Re: ABX is not DBT's Siamese twin

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> components? Where? When?"

No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is uncover
audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2 signals
can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will not
uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound the
same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is small
enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
with either component.

How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily proven
by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid I'll
have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than the
other, but it isn't because of sound.

Norm Strong

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
. ..
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>>
>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> components? Where? When?"
>
> No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is
> uncover audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2
> signals can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT
> will not uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent
> amplifiers sound the same, what is meant is that the differences between
> audible outputs is small enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished
> by ear. What it does NOT mean is that the signals are identical, or that
> you will be equally happy with either component.
>
> How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
> differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
> after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily
> proven by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to
> show up. If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how
> familiar they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm
> afraid I'll have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with
> one than the other, but it isn't because of sound.
>
> Norm Strong
>
That's an interesting test that comes closer to the root of the matter.
However, there is one further test, the only one that would satisfy me. Put
the DUTs in equal size, equal weight black boxes. Leave them at the
subject's house, so that he can switch them at a whim. No fancy testing
gear, no switches. Just indistinguishable containers.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >>
> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> > components? Where? When?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You quote me:
> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> > components? Where? When?"
>
And answer as above
>
> No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is uncover
> audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2 signals
> can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will not
> uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound the
> same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is small
> enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
> mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
> with either component.
>
> How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
> differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
> after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily proven
> by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
> If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
> they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid I'll
> have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than the
> other, but it isn't because of sound.
>
> Norm Strong
----------------------------
You quote me and answer (see hidden text)
> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> > components? Where? When?"
>

Dear Norman,
I believe that before two can argue sensibly they have to agree on
definitions- otherwise they are talking past each other.
I am not arguing about DBTs. I shall not repeat what I said in the
original message but if you look at it once again you'll see that I
believe DBTs were and are indispensable in research. I dare say that I
was DOING DBTs before you ever heard the name.
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music. I am still waiting for experimental evidence that it is so but
so far I found nothing. And I researched it using the Public Library
and two excellent bibliographies that were published
two years ago in RAHE.
In addition I issued repeatedly asked for references (JOURNAL, volume,
year, authors, title, page) in the RAHE and RAO and got answers like
that:
1) "There are many. Why don't you look them up". But no address
and no quote.
2) "There are too many to list. Research it".
3) Misleading time-wasting references to sites that do not even mention
ABX (like BBC or B&O.
Enough of this fruitless topic

I do not understand what exactly is your point about doing DBTs
Yes, it is all about audible signals. I buy audio to listen to the
audible musical signals. If I ever listen blind is to find out which
one of the two or three components approaches most closely my
experience of live music as played by so -called acoustic instruments
and as sung by unamplified human voice.
In other words I listen to find out which one I like better.
Don't you? Are you in research? If so RAO or RAHE is not the right
forum for it and the way you describe your research would not qualify
anywhere outside your home.
Your results are YOUR results. They are of no significance whatsoever
to anyone else unless you prove to them that your taste your musical
preferences, your experience and your recommendations parallel theirs.
You're then a respected audio critic for those who are after the same
kind of musical reproduction as you.
Sean Olive in his web presentation showed that differences between
individual DBT performances are enormous. One of his panelists did so
poorly that was quietly dropped and did not appear in the next test
series.
Now a quote from Sean Olive. Note what he says about listening for
preference:
", I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?"
In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more
interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and
why?"
Exactly.
Ludovic Mirabel

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >>
>> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> > components? Where? When?"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You quote me:
>> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> > components? Where? When?"
>>
> And answer as above
>>
>> No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is
>> uncover
>> audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2
>> signals
>> can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will
>> not
>> uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound
>> the
>> same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is
>> small
>> enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
>> mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
>> with either component.
>>
>> How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
>> differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
>> after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily
>> proven
>> by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
>> If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
>> they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid
>> I'll
>> have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than
>> the
>> other, but it isn't because of sound.
>>
>> Norm Strong
> ----------------------------
> You quote me and answer (see hidden text)
>> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> > components? Where? When?"
>>
>
> Dear Norman,
> I believe that before two can argue sensibly they have to agree on
> definitions- otherwise they are talking past each other.
> I am not arguing about DBTs. I shall not repeat what I said in the
> original message but if you look at it once again you'll see that I
> believe DBTs were and are indispensable in research. I dare say that I
> was DOING DBTs before you ever heard the name.
> The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
> appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
> music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

I am still waiting for experimental evidence that it is so but
> so far I found nothing. And I researched it using the Public Library
> and two excellent bibliographies that were published
> two years ago in RAHE.
> In addition I issued repeatedly asked for references (JOURNAL, volume,
> year, authors, title, page) in the RAHE and RAO and got answers like
> that:
> 1) "There are many. Why don't you look them up". But no address
> and no quote.
> 2) "There are too many to list. Research it".
> 3) Misleading time-wasting references to sites that do not even mention
> ABX (like BBC or B&O.
> Enough of this fruitless topic
>
> I do not understand what exactly is your point about doing DBTs
> Yes, it is all about audible signals. I buy audio to listen to the
> audible musical signals. If I ever listen blind is to find out which
> one of the two or three components approaches most closely my
> experience of live music as played by so -called acoustic instruments
> and as sung by unamplified human voice.
> In other words I listen to find out which one I like better.
> Don't you? Are you in research? If so RAO or RAHE is not the right
> forum for it and the way you describe your research would not qualify
> anywhere outside your home.
> Your results are YOUR results. They are of no significance whatsoever
> to anyone else unless you prove to them that your taste your musical
> preferences, your experience and your recommendations parallel theirs.
> You're then a respected audio critic for those who are after the same
> kind of musical reproduction as you.
> Sean Olive in his web presentation showed that differences between
> individual DBT performances are enormous. One of his panelists did so
> poorly that was quietly dropped and did not appear in the next test
> series.

Which is part of the reason for proper training of listeners.


> Now a quote from Sean Olive. Note what he says about listening for
> preference:
> ", I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?"
> In
> most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are
> measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more
> interesting
> question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and
> why?"
> Exactly.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Which is why ABX is not used for speaker comparisons other than for things
like xover changes within a given speaker system.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> That's an interesting test that comes closer to the root
> of the matter. However, there is one further test, the
> only one that would satisfy me. Put the DUTs in equal
> size, equal weight black boxes. Leave them at the
> subject's house, so that he can switch them at a whim. No
> fancy testing gear, no switches. Just indistinguishable
> containers.

This has been done. Tests done this way were not found to be
more sensitive than short-term tests.

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
> > music.
>
> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message >) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I think the onus
> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>

He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>> > music.
>>
>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>
> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
> message >) that in cases
> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

[George M. Middius]

Mickey cries in the darkness.

> ABX

Nearer my god to thee....

