Re: DBT in audio - a protocol [Archive]

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 10:04 AM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Fine as an experiment
>
>Dismissed! Ne-ext! :)
>
>
>> - but nothing whatever to do with the situation
>> I have sought to address,
>
>What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
>claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. -> "it" is deluded ->
>the proof of which is this test .. ??
>
>Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
>In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
>combinations, schemes imaginable.
>
No they don't. Visual senses help us in assessing an overall
situation, but don't be fooled into thinking they aid in putting
together sound information. Visual/optical illusions are very common.

>There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
>DBT/ABX ritual.
>
>> which has nothing whatever to do with groups
>> of people and their possible perceptions.
>
>If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
>powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
>tell you anything?
>
If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables. *THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.
It would be a waste of time testing them.

More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,
because they simply should not be there. That is why they are the ones
who should be tested. It is simply interesting.

>Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
>subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?
>
>>
>> And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.
>
>You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
>LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
>where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
>you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
>consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
>some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
>ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
>you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?
>

Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart.

As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
then say whether they think it sounds nice or not. If they care to let
it stress them, that is of course their choice. Would you find such a
thing stressful?

>
>> I have gone
>> out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
>> the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
>> the end of it.
>
>Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
>stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
>arrangements" privately via email the last time around...
>

Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
arrangements for this should be kept public. The whole thing started
in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
when I have.

d

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

Forwarder

January 16th 06, 10:21 AM

Don Pearce wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:
>
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Fine as an experiment
>>
>>Dismissed! Ne-ext! :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
>>>I have sought to address,
>>
>>What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
>>claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. -> "it" is deluded ->
>>the proof of which is this test .. ??
>>
>>Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
>>In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
>>combinations, schemes imaginable.
>>
>
> No they don't.

Yes they do.

> Visual/optical illusions are very common.

So?

>
>
>>There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
>>DBT/ABX ritual.
>>
>>
>>>which has nothing whatever to do with groups
>>>of people and their possible perceptions.
>>
>>If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
>>powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
>>tell you anything?
>>
>
> If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
> them who claimed to hear a difference between cables.

How do you know that? "Perhaps"?

> *THEY* are the
> ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.

It is NOT the people that are in question here, it is the cables, and
whether or not they indeed to sound in a given way. You have this all
topsy turvy upside down.

> It would be a waste of time testing them.

So says you.

>
> More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
> unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,

here you go again with this "night and day claims" anger. Audiophools
will be audiophools, just get over it. No need to be so angry and vengefull.

> because they simply should not be there.

You get to have a "scientific" view on these things, yes, but would you
trust your measuring equipment more then the claims of hearing this or
that coming from 1000, or even 10000 people?

What are measuring equipment measuring? What you and I hear? Or is our
ability hear measured separately? Is *everything*, including
consciousness, àble to be measured, fully?

> That is why they are the ones
> who should be tested.

Why not try adress the problem from a different angle? Why go at the
audiophools dagger and chain?

> It is simply interesting.

Finally, we agree on something.

>
>
>>Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
>>subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?
>>
>>
>>>And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.
>>
>>You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
>>LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
>>where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
>>you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
>>consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
>>some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
>>ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
>>you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?
>>
>
>
> Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
> has come from you, directed at Stewart.

BRAVO!! You completely by pass the coercion bit. You COMPLETELY by-pass
the ""converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving"
bit.. Your vengefull attitude of "put your money where your mouth is !
Prove it!" is a GIVEN, your GOD given RIGHT... The issue now is how much
of a fair, nice, senile old man is stewart pinkerton. :)

>
> As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
> then say whether they think it sounds nice or not.

You are doing nothing of the sort. You are asking "which is which",
nothing about "sounds nice"..

Hmmm.. Debating trade sneeking in here.

> If they care to let
> it stress them, that is of course their choice.

Oh my goodt two shoes, how nice.

> Would you find such a
> thing stressful?

Listening to music? No.

>
>
>>>I have gone
>>>out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
>>>the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
>>>the end of it.
>>
>>Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
>>stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
>>arrangements" privately via email the last time around...
>>
>
>
> Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

Those terms are not directed at you.

>
> As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
> anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
> arrangements for this should be kept public.

Sure, when, approximately where (as in CITY), etc, why not..

> The whole thing started
> in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

The results of which? Sure, why not.

>
> I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
> when I have.

Ok, both here and to the mail address let me know. But any arrangements
as to where in particular we meet, and when in particular, and go on
from there, are strictly private.

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

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 11:13 AM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:21:24 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fine as an experiment
>>>
>>>Dismissed! Ne-ext! :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
>>>>I have sought to address,
>>>
>>>What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
>>>claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. -> "it" is deluded ->
>>>the proof of which is this test .. ??
>>>
>>>Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
>>>In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
>>>combinations, schemes imaginable.
>>>
>>
>> No they don't.
>
>Yes they do.
>
>> Visual/optical illusions are very common.
>
>So?
>
Do you not see the connection here?

>>
>>
>>>There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
>>>DBT/ABX ritual.
>>>
>>>
>>>>which has nothing whatever to do with groups
>>>>of people and their possible perceptions.
>>>
>>>If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
>>>powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
>>>tell you anything?
>>>
>>
>> If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
>> them who claimed to hear a difference between cables.
>
>How do you know that? "Perhaps"?
>
It is my estimate, based on all sorts of things. Where did you get
your 850 out of a thousand figure? Mine would seem far more
reasonable.

>> *THEY* are the
>> ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.
>
>It is NOT the people that are in question here, it is the cables, and
>whether or not they indeed to sound in a given way. You have this all
>topsy turvy upside down.
>
>> It would be a waste of time testing them.
>
>So says you.
>

OK - I'll buy it. What do you think would be gained by taking a group
of people who could not hear a difference between two cables sighted,
and asking them to identify them unsighted?

>>
>> More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
>> unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,
>
>here you go again with this "night and day claims" anger. Audiophools
>will be audiophools, just get over it. No need to be so angry and vengefull.
>

I don't do anger - it is not in my personality. You, on the other
hand, are appearing moderately distressed here and elsewhere ion the
thread.

>
>> because they simply should not be there.
>
>You get to have a "scientific" view on these things, yes, but would you
>trust your measuring equipment more then the claims of hearing this or
>that coming from 1000, or even 10000 people?
>
Absolutely - every time.

>What are measuring equipment measuring? What you and I hear? Or is our
>ability hear measured separately? Is *everything*, including
>consciousness, àble to be measured, fully?
>

You are getting a little fanciful here. I believe, on the evidence to
date, that I can measure everything that has any bearing on the sound
from a cable. There are those who assert otherwise, but refuse to
supply proof. Addressing that issue is what this whole thread is
about.

>> That is why they are the ones
>> who should be tested.
>
>Why not try adress the problem from a different angle? Why go at the
>audiophools dagger and chain?
>
>> It is simply interesting.
>
>Finally, we agree on something.
>
>>
>>
>>>Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
>>>subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?
>>>
>>>
>>>>And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.
>>>
>>>You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
>>>LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
>>>where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
>>>you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
>>>consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
>>>some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
>>>ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
>>>you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
>> has come from you, directed at Stewart.
>
>BRAVO!! You completely by pass the coercion bit. You COMPLETELY by-pass
>the ""converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
>LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving"
>bit.. Your vengefull attitude of "put your money where your mouth is !
>Prove it!" is a GIVEN, your GOD given RIGHT... The issue now is how much
>of a fair, nice, senile old man is stewart pinkerton. :)
>

Please try and calm down. There is nothing to be gained by either of
us from this kind of post.

>>
>> As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
>> then say whether they think it sounds nice or not.
>
>You are doing nothing of the sort. You are asking "which is which",
>nothing about "sounds nice"..
>
>Hmmm.. Debating trade sneeking in here.
>
Look - this is how it is. Somebody says "This cable sounds nice, that
one doesn't". So in the test the question at each trial will be "does
it sound nice, or not". If it sounds nice, write "Cable A", if it does
not, write "Cable B". So you see, it really is a question of whether
it sounds nice or not.

That is another reason why you shouldn't test people who have not
expressed a preference - the question does not resolve to whether the
music sounds nice.

>> If they care to let
>> it stress them, that is of course their choice.
>
>Oh my goodt two shoes, how nice.
>
>> Would you find such a
>> thing stressful?
>
>Listening to music? No.
>
And writing down whether you thought it was nice or not - would that
stress you?

>>
>>
>>>>I have gone
>>>>out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
>>>>the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
>>>>the end of it.
>>>
>>>Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
>>>stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
>>>arrangements" privately via email the last time around...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.
>
>Those terms are not directed at you.
>
I don't care who they are directed at, I don't need to encounter them
in conversations I am participating in.

>>
>> As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
>> anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
>> arrangements for this should be kept public.
>
>Sure, when, approximately where (as in CITY), etc, why not..
>
>> The whole thing started
>> in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.
>
>The results of which? Sure, why not.
>
>>
>> I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
>> when I have.
>
>Ok, both here and to the mail address let me know. But any arrangements
>as to where in particular we meet, and when in particular, and go on
>from there, are strictly private.
>
Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
know that they should keep alert for the results.

d

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

Forwarder

January 16th 06, 11:35 AM

Don Pearce wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:21:24 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:
>
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Fine as an experiment
>>>>
>>>>Dismissed! Ne-ext! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
>>>>>I have sought to address,
>>>>
>>>>What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
>>>>claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. -> "it" is deluded ->
>>>>the proof of which is this test .. ??
>>>>
>>>>Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
>>>>In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
>>>>combinations, schemes imaginable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No they don't.
>>
>>Yes they do.
>>
>>
>>> Visual/optical illusions are very common.
>>
>>So?
>>
>
> Do you not see the connection here?

No, I do not, though I *am* tempted.. :)

>
>
>>>
>>>>There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
>>>>DBT/ABX ritual.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>which has nothing whatever to do with groups
>>>>>of people and their possible perceptions.
>>>>
>>>>If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
>>>>powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
>>>>tell you anything?
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
>>>them who claimed to hear a difference between cables.
>>
>>How do you know that? "Perhaps"?
>>
>
> It is my estimate, based on all sorts of things.

That's hardly any more scientific then the "night and day" gobbledygook
of the audiophool. Try and publish a scientific paper saying that your
conclusion is "based on all sorts of things" .. :)

> Where did you get
> your 850 out of a thousand figure?

Based on all sorts of things. :)

> Mine would seem far more
> reasonable.

Based on all sorts of things?

>
>
>>>*THEY* are the
>>>ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.
>>
>>It is NOT the people that are in question here, it is the cables, and
>>whether or not they indeed to sound in a given way. You have this all
>>topsy turvy upside down.
>>
>>
>>>It would be a waste of time testing them.
>>
>>So says you.
>>
>
>
> OK - I'll buy it.

What did you buy? I fear you might isunderstood _my_ proposal above.

> What do you think would be gained by taking a group
> of people who could not hear a difference between two cables sighted,
> and asking them to identify them unsighted?

I never proposed such a torture on people. To provide an answer:
Nothing, obviously.

>
>
>>>More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
>>>unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,
>>
>>here you go again with this "night and day claims" anger. Audiophools
>>will be audiophools, just get over it. No need to be so angry and vengefull.
>>
>
>
> I don't do anger

I am eager to meet you, you seem to be some sort of being superior.

>
>>You get to have a "scientific" view on these things, yes, but would you
>>trust your measuring equipment more then the claims of hearing this or
>>that coming from 1000, or even 10000 people?
>>
>
> Absolutely - every time.

Let me get this correct now: You are saying that visual cues such as
shiny black, thickness of some cable will be enough to distort peoples
perceptions but blinding them and going at them saying "which is which,
prove it!" would have no effect as to what they hear?

Oh, and yes, "Absolutely - every time."

Are you sure of your impartiality? Could you be a wee bit angry at these
audiophools after all? Think about it, really, sincerely.

>
>
>>What are measuring equipment measuring? What you and I hear? Or is our
>>ability hear measured separately? Is *everything*, including
>>consciousness, àble to be measured, fully?
>>
> You are getting a little fanciful here.

With your permission of course.

> I believe, on the evidence to
> date, that I can measure everything that has any bearing on the sound
> from a cable.

There is still hope for you : "on the evidence to date" .. Well said.

> There are those who assert otherwise, but refuse to
> supply proof.

The "proof" as you put it, aint so +2=4 kind of a simple thing to prove,
unfortunately.

> Addressing that issue is what this whole thread is
> about.

AG-reed.

>
> Look - this is how it is. Somebody says "This cable sounds nice, that
> one doesn't".

No. Usually someone says this cable sounds endgy, this has more
presence, that one smears the transients, etc..

> So in the test the question at each trial will be "does
> it sound nice, or not".

No. Your question is this "now that you are blinded to the knowledge ans
sight of which is which, tell me, WHICH IS WHICH!?!"

> If it sounds nice, write "Cable A", if it does
> not, write "Cable B".

Actually, that is how *I* will approach the whole issue. :)

> So you see, it really is a question of whether
> it sounds nice or not.

No it isn't. See above.

>
> That is another reason why you shouldn't test people who have not
> expressed a preference

You shouldn't "test people" at all, period, on whether or not a cable is
able to introduce a given trait to the sound of a given system.

> - the question does not resolve to whether the
> music sounds nice.

Totally irrelevant. Music always sounds nice. :) Even sometimes coming
out of the small little transistor radio in grandma's living room.

>
>
>
> And writing down whether you thought it was nice or not - would that
> stress you?

:) My, you *can* be funny too.

