tech; we aren't typical end consumers and
we are discussing the technicalities of audio. So if someone claims
that A has a better sound than B, that becomes a valid topic for
discussion. That goes double when interesting side issues such as the
psychology of hearing make such enormous impacts on the wa we hear
things.

As to why it must be forced on people discussing audio gear - it
isn't.Nobody is obliged to read the thread, and most news readers have
the facility to ignore a thread. On the other hand, as it is an audio
group and not a music group, it is a topic which is very much central
to the ethos of the group, and if you think otherwise, then in all
probability you would do well to consider unsubscribing from it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:22:55 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> Nobody argues that wire is wire.
>>
>
>Absolutely nobody, yes. :)

I certainly do argue that, but the basic premise is the same as that
for any other DBT - the voltage level at the speaker terminals must be
matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100, 1k and 10kHz. I'll happily match fifteen
feet of Kimber Black Pearl (or pick your favourite loony cable)
against however many feet of lampcord it takes to achieve that level
matching.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:16:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Fella" > wrote in message

>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we
>must
>>> presume he has the ability to hear that difference - we
>must
>>> take that for granted. When we do the DBT on that claim,
>we
>>> are testing whether what he hears is an audible
>difference,
>>> or a psychosomatically generated internal difference
>based on
>>> sighted bias
>>
>> "psychosomatically generated internal difference based on
>> sighted bias" you say.. Is there any academic paper,
>study,
>> book, etc, that examines whether or not such a phenomenon
>> exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is this "bias" the
>invention
>> of the borg?
>
>Great practical example suggested by a bright guy:
>
>http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html
>
>Sighted bias can make you *hear* something that was never
>said.

Fella claims to hear 'da da da da', eyes open or closed. There seem
only two logical choices:

a) He's a brain-dead troll

b) He's deaf

I guess (c) both of the above, is certainly a possibility........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Sander deWaal]

(Don Pearce) said:

>>Strange.....all I heard was "BaBaBaBa", either with my eyes open or
>>closed.

>>Is there a conclusion to draw from this?

>Fella has poor hearing and you have lousy eyesight?


:-))))

--

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

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:26:46 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:22:55 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody argues that wire is wire.
>>>
>>
>>Absolutely nobody, yes. :)
>
>I certainly do argue that, but the basic premise is the same as that
>for any other DBT - the voltage level at the speaker terminals must be
>matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100, 1k and 10kHz. I'll happily match fifteen
>feet of Kimber Black Pearl (or pick your favourite loony cable)
>against however many feet of lampcord it takes to achieve that level
>matching.

This is where we disagree. It might not be possible to level-match
lamp cord and - for example - 8 ohm Goertz Litz cable at those three
frequencies to 0.1dB if long enough. What do you do about that? Hence
my requirement that the cable be at least competent and suitable for
the job.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:34 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
>>>>has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
>>>>granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
>>>>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>>>>internal difference based on sighted bias
>>>
>>>"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
>>> you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
>>>whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
>>>this "bias" the invention of the borg?
>>>
>>>I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
>>>make those high-end gear so good looking. :)
>>
>>
>> Never mind academic papers
>
>I just can't get over this, Mr Pierce. You say:
>
>"we are testing whether what
>he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
>internal difference based on sighted bias"
>
>as if in a manner that just as an "audible difference" is a well known,
>observed phenomenon, a "psychosomatically generated internal difference
>based on sighted bias" is also such a widely acknowledged, observed
>phenomenon. But when asked to put forth some academic *scientific*
>research on the subject, even competent books, tv documentaries
>WHAT!EVER!, you snap back: "Never mind academic papers". How does this
>come about?
>
>I remeber once reading, was it from pinkerton or the krooborg, about an
>incident where this mixing engineer thinks he has flipped some switch
>and he hears the differences he is expecting to hear in the sound
>whereas all the while it was a wrong switch.

It's known as the 'ego knob', may be a switch or a twiddle-pot, is not
connected to anything, and is used when some egocentric idiot (may be
the artist or the producer) wants 'a little extra sweetening' or
whatever. The sound guy fiddles with the ego knob, says 'is that
better?', the egomaniac 'hears' what he wants to hear, and everybody's
happy.

>So hearsay anecdotes like
>this and non-applicable, faulty abx/dbt:ing made you people lose faith
>in your own ears then? Am I correct?

No, it's clowns like *you* who have no faith in your ears, you insist
on *knowing* what's playing. We *do* trust our ears, but *only* our
ears. That's the difference.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Sander deWaal]

(Don Pearce) said:

>>So I ask the experts again: how relevant is double blind testing of
>>components for the end consumer?
>>And why has it to be forced upon people discussing audio gear in an
>>audio hobby- or opinion group?


>It is of no relevance at all. Anyone is free to buy what he wants, for
>whatever reason he wants.


I assume this means even when the thick faceplate is supposed to make
an amp sound "better"? <g>


>But here we are on rec.audio.tech; we aren't typical end consumers and
>we are discussing the technicalities of audio. So if someone claims
>that A has a better sound than B, that becomes a valid topic for
>discussion. That goes double when interesting side issues such as the
>psychology of hearing make such enormous impacts on the wa we hear
>things.