[dave weil]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>> > music.
>>>
>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>
>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>> message >) that in cases
>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>>
>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
>they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson > wrote:

> wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
> > > music.
> >
> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
> message >) that in cases
> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
> strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion dave weil > wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:

> >
> >"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> > wrote in message
> >>> oups.com...
> >>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
> >>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
> >>> > music.
> >>>
> >>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
> >>
> >> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
> >> message >) that in cases
> >> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
> >> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
> >> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
> >> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
> >> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
> >> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
> >> strong as your faith would have you believe.
> >>
> >> John Atkinson
> >> Editor, Stereophile
> >>
> >And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
> >virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
> >they should not be using such methods.

> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.


Because 'Stereophile' is a consumer with limited access
to gear for comparison, nor the equipment for proper level matching
and ABX switching?

I seriously doubt *that's* the reason. Then again, *reason* doesn't
seem to be your strong suit, does it?




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson >
> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>> > > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>> > > music.
>> >
>> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>
>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>> message >) that in cases
>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>
>
> And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
> report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
> anything other than faith-based?
>
> You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
> ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
> but audiophile-land you can't.
>

It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>> > music.
>>>>
>>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>
>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>> message >) that in cases
>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>
>>> John Atkinson
>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>
>>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
>>they should not be using such methods.
>
> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are, looney.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > wrote in message
>>> > oups.com...
>>> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>> > > music.
>>> >
>>> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>
>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>> message >) that in cases
>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>
>>
>> And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
>> report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
>> anything other than faith-based?
>>
>> You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
>> ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
>> but audiophile-land you can't.
>>
>
> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>
Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.

> However, one may feel free to point out errors
> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
> science is particularly relevant.
It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can hear
things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there when
listening in non-bias controlled situations.

Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> I think the onus
>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>
>
> He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".
>
Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction and
then ignore any evidence to the contrary.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>>> > music.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>>
>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>
>>>> John Atkinson
>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>>
>>>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>>>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
>>>they should not be using such methods.
>>
>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>
> Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
> crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
> looney.

Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...

>>
>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>
> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>

I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>> science is particularly relevant.

> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
> forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can
> hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there
> when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>

We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
> listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for pleasure.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> I think the onus
>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>
>>
>> He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".
>>
> Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction
> and then ignore any evidence to the contrary.
>

See what I mean, folks!!!!
If killers ironed.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:

>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>
>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> I think the onus
>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".
>>>
>> Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction
>> and then ignore any evidence to the contrary.
>>
>
> See what I mean, folks!!!!
> If killers ironed.
>
George would be well dressed.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>>>> > music.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Atkinson
>>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>>>
>>>>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>>>>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
>>>>they should not be using such methods.
>>>
>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>
>> Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
>> crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
>> looney.
>
> Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
horribly?

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>
>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>
>> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
>> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>>
>
> I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
> AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
> down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
> me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
> and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
> particular use in making my decision to purchase.
>
>
>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>> science is particularly relevant.
>
>> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
>> forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can
>> hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there
>> when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>>
>
> We deal with that every day in the real world.
> I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
> One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!
>
>
>> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
>> listen for pleasure.
>
> Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
> pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>
>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>crumbling down
>
> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
> terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most people
aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation from
flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>>>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>>>>> > music.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Atkinson
>>>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>>>>
>>>>>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>>>>>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show
>>>>>why
>>>>>they should not be using such methods.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>
>>> Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
>>> crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
>>> looney.
>>
>> Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
> Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
> horribly?
>

You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>>
>>> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
>>> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
>> AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
>> down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
>> me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
>> and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
>> particular use in making my decision to purchase.
>>
>>
>>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>>> science is particularly relevant.
>>
>>> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
>>> other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people
>>> can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are
>>> there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>>>
>>
>> We deal with that every day in the real world.
>> I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
>> One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!
>>
>>
>>> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
>>> listen for pleasure.
>>
>> Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
>> pleasure.
> Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>
>>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>>crumbling down
>>
>> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
>> terrering on the brink at the moment.
>
> I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
> choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
> I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
> people aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a
> device is going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any
> deviation from flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you,
> then so be it.
>

Your defense is "I know, because I read it somewhere that
simple FR amd distortion specs tell me exactly how a unit sounds, so I
don't have to do DBT and I don't have to even listen to the unit.'
Talk about religion!!!!

[George Middius]

The Bug Eater explains why he's terrified of submitting to aBxism torture
rituals.

>... I make my audio
>choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get.

By your own admission, that "information" includes neither aBxism "tests" nor an
actual audition.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you have no idea what a good stereo sounds
like.


..
..

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, > wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>
>>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>>crumbling down
>>
>> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
>> terrering on the brink at the moment.
>
>I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
>choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
>I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most people
>aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
>going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation from
>flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

[George Middius]

dave weil said:

>... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
>something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by not being
able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's why he
has to resort to specs.

This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is reinforced by
their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They react to
Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their level of
deafness. Sad, really.



..
..

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil wrote :


> I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
> something before I buy it.

Why do you waste your time, deaf-man ? ;-)



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>>
>>>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>>>crumbling down
>>>
>>> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
>>> terrering on the brink at the moment.
>>
>> I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
>> choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
>> I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
>> people aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a
>> device is going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any
>> deviation from flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you,
>> then so be it.
>>
>
> Your defense is "I know, because I read it somewhere that
> simple FR amd distortion specs tell me exactly how a unit sounds, so I
> don't have to do DBT and I don't have to even listen to the unit.'
> Talk about religion!!!!
>
>
You are also suffering from reading comprehension problems, since I said
nothing of the kind. My choices are based on being able to get information
from techs who work on audio equipment and test it to see if it performs up
to spec. Knowing what is audible is also a part of my choices. Since it is
a fact that differences that are small enough can't be reliably detected, I
also incorporate that into my decisions. I also listen and do some blind
comparisons although not as rigorous as a full blown DBT, since after a few
tries and not being able to hear a difference, I stop.

This is still a much more reliable way to choose equipment than simply
listening and letting any and all outside influences interfere with what I
hear.

Since you can't demonstrate that sighted listening is in any way reliable
for subtle differences, and that it can and does lead to hearing things that
aren't there, you have to dis any reliable method or else you are admitting
that every decision you made could have been completely and utterly without
merit.

Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the same.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>>
>>>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>>>crumbling down
>>>
>>> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
>>> terrering on the brink at the moment.
>>
>>I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
>>choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
>>I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
>>people
>>aren't. I get informationt hat is real world and tells me how a device is
>>going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation
>>from
>>flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.
>
> It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
> something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

So you DON'T understand that doouble digit distortion is a problem and that
it is gross enough that a DBT of any sort would be unneccessary.

BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except CD
players.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>>>
>>>> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
>>>> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
>>> AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
>>> down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
>>> me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
>>> and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
>>> particular use in making my decision to purchase.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>>>> science is particularly relevant.
>>>
>>>> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
>>>> other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
>>>> people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
>>>> that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We deal with that every day in the real world.
>>> I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
>>> One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!
>>>
>>>
>>>> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
>>>> listen for pleasure.
>>>
>>> Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
>>> pleasure.
>> Not according to the research. But you already knew that.
>
> The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.
>
How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?