>
> I don't care who they are directed at, I don't need to encounter them
> in conversations I am participating in.
>

If you can't stand the heat, sit down.
>
>
> Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
> happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
> know that they should keep alert for the results.

Of course, sure, and yes.. Do inform me well before hand, as before hand
as possible though.

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

John Phillips

January 16th 06, 11:45 AM

On 2006-01-16, Forwarder > wrote:
> Don Pearce wrote:
>> Fine as an experiment
>
> Dismissed! Ne-ext! :)
>
>> - but nothing whatever to do with the situation
>> I have sought to address,
>
> What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
> claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. -> "it" is deluded ->
> the proof of which is this test .. ??

The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
test determines a sighted majority preference; while Don's determines
an individual ability to detect a difference. These are completely
different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
one test for the other and expect the same answer.

If Don and Forwarder place different personal values on the two different
answers that's OK but they are certainly different. The issue of the
personal value of the answer to a test seems to be at the centre of
this "discussion" but it seems to be conducted through argument about
other issues.

--
John Phillips

Forwarder

January 16th 06, 11:45 AM

Forwarder wrote:

> Don Pearce wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
>> happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
>> know that they should keep alert for the results.
>

You know, in the end, the final analysis, as it were, if my preference
for my cables turns out to be *proven* with absolute certainty as being
a placebo, I will, in the end, choose to go on with the placebo...

I don't how this is managed or explained in terms of electricity, but my
cables actually make the speakers kind of "irrelevant".. They become
just nice looking objects of furniture to look at when listening to
music since no sound at all whatsoever seems to come out of them
directly. With lamp cord sizzling sounds are smeared on those ghastly
sizzling tweeters, it seems. Night and day difference! :)

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 11:57 AM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:35:53 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:

>
>> Where did you get
>> your 850 out of a thousand figure?
>
>Based on all sorts of things. :)
>
>> Mine would seem far more
>> reasonable.
>
>Based on all sorts of things?
>
>>
>>
>>>>*THEY* are the
>>>>ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.
>>>
>>>It is NOT the people that are in question here, it is the cables, and
>>>whether or not they indeed to sound in a given way. You have this all
>>>topsy turvy upside down.
>>>
>>>
>>>>It would be a waste of time testing them.
>>>
>>>So says you.
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK - I'll buy it.
>
>What did you buy? I fear you might isunderstood _my_ proposal above.
>
>> What do you think would be gained by taking a group
>> of people who could not hear a difference between two cables sighted,
>> and asking them to identify them unsighted?
>
>I never proposed such a torture on people. To provide an answer:
>Nothing, obviously.
>
>
Good, so we need hear no more about gathering 1000 people for a test.

>
>>
>>
>>>>More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
>>>>unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,
>>>
>>>here you go again with this "night and day claims" anger. Audiophools
>>>will be audiophools, just get over it. No need to be so angry and vengefull.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't do anger
>
>I am eager to meet you, you seem to be some sort of being superior.
>

Just human - but I've been around long enough to know what is and
isn't useful.

>>
>>>You get to have a "scientific" view on these things, yes, but would you
>>>trust your measuring equipment more then the claims of hearing this or
>>>that coming from 1000, or even 10000 people?
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely - every time.
>
>Let me get this correct now: You are saying that visual cues such as
>shiny black, thickness of some cable will be enough to distort peoples
>perceptions but blinding them and going at them saying "which is which,
>prove it!" would have no effect as to what they hear?
>
You yourself say you have been subjected to just such a test, and
identified the right cable every time. I think you have answered your
own question about "which is which?". Now if you can do that again
publicly you will have answered the first part of your question as
well.

>Oh, and yes, "Absolutely - every time."
>
>Are you sure of your impartiality? Could you be a wee bit angry at these
>audiophools after all? Think about it, really, sincerely.
>
Why would I be angry at audiophools? They don't impinge on me in any
way. As for impartiality, what is more impartial than a measurement?

>>
>>
>>>What are measuring equipment measuring? What you and I hear? Or is our
>>>ability hear measured separately? Is *everything*, including
>>>consciousness, àble to be measured, fully?
>>>
>> You are getting a little fanciful here.
>
>With your permission of course.
>
You don't need my or anybody's permission for anything you do.

>> I believe, on the evidence to
>> date, that I can measure everything that has any bearing on the sound
>> from a cable.
>
>There is still hope for you : "on the evidence to date" .. Well said.
>
>> There are those who assert otherwise, but refuse to
>> supply proof.
>
>
>The "proof" as you put it, aint so +2=4 kind of a simple thing to prove,
>unfortunately.
>
In this case it is. Score the necessary number of correct hits, and
that is the proof. All I can supply to the contrary is evidence -
shame for me, heh?

>> Addressing that issue is what this whole thread is
>> about.
>
>AG-reed.
>
>>
>> Look - this is how it is. Somebody says "This cable sounds nice, that
>> one doesn't".
>
>No. Usually someone says this cable sounds endgy, this has more
>presence, that one smears the transients, etc..
>
OK, substitute edgy for nice, or whatever - the principle remains the
same. It comes down to identifying a quality.

>> So in the test the question at each trial will be "does
>> it sound nice, or not".
>
>
>No. Your question is this "now that you are blinded to the knowledge ans
>sight of which is which, tell me, WHICH IS WHICH!?!"
>
>> If it sounds nice, write "Cable A", if it does
>> not, write "Cable B".
>
>Actually, that is how *I* will approach the whole issue. :)
>
>> So you see, it really is a question of whether
>> it sounds nice or not.
>
>No it isn't. See above.
>
See above as well.

>>
>> That is another reason why you shouldn't test people who have not
>> expressed a preference
>
>You shouldn't "test people" at all, period, on whether or not a cable is
>able to introduce a given trait to the sound of a given system.
>
Don't pick at the semantics - you know what I mean.

>> - the question does not resolve to whether the
>> music sounds nice.
>
>Totally irrelevant. Music always sounds nice. :) Even sometimes coming
>out of the small little transistor radio in grandma's living room.
>

Semantics again? Could you be running out of argument here?

>>
>>
>>
>> And writing down whether you thought it was nice or not - would that
>> stress you?
>
>:) My, you *can* be funny too.
>

What I am asking is whether you believe the DBT as proposed by me
would be stressful enough to impair your sensitivity to the perceived
difference.

>>
>> I don't care who they are directed at, I don't need to encounter them
>> in conversations I am participating in.
>>
>
>If you can't stand the heat, sit down.

Thank you, I am.

>>
>>
>> Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
>> happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
>> know that they should keep alert for the results.
>
>Of course, sure, and yes.. Do inform me well before hand, as before hand
>as possible though.
>

I generally know about a month in advance.

d

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

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 12:01 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:45:24 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:

>
>
>Forwarder wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
>>> happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
>>> know that they should keep alert for the results.
>>
>
>
>
>You know, in the end, the final analysis, as it were, if my preference
>for my cables turns out to be *proven* with absolute certainty as being
>a placebo, I will, in the end, choose to go on with the placebo...
>

Absolutely the correct choice. Of course the placebo effect tends to
vanish once the trick is revealed.

>I don't how this is managed or explained in terms of electricity, but my
>cables actually make the speakers kind of "irrelevant".. They become
>just nice looking objects of furniture to look at when listening to
>music since no sound at all whatsoever seems to come out of them
>directly. With lamp cord sizzling sounds are smeared on those ghastly
>sizzling tweeters, it seems. Night and day difference! :)

OK, now you are scaring me :-)

Would you rather do the test with the speakers disconnected? I am
happy if it helps you.

d

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

Forwarder

January 16th 06, 12:02 PM

John Phillips wrote:

> On 2006-01-16, Forwarder > wrote:
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>>Fine as an experiment
>>
>>Dismissed! Ne-ext! :)
>>
>>
>>>- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
>>>I have sought to address,
>>
>>What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
>>claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. -> "it" is deluded ->
>>the proof of which is this test .. ??
>
>
> The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
> test determines a sighted majority preference;

You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
be drawn about the validity of ABX here.

> while Don's determines
> an individual ability to detect a difference.

Yes, thank you, Don's test puts the *testee*, the *subject* the *victim*
to the test, in the end. It is also a test for the subject to (not) see
(but hear) past the stressfull situation.

Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!

> These are completely
> different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
> one test for the other and expect the same answer.

My test tests the tests.. That is, it tries to answer the question
whether or not ABX/DBT is applicable to the phenomenon of
"audiophoolery" ...

Forwarder

January 16th 06, 12:04 PM

Don Pearce wrote:

>>>Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
>>>happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
>>>know that they should keep alert for the results.
>>
>>Of course, sure, and yes.. Do inform me well before hand, as before hand
>>as possible though.
>>
>
>
> I generally know about a month in advance.
>

Good enough, hopefully, generally, for me.

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

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 12:11 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:02:43 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:

>John Phillips wrote:
>
>> On 2006-01-16, Forwarder > wrote:
>>
>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fine as an experiment
>>>
>>>Dismissed! Ne-ext! :)
>>>
>>>
>>>>- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
>>>>I have sought to address,
>>>
>>>What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
>>>claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. -> "it" is deluded ->
>>>the proof of which is this test .. ??
>>
>>
>> The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
>> test determines a sighted majority preference;
>
>You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
>My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
>instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
>amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
>necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
>not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
>in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
>be drawn about the validity of ABX here.
>

Why would you draw such a conclusion? There is no evidence in this
test to support it. Do you believe that spiders become deaf when their
legs are pulled off?

>> while Don's determines
>> an individual ability to detect a difference.
>
>Yes, thank you, Don's test puts the *testee*, the *subject* the *victim*
>to the test, in the end. It is also a test for the subject to (not) see
>(but hear) past the stressfull situation.
>
How do you have a test where the testee is *not* put to the test? I
would be interested to see one.

>Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
>distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
>which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!
>
Is this how you believe I might conduct such a test? Remember I would
not even be in the room - you listen relaxing in your comfy chair,
then write down your answer when you are good and ready. Nothing could
be further from "tell me, bitch!".

>> These are completely
>> different matters and not at all equivalent, so you can't substitute
>> one test for the other and expect the same answer.
>
>My test tests the tests.. That is, it tries to answer the question
>whether or not ABX/DBT is applicable to the phenomenon of
>"audiophoolery" ...

No, your test fails to test the test, because your conclusion depends
on a begged question - namely that if the result shows no difference,
the test must be at fault. That would be thrown out in the first
minute of any peer review.

d

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

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 12:16 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:11:55 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:45:24 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Forwarder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course. But I would expect to able to post that the test will be
>>>>>happening during - say - the next week, so that interested parties
>>>>>know that they should keep alert for the results.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You know, in the end, the final analysis, as it were, if my preference
>>>for my cables turns out to be *proven* with absolute certainty as being
>>>a placebo, I will, in the end, choose to go on with the placebo...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Absolutely the correct choice. Of course the placebo effect tends to
>> vanish once the trick is revealed.
>
>Well I am only human, not a being superior such as Thou. So I have a
>tendency to doubt myself. And I am happy to report that the "doubt" has
>no effect on my state of placebo, those italian beauties still disappear.
>

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.

>>
>>
>> Would you rather do the test with the speakers disconnected? I am
>> happy if it helps you.
>>
>
>Let's see what happens after I fail your test. I will report my personal
>preference audiophoolery results.
>

Funny, I thought you were going to pass with ease - like you did last
time you blind tested yourself...

d

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

Forwarder

January 16th 06, 12:21 PM

Don Pearce wrote:

>
> Funny, I thought you were going to pass with ease - like you did last
> time you blind tested yourself...
>

You know what they say, prepare for the worst ...

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

Forwarder

January 16th 06, 12:33 PM

Don Pearce wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:02:43 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:
>
>
>>John Phillips wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2006-01-16, Forwarder > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Fine as an experiment
>>>>
>>>>Dismissed! Ne-ext! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
>>>>>I have sought to address,
>>>>
>>>>What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
>>>>claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. -> "it" is deluded ->
>>>>the proof of which is this test .. ??
>>>
>>>
>>>The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
>>>test determines a sighted majority preference;
>>
>>You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
>>My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
>>instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
>>amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
>>necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
>>not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
>>in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
>>be drawn about the validity of ABX here.
>>
>
>
> Why would you draw such a conclusion?

Gee, one *does* wonder..

> There is no evidence in this
> test to support it.

"evidence" ? Maybe not. :)

> Do you believe that spiders become deaf when their
> legs are pulled off?

Absolutely. They also become constipated.

>
>
> How do you have a test where the testee is *not* put to the test? I
> would be interested to see one.

Me too. I dont purrport to have all the answers, you do, with some
oscilloscope in one had, and a crackling whip on the other.

>
>
>>Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
>>distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
>>which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!
>>
>
> Is this how you believe I might conduct such a test? Remember I would
> not even be in the room

It was a "figure of speech" as it were.

> - you listen relaxing in your comfy chair,

and busting my balls as to "is this my cable? Or... is it ... **** ... " :)

> then write down your answer when you are good and ready. Nothing could
> be further from "tell me, bitch!".

Yes yes, in theory, of course. I will take at least 15 minutes per
listen, though I *should* be ale to take at least TWO WEEKS per listen...

>
>
> No, your test fails to test the test, because your conclusion depends
> on a begged question - namely that if the result shows no difference,
> the test must be at fault.

What else would be at fault then? After an ABX shows nill difference
between a pair of halcro dm58 monoblocks and a 250 yamaha receiver
(which it will do just that: WHAM: SAME DIFFERENCE!), would you be able
to substitute them with each other in the real world??? Come on!