I'm sorry, I was reading this from RAOpinion, where people have a
slightly different outlook.

But nevertheless, even in RATech, there must be posts every now and
then from people who changed the coupling caps in their amp from stock
to Mundorf-Gate Wonderblack MITChateauRoux BumbleBees, with stellar
results.

One can hardly expect this to really be the case, unless something
else than just sound quality (!) enters the field .

So, the phenomenon we observed above is just as valid in designing,
building and modifying (existing) gear as it is in selecting complete
components for an audio system.

--

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

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:10:42 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:55:52 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry - your tone is just far too rude for me to join this one. If you
>> can't be even a little civilized, I'm not interested.
>
>Oh my! A fourth item to the list: I need to learn some manners too I
>guess. :)
>
>Here is a copy-paste of the ORIGINAL post, Mr Pearce, no cuss words
>there, dig in:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Fella Jan 19, 8:25 am
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
>From: Fella > -
>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:25:56 +0200
>Local: Wed,Jan 19 2005 8:25 am
>Subject: James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that."
>
>I sent this email to: '
>
>"Greetings,
>
>I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic differences
>between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire. Is your
>challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables?

Mine certainly is - indeed, it's specifically *for* cables.

> The self made
>speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to measure and examine
>these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting them to the test) against
>radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I can hear the difference as
>to which is employed each and every time. Since "wire is wire" this must
>fall into the realm of your challenge.

No problem. Care to make it interesting by putting your own money
where your fat mouth is?

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

No problem. And you can use any music you like, and any volume level
you like.

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

No problem.

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

No problem, a third-party proctor acceptable to both parties is a
standard part of the deal.

>James Randi replied that:
>
>"There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable.
>That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that."
>
>More on "challenging the million dollar challenge" later. :) This post,
>on a FYI basis. :)

Randi failed to stipulate one simple condition - regardless of the
nature of the two cables, they must provide the same voltage level at
the speaker terminals +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz. No problem
for me to match any 'audiophile' cable of your choice in that regard,
with a few feet of cheap 'zipcord' and perhaps a few pennies worth of
capacitors for the really bizarre stuff like MIT and Transparent
cables with the 'network boxes'.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:10:42 +0300, Fella > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:55:52 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry - your tone is just far too rude for me to join this one. If you
>> can't be even a little civilized, I'm not interested.
>
>Oh my! A fourth item to the list: I need to learn some manners too I
>guess. :)
>
>Here is a copy-paste of the ORIGINAL post, Mr Pearce, no cuss words
>there, dig in:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Fella Jan 19, 8:25 am
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
>From: Fella > -
>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:25:56 +0200
>Local: Wed,Jan 19 2005 8:25 am
>Subject: James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that."
>
>I sent this email to: '
>
>"Greetings,
>
>I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic differences
>between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire. Is your
>challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables?

Mine certainly is - indeed, it's specifically *for* cables.

> The self made
>speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to measure and examine
>these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting them to the test) against
>radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I can hear the difference as
>to which is employed each and every time. Since "wire is wire" this must
>fall into the realm of your challenge.

No problem. Care to make it interesting by putting your own money
where your fat mouth is?

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

No problem. And you can use any music you like, and any volume level
you like.

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

No problem.

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

No problem, a third-party proctor acceptable to both parties is a
standard part of the deal.

>James Randi replied that:
>
>"There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable.
>That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that."
>
>More on "challenging the million dollar challenge" later. :) This post,
>on a FYI basis. :)

Randi failed to stipulate one simple condition - regardless of the
nature of the two cables, they must provide the same voltage level at
the speaker terminals +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz. No problem
for me to match any 'audiophile' cable of your choice in that regard,
with a few feet of cheap 'zipcord' and perhaps a few pennies worth of
capacitors for the really bizarre stuff like MIT and Transparent
cables with the 'network boxes'.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:01:02 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>Fella > said:
>
>>> http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html
>
>>eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da".. :)
>
>
>Strange.....all I heard was "BaBaBaBa", either with my eyes open or
>closed.
>
>Is there a conclusion to draw from this?

You are unusually wired? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Sander deWaal]

Stewart Pinkerton > said:

>>Is there a conclusion to draw from this?

>You are unusually wired? :-)


Make that unusually weird and I'll agree with you!

--

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

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:38:40 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:
>
>>>So I ask the experts again: how relevant is double blind testing of
>>>components for the end consumer?
>>>And why has it to be forced upon people discussing audio gear in an
>>>audio hobby- or opinion group?
>
>
>>It is of no relevance at all. Anyone is free to buy what he wants, for
>>whatever reason he wants.
>
>
>I assume this means even when the thick faceplate is supposed to make
>an amp sound "better"? <g>
>

Particularly so! Add a few blue LEDs and the sound becomes mega hi fi.

>
>>But here we are on rec.audio.tech; we aren't typical end consumers and
>>we are discussing the technicalities of audio. So if someone claims
>>that A has a better sound than B, that becomes a valid topic for
>>discussion. That goes double when interesting side issues such as the
>>psychology of hearing make such enormous impacts on the wa we hear
>>things.
>
>
>I'm sorry, I was reading this from RAOpinion, where people have a
>slightly different outlook.
>

Ah! It is always the first on the list that counts.