What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
non-existent sounds.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>

>
> Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the same.
>

most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
basic faults
in some combination of amounts.

High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
disappointing
ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
different to me
than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.

I have never heard a SET ss amp.

I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.
High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
better than they used to.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>

>
> BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
> CD players.

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>>>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
>>>>> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
>>>> AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
>>>> down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
>>>> me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
>>>> and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
>>>> particular use in making my decision to purchase.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>>>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>>>>> science is particularly relevant.
>>>>
>>>>> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
>>>>> other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
>>>>> people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
>>>>> that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We deal with that every day in the real world.
>>>> I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
>>>> One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way,
>>>>> then listen for pleasure.
>>>>
>>>> Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
>>>> pleasure.
>>> Not according to the research. But you already knew that.
>>
>> The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.
>>
> How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
> How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
> How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?
>

Its not relevant to my selection of equipment.
Waht is relevant to my selection is if I like the music that comes out of
it.

> What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
> non-existent sounds.
>

Which I will invariably begin hearing again, once the DBT is over.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

> > BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
> > CD players.

> Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>>>
>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>>>>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>>>>>> > music.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Atkinson
>>>>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>>>>>>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show
>>>>>>why
>>>>>>they should not be using such methods.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>>
>>>> Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
>>>> crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
>>>> looney.
>>>
>>> Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
>> Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
>> horribly?
>>
>
> You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
> comparisons,
> at all.
>
And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and that
sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?

The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind comparisons
is because I know what I know about aduio equipment.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>
>>
>> Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the
>> same.
>>
>
> most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
> basic faults
> in some combination of amounts.
>
> High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
> disappointing
> ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
> different to me
> than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.
>
> I have never heard a SET ss amp.
>
I don't think there is such a thing as a Single Ended Triode Solid State
amp, but I could be wrong. I can't understand why anyone would want to make
such a thing, but then there are tubed Cd players.

> I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.

TAC online has a review of a DAC that is very complimentary and that says it
is an improvement over other DACs.

> High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
> better than they used to.
Even sighted, I can't tell one CD player from another, nor from a DVD player
playing a CD.
>
Those are your unsupported beliefs and you are welcome to them. Is there
any data that you can provide other than anecdotes to back them up.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>>
>> BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
>> CD players.
>
> Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?
I listen to them AFTER I buy them, nit picker.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > wrote in message
>>> > oups.com...
>>> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>> > > music.
>>> >
>>> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>
>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>> message >) that in cases
>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>
>>
>> And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
>> report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
>> anything other than faith-based?
>>
>> You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
>> ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
>> but audiophile-land you can't.
>>
>
> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.

How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different from
what you have?

> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>
But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind but
in a different way.

> However, one may feel free to point out errors
> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
> science is particularly relevant.
Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.
Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst place
and how wide the bandwidth should be.

Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no surprise
that science is applied to what influences how we hear.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>>>>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
>>>>>> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
>>>>> AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
>>>>> down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
>>>>> me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
>>>>> and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
>>>>> particular use in making my decision to purchase.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>>>>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>>>>>> science is particularly relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
>>>>>> other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
>>>>>> people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
>>>>>> that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We deal with that every day in the real world.
>>>>> I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
>>>>> One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way,
>>>>>> then listen for pleasure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
>>>>> pleasure.
>>>> Not according to the research. But you already knew that.
>>>
>>> The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.
>>>
>> How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
>> How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
>> How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?
>>
>
> Its not relevant to my selection of equipment.
> Waht is relevant to my selection is if I like the music that comes out of
> it.
>
>> What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
>> non-existent sounds.
>>
>
> Which I will invariably begin hearing again, once the DBT is over.
Fine, let them, that's part of the fun of audio, but if yo don't know what
you have at the point of purchase, it just might show up in your daily
listening when it's too late.

I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get it
home.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:
>
>> > BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy,
>> > except
>> > CD players.
>
>> Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?
>
> Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.
>
>
>
Come closer, I see one on your forehead.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
>> comparisons,
>> at all.
>>
> And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
> that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?
>

For one thing, tests using other people's ears
does not tell you wht YOU will experience.


> The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
> comparisons is because I know what I know about aduio equipment.

Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the
>>> same.
>>>
>>
>> most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
>> basic faults
>> in some combination of amounts.
>>
>> High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
>> disappointing
>> ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
>> different to me
>> than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.
>>
>> I have never heard a SET ss amp.
>>
> I don't think there is such a thing as a Single Ended Triode Solid State
> amp, but I could be wrong. I can't understand why anyone would want to
> make such a thing, but then there are tubed Cd players.
>
>> I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.
>
> TAC online has a review of a DAC that is very complimentary and that says
> it is an improvement over other DACs.
>

What improvement? For them, price is all that matters.


>> High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
>> better than they used to.
> Even sighted, I can't tell one CD player from another, nor from a DVD
> player playing a CD.

That helps keep yourt costs down.
No sense paying for improvements you are unable to hear.

>>
> Those are your unsupported beliefs and you are welcome to them. Is there
> any data that you can provide other than anecdotes to back them up.
>

Its all I need, for my purposes.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > wrote in message
>>>> > oups.com...
>>>> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>> > > music.
>>>> >
>>>> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>
>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>
>>>
>>> And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
>>> report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
>>> anything other than faith-based?
>>>
>>> You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
>>> ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
>>> but audiophile-land you can't.
>>>
>>
>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>
> How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different
> from what you have?
>
>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>
> But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
> work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind
> but in a different way.
>
>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>> science is particularly relevant.
> Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.

The discussion is regarding consumer choices.

> Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst place
> and how wide the bandwidth should be.
>
> Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
> technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no
> surprise that science is applied to what influences how we hear.
>

Not by the consumer, in making purchasing decisions.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>

>
> I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get
> it home.
>

I think its better to know if you like it, under the conditions you will be
using it.

[Clyde Slick]

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

>>> Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?
>>
>> Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.
>>
>>
>>
> Come closer, I see one on your forehead.
>

Is that a Rotel, or a Denon?

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote in message ...
>
>>>> Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?
>>>
>>> Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Come closer, I see one on your forehead.
>>
>
> Is that a Rotel, or a Denon?
Don't own a Denon, the Rotel case is nice and sturdy, George won't feel a
thing.
Wait, that's redundant.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>
>>
>> I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get
>> it home.
>>
>
> I think its better to know if you like it, under the conditions you will
> be using it.
>
That's the point, you won't know anything for sure.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > wrote in message
>>>>> > oups.com...
>>>>> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>>> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>>> > > music.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>>
>>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
>>>> report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
>>>> anything other than faith-based?
>>>>
>>>> You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
>>>> ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
>>>> but audiophile-land you can't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>
>> How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different
>> from what you have?
>>
>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>
>> But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
>> work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind
>> but in a different way.
>>
>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>> science is particularly relevant.
>> Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.
>
> The discussion is regarding consumer choices.
>
>> Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst
>> place and how wide the bandwidth should be.
>>
>> Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
>> technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no
>> surprise that science is applied to what influences how we hear.
>>
>
> Not by the consumer, in making purchasing decisions.
>
Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers knowing
what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus differences as
some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX test down your
throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or whatever.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX
>>> protocol is the appropriate tool for differentiating
>>> audio components reproducing music.
>>
>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>
> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another
> thread (see message >)
> that in cases
> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even
> trained listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of
> the time, statistical theory indicates that at least 80
> trials are required.