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 12:44 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:33:46 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:02:43 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2006-01-16, Forwarder > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fine as an experiment
>>>>>
>>>>>Dismissed! Ne-ext! :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
>>>>>>I have sought to address,
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
>>>>>claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. -> "it" is deluded ->
>>>>>the proof of which is this test .. ??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The tests are both OK for their own purposes. However Forwarder's
>>>>test determines a sighted majority preference;
>>>
>>>You've somewhat simplified the "issue" with your evaluation of my test.
>>>My test actually measures also *consistency* and consensus. If for
>>>instance, 900 people out of 1000 agree that the bass produced by this
>>>amp sounds more powerfull then the bass by the other (there is not
>>>necessarily "preference" here, some would like strong bass, others may
>>>not), and if these amps (which they will, since all amps sound identical
>>>in an ABX) sound identical in an ABX then there must be a conclusion to
>>>be drawn about the validity of ABX here.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why would you draw such a conclusion?
>
>Gee, one *does* wonder..
>
>> There is no evidence in this
>> test to support it.
>
>"evidence" ? Maybe not. :)
>
>> Do you believe that spiders become deaf when their
>> legs are pulled off?
>
>Absolutely. They also become constipated.
>
>>
>>
>> How do you have a test where the testee is *not* put to the test? I
>> would be interested to see one.
>
>Me too. I dont purrport to have all the answers, you do, with some
>oscilloscope in one had, and a crackling whip on the other.
>

That would be your fantasy, perhaps ;-)

>>
>>
>>>Some take it as a given that the shine on an exotic cable is enough to
>>>distort the perceptions of people but do not accept that a "which is
>>>which, tell me bitch!" situation is not... Really!
>>>
>>
>> Is this how you believe I might conduct such a test? Remember I would
>> not even be in the room
>
>It was a "figure of speech" as it were.
>
>
>> - you listen relaxing in your comfy chair,
>
>and busting my balls as to "is this my cable? Or... is it ... **** ... " :)
>
>> then write down your answer when you are good and ready. Nothing could
>> be further from "tell me, bitch!".
>
>Yes yes, in theory, of course. I will take at least 15 minutes per
>listen, though I *should* be ale to take at least TWO WEEKS per listen...
>
>>
>>
>> No, your test fails to test the test, because your conclusion depends
>> on a begged question - namely that if the result shows no difference,
>> the test must be at fault.
>
>What else would be at fault then? After an ABX shows nill difference
>between a pair of halcro dm58 monoblocks and a 250 yamaha receiver
>(which it will do just that: WHAM: SAME DIFFERENCE!), would you be able
>to substitute them with each other in the real world??? Come on!

Why would you expect them to show a difference? Amplifier design has
reached a peak (we clearly are not talking SET, or any of that kind of
crap), at which it is impossible to tell one amplifier from another.
Of course if you turn the level up so that one of them starts
clipping, all bets are off.

Nil difference is precisely what I would expect between those two.

Of course they wouldn't substitute in the real world - different
features, appearance, all sorts of stuff really.

d

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

Clyde Slick

January 16th 06, 03:14 PM

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:04:11 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:
whatever to do with groups
> of people and their possible perceptions.
>
> And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it. I have gone
> out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
> the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
> the end of it.
>

I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 03:21 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:14:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:04:11 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:
>whatever to do with groups
>> of people and their possible perceptions.
>>
>> And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it. I have gone
>> out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
>> the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
>> the end of it.
>>
>
>
>I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.

?

d

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

Sander deWaal

January 16th 06, 05:44 PM

(Don Pearce) said:

>No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
>fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.

Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

--

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

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 05:55 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:
>
>>No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
>>fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.
>
>
>Do you watch movies, or TV?
>Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
>bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

d

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

dave weil

January 16th 06, 07:52 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal >
>wrote:
>
(Don Pearce) said:
>>
>>>No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
>>>fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.
>>
>>
>>Do you watch movies, or TV?
>>Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
>>bother you while watching the news? :-)
>
>Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 07:58 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal >
>>wrote:
>>
(Don Pearce) said:
>>>
>>>>No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
>>>>fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you watch movies, or TV?
>>>Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
>>>bother you while watching the news? :-)
>>
>>Not here in England, it doesn't :-)
>
>I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
>use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
>Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
>being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
>results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
>I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
>faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
>quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
>when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
>gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
>content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
>seems to use extreme measures to store their content.
>
>Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
>American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
>regular "patches" that look discontinuous.
>
>I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
>far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
different. :-)

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d

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

ScottW

January 16th 06, 08:08 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal >
> >wrote:
> >
> (Don Pearce) said:
> >>
> >>>No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
> >>>fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.
> >>
> >>
> >>Do you watch movies, or TV?
> >>Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
> >>bother you while watching the news? :-)
> >
> >Not here in England, it doesn't :-)
>
> I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
> use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
> Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
> being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
> results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
> I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
> faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
> quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
> when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
> gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
> content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
> seems to use extreme measures to store their content.
>
> Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
> American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
> regular "patches" that look discontinuous.
>
> I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
> far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
channel 2 or 3)

ScottW

ScottW

January 16th 06, 08:13 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> (Don Pearce) said:
> >>>
> >>>>No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
> >>>>fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Do you watch movies, or TV?
> >>>Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
> >>>bother you while watching the news? :-)
> >>
> >>Not here in England, it doesn't :-)
> >
> >I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
> >use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
> >Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
> >being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
> >results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
> >I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
> >faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
> >quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
> >when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
> >gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
> >content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
> >seems to use extreme measures to store their content.
> >
> >Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
> >American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
> >regular "patches" that look discontinuous.
> >
> >I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
> >far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.
>
> I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
> different. :-)
>
> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
> that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

BTW... over the air HD digital takes less bandwidth than existing
analogue transmission.

ScottW

EddieM

January 16th 06, 08:14 PM

It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

>>> and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
>>> the end of it.
>>
>>
>> I didn't know sheeps weighed that much.
>
>
>
>
> ?

LoL !

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

dave weil

January 16th 06, 08:16 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:58:25 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal >
>>>wrote:
>>>
(Don Pearce) said:
>>>>
>>>>>No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
>>>>>fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you watch movies, or TV?
>>>>Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
>>>>bother you while watching the news? :-)
>>>
>>>Not here in England, it doesn't :-)
>>
>>I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
>>use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
>>Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
>>being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
>>results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
>>I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
>>faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
>>quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
>>when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
>>gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
>>content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
>>seems to use extreme measures to store their content.
>>
>>Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
>>American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
>>regular "patches" that look discontinuous.
>>
>>I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
>>far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.
>
>I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
>different. :-)

Oh, I know. I was just ranting...

>As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
>the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
>There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
>be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
>standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
>that doesn't reflect future reality.

That's sad. Here's an example of digital messing everything up. Maybe
the vast majority of consumers will "put up with it" and I might too,
just to have the convenience of live pause and replay, but this is the
case of performance not meeting the potential. CD quality for MP3 at
the highest bitrates? Debatable, but at least it's debatable. The
current state of the video signal that I receive is mostly NOT
debatable when it comes to "DVD quality", or even VCR tape quality for
that matter (at least at the best settings). Not even close. Even a
dbt would settle that pretty quickly <g>.

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 08:17 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>
>It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
>in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

d

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

ScottW

January 16th 06, 08:24 PM

dave weil wrote:
>
> Oh, I know. I was just ranting...
>
> >As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
> >the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
> >There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
> >be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
> >standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
> >that doesn't reflect future reality.
>
> That's sad. Here's an example of digital messing everything up. Maybe
> the vast majority of consumers will "put up with it" and I might too,
> just to have the convenience of live pause and replay,

That has nothing to do with digital transmission... thats just your
DVR which can do that on analogue channels today.

>but this is the
> case of performance not meeting the potential.

You boons obviously are talking from ignorance. Come by my house and
watch the SB in hi-def. It makes regular fuzzo TV look like ****.

>CD quality for MP3 at
> the highest bitrates? Debatable, but at least it's debatable. The
> current state of the video signal that I receive is mostly NOT
> debatable when it comes to "DVD quality", or even VCR tape quality for
> that matter (at least at the best settings). Not even close. Even a
> dbt would settle that pretty quickly <g>.

Did you fork the big bucks for a decent receiver? Last I looked a
hi-def DirectTV receiver was still $300. Those POS they give you with
a free install and no cost system aren't hi-def capable.

ScottW

Arny Krueger

January 16th 06, 08:32 PM

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
>>in his Garden when no one is looking ...
>
> Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Hint: consider his idea of written English.

dave weil

January 16th 06, 08:33 PM

On 16 Jan 2006 12:08:51 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
>running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
>channel 2 or 3)

No, my "input" goes to the converter box, the output of which goes to
my DVD burner via COAX then out to the TV via a video RCA jack. These
artifacts are DEFINITELY not cable or transmission dependent, but
content dependent, because, if they were, they'd be uniform regardless
of channel and they aren't. All I have to do is compare ESPN to The
Tonight Show, for example.

George M. Middius

January 16th 06, 08:33 PM

Scottie said:

> > As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
> > the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
> > There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
> > be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
> > standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
> > that doesn't reflect future reality.

> Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
> Football kicks ass in hi-def.
> Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
> baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 08:33 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:32:44 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
>>>in his Garden when no one is looking ...
>>
>> Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?
>
>Hint: consider his idea of written English.
>

I have tried - and found it wanting.

d

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

ScottW

January 16th 06, 08:41 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2006 12:13:07 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Don Pearce wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal >
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> (Don Pearce) said:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
> >> >>>>fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Do you watch movies, or TV?
> >> >>>Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
> >> >>>bother you while watching the news? :-)
> >> >>
> >> >>Not here in England, it doesn't :-)
> >> >
> >> >I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
> >> >use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
> >> >Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
> >> >being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
> >> >results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
> >> >I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
> >> >faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
> >> >quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
> >> >when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
> >> >gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
> >> >content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
> >> >seems to use extreme measures to store their content.
> >> >
> >> >Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
> >> >American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
> >> >regular "patches" that look discontinuous.
> >> >
> >> >I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
> >> >far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.
> >>
> >> I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
> >> different. :-)
> >>
> >> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
> >> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
> >> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
> >> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
> >> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
> >> that doesn't reflect future reality.
> >
> >
> > Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
> >Football kicks ass in hi-def.
> >Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
> >baseball tolerable.
> >
> One channel - right now. But you know how these things evolve. You
> don't get better - you get more. Be prepared for the downturn.
>
> >BTW... over the air HD digital takes less bandwidth than existing
> >analogue transmission.
> >
> No - it is *given* less bandwidth than analogue. That is a very
> different thing.

Semantics.... I watch it every day and it looks a 100 times better
and requires less BW.

I've seen demos of Mediaflo (video for phones) and even that highly
compressed qVGA res at 30 fps looks pretty good on a little display.
They're gonna get 20 channels of streaming qVGA video on spectrum that
1 TV braadcast used to require.

ScottW

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 08:44 PM

On 16 Jan 2006 12:41:32 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>I've seen demos of Mediaflo (video for phones) and even that highly
>compressed qVGA res at 30 fps looks pretty good on a little display.
>They're gonna get 20 channels of streaming qVGA video on spectrum that
>1 TV braadcast used to require.
>
>ScottW

If that is the broadcast world you want, you are welcome to it.

d

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

ScottW

January 16th 06, 08:52 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2006 12:08:51 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
> >running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
> >channel 2 or 3)
>
> No, my "input" goes to the converter box, the output of which goes to
> my DVD burner via COAX then out to the TV via a video RCA jack.

So your input to DVD burner is analogue RF channel 2 or 3. You
realize that is the lowest possible rez video? Then you send it out
via composite video which is the 2nd lowest rez possible. Then your
digitat TV tries to digitize and reconstruct from this crap.

With a still picture... most pixels not changing... it does ok. With
sports the whole damn thing breaks down as the TV can't digitally
reconstruct fast enough when all the pixels change. My son-in-laws
plasma looks like hell on sports before he upgraded his cable box and
got one that supports component video. The cable guys says DVI didn't
look any better to him.

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

>These
> artifacts are DEFINITELY not cable or transmission dependent, but
> content dependent, because, if they were, they'd be uniform regardless
> of channel and they aren't. All I have to do is compare ESPN to The
> Tonight Show, for example.

They are content dependent in the amount of picture area that changes
at once. Let me guess... basketball with half the screen being crowd
and tracking a length of the court pass goes all digital artifacty...
lots of little squares before the TV can smooth it all back
together..... if your "box" supported S-video or Component video out...
you wouldn't have these problems.

What kind of TV do you have?

ScottW

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 08:57 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:33:48 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Scottie said:
>
>> > As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
>> > the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
>> > There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
>> > be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
>> > standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
>> > that doesn't reflect future reality.
>
>> Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
>> Football kicks ass in hi-def.
>> Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
>> baseball tolerable.
>
>I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
>difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
>improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.
>
If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

d

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

ScottW

January 16th 06, 09:06 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> Scottie said:
>
> > > As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
> > > the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
> > > There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
> > > be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
> > > standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
> > > that doesn't reflect future reality.
>
> > Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
> > Football kicks ass in hi-def.
> > Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
> > baseball tolerable.
>
> I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
> difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
> improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

I'm overwhelmed... I don't know what to say.... two agreements in one
day...well almost.

