View Full Version : On imaging for Art
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
Clyde Slick
October 7th 05, 12:32 PM
" > wrote in message
link.net...
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>
Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities of
sound.
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>
>
> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>
I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
improve it.
> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities of
> sound.
It's not an argument, it's your denial.
It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results are
the results.
Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause them to
be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.
Robert Morein
October 7th 05, 08:22 PM
" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
> >>
> >
> > Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
> > I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
> > 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
> > for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
> >
>
> I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
> improve it.
>
> > See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
> > based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
> > you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
of
> > sound.
> It's not an argument, it's your denial.
> It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results are
> the results.
> Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
> proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause them
to
> be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.
Wow. Big words for Mikey. Are you sure you know what they mean?
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>
>
> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>
> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities of
> sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it discussed so
much more in reviews of speakers.
Clyde Slick
October 7th 05, 11:48 PM
" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>
>
> I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
> improve it.
>
>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities of
>> sound.
> It's not an argument, it's your denial.
> It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results are
> the results.
> Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
> proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause them
> to be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.
to you, yes.
speak for yourself
Clyde Slick
October 7th 05, 11:50 PM
" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>
>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities of
>> sound.
> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it discussed
> so much more in reviews of speakers.
Amps can account for some differences, too
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>
>>
>> I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
>> improve it.
>>
>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
>>> of sound.
>> It's not an argument, it's your denial.
>> It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results
>> are the results.
>> Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
>> proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause them
>> to be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.
>
>
> to you, yes.
> speak for yourself
You're volunteering then?
The fact is that the above is true for everybody that has ever made such a
comparison.
It's no great leap to suppose it would hold true for everybody else.
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>
>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
>>> of sound.
>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it discussed
>> so much more in reviews of speakers.
>
>
> Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
Clyde Slick
October 8th 05, 12:31 AM
" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> link.net...
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
>>> improve it.
>>>
>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
>>>> of sound.
>>> It's not an argument, it's your denial.
>>> It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results
>>> are the results.
>>> Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
>>> proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause
>>> them to be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.
>>
>>
>> to you, yes.
>> speak for yourself
> You're volunteering then?
>
> The fact is that the above is true for everybody that has ever made such a
> comparison.
False
> It's no great leap to suppose it would hold true for everybody else.
>
>
Therefore, False
Clyde Slick
October 8th 05, 12:32 AM
" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> link.net...
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>
>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
>>>> of sound.
>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it discussed
>>> so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>
>>
>> Amps can account for some differences, too
> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
I'm first in line.
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
>>>> improve it.
>>>>
>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
>>>>> of sound.
>>>> It's not an argument, it's your denial.
>>>> It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results
>>>> are the results.
>>>> Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
>>>> proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause
>>>> them to be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> to you, yes.
>>> speak for yourself
>> You're volunteering then?
>>
>> The fact is that the above is true for everybody that has ever made such
>> a comparison.
>
> False
>
>> It's no great leap to suppose it would hold true for everybody else.
>>
>>
> Therefore, False
Therefore, very likely true.
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
>>>>> of sound.
>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>
> I'm first in line.
With what?
Robert Morein
October 8th 05, 04:03 AM
" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> " > wrote in message
> >>> ink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> " > wrote in message
> >>>>> link.net...
> >>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
> >>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
> >>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
> >>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how
to
> >>>> improve it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
> >>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
> >>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities
> >>>>> of sound.
> >>>> It's not an argument, it's your denial.
> >>>> It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the
results
> >>>> are the results.
> >>>> Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same.
The
> >>>> proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause
> >>>> them to be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> to you, yes.
> >>> speak for yourself
> >> You're volunteering then?
> >>
> >> The fact is that the above is true for everybody that has ever made
such
> >> a comparison.
> >
> > False
> >
> >> It's no great leap to suppose it would hold true for everybody else.
> >>
> >>
> > Therefore, False
> Therefore, very likely true.
>
Apparently, Mikey McKelviphibian, listening with his tympanic membrane,
thinks that frequency response is the only difference between amplifiers.
This is false.
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
>>>>> of sound.
>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>
> I'm first in line.
And your evidence?
Clyde Slick
October 9th 05, 09:48 PM
" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>>
>> I'm first in line.
> And your evidence?
>
Obvious differences.
October 10th 05, 12:14 AM
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>>>
>>> I'm first in line.