IME Corbett offers a convincing example of how little he
actually understands about the practical aspects of
performing listening tests on audio equipment. His idea
which is obviously based only on theory, of what
constitutes an useful small difference corresponds to an
difference in actual perceived sound quality that nobody
with real-world experience with listening tests would take
seriously.

IME Corbett has a lengthy track record of trying to gain
attention for himself by attacking those who have far more
practical experience than he does. He distracts naive
readers from the obvious serious difficulties involved in
sighted testing. He functions as an apologist for promoters
of audio snake oil.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get
>>> it home.
>>>
>>
>> I think its better to know if you like it, under the conditions you will
>> be using it.
>>
> That's the point, you won't know anything for sure.
>

I will surely know whether I like listening to it!!

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>


> Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
> knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
> differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
> test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
> whatever.

They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for cable

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> IME Corbett offers a convincing example of how little he actually
> understands about the practical aspects of performing listening tests on
> audio equipment. His idea which is obviously based only on theory, of
> what constitutes an useful small difference corresponds to an difference
> in actual perceived sound quality that nobody with real-world experience
> with listening tests would take seriously.
>
> IME Corbett has a lengthy track record of trying to gain attention for
> himself by attacking those who have far more practical experience than he
> does. He distracts naive readers from the obvious serious difficulties
> involved in sighted testing. He functions as an apologist for promoters of
> audio snake oil.


He is the enemy. SMITE HIM!
He makes Arny'd crotch itch.

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> His idea which is obviously based only on theory, of what constitutes an
> useful small difference corresponds to an difference in actual perceived
> sound quality that nobody with real-world experience with listening tests
> would take seriously.
>

Sounds like you are referring to yourself as the "nobody" with real-world
experience with listening tests. This of course is meaningless since you've
*never* been able to offer *any* proof that you've had access to any audio
equipment of sufficiently high quality. And from your own published
inventory of your equipment, one can conclude that it is at best mediocre
enough to mask almost anything. You might as well take your minivan to the
24 hours of Le Mans. :-)

All you have ever produced here, or elsewhere, are baseless claims and
unsupported factoids mixed with conspiracy theories and failed attempts to
mix in with a crowd that at least appears to be sane. Instead you continue
to dwell among a peer group that clearly consists of the mentally ill, the
perverse, the uneducable and the pitiful as evidenced by McCarty, McKelvy,
Ferstler and the used bicycle salesman. The problem is, Mr. Krueger, that
sensible people simply don't buy your act. That is why you have never
progressed out of your basement and you never will. The only exceptions have
been afforded to you by people with exceptionally big hearts, like John
Atkinson, who paid to fly you to NYC to give you an opportunity to state
your case and salvage something of your life's "work". John probably knew
that you would once again fail but at least he'd unburden your family for a
couple of days.

I hate to break the news to you, Mr. Krueger, but your statement of not
taking something seriously would be more consequential if it originated from
the star of The Tijuana Donkey Show. The donkey, that is.


Margaret

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
>>> comparisons,
>>> at all.
>>>
>> And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
>> that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?
>>
>
> For one thing, tests using other people's ears
> does not tell you what YOU will experience.

Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, a bias controlled
comparison would give me a much better idea about a piece of equipment than
a sighted non-bias controlled comprison.
>
>
>> The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
>> comparisons is because I know what I know about audio equipment.
>
> Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
> to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
> participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.
>
None needed since I don't worry about sameness. I'm looking for sameness
insofar as the sound of the equipment should not have any sonic signature.
I want it to be transparent and not add anything in the way of audible
distortion or noise. I want it to be able to drive a normal speaker load,
and do so at volume levels that I enjoy. If I don't like the sound of a
particular recording, then can feel free to use other means to distort it
into something I do like the sound of. I'm not looking to distort
everything, since my goal is accurate playback of the recordings so I can
tell what was intended by the artist and engineering people who hopefully
treated it as a labor of love. I have no problem with people fine tuning
things so they get what they consider to be a "musical" sound, I just want
to start from a point of as accurate as possible before I add or subtract
anything from what was recorded. To that end I learn as much about what is
audible and what is not so I don't end up with anything less than the best,
most accurate presentation possible.

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Bug Eater explains why he's terrified of submitting to aBxism torture
> rituals.
>
>>... I make my audio
>>choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get.
>
> By your own admission, that "information" includes neither aBxism "tests"
> nor an
> actual audition.
>
> Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you have no idea what a good stereo
> sounds
> like.
>
Thanks George for admitting you have no purpose on RAO other than to distort
the words of people with whom you don't agree.

Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively involved
in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of manufacturers,
probably several times more than most people, I have a very godd idea what
good stereo sounds like and how to get one.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>>
>>>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>>>crumbling down
>>>
>>> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
>>> terrering on the brink at the moment.
>>
>>I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
>>choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
>>I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
>>people
>>aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
>>going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation
>>from
>>flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.
>
> It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
> something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

That's unfortunate, since you are saying you actually have to hear crap to
know it's crap, you must waste an awful lot of time.

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> dave weil said:
>
>>... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
>>something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.
>
> That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by not
> being
> able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's
> why he
> has to resort to specs.
>
More distortions George? Sheesh, I have never said I don't audition
equipment other than CD players. Everything else I hear before I buy.

I find a place that has stuff I'm interested in, I listen to it, sometimes
through my own speakers if it's a place where I've built up a good rapport
with management. Then I get the full set of real world performance facts
about whatever it is I'm considering and when I find something that can
perform to my standards, accuracy with no sonic signature of its own, then I
buy it.


> This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is reinforced
> by
> their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They
> react to
> Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their
> level of
> deafness. Sad, really.
>
>
>
The only pattern is that you and those like you who are afraid of people
finding out how much similarity there is in audio equipment, make a point ot
lie and distort the facts.

There is no class envy, there is only a desire for reasonableness. If
people want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get great sound,
I'm all for it, I just hope that they're spending the bulk of that money
where it actually will do the most good, on speakers.

An expensive hi-fi with **** speakers is a **** hi-fi. A moderately priced
system with great speakers being driven by equipment that provides accurate
playback is a great sounding system. Personally I won't settle for less
than the most accurate playback I can get.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>
>> Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
>> knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
>> differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
>> test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
>> whatever.
>
> They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for cable
>
Since there are no differnces in the sound of cables, they would be doing
the world a service in demonstrating that fact.