ScottW

dave weil

January 16th 06, 09:07 PM

On 16 Jan 2006 12:52:08 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 16 Jan 2006 12:08:51 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> > Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
>> >running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
>> >channel 2 or 3)
>>
>> No, my "input" goes to the converter box, the output of which goes to
>> my DVD burner via COAX then out to the TV via a video RCA jack.
>
> So your input to DVD burner is analogue RF channel 2 or 3. You
>realize that is the lowest possible rez video? Then you send it out
>via composite video which is the 2nd lowest rez possible. Then your
>digitat TV tries to digitize and reconstruct from this crap.

I get the same artifacts when going directly from the converter box to
the the TV (which isn't digital, BTW). I have two choices, COAX or
RCA, and I don't have the choice of component video.

>With a still picture... most pixels not changing... it does ok. With
>sports the whole damn thing breaks down as the TV can't digitally
>reconstruct fast enough when all the pixels change. My son-in-laws
>plasma looks like hell on sports before he upgraded his cable box and
>got one that supports component video. The cable guys says DVI didn't
>look any better to him.
>
> Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
>all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

Still, I'm saying that there are DEFINITE compression artifacts in
certain programming and not in others (or far less). This implies that
it's content driven, not delivery driven. Some of it COULD be hard
drive related though, since I don't seem to have ANY programming that
I could confuse with DVD.

And you said "cable guy". I'm talking about satellite service, NOT
cable. I can't do a direct comparison, but I don't remember such
artifacts when I had cable.

>>These
>> artifacts are DEFINITELY not cable or transmission dependent, but
>> content dependent, because, if they were, they'd be uniform regardless
>> of channel and they aren't. All I have to do is compare ESPN to The
>> Tonight Show, for example.
>
> They are content dependent in the amount of picture area that changes
>at once. Let me guess... basketball with half the screen being crowd
>and tracking a length of the court pass goes all digital artifacty...
>lots of little squares before the TV can smooth it all back
>together..... if your "box" supported S-video or Component video out...
>you wouldn't have these problems.

Well, it doesn't. Either capability.

> What kind of TV do you have?

A simple current Toshiba 32 incher.

ScottW

January 16th 06, 09:11 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:33:48 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Scottie said:
> >
> >> > As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
> >> > the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
> >> > There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
> >> > be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
> >> > standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
> >> > that doesn't reflect future reality.
> >
> >> Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
> >> Football kicks ass in hi-def.
> >> Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
> >> baseball tolerable.
> >
> >I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
> >difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
> >improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.
> >
> If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
> speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
> abysmal quality of the previous one.

Improvement is improvement no matter how you spin it.... this one is
a truly a no-brainer.

ScottW

George M. Middius

January 16th 06, 09:18 PM

Don Pearce said:

> >I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
> >difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
> >improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.
> >
> If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
> speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
> abysmal quality of the previous one.

At last you understand. This level of service could be your video future
too. BTW, do you Brits still pay a "telly tax" for each set in your
house?

Don Pearce

January 16th 06, 09:48 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:18:01 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Don Pearce said:
>
>> >I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
>> >difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
>> >improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.
>> >
>> If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
>> speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
>> abysmal quality of the previous one.
>
>At last you understand.

You think I didn't understand this before?

>This level of service could be your video future
>too. BTW, do you Brits still pay a "telly tax" for each set in your
>house?
>

Almost - one annual fee covers as many as you want in one house. That
allows reception of the five analogue terrestrial channels - whether
on analogue, terrestrial or satellite digital plus a stack of BBC and
Independent digital channels. Other independent digital channels come
free, mostly shopping channels. There is also a terrestrial digital
pay service - no idea what is on that.

I don't particularly begrudge the money - among those five main
channels are easily the best programmes, and I really don't watch
anything else. That is one of the reasons why I resent the squeezing
of bandwidth because of the new added nonsense channels.

d

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

ScottW

January 16th 06, 10:15 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 Jan 2006 12:52:08 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On 16 Jan 2006 12:08:51 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
>>> >running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
>>> >channel 2 or 3)
>>>
>>> No, my "input" goes to the converter box, the output of which goes to
>>> my DVD burner via COAX then out to the TV via a video RCA jack.
>>
>> So your input to DVD burner is analogue RF channel 2 or 3. You
>>realize that is the lowest possible rez video? Then you send it out
>>via composite video which is the 2nd lowest rez possible. Then your
>>digitat TV tries to digitize and reconstruct from this crap.
>
> I get the same artifacts when going directly from the converter box to
> the the TV (which isn't digital, BTW). I have two choices, COAX or
> RCA, and I don't have the choice of component video.

Then you need a need a new converter box. On dishnets web site only
the 111 doesn't have better video out than coax/composite.
That is bottom of the line.

Seriously... it's your receiver that sucks.

>
>>With a still picture... most pixels not changing... it does ok. With
>>sports the whole damn thing breaks down as the TV can't digitally
>>reconstruct fast enough when all the pixels change. My son-in-laws
>>plasma looks like hell on sports before he upgraded his cable box and
>>got one that supports component video. The cable guys says DVI didn't
>>look any better to him.
>>
>> Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
>>all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.
>
> Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box. My son-in-law
has a couple.. $15/month, record HD and ties into the programming guide.
TIVO just came out with and HD recorder.... I think they're toast.

>
> Still, I'm saying that there are DEFINITE compression artifacts in
> certain programming and not in others (or far less). This implies that
> it's content driven, not delivery driven. Some of it COULD be hard
> drive related though, since I don't seem to have ANY programming that
> I could confuse with DVD.
>
> And you said "cable guy". I'm talking about satellite service, NOT
> cable. I can't do a direct comparison, but I don't remember such
> artifacts when I had cable.
>
>>>These
>>> artifacts are DEFINITELY not cable or transmission dependent, but
>>> content dependent, because, if they were, they'd be uniform regardless
>>> of channel and they aren't. All I have to do is compare ESPN to The
>>> Tonight Show, for example.
>>
>> They are content dependent in the amount of picture area that changes
>>at once. Let me guess... basketball with half the screen being crowd
>>and tracking a length of the court pass goes all digital artifacty...
>>lots of little squares before the TV can smooth it all back
>>together..... if your "box" supported S-video or Component video out...
>>you wouldn't have these problems.
>
> Well, it doesn't. Either capability.
>
>> What kind of TV do you have?
>
> A simple current Toshiba 32 incher.

If it's current it should have at least S-video inputs and probably one
component.

ScottW

dave weil

January 16th 06, 10:28 PM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:38 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>>> Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
>>>all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.
>>
>> Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?
>
>No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box.

Since you're not on the network, how do you know about the network
that *I'm* on? You're apparently not even using the same sort of
delivery system that I am.

ScottW

January 16th 06, 10:43 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:38 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>>> Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
>>>>all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.
>>>
>>> Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?
>>
>>No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box.
>
> Since you're not on the network, how do you know about the network
> that *I'm* on? You're apparently not even using the same sort of
> delivery system that I am.

What was it you said Dave? Oh yes.. "I can certainly say that the
current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME."
which of course is utter hogwash and has nothing to do with your
experience. Another example of Weil talking out his ass.

Like I said Dave... enjoy your ****ty TV picture... you deserve it.
But if you want to fix it rather than just cry and make up ignorant reasons
for your it... start with a new Sat receiver.

ScottW

[email protected]

January 17th 06, 01:39 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
> >in his Garden when no one is looking ...
>
> Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?
>
Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
(same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
forum!)
But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
"test" , the other one has a modification of it.
Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
results only have shown up. It is up to you to show that the test will
reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
audiophiles and car audio lovers. Till you have this evidence the
logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
much. Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
"test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
it does not!
To please you I looked for components where
differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.

Ludovic Mirabel

** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
> I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
> speakers should sound different. No takers.
Krueger answers:
Too easy. Been there, done that:

>

[email protected]

January 17th 06, 02:02 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder > wrote:
>
> >Don Pearce wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Fine as an experiment
> >
> >Dismissed! Ne-ext! :)
> >
> >
> >> - but nothing whatever to do with the situation
> >> I have sought to address,
> >
> >What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
> >claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. -> "it" is deluded ->
> >the proof of which is this test .. ??
> >
> >Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
> >In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
> >combinations, schemes imaginable.
> >
> No they don't. Visual senses help us in assessing an overall
> situation, but don't be fooled into thinking they aid in putting
> together sound information. Visual/optical illusions are very common.
>
> >There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
> >DBT/ABX ritual.
> >
> >> which has nothing whatever to do with groups
> >> of people and their possible perceptions.
> >
> >If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
> >powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
> >tell you anything?
> >
> If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
> them who claimed to hear a difference between cables. *THEY* are the
> ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.
> It would be a waste of time testing them.
>
> More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
> unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,
> because they simply should not be there. That is why they are the ones
> who should be tested. It is simply interesting.
>
> >Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
> >subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?
> >
> >>
> >> And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.
> >
> >You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
> >LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
> >where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
> >you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
> >consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
> >some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
> >ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
> >you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?
> >
>
> Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
> has come from you, directed at Stewart.
>
> As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
> then say whether they think it sounds nice or not. If they care to let
> it stress them, that is of course their choice. Would you find such a
> thing stressful?
>
> >
> >> I have gone
> >> out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
> >> the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
> >> the end of it.
> >
> >Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
> for the practical arrangements. Note that the
> >stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
> >arrangements" privately via email the last time around...
> >
>
> Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.
>
> As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
> anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
> arrangements for this should be kept public. The whole thing started
> in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.
>
> I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
> when I have.
>
> d
>
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Pearce says to Forwarder:

"Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart"

I understand that Pinkerton called Forwarder a "dickhead" before he got
a response in kind. This is par for the course for this self-announced
scion of Scottish aristocracy who used to sign himself Lord Pinkerton
of something or other..
An example of Pinkerton's debating style:
Sept1 2005 "Stereophile and cable theory"
I said:
"No, he simply *did not do it* when comparing level-matched or similar
gauge, especially with your preferred music signal.
Pinkerton:
"Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****."
>2) I continued: " All the panelists did well comparing
>uneven diameter cables when pink noise was played to them. The scores
>were much worse when music was used as a signal and became awful when
>similar diameters were used. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink
>noise.
Pinkerton answers:
"Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****. "
>3) " I understand that 16 Gauge vs. 24
>gauge over 50" means 1,70db volume difference. Six out of eleven
>panelists failed to hear this difference in 5 (out of fifteen) tries
>or more. I have, with my elderly ears, no difficulty hearing 1db volume
>difference between the two speakers when my stepped volume control is
>moved without my knowledge- but of course I'm not ABXing".
>Ludovic Mirabel
Pinkerton answers:
Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****."

I did not respond. I didn't know how.
I think Forwarder should be congratulated for answering in kind and in
spades. It worked . Pinkerton shut up and the RAO air cleared just a
little bit.
Moderate IQ level and aggressive sociopathic behaviour are not mutually
exclusive. Plenty of examples in recent history.
Ludovic Mirabel

..

George M. Middius

January 17th 06, 02:11 AM

said:

> Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
> show the audible differences between audio components.

I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
audible differences do not "really" exist.

Clyde Slick

January 17th 06, 05:58 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
..
>
> Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
> American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
> regular "patches" that look discontinuous.
>

Could that actually be the reality?
I have seen discontinuous looks (live events)
on baseball and football fields.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

dave weil

January 17th 06, 06:23 AM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:43:48 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:38 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
>>>>>all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?
>>>
>>>No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box.
>>
>> Since you're not on the network, how do you know about the network
>> that *I'm* on? You're apparently not even using the same sort of
>> delivery system that I am.
>
>What was it you said Dave? Oh yes.. "I can certainly say that the
>current digital compression schemes being
>use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME."
>which of course is utter hogwash and has nothing to do with your
>experience. Another example of Weil talking out his ass.

Oh bull****, you overgrown baby. You don't even HAVE a satellite
system and it's YOU that's talking out of your ass.

>Like I said Dave... enjoy your ****ty TV picture... you deserve it.
>But if you want to fix it rather than just cry and make up ignorant reasons
>for your it... start with a new Sat receiver.

Once again, if it were an issue with the cabling or the method that I
used to link receiver with TV, it would affect ALL of the programs, so
you're just full of **** again.

Go back to your big tasteless lobsters, you poor excuse for a man.
Just goes to show that money can't buy class.

dave weil

January 17th 06, 06:26 AM

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:58:42 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>.
>>
>> Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
>> American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
>> regular "patches" that look discontinuous.
>>
>
>Could that actually be the reality?
>I have seen discontinuous looks (live events)
>on baseball and football fields.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. The patches actually shift
unevenly (it's a compression artifact).

Don Pearce

January 17th 06, 08:06 AM

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:11:56 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
said:
>
>> Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
>> show the audible differences between audio components.
>
>I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
>simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
>audible differences do not "really" exist.
>
>
>
No George, you have this wrong. The purpose of the test is to allow
somebody to prove that they can hear a difference between items -
something they can at the moment merely assert. If you can show me an
aspect of my protocol that would indicate otherwise, I will gladly
change it.

d

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

January 17th 06, 05:29 PM

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal >
>>>wrote:
>>>
(Don Pearce) said:
>>>>
>>>>>No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
>>>>>fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you watch movies, or TV?
>>>>Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
>>>>bother you while watching the news? :-)
>>>
>>>Not here in England, it doesn't :-)
>>
>>I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
>>use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
>>Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
>>being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
>>results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
>>I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
>>faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
>>quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
>>when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
>>gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
>>content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
>>seems to use extreme measures to store their content.
>>
>>Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
>>American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
>>regular "patches" that look discontinuous.
>>
>>I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
>>far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.
>
> I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
> different. :-)
>
> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
> that doesn't reflect future reality.
>
> d
I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of the
picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear projection.

One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.