>> And your evidence?
>>
>
>
> Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
Clyde Slick
October 10th 05, 01:04 AM
" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> link.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I'm first in line.
>>> And your evidence?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Obvious differences.
> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>
It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.
October 10th 05, 08:19 AM
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> hlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>>>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Obvious differences.
>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>
>
> It's just not necessary.
> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
> Others were were like pancakes.
Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
conducted listening comparisons.
Clyde Slick
October 10th 05, 02:31 PM
" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>>>>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obvious differences.
>>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>>
>>
>> It's just not necessary.
>> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
>> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
>> Others were were like pancakes.
> Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
> another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
> conducted listening comparisons.
>
I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
I am sorry that you are so insecure with yourself that
you feel you have to do that.
October 10th 05, 09:56 PM
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> hlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>>>>>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obvious differences.
>>>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's just not necessary.
>>> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
>>> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
>>> Others were were like pancakes.
>> Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
>> another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
>> conducted listening comparisons.
>>
>
> I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking about
how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or decent amps to
sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then you've made a claim that
you ought to be able to back up.
> I am sorry that you are so insecure with yourself that
> you feel you have to do that.
I don't allow myself to be deluded into thinking properly designed equipment
sounds drastically different from other properly designed equipment.
Clyde Slick
October 10th 05, 10:35 PM
" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>>>>>>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obvious differences.
>>>>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's just not necessary.
>>>> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
>>>> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
>>>> Others were were like pancakes.
>
>
>>> Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
>>> another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
>>> conducted listening comparisons.
>>>
>>
>> I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
>
> Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking about
> how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or decent amps
> to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then you've made a claim
> that you ought to be able to back up.
>
Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
that many of them sound quite different from each other.
And there is plenty of reason for them to sound different.
You ought to know better.
October 11th 05, 02:11 AM
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>>>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obvious differences.
>>>>>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's just not necessary.
>>>>> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
>>>>> comparisons
>>>>> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
>>>>> Others were were like pancakes.
>>
>>
>>>> Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
>>>> another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
>>>> conducted listening comparisons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
>>
>> Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking about
>> how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or decent amps
>> to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then you've made a claim
>> that you ought to be able to back up.
>>
>
> Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
> that many of them sound quite different from each other.
Which of them were compared blind and level matched?
> And there is plenty of reason for them to sound different.
> You ought to know better.
So should you.
Clyde Slick
October 11th 05, 02:37 AM
" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> link.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>>>>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obvious differences.
>>>>>>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's just not necessary.
>>>>>> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
>>>>>> comparisons
>>>>>> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
>>>>>> Others were were like pancakes.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
>>>>> another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
>>>>> conducted listening comparisons.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
>>>
>>> Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
>>> about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
>>> decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then you've
>>> made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
>> that many of them sound quite different from each other.
>
> Which of them were compared blind and level matched?
>
No, that is unnecessary.
On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
you DBT each and every one of them against each other.
Of course, that still leaves open the possibility
that toother individuals, some might cd players sound different
each other. good luck,I hope you have enough centuries left to
conduct all of you necessary protocols.
October 12th 05, 10:03 PM
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> hlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obvious differences.
>>>>>>>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just not necessary.
>>>>>>> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
>>>>>>> comparisons
>>>>>>> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
>>>>>>> Others were were like pancakes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
>>>>>> another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and
>>>>>> poorly conducted listening comparisons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
>>>>
>>>> Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
>>>> about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
>>>> decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
>>>> you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
>>> that many of them sound quite different from each other.
>>
>> Which of them were compared blind and level matched?
>>
>
> No, that is unnecessary.
> On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
> you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
> you DBT each and every one of them against each other.
Since there is only one situation I've ever ehard of, (and that was from
Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD players, I'm
convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.
> Of course, that still leaves open the possibility
> that toother individuals, some might cd players sound different
> each other. good luck,I hope you have enough centuries left to
> conduct all of you necessary protocols.
I don't think I'll bother, they all are so vastly superior to LP and to any
other playback medium that I am satisfied.
Clyde Slick
October 13th 05, 02:10 AM
" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Obvious differences.
>>>>>>>>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's just not necessary.
>>>>>>>> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
>>>>>>>> comparisons
>>>>>>>> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
>>>>>>>> Others were were like pancakes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are
>>>>>>> just another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and
>>>>>>> poorly conducted listening comparisons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
>>>>> about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
>>>>> decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
>>>>> you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
>>>> that many of them sound quite different from each other.