[Sander deWaal]

"Margaret von B." > said:

>You might as well take your minivan to the
>24 hours of Le Mans. :-)

He was there:
http://www.frontier-leisure.co.uk/marquees/Le%20Mans%202004%20009.jpg
We all know Arny's love for "camping", don't we? ;-)


But what were *you* doing there, Margaret?
http://www.cc-rider.net/photos/book/grandephoto/le%20mans%202005.jpg

--

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

[dave weil]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:22:21 GMT, > wrote:

>Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively involved
>in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of manufacturers,
>probably several times more than most people, I have a very _godd_ idea what
>good stereo sounds like and how to get one

Freudian Slip alert!

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:22:21 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively
>>involved
>>in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of manufacturers,
>>probably several times more than most people, I have a very _godd_ idea
>>what
>>good stereo sounds like and how to get one
>
> Freudian Slip alert!

Grasping at straws alert.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
>>>> comparisons,
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>> And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
>>> that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?
>>>
>>
>> For one thing, tests using other people's ears
>> does not tell you what YOU will experience.
>
> Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, a bias controlled
> comparison would give me a much better idea about a piece of equipment
> than a sighted non-bias controlled comprison.


We are not talking sighted vs controlled, we are talking about you
taking the test vs relying upon the results of other people
taking the tests. What you are telling everybody here
is that the ears of a conglomoration of strangers
is more reliable than your own ears.


>>
>>
>>> The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
>>> comparisons is because I know what I know about audio equipment.
>>
>> Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
>> to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
>> participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.
>>
> None needed since I don't worry about sameness. I'm looking for sameness
> insofar as the sound of the equipment should not have any sonic signature.
> I want it to be transparent and not add anything in the way of audible
> distortion or noise. I want it to be able to drive a normal speaker load,
> and do so at volume levels that I enjoy. If I don't like the sound of a
> particular recording, then can feel free to use other means to distort it
> into something I do like the sound of. I'm not looking to distort
> everything, since my goal is accurate playback of the recordings so I can
> tell what was intended by the artist and engineering people who hopefully
> treated it as a labor of love. I have no problem with people fine tuning
> things so they get what they consider to be a "musical" sound, I just want
> to start from a point of as accurate as possible before I add or subtract
> anything from what was recorded. To that end I learn as much about what
> is audible and what is not so I don't end up with anything less than the
> best, most accurate presentation possible.
>

To me, the best is not necessarily the most 'signal' accurate.
And the measurements you use are too elementary to account
for a lot of differences one might here. For example, you don't even
acknowledge that the signal contains information
relevant to imaging, much less do you have
anything to measure that with.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>>
> Thanks George for admitting you have no purpose on RAO other than to
> distort the words of people with whom you don't agree.
>
> Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively
> involved in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of
> manufacturers, probably several times more than most people, I have a very
> godd idea what good stereo sounds like and how to get one.

you mean, you know what sounds good to you.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> dave weil said:
>>
>>>... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
>>>something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.
>>
>> That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by
>> not being
>> able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's
>> why he
>> has to resort to specs.
>>
> More distortions George? Sheesh, I have never said I don't audition
> equipment other than CD players. Everything else I hear before I buy.
>
> I find a place that has stuff I'm interested in, I listen to it, sometimes
> through my own speakers if it's a place where I've built up a good rapport
> with management. Then I get the full set of real world performance facts
> about whatever it is I'm considering and when I find something that can
> perform to my standards, accuracy with no sonic signature of its own, then
> I buy it.
>
>
>> This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is
>> reinforced by
>> their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They
>> react to
>> Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their
>> level of
>> deafness. Sad, really.
>>
>>
>>
> The only pattern is that you and those like you who are afraid of people
> finding out how much similarity there is in audio equipment, make a point
> ot lie and distort the facts.
>
> There is no class envy, there is only a desire for reasonableness. If
> people want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get great sound,
> I'm all for it, I just hope that they're spending the bulk of that money
> where it actually will do the most good, on speakers.
>
> An expensive hi-fi with **** speakers is a **** hi-fi. A moderately
> priced system with great speakers being driven by equipment that provides
> accurate playback is a great sounding system. Personally I won't settle
> for less than the most accurate playback I can get.

According to your tin can measurement tools.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
>>> knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
>>> differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
>>> test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
>>> whatever.
>>
>> They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for
>> cable
>>
> Since there are no differnces in the sound of cables, they would be doing
> the world a service in demonstrating that fact.

That is not a fact, its an opinion. My belief is that lots of cable sound
more or less the same, but some may not, and the differences are not
substantial enough to worry about them, especially considering the price,.
But it depends on your bank account, and how much your spending on the rest
of
your system. Cable upgrades are fine, but super expensive (+$1,000)
upgrades are a waste that
can be better spent on better sounding equipment.

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>To me, the best is not necessarily the most 'signal' accurate.
>And the measurements you use are too elementary to account
>for a lot of differences one might here. For example, you don't even
>acknowledge that the signal contains information
>relevant to imaging, much less do you have
>anything to measure that with.


Some of that can be traced back to the ability of an amplifier circuit
to handle small signals while at the same time processing huge
signals.
Also, the generation of some kinds of distortion may appear to create
a huge sound stage, one of the simplest forms of which is the second
harmonics distortion as can be found in some SET amplifiers.
I hasten to say that this is a highly simplified explanation, because
the way a signal is processed by an amplifier is dependent on many
variables, like the stiffness of the power supply, the PSRR (power
supply rejection ratio, a means of saying how much a given circuit is
affected by its power supply voltage, or changes thereof), feedback in
all its forms (local, loop around the amp, via the power supply, via
ground paths, etc).

Also, it is not widely known that (huge amounts of) loop feedback may
introduce certain kinds of distortion, depending on (the composition
and amplitude of) the drive signal, the load, and the power supply.
The generated distortions in turn are fed back to the amplifier's
inverting input, creating new forms of distortions that may or may not
have any correlation with the original signal.

Those things can be measured in some instances, in others it is kind
of hard to say what and how to measure, especially when a complex
signal like music is processed.
Also, we're talking about sometimes very small amplitudes that are
hardly measureable, and perhaps not even noticeable for our ears.

The consequences of said effects may be audible however, in the form
of internal blocking of an amplifier stage, at which moment the loop
feedback can;t correct for it anymore.
Such "spikes" can be observed with an oscilloscope of sufficient speed
and, preferably, with a memory.

In short, it is my opinion that an amplifier may well be responsible
for (subtle) changes in "imaging", "sound staging", and more of those
vague subjective terms, in spite of what most technicians want us to
believe.


Flame away guys, there's plenty of white space below :-)

--

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

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

> > I have a very godd[sic] idea what good stereo sounds like

> you mean, you know what sounds good to you.

I don't believe that's what poor Mickey meant. I believe he meant what he
said. As we all know, he gets his "ideas" from spec sheets, not from
listening. Furthermore, everything sounds the same to him. Also by his own
admission.

Mikey may get promoted to Major 'Borg if he keeps carrying on like this.