Don Pearce

January 17th 06, 05:38 PM

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, > wrote:

>> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
>> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
>> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
>> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
>> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
>> that doesn't reflect future reality.
>>
>> d
>I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
>on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
>picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of the
>picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear projection.
>
>One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
>that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
>that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
>improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
>
>
>

Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
and more channels want to get in on the act.

Quantity will win over quality every time, I'm afraid.

d

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

January 17th 06, 05:42 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
>> >in his Garden when no one is looking ...
>>
>> Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?
>>
> Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
> exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
> (same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
> usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
> forum!)
> But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
> Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
> "test" , the other one has a modification of it.
> Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
> show the audible differences between audio components.
>
> So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
> results only have shown up.

Liar.

It is up to you to show that the test will
> reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
> recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
> audiophiles and car audio lovers.

It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that people
can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.

Till you have this evidence the
> logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
> follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
> result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
> much.

The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that hype.

Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
> "test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
> explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
> it does not!

Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.

> To please you I looked for components where
> differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
> easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
> the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
> were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
> them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
> WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
> did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
> before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
> results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
> what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
> scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.
>
> Ludovic Mirabel
>

There is no way to do any such test that will convince you ever. You
completely ignore the fact that DBT is the standard for all research into
subtle audio difference.

> ** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
>> I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
>> speakers should sound different. No takers.
> Krueger answers:
> Too easy. Been there, done that:
>
>>
>
You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the results of
previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.

ScottW

January 17th 06, 05:46 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:43:48 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:38 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
> >>>>>all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?
> >>>
> >>>No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box.
> >>
> >> Since you're not on the network, how do you know about the network
> >> that *I'm* on? You're apparently not even using the same sort of
> >> delivery system that I am.
> >
> >What was it you said Dave? Oh yes.. "I can certainly say that the
> >current digital compression schemes being
> >use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME."
> >which of course is utter hogwash and has nothing to do with your
> >experience. Another example of Weil talking out his ass.
>
> Oh bull****, you overgrown baby. You don't even HAVE a satellite
> system and it's YOU that's talking out of your ass.

My buddy has DirectTV with the NFL package and HD. No problems on
his setup.
I know another guy on dishnet and he agrees... their lowend receivers
are ****.

You really think dishnet could survive with this quality of service if
it was network wide?
>
> >Like I said Dave... enjoy your ****ty TV picture... you deserve it.
> >But if you want to fix it rather than just cry and make up ignorant reasons
> >for your it... start with a new Sat receiver.
>
> Once again, if it were an issue with the cabling or the method that I
> used to link receiver with TV, it would affect ALL of the programs, so
> you're just full of **** again.

Sure Dave.... all programs have the same pixel change rate....
programming you watch is mostly static with moving mouths only.
Amazing your ****ty setup can't even handle the cartoon network.

>
> Go back to your big tasteless lobsters, you poor excuse for a man.

Last time I had Lobster they called 'em slippers. But I don' t even
really like lobster so I don't WTF you're raging about. Obviously,
neither do you.

> Just goes to show that money can't buy class.

I think what is really shown is that ignorance is bliss. Give you
a little knowledge and your bliss bubble is broken. Tell us why you
have the absolute bottom of the line dishnet receiver, Dave?

ScottW

Arny Krueger

January 17th 06, 05:47 PM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
>>> >in his Garden when no one is looking ...
>>>
>>> Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?
>>>
>> Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
>> exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
>> (same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
>> usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
>> forum!)
>> But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
>> Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
>> "test" , the other one has a modification of it.
>> Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
>> show the audible differences between audio components.
>>
>> So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
>> results only have shown up.
>
> Liar.
>
> It is up to you to show that the test will
>> reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
>> recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
>> audiophiles and car audio lovers.
>
> It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
> people can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
>
> Till you have this evidence the
>> logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
>> follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
>> result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
>> much.
>
> The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
> outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
> hype.
>
> Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
>> "test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
>> explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
>> it does not!
>
> Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.
>
>> To please you I looked for components where
>> differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
>> easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
>> the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
>> were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
>> them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
>> WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
>> did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
>> before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
>> results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
>> what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
>> scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.
>>
>> Ludovic Mirabel

> There is no way to do any such test that will convince you ever. You
> completely ignore the fact that DBT is the standard for all research into
> subtle audio difference.

Hey, it has been a pretty good troll...

>> ** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
>>> I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
>>> speakers should sound different. No takers.
>> Krueger answers:

>> Too easy. Been there, done that:

> You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the results
> of previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
> convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.

We're talking articles of faith here - nothing that upsets as many golden
ear applecarts as ABX could possibly be valid, right? ;-)

January 17th 06, 06:15 PM

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
>>> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
>>> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
>>> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
>>> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
>>> that doesn't reflect future reality.
>>>
>>> d
>>I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
>>on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
>>picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
>>the
>>picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
>>projection.
>>
>>One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
>>that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
>>that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
>>improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
> the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
> and more channels want to get in on the act.
>
> Quantity will win over quality every time, I'm afraid.
>
> d
>
I hope you are wrong. There is still an acceptable standard that has yet to
be decided on by the public. Of course they aren't always the best judges,
as in the case of VHS winning out over Betamax.

January 17th 06, 06:19 PM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> said:
>
>> Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
>> show the audible differences between audio components.
>
> I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
> simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
> audible differences do not "really" exist.
>
>
>
They certainly prove that the non-existent ones don't exist, which covers a
lot of gear and virtually all wire and interconnects.

[email protected]

January 17th 06, 07:22 PM

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Don Pearce wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
> >> >in his Garden when no one is looking ...
> >>
> >> Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?
> >>
> > Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
> > exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
> > (same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
> > usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
> > forum!)
> > But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
> > Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
> > "test" , the other one has a modification of it.
> > Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
> > show the audible differences between audio components.
> >
> > So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
> > results only have shown up.
>
> Liar.
>
> It is up to you to show that the test will
> > reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
> > recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
> > audiophiles and car audio lovers.
>
> It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that people
> can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
>
> Till you have this evidence the
> > logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
> > follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
> > result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
> > much.

>
> The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
> outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that hype.
>
> Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
> > "test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
> > explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
> > it does not!
>
> Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.
>
> > To please you I looked for components where
> > differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
> > easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
> > the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
> > were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
> > them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
> > WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
> > did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
> > before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
> > results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
> > what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
> > scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.
> >
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
>

> > ** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
> >> I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
> >> speakers should sound different. No takers.
> > Krueger answers:
> > Too easy. Been there, done that:
> >
> >>
> >
> You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the results of
> previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
> convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below find the "arguments" that the slight forger NYOB has to offer
in a discussion that seemed serious before the clowns danced in..
Argument #1
> Liar.
Argument #2
> It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that people
> can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
Not a QUOTE, QUOTE, QUOTE to show where and when "it was done" and how
would anyone other than the slight forger " know it"
Argument #3
> The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
> outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that hype
The question is for the nth. time. Quote one single published monitored
"test" report in which a resonably-sized listener panel recognised
differences between ANY, ANY, ANY comparable audio components. ANY,
ANY, ANY**
Argument #4
> There is no way to do any such test that will convince you ever. You
> completely ignore the fact that DBT is the standard for all research into
> subtle audio difference.
One single QUOTE, QUOTE, QUOTE to a comparison of ANY,ANY,ANY audio
components for their musical reproduction properties with a POSITIVE,
POSITIVE, POSITIVE outcome: "yes, we heard a difference". Not gossip
about "all research"
Argument #5
I said:
> Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
> > "test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
> > explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
> > it does not!
Slight forger answers:
> Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.
The hypothesis is that ABX/DBT reveals (ie. does not conceal) audio
differences. Still no EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.
It is evidence of my character flaw- inability to resist
a polemic- that I bother answering someone who not only is a true
believer but also a true believer ready to lie, invent and forge (
forgery evidence by request!- any time- it will be a pleasure).
Ludovic Mirabel
** Mr. Krueger, You're not seriously quoting your PCABX listeners'
experiences, not
moderated for statistical validity, listening equipment and ambience
etc. etc.as "evidence".
You had some contacts with genuine researchers. Did nothing rub off?

>

Arny Krueger

January 17th 06, 07:27 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...

>> > To please you I looked for components where
>> > differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
>> > easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
>> > the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET.

You're misleading and obfuscating as usual, Mirabel.

An ABX between a good SS amp and some representative SET would be fine with
me.

I just don't want to be the sucker who is in charge of acquiring the SET.

Use a speaker with a typical impedance curve, and it should be a slam dunk.

Of course I don't think we'll get any refereed journal to publish our
results. No news.

dave weil

January 17th 06, 08:25 PM

On 17 Jan 2006 09:46:10 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>Tell us why you
>have the absolute bottom of the line dishnet receiver, Dave?

It was the top end a couple of years ago, but you're wrong about it
being the "absolute bottom of the line". If things have improved, then
my wishes have been fulfilled. However, I'm not willing to take the
word of someone who quotes another person on the internet or tries to
compare disparate systems (even your friend's system isn't analogous
to mine, since he has HD *and* is on a different network - if he has
no artifacting, then that's great and is good news. Plus, I'm not sure
that you even know what to look for, since you seem to be more
concerned about how video looks on a cell phone.

Now, why don't you have live pause capabilities? One would think that
someone who finds sports so important to the video medium would be
able to use it. Plus, considering how constipated you come off on this
forum, it comes in handy during your extended bathroom visits.

Now put on your "slippers" and have some sole for lunch.

ScottW

January 17th 06, 10:41 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2006 09:46:10 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
> >Tell us why you
> >have the absolute bottom of the line dishnet receiver, Dave?
>
> It was the top end a couple of years ago, but you're wrong about it
> being the "absolute bottom of the line".

Here's Dishnets current line of receiver offerings.
The 111 is the only one listed that doesn't at least support S-video.
http://www.dishnet.dishontheweb.com/technology.jsp

Its clearly bottom of the line.

So let me quess Dave... when you signed up for dishnet you took the
"free" equipment package...didn't you?

>If things have improved, then
> my wishes have been fulfilled. However, I'm not willing to take the
> word of someone who quotes another person on the internet or tries to
> compare disparate systems (even your friend's system isn't analogous
> to mine, since he has HD *and* is on a different network - if he has
> no artifacting, then that's great and is good news.

Maybe if you could do some research and understand you'd find that
dishnet with their 500 channel offering is often described as the worst
of the sat suppliers. Of course this has nothing to do with the
content sourcing networks or digital TV in general as you would have us
believe. Its your crappy equipment on your crappy sat service
provider.

> Plus, I'm not sure
> that you even know what to look for, since you seem to be more
> concerned about how video looks on a cell phone.

Spin spin spin..... Just pointing out that I do get to see highly
compressed video that looks pretty good... coming to a cell phone near
you before the end of this year.
>
> Now, why don't you have live pause capabilities? One would think that
> someone who finds sports so important to the video medium would be
> able to use it.

Never felt the need to relive history... I might like to record but
live pause and being stuck in the past never appealed to me. But rest
assured Dave, if I went that route I wouldn't be doing it with obsolete
technology like you are.. and then complaining about the results.

>Plus, considering how constipated you come off on this
> forum, it comes in handy during your extended bathroom visits.

Now Dave, try to control your envy. It isn't my fault you shell out
good money for ****ty video.

ScottW

ScottW

January 18th 06, 02:49 AM

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
>>> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
>>> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
>>> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
>>> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
>>> that doesn't reflect future reality.
>>>
>>> d
>>I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
>>on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
>>picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
>>the
>>picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
>>projection.
>>
>>One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
>>that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
>>that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
>>improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
> the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
> and more channels want to get in on the act.

Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth to the
problem.

Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?

http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/fl/technology/technology.html

Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the country.

ScottW

EddieM

January 18th 06, 03:24 AM

Don Pearce wrote:

> The purpose of the test is to allow
> somebody to prove that they can hear a difference between items -
> something they can at the moment merely assert. If you can show me an
> aspect of my protocol that would indicate otherwise, I will gladly
> change it.

Yeah, why don't you first prove that your stupid audio testing work --
something that you at the moment could only assert.

> Pearce Consulting

EddieM

January 18th 06, 03:28 AM

> nyob123 wrote
>> George M. Middius wrote
>>> elmir2m said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
>>> show the audible differences between audio components.
>>
>> I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
>> simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
>> audible differences do not "really" exist.
>
>
> They certainly prove that the non-existent ones don't exist, which covers a
> lot of gear and virtually all wire and interconnects.

"They" should refer to the people that design the experiment.

You need to pull your head out of your ass once in a while Bozo.

[email protected]

January 18th 06, 07:03 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:11:56 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> said:
> >
> >> Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
> >> show the audible differences between audio components.
> >
> >I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
> >simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
> >audible differences do not "really" exist.
> >
> >
> >
> No George, you have this wrong. The purpose of the test is to allow
> somebody to prove that they can hear a difference between items -
> something they can at the moment merely assert. If you can show me an
> aspect of my protocol that would indicate otherwise, I will gladly
> change it.
>
> d
>
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don Pearce says:
>The purpose of the test is to allow
> somebody to prove that they can hear a difference between items -
> something they can at the moment merely assert. If you can show me an
> aspect of my protocol that would indicate otherwise, I will gladly
> change it.