>>>
>>> Which of them were compared blind and level matched?
>>>
>>
>> No, that is unnecessary.
>> On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
>> you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
>> you DBT each and every one of them against each other.
>
> Since there is only one situation I've ever ehard of, (and that was from
> Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD players, I'm
> convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.
>
Yes based upon your ONE paired comparison!
>> Of course, that still leaves open the possibility
>> that toother individuals, some might cd players sound different
>> each other. good luck,I hope you have enough centuries left to
>> conduct all of you necessary protocols.
> I don't think I'll bother, they all are so vastly superior to LP and to
> any other playback medium that I am satisfied.
>
October 13th 05, 03:45 AM
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Obvious differences.
>>>>>>>>>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's just not necessary.
>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
>>>>>>>>> comparisons
>>>>>>>>> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
>>>>>>>>> Others were were like pancakes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are
>>>>>>>> just another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias
>>>>>>>> and poorly conducted listening comparisons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
>>>>>> about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
>>>>>> decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
>>>>>> you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
>>>>> that many of them sound quite different from each other.
>>>>
>>>> Which of them were compared blind and level matched?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, that is unnecessary.
>>> On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
>>> you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
>>> you DBT each and every one of them against each other.
>>
>> Since there is only one situation I've ever heard of, (and that was from
>> Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD players, I'm
>> convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.
>>
>
> Yes based upon your ONE paired comparison!
>
Why would you assume that? It was based on a particular design, not on a
single comparison.
>
Clyde Slick
October 13th 05, 04:23 AM
" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> link.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obvious differences.
>>>>>>>>>>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's just not necessary.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
>>>>>>>>>> comparisons
>>>>>>>>>> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
>>>>>>>>>> Others were were like pancakes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are
>>>>>>>>> just another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias
>>>>>>>>> and poorly conducted listening comparisons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
>>>>>>> about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
>>>>>>> decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
>>>>>>> you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
>>>>>> that many of them sound quite different from each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which of them were compared blind and level matched?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, that is unnecessary.
>>>> On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
>>>> you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
>>>> you DBT each and every one of them against each other.
>>>
>>> Since there is only one situation I've ever heard of, (and that was from
>>> Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD players,
>>> I'm convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.
>>>
>>
>> Yes based upon your ONE paired comparison!
>>
> Why would you assume that? It was based on a particular design, not on a
> single comparison.
Then you admit that your comparisons are based on comparing specs and
design,
rather than on comparative listening tests.
October 14th 05, 05:15 PM
"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are using, measurements that do not cover all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the complexities of sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dispersion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amps can account for some differences, too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm first in line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your evidence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obvious differences.
>>>>>>>>>>>> As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's just not necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
>>>>>>>>>>> comparisons
>>>>>>>>>>> of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
>>>>>>>>>>> Others were were like pancakes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are
>>>>>>>>>> just another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias
>>>>>>>>>> and poorly conducted listening comparisons.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
>>>>>>>> about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
>>>>>>>> decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
>>>>>>>> you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> that many of them sound quite different from each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which of them were compared blind and level matched?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that is unnecessary.
>>>>> On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
>>>>> you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
>>>>> you DBT each and every one of them against each other.
>>>>
>>>> Since there is only one situation I've ever heard of, (and that was
>>>> from Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD
>>>> players, I'm convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes based upon your ONE paired comparison!
>>>
>> Why would you assume that? It was based on a particular design, not on a
>> single comparison.
>
> Then you admit that your comparisons are based on comparing specs and
> design,
> rather than on comparative listening tests.
I admit no such thing. What is it with you and reading comprehension? I
said the only difffernce I heard OF in CD players was from a description
Arny gave. The first one I recieved as a gift, the second one was based on
the reading I'd done on the performance of CD players and the reputation and
my personal experience with Rotel.
As much as you would like to try and make it seem like I have always
recomended DBT's for buying audio equipment, a cursory look at the history
of what I've said, shows that I have always said people should use whatever
criteria they desire. Since the differences between CD players tend to be
in thousandths of a dB, it hardly makes sense to spend a lot of time doing
listening comparisons, unless of course you are considering one of those
units that s designed to sound different because it was badly designed, or
has tubes.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.