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
link.net...
..
:
: Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, ...:

excuse me ? for *that*, you may post some links, Michael !

Rudy

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Margaret von B." > said:
:
: >You might as well take your minivan to the
: >24 hours of Le Mans. :-)
:
: He was there:
: http://www.frontier-leisure.co.uk/marquees/Le%20Mans%202004%20009.jpg
: We all know Arny's love for "camping", don't we? ;-)
:
:
: But what were *you* doing there, Margaret?
: http://www.cc-rider.net/photos/book/grandephoto/le%20mans%202005.jpg
:
: --
:
: "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
: - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
find such facts
so fast,
Sander

<the other wanadoo s.puppet>

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
>>>>> comparisons,
>>>>> at all.
>>>>>
>>>> And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
>>>> that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For one thing, tests using other people's ears
>>> does not tell you what YOU will experience.
>>
>> Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, a bias controlled
>> comparison would give me a much better idea about a piece of equipment
>> than a sighted non-bias controlled comprison.
>
>
> We are not talking sighted vs controlled, we are talking about you
> taking the test vs relying upon the results of other people
> taking the tests. What you are telling everybody here
> is that the ears of a conglomoration of strangers
> is more reliable than your own ears.
>
No I'm not, why do say such a thing?
>>>
>>>
>>>> The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
>>>> comparisons is because I know what I know about audio equipment.
>>>
>>> Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
>>> to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
>>> participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.
>>>
Yet I still manage to put together a system that never fails to get praise
from the people I know who appreciate such things.


>> None needed since I don't worry about sameness. I'm looking for sameness
>> insofar as the sound of the equipment should not have any sonic
>> signature. I want it to be transparent and not add anything in the way of
>> audible distortion or noise. I want it to be able to drive a normal
>> speaker load, and do so at volume levels that I enjoy. If I don't like
>> the sound of a particular recording, then can feel free to use other
>> means to distort it into something I do like the sound of. I'm not
>> looking to distort everything, since my goal is accurate playback of the
>> recordings so I can tell what was intended by the artist and engineering
>> people who hopefully treated it as a labor of love. I have no problem
>> with people fine tuning things so they get what they consider to be a
>> "musical" sound, I just want to start from a point of as accurate as
>> possible before I add or subtract anything from what was recorded. To
>> that end I learn as much about what is audible and what is not so I don't
>> end up with anything less than the best, most accurate presentation
>> possible.
>>
>
> To me, the best is not necessarily the most 'signal' accurate.
> And the measurements you use are too elementary to account
> for a lot of differences one might here. For example, you don't even
> acknowledge that the signal contains information
> relevant to imaging, much less do you have
> anything to measure that with.


Imaging comes from the recording and is produced by the speakers.
But then you knew that, since we've discussed it before.

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
> .
> :
> : Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, ...:
>
> excuse me ? for *that*, you may post some links, Michael !
>
I'd ahve to check for some, but my memory is that there are something like 6
pretty regular human hearing responses. Ears pretty much function the same
mechanically.

Even if there are many varieties of hearing they still react the same way
essentially. By that I mean that if 100 people hear a live concert and use
that as a reference, then when they hear it played back, they'd still react
to the most accurate one as such.

I don't think I'm explaining this very well so I'll get back to you on it.

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
>find such facts
>so fast,
>Sander


I have a world wide networl of correspondents.

Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)

--

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

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>
> Imaging comes from the recording and is produced by the speakers.
> But then you knew that, since we've discussed it before.
>

Same recording
Same speakers
But different cd player or different amps, and there are often changes in
imaging

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>> .
>> :
>> : Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, ...:
>>
>> excuse me ? for *that*, you may post some links, Michael !
>>
> I'd ahve to check for some, but my memory is that there are something like
> 6 pretty regular human hearing responses. Ears pretty much function the
> same mechanically.
>
> Even if there are many varieties of hearing they still react the same way
> essentially. By that I mean that if 100 people hear a live concert and
> use that as a reference, then when they hear it played back, they'd still
> react to the most accurate one as such.
>

Not necessarily, hardly at all.
Not even if the speakers and room acoustics were optimal.

> I don't think I'm explaining this very well so I'll get back to you on it.
>

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Ruud Broens" > said:
>
>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
>>find such facts
>>so fast,
>>Sander
>
>
> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.
>
> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)
>

What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
>>>find such facts
>>>so fast,
>>>Sander


>> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.

>> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)


>What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?


Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)

Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
Even when you're 20.000 kms away!

I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
them on E-bay.

--

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

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>>
>> Thanks George for admitting you have no purpose on RAO other than to
>> distort the words of people with whom you don't agree.
>>
>> Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively
>> involved in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of
>> manufacturers, probably several times more than most people, I have a
>> very good idea what good stereo sounds like and how to get one.
>
> you mean, you know what sounds good to you.
Both. They're the same. :-)

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:
>
>> > I have a very godd[sic] idea what good stereo sounds like
>
>> you mean, you know what sounds good to you.
>
> I don't believe that's what poor Mickey meant. I believe he meant what he
> said. As we all know, he gets his "ideas" from spec sheets, not from
> listening.

At least I have ideas about audio, George.

Furthermore, everything sounds the same to him. Also by his own
> admission.
>
Not everything, just the stuff that is has the same sound.


> Mikey may get promoted to Major 'Borg if he keeps carrying on like this.
>
I'll get higher rank and you'll just be rank.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> dave weil said:
>>>
>>>>... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
>>>>something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.
>>>
>>> That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by
>>> not being
>>> able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's
>>> why he
>>> has to resort to specs.
>>>
>> More distortions George? Sheesh, I have never said I don't audition
>> equipment other than CD players. Everything else I hear before I buy.
>>
>> I find a place that has stuff I'm interested in, I listen to it,
>> sometimes through my own speakers if it's a place where I've built up a
>> good rapport with management. Then I get the full set of real world
>> performance facts about whatever it is I'm considering and when I find
>> something that can perform to my standards, accuracy with no sonic
>> signature of its own, then I buy it.
>>
>>
>>> This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is
>>> reinforced by
>>> their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They
>>> react to
>>> Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their
>>> level of
>>> deafness. Sad, really.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The only pattern is that you and those like you who are afraid of people
>> finding out how much similarity there is in audio equipment, make a point
>> ot lie and distort the facts.
>>
>> There is no class envy, there is only a desire for reasonableness. If
>> people want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get great sound,
>> I'm all for it, I just hope that they're spending the bulk of that money
>> where it actually will do the most good, on speakers.
>>
>> An expensive hi-fi with **** speakers is a **** hi-fi. A moderately
>> priced system with great speakers being driven by equipment that provides
>> accurate playback is a great sounding system. Personally I won't settle
>> for less than the most accurate playback I can get.
>
> According to your tin can measurement tools.
That would be Fremer's ears.