Don't change it. Show that it does serve to show "differences between
items". Show that it WORKS. Just a few good references!
If you do you'll make history of science. It will be the first time
that a tool for sure- fire tool for distinguishing one painting
reproduction from another, one violin from another, one clarinet from
another and so on and on was invented and experimentally proved to
work.
Regards Ludovic Mirabel

dave weil

January 18th 06, 02:06 PM

On 17 Jan 2006 14:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 17 Jan 2006 09:46:10 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>
>> >Tell us why you
>> >have the absolute bottom of the line dishnet receiver, Dave?
>>
>> It was the top end a couple of years ago, but you're wrong about it
>> being the "absolute bottom of the line".
>
> Here's Dishnets current line of receiver offerings.
>The 111 is the only one listed that doesn't at least support S-video.
>http://www.dishnet.dishontheweb.com/technology.jsp
>
> Its clearly bottom of the line.
>
> So let me quess Dave... when you signed up for dishnet you took the
>"free" equipment package...didn't you?
>
>>If things have improved, then
>> my wishes have been fulfilled. However, I'm not willing to take the
>> word of someone who quotes another person on the internet or tries to
>> compare disparate systems (even your friend's system isn't analogous
>> to mine, since he has HD *and* is on a different network - if he has
>> no artifacting, then that's great and is good news.
>
> Maybe if you could do some research and understand you'd find that
>dishnet with their 500 channel offering is often described as the worst
>of the sat suppliers. Of course this has nothing to do with the
>content sourcing networks or digital TV in general as you would have us
>believe. Its your crappy equipment on your crappy sat service
>provider.
>
>> Plus, I'm not sure
>> that you even know what to look for, since you seem to be more
>> concerned about how video looks on a cell phone.
>
> Spin spin spin..... Just pointing out that I do get to see highly
>compressed video that looks pretty good... coming to a cell phone near
>you before the end of this year.
>>
>> Now, why don't you have live pause capabilities? One would think that
>> someone who finds sports so important to the video medium would be
>> able to use it.
>
> Never felt the need to relive history... I might like to record but
>live pause and being stuck in the past never appealed to me. But rest
>assured Dave, if I went that route I wouldn't be doing it with obsolete
>technology like you are.. and then complaining about the results.
>
>>Plus, considering how constipated you come off on this
>> forum, it comes in handy during your extended bathroom visits.
>
> Now Dave, try to control your envy. It isn't my fault you shell out
>good money for ****ty video.

Well, now I can reveal the truth...OF COURSE I have S-video. I gave
you enough hints to give you the chance to back off of your "cabling
theory", but you were so convinced of your position, you couldn't see
it. What hints? The current Toshiba TV. The DVR satellite box. The DVD
recorder.

I also wanted to see how far into personal insults you would dive
into. You didn't disappoint.

Now, as to your paragraph regarding Dish Network (the TRUE name of the
service - Dishnet is a retailer in Florida), thanks for supporting my
contention (and by extention, Mr. Pierce's). Yes, I have the 500
package. Yes, I have Dish Network. And the results are exactly as I
claimed, which you tried to claim was due to my shoddy cabling
choices. Time for you to eat some crow. You tried to make the "facts"
fit your hypothesis.

Now, I'm sorry that you don't have the most current technology
available to you, despite all of the money that you've thrown at the
situation, but I can tell you that if you ever go DVR, you'll never go
back. Now, I have no idea whether or not the DVR process itself
creates visible compression, but it certainly could be a contributing
factor in my system. I don't have a "plain Jane" box to compare it
with.

Just for giggles, I hooked up RCA cabling last night to see if you
could have been correct. As far as I could see, it made no impact on
compression artifacts. Also, to test the content theory, I went to
what I consider the worst offender, NBC and watched a little of Scrubs
during prime time. It was the same with either cable. This is current
"real time" broadcasting. And no, I can't seem to find a single
channel where there's NO compression evident, although some of the
content providers are better than others (ESPN and FX being pretty
good, for example).

It was rather foolish of you to use your cable system to try to
discredit my claims about satellite reception. I hinted that I
suspected that when I had cable, it was probably better. In fact, I'm
thinking of going back to cable because of it, especially since they
offer DVR now (they didn't offer it at the time I switched), DVR being
quite important to me at this point.

I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
use a particularly bad compression scheme. You seem to support Mr.
Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
the actual broadcast. Now this is just speculation on my part, because
I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).

Now, I hope that you're able to get past your anger and have a
constructive day...

George M. Middius

January 18th 06, 02:14 PM

dave weil said:

> Now, I'm sorry that you don't have the most current technology
> available to you, despite all of the money that you've thrown at the
> situation, but I can tell you that if you ever go DVR, you'll never go
> back. Now, I have no idea whether or not the DVR process itself
> creates visible compression, but it certainly could be a contributing
> factor in my system. I don't have a "plain Jane" box to compare it
> with.

I have the impression that the picture from a DVR recording is not quite
as sharp as when you watch HDTV live. It's still miles ahead of the
standard TV picture, though.

George M. Middius

January 18th 06, 02:18 PM

dave weil said:

> I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
> use a particularly bad compression scheme. You seem to support Mr.
> Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
> the actual broadcast. Now this is just speculation on my part, because
> I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
> treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
> switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).

The cause of your compression might not be NBC per se. On my cable feed,
the NBC station is about the same as CBS. ABC and HBO might be a hair
better, but it's not an obvious difference. However, I get more
artifacts and freeze-ups on ABC shows than any other network. Also,
sometimes on NBC shows, the widescreen HD version disappears for part of
the show, and all you get is the standard 4x3 version. Then it'll
randomly switch back to the HD version. Do you have that problem with
Dish? I'm sure it emanates from the source, i.e. the local broadcast
station.

dave weil

January 18th 06, 03:01 PM

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:18:46 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
>> use a particularly bad compression scheme. You seem to support Mr.
>> Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
>> the actual broadcast. Now this is just speculation on my part, because
>> I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
>> treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
>> switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).
>
>The cause of your compression might not be NBC per se. On my cable feed,
>the NBC station is about the same as CBS. ABC and HBO might be a hair
>better, but it's not an obvious difference. However, I get more
>artifacts and freeze-ups on ABC shows than any other network. Also,
>sometimes on NBC shows, the widescreen HD version disappears for part of
>the show, and all you get is the standard 4x3 version. Then it'll
>randomly switch back to the HD version. Do you have that problem with
>Dish? I'm sure it emanates from the source, i.e. the local broadcast
>station.

I don't do HD.

I'm not willing to guess about HD because I don't have it. The reason
that I guess it's NBC is because I get the same sort of "smearing"
when I watch reruns of West Wing on Bravo as when I watch the new
shows on NBC. The artifacts are quite similar. That's why I guess that
it's a storage issue. Plus, I don't get that level of smearing on many
of the other channels on Dish. Also, when I watch the news on the NBC
affiliate, the quality is much better in terms of artifacts (but you
can still see some compression being used). I haven't watched in a
while, but it seems to me that the NBC late night shows aren't
*nearly* as bad either, although they *are* worse than, say ESPN. So
there might be some problems converting and storing filmed programming
as opposed to video, but other network's programs being broadcast on
3rd party channels don't seem to be affected so badly. for instance,
right now, Spin City's on FX. It's not NEARLY as bad, although there
*is* some compression visible.

It's probably a combination of the DVR, the transmission *and* the
storage means since presumably there's compression being used in each
case.

What's funny is the importance that I now attach to DVR. It has really
changed the way I watch TV. Sometimes I even time shift when I don't
have to, just so that I can watch *live* and zip through the
commercials in about 5 seconds. I no longer have to worry about
missing something because the phone rings, or when I have to go run
errands. I just let it run and come back and rewind to the point where
I stopped watching. Or, when I'm doing oher things in other parts of
the house, I can set up an autotune to a program that's going to start
in a couple of hours and I don't have to worry about getting back to
the TV to change the channel, PLUS, I don't even have to worry about
getting back to the TV at the start of the program (or, if I decide
not to watch the program live, I just record it. I can be 20 minutes
late back to the program and just rewind. and it makes it very easy to
record live music on the late night shows. I don't have to be captive
at the start of the perfromance. I can miss it by almost an hour and
still go back and record it (although this means that I'll miss
everything after that until "real time" because once you stop the
recording, it sends you back to current time, at least on my
receiver).

It's so pervasive in its influence that I sometimes wish I had it in
my car when I'm listening to NPR on my way to work and I realize that
I missed a name or a reference and I almost catch myself reaching for
the rewind putton <g>. I would rather give up a little visual quality
than to lose DVR at this point. I guess I need to turn in my Arnold
Krueger-issued Luddites Unite membership card.

Well, KIng of the Hill is on, so I suppose I should go now. Oh wait, I
don't have to. I can just rewind. In fact, I think I'll do that so
that I can skip the commercials

ScottW

January 18th 06, 06:34 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2006 14:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> Well, now I can reveal the truth...

So up to this point.... you're an admitted liar. Nice Dave.

>OF COURSE I have S-video. I gave
> you enough hints to give you the chance to back off of your "cabling
> theory", but you were so convinced of your position, you couldn't see
> it. What hints? The current Toshiba TV. The DVR satellite box. The DVD
> recorder.
>
> I also wanted to see how far into personal insults you would dive
> into. You didn't disappoint.

I have no problem with personally insulting liars. They deserve it.

>
> Now, as to your paragraph regarding Dish Network (the TRUE name of the
> service - Dishnet is a retailer in Florida), thanks for supporting my
> contention (and by extention, Mr. Pierce's). Yes, I have the 500
> package. Yes, I have Dish Network. And the results are exactly as I
> claimed, which you tried to claim was due to my shoddy cabling
> choices. Time for you to eat some crow. You tried to make the "facts"
> fit your hypothesis.
>
> Now, I'm sorry that you don't have the most current technology
> available to you, despite all of the money that you've thrown at the
> situation, but I can tell you that if you ever go DVR, you'll never go
> back. Now, I have no idea whether or not the DVR process itself
> creates visible compression, but it certainly could be a contributing
> factor in my system. I don't have a "plain Jane" box to compare it
> with.
>
> Just for giggles, I hooked up RCA cabling last night to see if you
> could have been correct. As far as I could see, it made no impact on
> compression artifacts. Also, to test the content theory, I went to
> what I consider the worst offender, NBC and watched a little of Scrubs
> during prime time. It was the same with either cable. This is current
> "real time" broadcasting.

Throw up some rabbit ears and check (or is Nashville too remote to
have an NBC broadcast outlet?) I'm sure your digital artifact problem
won't exist proving its your sat provider.

>And no, I can't seem to find a single
> channel where there's NO compression evident, although some of the
> content providers are better than others (ESPN and FX being pretty
> good, for example).
>
> It was rather foolish of you to use your cable system to try to
> discredit my claims about satellite reception. I hinted that I
> suspected that when I had cable, it was probably better. In fact, I'm
> thinking of going back to cable because of it, especially since they
> offer DVR now (they didn't offer it at the time I switched), DVR being
> quite important to me at this point.
>
> I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
> use a particularly bad compression scheme.

It's not NBC you ****... its Dishnet that creates your problem which
may be aggravated by your DVR... did you try pulling it out of the
chain?

>You seem to support Mr.
> Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
> the actual broadcast.

Yeah... for dishnet... not DirectTV.. and absolutely not for cable or
digital broadcast.
Once again you guys take a problem that is currently lim

>Now this is just speculation on my part, because
> I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
> treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
> switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).
>
> Now, I hope that you're able to get past your anger and have a
> constructive day...

I can see why you live alone Dave.

ScottW

ScottW

January 18th 06, 06:53 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> dave weil said:
>
> > I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
> > use a particularly bad compression scheme. You seem to support Mr.
> > Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
> > the actual broadcast. Now this is just speculation on my part, because
> > I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
> > treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
> > switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).
>
> The cause of your compression might not be NBC per se.

Definitely isn't.

> On my cable feed,
> the NBC station is about the same as CBS. ABC and HBO might be a hair
> better, but it's not an obvious difference.

It all depends on the source material. INHD and Discovery channel
has a lot of content filmed in native HD. Its spectacular..... Some
of the sporting events have HD cameras and look great... some are just
upconverted and don't look so good. Sometime they don't even bother
with widescreen and send 4x3 in NTSC rez on the HD channel. Its
blatantly obvious though. Sometimes inHD offers an old movie they
digitized from film... its not close to native HD.

>However, I get more
> artifacts and freeze-ups on ABC shows than any other network. Also,
> sometimes on NBC shows, the widescreen HD version disappears for part of
> the show, and all you get is the standard 4x3 version. Then it'll
> randomly switch back to the HD version.

I find ABC to be good. The one HD channel that has issues is WB and
its mostly audio dropouts with some pixeling. Definitely signal loss
on the feed. No way to tell if thats at the source... the local
broadcaster... the cable company or what. But it is definitely
restricted to WB.
The signal path gets so convoluted as the cable companies have to pick
up the local guys content (adds) it just mucks things up. I liked it
back when satellite just went blank during commercial breaks.

ScottW

ScottW

January 18th 06, 07:02 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:18:46 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
> Well, KIng of the Hill is on, so I suppose I should go now. Oh wait, I
> don't have to. I can just rewind. In fact, I think I'll do that so
> that I can skip the commercials

Are you allowed to watch shows on Fox?

ScottW

dave weil

January 18th 06, 07:32 PM

On 18 Jan 2006 10:34:34 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 17 Jan 2006 14:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> Well, now I can reveal the truth...
>
> So up to this point.... you're an admitted liar. Nice Dave.

Well, I *could* be lying now. <g>

Look, you jumped on a statement of mine that it turns out that you
support anyway with a bunch of nonsense about *your* setup (bragging
all the way) which had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I
just felt that you should be led along a little bit to see how far you
would go.