>But nevertheless, even in RATech, there must be posts every now and
>then from people who changed the coupling caps in their amp from stock
>to Mundorf-Gate Wonderblack MITChateauRoux BumbleBees, with stellar
>results.
>

That would be inventors bias rather than sighted bias. It is even
stronger and more pernicious.

>One can hardly expect this to really be the case, unless something
>else than just sound quality (!) enters the field .
>
>So, the phenomenon we observed above is just as valid in designing,
>building and modifying (existing) gear as it is in selecting complete
>components for an audio system.

One would hope that a commercial designer wouldn't fall for such
novice errors, and would blind test all major design steps after
having checked by measurement that the thing is doing what he wants.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:31:44 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:26:46 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:22:55 +0300, Fella > wrote:
>>
>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody argues that wire is wire.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Absolutely nobody, yes. :)
>>
>>I certainly do argue that, but the basic premise is the same as that
>>for any other DBT - the voltage level at the speaker terminals must be
>>matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100, 1k and 10kHz. I'll happily match fifteen
>>feet of Kimber Black Pearl (or pick your favourite loony cable)
>>against however many feet of lampcord it takes to achieve that level
>>matching.
>
>This is where we disagree. It might not be possible to level-match
>lamp cord and - for example - 8 ohm Goertz Litz cable at those three
>frequencies to 0.1dB if long enough. What do you do about that? Hence
>my requirement that the cable be at least competent and suitable for
>the job.

It's not a real problem - you just use a shorter length of thinner
zipcord, so that the inductive treble drop of the zipcord falls within
the required tolerance band, while maintaining reasonably equal loop
resistance to the longer, thicker cable.

FYI, I have compared fifteen feet of highly inductive Naim NACA5 (my
own speaker cable, as it happens), with a similar length
low-inductance construction made from multistrand computer cable,
using my own low-impedance Apogee speakers. Despite a 1.2dB difference
at 20kHz, no audible difference was heard by five listeners, even on
acoustic jazz with lots of cymbal work. I'm pretty confident that
such basic LC differences aren't a problem in practice - but I expect
that Fella will come up with plenty of ingenious excuses to avoid his
pet fantasies being blown away...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:51:32 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>It's not a real problem - you just use a shorter length of thinner
>zipcord, so that the inductive treble drop of the zipcord falls within
>the required tolerance band, while maintaining reasonably equal loop
>resistance to the longer, thicker cable.
>
>FYI, I have compared fifteen feet of highly inductive Naim NACA5 (my
>own speaker cable, as it happens), with a similar length
>low-inductance construction made from multistrand computer cable,
>using my own low-impedance Apogee speakers. Despite a 1.2dB difference
>at 20kHz, no audible difference was heard by five listeners, even on
>acoustic jazz with lots of cymbal work. I'm pretty confident that
>such basic LC differences aren't a problem in practice - but I expect
>that Fella will come up with plenty of ingenious excuses to avoid his
>pet fantasies being blown away...............
>--

I see that, but think of it this way. Frequency response errors caused
by cable impedance should be part of the difference that the listener
is trying to identify - they shouldn't be ironed out by equalization.
I would suggest that levelling be done only at 1kHz, and allow
whatever frequency response errors may result to stand.

As you say, with any reasonable length of cable they just aren't going
to be audible anyway.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Sander deWaal]

Stewart Pinkerton > said:

>FYI, I have compared fifteen feet of highly inductive Naim NACA5 (my
>own speaker cable, as it happens), .......


Please stop your silly naim-dropping. Thank you.

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

(Don Pearce) said:

>>>It is of no relevance at all. Anyone is free to buy what he wants, for
>>>whatever reason he wants.


>>I assume this means even when the thick faceplate is supposed to make
>>an amp sound "better"? <g>


>Particularly so! Add a few blue LEDs and the sound becomes mega hi fi.


I just *love* blue LEDs. They're all over the place, even in my CD
transport :-)


>>But nevertheless, even in RATech, there must be posts every now and
>>then from people who changed the coupling caps in their amp from stock
>>to Mundorf-Gate Wonderblack MITChateauRoux BumbleBees, with stellar
>>results.


>That would be inventors bias rather than sighted bias. It is even
>stronger and more pernicious.


I've heard this described as "constructor's ear" .
Something I'm particularly prone to, you will note.
See below.


>One would hope that a commercial designer wouldn't fall for such
>novice errors, and would blind test all major design steps after
>having checked by measurement that the thing is doing what he wants.


Umm......yes and no.
I have polypropylen coupling caps in my tube and hybrid amps, and
found them to be sounding vastly better after mounting them.
I did a (single) blind listening test with ordinary Siemens MKTs,
heard no difference.

I took IM, THD, S/N and F measurements, no difference.

Then I mounted them again, it sounded vastly better.

So, while it is proven that there are no differences in sound quality,
my *knowing* they're in there makes it so.

And since that is the way I listen to music, fully knowing what's in
my home made boxes, I left them in.

--

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