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Clyde Slick" > said:
:
: >>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
: >>>find such facts
: >>>so fast,
: >>>Sander
:
:
: >> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.
:
: >> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)
:
:
: >What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?
:
:
: Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)
:
: Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
: emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
: demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
: Even when you're 20.000 kms away!
:
: I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
: them on E-bay.

seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
Rudy

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
>>>> knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
>>>> differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
>>>> test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
>>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for
>>> cable
>>>
>> Since there are no differnces in the sound of cables, they would be doing
>> the world a service in demonstrating that fact.
>
> That is not a fact, its an opinion.

Nope. The only differnces are well known and opredictable. 18 AWG wire at
20ft. length sounds like all wire of equal size and length.

My belief is that lots of cable sound
> more or less the same, but some may not, and the differences are not
> substantial enough to worry about them, especially considering the price,.
> But it depends on your bank account, and how much your spending on the
> rest of
> your system.

It depends on how much you are willing to believe.

Cable upgrades are fine, but super expensive (+$1,000)
> upgrades are a waste that
> can be better spent on better sounding equipment.
So is anything over 23 cents per foot.

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > said:
>
>>>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
>>>>find such facts
>>>>so fast,
>>>>Sander
>
>
>>> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.
>
>>> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)
>
>
>>What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?
>
>
> Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)
>
> Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
> emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
> demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
> Even when you're 20.000 kms away!
>
> I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
> them on E-bay.
>

I live in Maryland, about 8 kilometers from NSA.
Unfortunately I am not their purchasing agent!
I don't work for them.

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> : "Clyde Slick" > said:
> :
> : >>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
> : >>>find such facts
> : >>>so fast,
> : >>>Sander
> :
> :
> : >> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.
> :
> : >> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)
> :
> :
> : >What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?
> :
> :
> : Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)
> :
> : Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
> : emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
> : demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
> : Even when you're 20.000 kms away!
> :
> : I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
> : them on E-bay.
>
> seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
> actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
> Rudy
>
>

What are they going for?
I have about 100 NOS ones
ADCO made in USA
willing to sell!!

[paul packer]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:21:14 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>in message ...
>>
>>
>> Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:
>>
>>> > I have a very godd[sic] idea what good stereo sounds like
>>
>>> you mean, you know what sounds good to you.
>>
>> I don't believe that's what poor Mickey meant. I believe he meant what he
>> said. As we all know, he gets his "ideas" from spec sheets, not from
>> listening.
>
>At least I have ideas about audio, George.

Good point. George still hasn't told us about his path to hi-end
heaven and what it means to him. And we've held our collective breath
long enough.

>> Mikey may get promoted to Major 'Borg if he keeps carrying on like this.
>>
>I'll get higher rank and you'll just be rank.

Not bad, Mike--shows you're thinking. The thrust and parry has
sharpened your sword.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
k.net
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
> comcast [dot] net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:
>>
>>>> I have a very godd[sic] idea what good stereo sounds
>>>> like
>>
>>> you mean, you know what sounds good to you.

>> I don't believe that's what poor Mickey meant. I believe
>> he meant what he said. As we all know, he gets his
>> "ideas" from spec sheets, not from listening.

> At least I have ideas about audio, George.

Key point. The George persona here is not about audio. It's
about a bitter old man who hates his life and just about
everybody in it. His moma never really loved him and his dad
was distant and cold. He'd never do George under his own
name because George is repetitive, childish and boring.
Always has been, always will be.

>> Furthermore, everything sounds the same to him. Also by
>> his own admission.

> Not everything, just the stuff that is has the same sound.

Another key point. It's just as wrong to say that everything
sounds different as it is to say that everything sounds the
same.

On the one hand the so-called objectivist position is that
while lots of things sound different, some things (like good
power amps and digital players) tend to sound the same.

On the other hand, its easier to squeeze blood out of a rock
than it is to get a so-called subjectivist to admit that
anything sounds the same.

Meanwhile we've got idiots like Robert, David, Paul George
and Art who have almost no serious interest in audio
continuously screaming: "Sounds the same! Sounds the same!".

>> Mikey may get promoted to Major 'Borg if he keeps
>> carrying on like this.

> I'll get higher rank and you'll just be rank.

Nothing has changed around here in 5 years but the body
count. George was an idiot child 5 years ago and despite the
apparent impossibility of the task, he's managed to get
dumber. :-(

[Clyde Slick]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...

>
> Not bad, Mike--shows you're thinking. The thrust and parry has
> sharpened your sword.
>

Maybe now he'll be able to dip into the Parkay bowl.
I suggest he let it melt a little first.

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
: ...
: > "Clyde Slick" > said:
: >
: >>>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
: >>>>find such facts
: >>>>so fast,
: >>>>Sander
: >
: >
: >>> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.
: >
: >>> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)
: >
: >
: >>What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?
: >
: >
: > Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)
: >
: > Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
: > emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
: > demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
: > Even when you're 20.000 kms away!
: >
: > I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
: > them on E-bay.
: >
:
: I live in Maryland, about 8 kilometers from NSA.
: Unfortunately I am not their purchasing agent!
: I don't work for them.
:

NSA, 6SN7 ... Sander's contraption seems to work,
Art ;-)
R.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Key point. The George persona here is not about audio. It's
>about a bitter old man who hates his life and just about
>everybody in it. His moma never really loved him and his dad
>was distant and cold. He'd never do George under his own
>name because George is repetitive, childish and boring.
>Always has been, always will be.



At the Krueger household, the boogie man was called "George", right?
;-)


>Meanwhile we've got idiots like Robert, David, Paul George
>and Art who have almost no serious interest in audio
>continuously screaming: "Sounds the same! Sounds the same!".


You forgot Ringo.

--

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

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > "Sander deWaal" emitted:
: > :
: > : I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
: > : them on E-bay.
: >
: > seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
: > actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
: > Rudy
: >
: >
:
: What are they going for?
: I have about 100 NOS ones
: ADCO made in USA
: willing to sell!!
:
a pair of Telefunkens did about 300 USD recently on eBay:
5830648091
:-)

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Imaging comes from the recording and is produced by the speakers.
>> But then you knew that, since we've discussed it before.
>>
>
> Same recording
> Same speakers
> But different cd player or different amps, and there are often changes in
> imaging
>
Based on unrelaible sighted evalutions, IOW meaningless.

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>Key point. The George persona here is not about audio. It's
>>about a bitter old man who hates his life and just about
>>everybody in it. His moma never really loved him and his dad
>>was distant and cold. He'd never do George under his own
>>name because George is repetitive, childish and boring.
>>Always has been, always will be.
>
>
>
> At the Krueger household, the boogie man was called "George", right?
> ;-)
>

It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for the vile disgusting
pig that he is.