>>OF COURSE I have S-video. I gave
>> you enough hints to give you the chance to back off of your "cabling
>> theory", but you were so convinced of your position, you couldn't see
>> it. What hints? The current Toshiba TV. The DVR satellite box. The DVD
>> recorder.
>>
>> I also wanted to see how far into personal insults you would dive
>> into. You didn't disappoint.
>
> I have no problem with personally insulting liars. They deserve it.

Well then, since I'm apparently a personally insulting liar, I guess
you don't have a problem with me. I guess I deserve you not having a
problem with me...<chuckle>

Guess you're ****ed to have been shown that you let your personal
feelings override your "science".

>> Now, as to your paragraph regarding Dish Network (the TRUE name of the
>> service - Dishnet is a retailer in Florida), thanks for supporting my
>> contention (and by extention, Mr. Pierce's). Yes, I have the 500
>> package. Yes, I have Dish Network. And the results are exactly as I
>> claimed, which you tried to claim was due to my shoddy cabling
>> choices. Time for you to eat some crow. You tried to make the "facts"
>> fit your hypothesis.
>>
>> Now, I'm sorry that you don't have the most current technology
>> available to you, despite all of the money that you've thrown at the
>> situation, but I can tell you that if you ever go DVR, you'll never go
>> back. Now, I have no idea whether or not the DVR process itself
>> creates visible compression, but it certainly could be a contributing
>> factor in my system. I don't have a "plain Jane" box to compare it
>> with.
>>
>> Just for giggles, I hooked up RCA cabling last night to see if you
>> could have been correct. As far as I could see, it made no impact on
>> compression artifacts. Also, to test the content theory, I went to
>> what I consider the worst offender, NBC and watched a little of Scrubs
>> during prime time. It was the same with either cable. This is current
>> "real time" broadcasting.
>
> Throw up some rabbit ears and check (or is Nashville too remote to
>have an NBC broadcast outlet?) I'm sure your digital artifact problem
>won't exist proving its your sat provider.

Well gee. That's what I said in the first place. And it sent you into
orbit. You claimed (or implied at least) that it *couldn't* be the
satellite delivery system, that it had to be my cables and/or a "cheap
bottom-feeding receiver". Glad to see that you've come around.

>>And no, I can't seem to find a single
>> channel where there's NO compression evident, although some of the
>> content providers are better than others (ESPN and FX being pretty
>> good, for example).
>>
>> It was rather foolish of you to use your cable system to try to
>> discredit my claims about satellite reception. I hinted that I
>> suspected that when I had cable, it was probably better. In fact, I'm
>> thinking of going back to cable because of it, especially since they
>> offer DVR now (they didn't offer it at the time I switched), DVR being
>> quite important to me at this point.
>>
>> I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
>> use a particularly bad compression scheme.
>
> It's not NBC you ****... its Dishnet

I have nothing to do with Dishnet, nor do they have anything to do
with me. I got my Dish Network system from a different retailer. and
yet, NBC has a problem that is far worse than most of the other
channels on my system, so I *suspect* (please take careful note of the
word) that much of it *might* have something to do with the product
that they deliver to the satellite provider.

> that creates your problem which
>may be aggravated by your DVR... did you try pulling it out of the
>chain?

Hmmm, did you think about the fact that if I "pull it out of the
chain", I'd get no signal from the satellite?

>>You seem to support Mr.
>> Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
>> the actual broadcast.
>
> Yeah... for dishnet... not DirectTV..

i spoke about my own experience (I even capitalized the word ME in the
initial post). And that's just about 50% of the satellite delivery
systems in the US. I can't tell you about Direct TV, and frankly, I'm
not willing to take your word for hearsay evidence. I'm guessing that
if someone has a large package from them, that they might also suffer
the same sort of images due to bandwidth limitations. But, unlike you,
I'm not willing to declare this since I haven't auditioned them. I
tend to comment on personal experience. I'm not willing to pretend
authority on something that I haven't seen for myself. You might try
it sometime.

>and absolutely not for cable or
>digital broadcast.
>Once again you guys take a problem that is currently lim

I hate when problems are lim.

>>Now this is just speculation on my part, because
>> I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
>> treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
>> switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).
>>
>> Now, I hope that you're able to get past your anger and have a
>> constructive day...
>
> I can see why you live alone Dave.

Well, I guess you can't.

dave weil

January 18th 06, 07:40 PM

On 18 Jan 2006 11:02:28 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:18:46 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
>> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>>
>> Well, KIng of the Hill is on, so I suppose I should go now. Oh wait, I
>> don't have to. I can just rewind. In fact, I think I'll do that so
>> that I can skip the commercials
>
> Are you allowed to watch shows on Fox?

Of course, especially since most of their "entertainment programming"
is the very stuff that their news outlet rails against.

Strange that you watch ABC, because we know how you feel about Mark
Halperin.

BTW, sorry that you feel a bit outsmarted today. I didn't mean to
impact your job performance.

ScottW

January 18th 06, 08:02 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2006 10:34:34 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On 17 Jan 2006 14:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, now I can reveal the truth...
> >
> > So up to this point.... you're an admitted liar. Nice Dave.
>
> Well, I *could* be lying now. <g>

Most probably are.
>
> Look, you jumped on a statement of mine that it turns out that you
> support anyway with a bunch of nonsense about *your* setup (bragging
> all the way) which had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I
> just felt that you should be led along a little bit to see how far you
> would go.

I've seen exactly the problem you describe on a good quality plasma
that was the converter box. Upgrade the box to component video out
and the problem went away.
Nothing to do with NBC or "storage compression".
>
> >>OF COURSE I have S-video. I gave
> >> you enough hints to give you the chance to back off of your "cabling
> >> theory", but you were so convinced of your position, you couldn't see
> >> it. What hints? The current Toshiba TV. The DVR satellite box. The DVD
> >> recorder.
> >>
> >> I also wanted to see how far into personal insults you would dive
> >> into. You didn't disappoint.
> >
> > I have no problem with personally insulting liars. They deserve it.
>
> Well then, since I'm apparently a personally insulting liar, I guess
> you don't have a problem with me. I guess I deserve you not having a
> problem with me...<chuckle>

I have no problem with you Dave. If you had any character you'd have
a problem with yourself... but you don't.
>
> Guess you're ****ed to have been shown that you let your personal
> feelings override your "science".

What "science" Dave?
>
> >> Now, as to your paragraph regarding Dish Network (the TRUE name of the
> >> service - Dishnet is a retailer in Florida), thanks for supporting my
> >> contention (and by extention, Mr. Pierce's). Yes, I have the 500
> >> package. Yes, I have Dish Network. And the results are exactly as I
> >> claimed, which you tried to claim was due to my shoddy cabling
> >> choices. Time for you to eat some crow. You tried to make the "facts"
> >> fit your hypothesis.
> >>
> >> Now, I'm sorry that you don't have the most current technology
> >> available to you, despite all of the money that you've thrown at the
> >> situation, but I can tell you that if you ever go DVR, you'll never go
> >> back. Now, I have no idea whether or not the DVR process itself
> >> creates visible compression, but it certainly could be a contributing
> >> factor in my system. I don't have a "plain Jane" box to compare it
> >> with.
> >>
> >> Just for giggles, I hooked up RCA cabling last night to see if you
> >> could have been correct. As far as I could see, it made no impact on
> >> compression artifacts. Also, to test the content theory, I went to
> >> what I consider the worst offender, NBC and watched a little of Scrubs
> >> during prime time. It was the same with either cable. This is current
> >> "real time" broadcasting.
> >
> > Throw up some rabbit ears and check (or is Nashville too remote to
> >have an NBC broadcast outlet?) I'm sure your digital artifact problem
> >won't exist proving its your sat provider.
>
> Well gee. That's what I said in the first place. And it sent you into
> orbit.

What you said in the first place was smearing digital technology in a
broad scope.

"I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being

use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME. "

What you really have is a problem with one Sat service provider (they
aren't equal you know) who isn't limited to providing ****ty service in
just the US and has nothing to do with storage.

Your statement is simply irrepairably flawed.

>You claimed (or implied at least) that it *couldn't* be the
> satellite delivery system, that it had to be my cables and/or a "cheap
> bottom-feeding receiver". Glad to see that you've come around.

I'm sure if you had the reciever you originally claimed to have...
your problems would be worse. But you chose to obfuscate and lie...
sacrifice any shred of moral character you had... just to play your
debating trade game. Hope it was worth it.
>
> >>And no, I can't seem to find a single
> >> channel where there's NO compression evident, although some of the
> >> content providers are better than others (ESPN and FX being pretty
> >> good, for example).
> >>
> >> It was rather foolish of you to use your cable system to try to
> >> discredit my claims about satellite reception. I hinted that I
> >> suspected that when I had cable, it was probably better. In fact, I'm
> >> thinking of going back to cable because of it, especially since they
> >> offer DVR now (they didn't offer it at the time I switched), DVR being
> >> quite important to me at this point.
> >>
> >> I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
> >> use a particularly bad compression scheme.
> >
> > It's not NBC you ****... its Dishnet
>
> I have nothing to do with Dishnet, nor do they have anything to do
> with me.

Then why does your sat service provider have a website... dishnet.com?

Keep grasping at straws in frantic efforts to acquire a point in your
game. Let me know when you score.

>I got my Dish Network system from a different retailer. and
> yet, NBC has a problem that is far worse than most of the other
> channels on my system, so I *suspect* (please take careful note of the
> word) that much of it *might* have something to do with the product
> that they deliver to the satellite provider.
>
> > that creates your problem which
> >may be aggravated by your DVR... did you try pulling it out of the
> >chain?
>
> Hmmm, did you think about the fact that if I "pull it out of the
> chain", I'd get no signal from the satellite?

So now you have an integrated DVR/receiver. I guess in your king of
the hill appreciating world... you have plenty of time to waste.
>
> >>You seem to support Mr.
> >> Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
> >> the actual broadcast.
> >
> > Yeah... for dishnet... not DirectTV..
>
> i spoke about my own experience (I even capitalized the word ME in the
> initial post). And that's just about 50% of the satellite delivery
> systems in the US.

So you personally have 50% of the sat delivery systems in the US.
Thats one hell of an accomplishment their Dave.

> I can't tell you about Direct TV, and frankly, I'm
> not willing to take your word for hearsay evidence.

Check the web.. lots of dishnet subscribers complaining about digital
artifacts and dishnet compression. OTOH.. DirectTV complaints are
mostly signal strength related. Good signal.. good picture.

>I'm guessing that
> if someone has a large package from them, that they might also suffer
> the same sort of images due to bandwidth limitations.

You're beyond dumb... what the hell do you mean large package? You
think they're using PtoP transmission? Its a broadcast you dip****..
everyone gets the same thing. They just control what you can
receive... not what they xmit.

You need to just purge your house of all things more technically
complicated than an alarm clock. I think Quaker is the best life
style for you.. except they'd expect you to quit lying.

ScottW

dave weil

January 18th 06, 08:45 PM

On 18 Jan 2006 12:02:06 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 18 Jan 2006 10:34:34 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dave weil wrote:
>> >> On 17 Jan 2006 14:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Well, now I can reveal the truth...
>> >
>> > So up to this point.... you're an admitted liar. Nice Dave.
>>
>> Well, I *could* be lying now. <g>
>
> Most probably are.
>>
>> Look, you jumped on a statement of mine that it turns out that you
>> support anyway with a bunch of nonsense about *your* setup (bragging
>> all the way) which had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I
>> just felt that you should be led along a little bit to see how far you
>> would go.
>
> I've seen exactly the problem you describe on a good quality plasma
>that was the converter box. Upgrade the box to component video out
>and the problem went away.

Before, it was just upgrade to S-video.

>Nothing to do with NBC or "storage compression".

Which of course is why I don't get the same level of artifacts on ESPN
or most other channels <guffaw>.

>> >>OF COURSE I have S-video. I gave
>> >> you enough hints to give you the chance to back off of your "cabling
>> >> theory", but you were so convinced of your position, you couldn't see
>> >> it. What hints? The current Toshiba TV. The DVR satellite box. The DVD
>> >> recorder.
>> >>
>> >> I also wanted to see how far into personal insults you would dive
>> >> into. You didn't disappoint.
>> >
>> > I have no problem with personally insulting liars. They deserve it.
>>
>> Well then, since I'm apparently a personally insulting liar, I guess
>> you don't have a problem with me. I guess I deserve you not having a
>> problem with me...<chuckle>
>
> I have no problem with you Dave.

You MUST be kidding.

> If you had any character you'd have
>a problem with yourself... but you don't.

Nah, you don't have a problem with me. That's the reason that you find
any opportunity to go after the things that I say and why you make
comments like the above.

>> Guess you're ****ed to have been shown that you let your personal
>> feelings override your "science".
>
> What "science" Dave?

Exactly!

>> >> Now, as to your paragraph regarding Dish Network (the TRUE name of the
>> >> service - Dishnet is a retailer in Florida), thanks for supporting my
>> >> contention (and by extention, Mr. Pierce's). Yes, I have the 500
>> >> package. Yes, I have Dish Network. And the results are exactly as I
>> >> claimed, which you tried to claim was due to my shoddy cabling
>> >> choices. Time for you to eat some crow. You tried to make the "facts"
>> >> fit your hypothesis.
>> >>
>> >> Now, I'm sorry that you don't have the most current technology
>> >> available to you, despite all of the money that you've thrown at the
>> >> situation, but I can tell you that if you ever go DVR, you'll never go
>> >> back. Now, I have no idea whether or not the DVR process itself
>> >> creates visible compression, but it certainly could be a contributing
>> >> factor in my system. I don't have a "plain Jane" box to compare it
>> >> with.
>> >>
>> >> Just for giggles, I hooked up RCA cabling last night to see if you
>> >> could have been correct. As far as I could see, it made no impact on
>> >> compression artifacts. Also, to test the content theory, I went to
>> >> what I consider the worst offender, NBC and watched a little of Scrubs
>> >> during prime time. It was the same with either cable. This is current
>> >> "real time" broadcasting.
>> >
>> > Throw up some rabbit ears and check (or is Nashville too remote to
>> >have an NBC broadcast outlet?) I'm sure your digital artifact problem
>> >won't exist proving its your sat provider.
>>
>> Well gee. That's what I said in the first place. And it sent you into
>> orbit.
>
> What you said in the first place was smearing digital technology in a
>broad scope.