I care nothing for his audio silliness, but his constant crap about family
members who don't post here are clearly beneath contempt.
>
>>Meanwhile we've got idiots like Robert, David, Paul George
>>and Art who have almost no serious interest in audio
>>continuously screaming: "Sounds the same! Sounds the same!".
>
>
> You forgot Ringo.
>

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >
> : > "Sander deWaal" emitted:
> : > :
> : > : I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
> : > : them on E-bay.
> : >
> : > seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
> : > actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
> : > Rudy
> : >
> : >
> :
> : What are they going for?
> : I have about 100 NOS ones
> : ADCO made in USA
> : willing to sell!!
> :
> a pair of Telefunkens did about 300 USD recently on eBay:
> 5830648091
> :-)
>
>

Oooh, NOS, no doubt. I think I saw that. I have about 50 smooth plate pulls
to get rid of, and some ribbed ones too.
But I figure $10 to $25 each

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Imaging comes from the recording and is produced by the speakers.
>>> But then you knew that, since we've discussed it before.
>>>
>>
>> Same recording
>> Same speakers
>> But different cd player or different amps, and there are often changes in
>> imaging
>>
> Based on unrelaible sighted evalutions, IOW meaningless.
to you, not to me.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Based on unrelaible sighted evalutions, IOW meaningless.

> to you, not to me.

"Don't talk about your mother that way."

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
nk.net
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>>
>>> Key point. The George persona here is not about audio.
>>> It's about a bitter old man who hates his life and just
>>> about everybody in it. His moma never really loved him
>>> and his dad was distant and cold. He'd never do George
>>> under his own name because George is repetitive,
>>> childish and boring. Always has been, always will be.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the Krueger household, the boogie man was called
>> "George", right? ;-)
>>
>
> It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for
> the vile disgusting pig that he is.

Two words: sock puppets.

> I care nothing for his audio silliness, but his constant
> crap about family members who don't post here are clearly
> beneath contempt.

Agreed.

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > : > seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
: > : > actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
: > : > Rudy
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > : What are they going for?
: > : I have about 100 NOS ones
: > : ADCO made in USA
: > : willing to sell!!
: > :
: > a pair of Telefunkens did about 300 USD recently on eBay:
: > 5830648091
: > :-)
: >
: >
:
: Oooh, NOS, no doubt. I think I saw that. I have about 50 smooth plate pulls
: to get rid of, and some ribbed ones too.
: But I figure $10 to $25 each
:
who'se leg are you trying to pull, clyde ?
it's like, anyone is going to part with a 1000 USD for a box of
untested glassware, Not !

seriously, Telefunken prices divided by 5 to 7 seems to be the
going rate for other brands, when NIB NOS (new in box, unused).
pulled tubes have to be accompanied by emission measurements
on a tube tester to be worth anything :-) - could be around half the
price of an unused when tested "as new". So that brings you in the
12 to 15 USD ballpark..

cheers,
Rudy

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >
> : > : > seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
> : > : > actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
> : > : > Rudy
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > : What are they going for?
> : > : I have about 100 NOS ones
> : > : ADCO made in USA
> : > : willing to sell!!
> : > :
> : > a pair of Telefunkens did about 300 USD recently on eBay:
> : > 5830648091
> : > :-)
> : >
> : >
> :
> : Oooh, NOS, no doubt. I think I saw that. I have about 50 smooth plate
> pulls
> : to get rid of, and some ribbed ones too.
> : But I figure $10 to $25 each
> :
> who'se leg are you trying to pull, clyde ?
> it's like, anyone is going to part with a 1000 USD for a box of
> untested glassware, Not !
>
> seriously, Telefunken prices divided by 5 to 7 seems to be the
> going rate for other brands, when NIB NOS (new in box, unused).
> pulled tubes have to be accompanied by emission measurements
> on a tube tester to be worth anything :-) - could be around half the
> price of an unused when tested "as new". So that brings you in the
> 12 to 15 USD ballpark..
>
> cheers,
> Rudy
>
>

That is a little low for what I saw on eBay, actually sold
in $12 to $30 for used tested tubes, like mine.

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > : Oooh, NOS, no doubt. I think I saw that. I have about 50 smooth plate
: > pulls
: > : to get rid of, and some ribbed ones too.
: > : But I figure $10 to $25 each
: > :
: > who'se leg are you trying to pull, clyde ?
: > it's like, anyone is going to part with a 1000 USD for a box of
: > untested glassware, Not !
: >
: > seriously, Telefunken prices divided by 5 to 7 seems to be the
: > going rate for other brands, when NIB NOS (new in box, unused).
: > pulled tubes have to be accompanied by emission measurements
: > on a tube tester to be worth anything :-) - could be around half the
: > price of an unused when tested "as new". So that brings you in the
: > 12 to 15 USD ballpark..
: >
: > cheers,
: > Rudy
: >
: >
:
: That is a little low for what I saw on eBay, actually sold
: in $12 to $30 for used tested tubes, like mine.
:
LOL, it's like you know how to test tubes, if,
you don't know an mho from a volta, lot'sZ !
for 30 bucks, a buyer would like to know grid
leak, as well,
you know
Rudy

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> That is a little low for what I saw on eBay, actually sold
> in $12 to $30 for used tested tubes, like mine.

Selling vacuum tubes on ebay: $30
Mailing them to the Krooborg and inducing a heart attack: Priceless!

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >
> : > : Oooh, NOS, no doubt. I think I saw that. I have about 50 smooth
> plate
> : > pulls
> : > : to get rid of, and some ribbed ones too.
> : > : But I figure $10 to $25 each
> : > :
> : > who'se leg are you trying to pull, clyde ?
> : > it's like, anyone is going to part with a 1000 USD for a box of
> : > untested glassware, Not !
> : >
> : > seriously, Telefunken prices divided by 5 to 7 seems to be the
> : > going rate for other brands, when NIB NOS (new in box, unused).
> : > pulled tubes have to be accompanied by emission measurements
> : > on a tube tester to be worth anything :-) - could be around half the
> : > price of an unused when tested "as new". So that brings you in the
> : > 12 to 15 USD ballpark..
> : >
> : > cheers,
> : > Rudy
> : >
> : >
> :
> : That is a little low for what I saw on eBay, actually sold
> : in $12 to $30 for used tested tubes, like mine.
> :
> LOL, it's like you know how to test tubes, if,
> you don't know an mho from a volta, lot'sZ !
> for 30 bucks, a buyer would like to know grid
> leak, as well,
> you know
> Rudy
>
>

I expect to average about $16
plus, over 120 7591's, and lots of other good stuff.
more than I can use in a lifetime of glowing enjoyment.

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > : That is a little low for what I saw on eBay, actually sold
: > : in $12 to $30 for used tested tubes, like mine.
: > :
: > LOL, it's like you know how to test tubes, if,
: > you don't know an mho from a volta, lot'sZ !
: > for 30 bucks, a buyer would like to know grid
: > leak, as well,
: > you know
: > Rudy
: >
: >
:
: I expect to average about $16
: plus, over 120 7591's, and lots of other good stuff.
: more than I can use in a lifetime of glowing enjoyment.
:
cool : -)

[paul packer]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 07:18:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Meanwhile we've got idiots like Robert, David, Paul George
>and Art who have almost no serious interest in audio
>continuously screaming: "Sounds the same! Sounds the same!".

Er...haven't you got that around the wrong way, Arnie?