No it wasn't. First of all, it was confined to satellite
transmissions. Second of all, it was clearly based on my personal
experience with a certain delivery system. You tried to DEFEND "DT" in
a broad scope, even though you didn't believe it yourself.

>"I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
>used in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME. "

You see? Even you agree that the satellite transmission of the 500
channel Dish Network package isn't all that good. And I maintain that
compression is part of the problem, if not most of the problem. the
reason i say that is that what I see is analogous to heavy compression
schemes with digital photgraphy (something that I have some experience
in). Maybe it's just coincidence that the banding that I see looks
like some of the lower rez jpeg levels.

> What you really have is a problem with one Sat service provider (they
>aren't equal you know) who isn't limited to providing ****ty service in
>just the US and has nothing to do with storage.

I DON'T know that they aren't equal. And you apparently haven't even
SEEN a Dish Network 500 channel package and you might not have seen a
Direct TV similar package.

> Your statement is simply irrepairably flawed.

And you can't say that it isn't due to compression. In fact, these
artifacts can ONLY come from compression, as far as I know. I'm not
talking about snow, or raster, or herringbone, or any of the other
"signal strength" and "interference" issues. and since I DEFINITELY
have those issues, AND, you agree that my provider has problems with
their quality, my statement holds perfectly together. After all, I
didn't say *all* satellite transmissions, so it's absolutely true,
according to you.

>>You claimed (or implied at least) that it *couldn't* be the
>> satellite delivery system, that it had to be my cables and/or a "cheap
>> bottom-feeding receiver". Glad to see that you've come around.
>
> I'm sure if you had the reciever you originally claimed to have...
>your problems would be worse.

I don't know. As you said, the DVR portion *might* very well be
contributing, so a 'simpler" receiver *could* offer a better picture,
even if it doesn't use S-video. After all, RCA connectors didn't 'fix"
the problem that I described, even though the picture wasn't *quite*
as good in terms of sharpness as the S-video connection (but that's a
different issue).

> But you chose to obfuscate and lie...

No, I chose to trick you inmuch the same way that Tom Nousaine's
friend's son tricked him by secretely substituting an SS amp for his
tube amp. And then, you started to try to make the "facts" fit your
hypothesis. *That's* the sort of "science" that you were asking about.

>sacrifice any shred of moral character you had... just to play your
>debating trade game. Hope it was worth it.

Well, since you don't seem to have learned anything from this
excercise, it probably wasn't.

>> >>And no, I can't seem to find a single
>> >> channel where there's NO compression evident, although some of the
>> >> content providers are better than others (ESPN and FX being pretty
>> >> good, for example).
>> >>
>> >> It was rather foolish of you to use your cable system to try to
>> >> discredit my claims about satellite reception. I hinted that I
>> >> suspected that when I had cable, it was probably better. In fact, I'm
>> >> thinking of going back to cable because of it, especially since they
>> >> offer DVR now (they didn't offer it at the time I switched), DVR being
>> >> quite important to me at this point.
>> >>
>> >> I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
>> >> use a particularly bad compression scheme.
>> >
>> > It's not NBC you ****... its Dishnet
>>
>> I have nothing to do with Dishnet, nor do they have anything to do
>> with me.
>
> Then why does your sat service provider have a website... dishnet.com?

Why don't you look closer at that website and then compare it to this
one:

http://www.dishnetwork.com/

Then get back to me.

> Keep grasping at straws in frantic efforts to acquire a point in your
>game. Let me know when you score.

OK, now that you've gone to http://www.dishnetwork.com/, I suppose
it's time to say 40 love.

>>I got my Dish Network system from a different retailer. and
>> yet, NBC has a problem that is far worse than most of the other
>> channels on my system, so I *suspect* (please take careful note of the
>> word) that much of it *might* have something to do with the product
>> that they deliver to the satellite provider.
>>
>> > that creates your problem which
>> >may be aggravated by your DVR... did you try pulling it out of the
>> >chain?
>>
>> Hmmm, did you think about the fact that if I "pull it out of the
>> chain", I'd get no signal from the satellite?
>
> So now you have an integrated DVR/receiver.

Well yes. That's why I made the TIVO-esque remark. That's why I've
been talking about rewinding and pausing live TV. If you're curious,
I have the older 5 series receiver that you might have seen when you
went to "dishnet".

> I guess in your king of
>the hill appreciating world... you have plenty of time to waste.

Yes, i happen to like that show, because it's a damn fine show. It's
probably too "highbrow" for a San Diegoian like you though.

>> >>You seem to support Mr.
>> >> Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
>> >> the actual broadcast.
>> >
>> > Yeah... for dishnet... not DirectTV..
>>
>> i spoke about my own experience (I even capitalized the word ME in the
>> initial post). And that's just about 50% of the satellite delivery
>> systems in the US.
>
> So you personally have 50% of the sat delivery systems in the US.
>Thats one hell of an accomplishment their Dave.

How many other satellite delivery systems in the US are there than
DirectTV and Dish Net do you know? I still see an occasional 12 foot
dish floating around, but they are very few and far between (which is
why I said "just about").

>> I can't tell you about Direct TV, and frankly, I'm
>> not willing to take your word for hearsay evidence.
>
> Check the web.. lots of dishnet subscribers complaining about digital
>artifacts

Hmmmm, EXACTLY what I said. The very statement that you went after
like a rabid dog.

>and dishnet compression. OTOH.. DirectTV complaints are
>mostly signal strength related. Good signal.. good picture.

Well, perhaps I might consider changing, although I'm leaning toward
going back to cable at this point (sad that the price just keeps going
up and up and up on cable).

>>I'm guessing that
>> if someone has a large package from them, that they might also suffer
>> the same sort of images due to bandwidth limitations.
>
> You're beyond dumb... what the hell do you mean large package? You
>think they're using PtoP transmission? Its a broadcast you dip****..
>everyone gets the same thing. They just control what you can
>receive... not what they xmit.

> You need to just purge your house of all things more technically
>complicated than an alarm clock. I think Quaker is the best life
>style for you.. except they'd expect you to quit lying.

Well, since my satellite receiver is far more advanced than your cable
box, I guess it's time to go back to your oatmeal.

Ruud Broens

January 18th 06, 09:39 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:Y0izf.34836$0G.30466@dukeread10...
:
: "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
: ...
: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, > wrote:
: >
: >>> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
: >>> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
: >>> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
: >>> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
: >>> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
: >>> that doesn't reflect future reality.
: >>>
: >>> d
: >>I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
: >>on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
: >>picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
: >>the
: >>picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
: >>projection.
: >>
: >>One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
: >>that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
: >>that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
: >>improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >
: > Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
: > the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
: > and more channels want to get in on the act.
:
: Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
: companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth to the
: problem.
:
: Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?
:
: http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/fl/technology/technology.html
:
: Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the country.
:
: ScottW
:
actually, it says:
"
a.. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited bandwidth,
a.. as much as 20 times faster than today’s fastest
a.. high-speed data connections."

which is pretty nondescriptive.
around here, that'd be 400 Mbs, not bad, but rather underutilizing
fiber capacity. 4 Mbs satellite up/downstreams i've seen are pretty
good for normal quality tv channels, HD done the right way is some
20 to 30 Mbs, so no way you can have many HD channels on a 400 Mbs
capacity link

some problems with ftth rollout:

world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to facilitate the US
alone would take decades of production

the associated cost is not equipment, nor fiber cost, it's the digging that
is extremely costly - it'll have to be paid for in some way to make ftth viable

Rudy

dave weil

January 18th 06, 11:38 PM

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:45:43 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>> Your statement is simply irrepairably flawed.
>
>And you can't say that it isn't due to compression. In fact, these
>artifacts can ONLY come from compression, as far as I know. I'm not
>talking about snow, or raster, or herringbone, or any of the other
>"signal strength" and "interference" issues. and since I DEFINITELY
>have those issues, AND, you agree that my provider has problems with
>their quality, my statement holds perfectly together. After all, I
>didn't say *all* satellite transmissions, so it's absolutely true,
>according to you.

....should read "and since I DEFINITELY *don't* have those issues"...

ScottW

January 19th 06, 12:19 AM

dave weil wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2006 12:02:06 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On 18 Jan 2006 10:34:34 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dave weil wrote:
> >> >> On 17 Jan 2006 14:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, now I can reveal the truth...
> >> >
> >> > So up to this point.... you're an admitted liar. Nice Dave.
> >>
> >> Well, I *could* be lying now. <g>
> >
> > Most probably are.
> >>
> >> Look, you jumped on a statement of mine that it turns out that you
> >> support anyway with a bunch of nonsense about *your* setup (bragging
> >> all the way) which had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I
> >> just felt that you should be led along a little bit to see how far you
> >> would go.
> >
> > I've seen exactly the problem you describe on a good quality plasma
> >that was the converter box. Upgrade the box to component video out
> >and the problem went away.
>
> Before, it was just upgrade to S-video.
>
> >Nothing to do with NBC or "storage compression".
>
> Which of course is why I don't get the same level of artifacts on ESPN
> or most other channels <guffaw>.
>
> >> >>OF COURSE I have S-video. I gave
> >> >> you enough hints to give you the chance to back off of your "cabling
> >> >> theory", but you were so convinced of your position, you couldn't see
> >> >> it. What hints? The current Toshiba TV. The DVR satellite box. The DVD
> >> >> recorder.
> >> >>
> >> >> I also wanted to see how far into personal insults you would dive
> >> >> into. You didn't disappoint.
> >> >
> >> > I have no problem with personally insulting liars. They deserve it.
> >>
> >> Well then, since I'm apparently a personally insulting liar, I guess
> >> you don't have a problem with me. I guess I deserve you not having a
> >> problem with me...<chuckle>
> >
> > I have no problem with you Dave.
>
> You MUST be kidding.
>
> > If you had any character you'd have
> >a problem with yourself... but you don't.
>
> Nah, you don't have a problem with me. That's the reason that you find
> any opportunity to go after the things that I say and why you make
> comments like the above.

I'm trying to help you Dave. I know you can't see that you need
it.. but you're desparate.

>
> >> Guess you're ****ed to have been shown that you let your personal
> >> feelings override your "science".
> >
> > What "science" Dave?
>
> Exactly!
>
> >> >> Now, as to your paragraph regarding Dish Network (the TRUE name of the
> >> >> service - Dishnet is a retailer in Florida), thanks for supporting my
> >> >> contention (and by extention, Mr. Pierce's). Yes, I have the 500
> >> >> package. Yes, I have Dish Network. And the results are exactly as I
> >> >> claimed, which you tried to claim was due to my shoddy cabling
> >> >> choices. Time for you to eat some crow. You tried to make the "facts"
> >> >> fit your hypothesis.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, I'm sorry that you don't have the most current technology
> >> >> available to you, despite all of the money that you've thrown at the
> >> >> situation, but I can tell you that if you ever go DVR, you'll never go
> >> >> back. Now, I have no idea whether or not the DVR process itself
> >> >> creates visible compression, but it certainly could be a contributing
> >> >> factor in my system. I don't have a "plain Jane" box to compare it
> >> >> with.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just for giggles, I hooked up RCA cabling last night to see if you
> >> >> could have been correct. As far as I could see, it made no impact on
> >> >> compression artifacts. Also, to test the content theory, I went to
> >> >> what I consider the worst offender, NBC and watched a little of Scrubs
> >> >> during prime time. It was the same with either cable. This is current
> >> >> "real time" broadcasting.
> >> >
> >> > Throw up some rabbit ears and check (or is Nashville too remote to
> >> >have an NBC broadcast outlet?) I'm sure your digital artifact problem
> >> >won't exist proving its your sat provider.
> >>
> >> Well gee. That's what I said in the first place. And it sent you into
> >> orbit.
> >
> > What you said in the first place was smearing digital technology in a
> >broad scope.
>
> No it wasn't. First of all, it was confined to satellite
> transmissions.

What happenned to storage? What happenned to the problem being a US
one?

>Second of all, it was clearly based on my personal
> experience with a certain delivery system. You tried to DEFEND "DT" in
> a broad scope, even though you didn't believe it yourself.

Direct TV is better than dishnet. You're just too cheap to find out
for yourself.
>
> >"I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
> >used in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME. "
>
> You see? Even you agree that the satellite transmission of the 500
> channel Dish Network package isn't all that good. And I maintain that
> compression is part of the problem, if not most of the problem. the
> reason i say that is that what I see is analogous to heavy compression
> schemes with digital photgraphy (something that I have some experience
> in). Maybe it's just coincidence that the banding that I see looks
> like some of the lower rez jpeg levels.
>
> > What you really have is a problem with one Sat service provider (they
> >aren't equal you know) who isn't limited to providing ****ty service in
> >just the US and has nothing to do with storage.
>
> I DON'T know that they aren't equal. And you apparently haven't even
> SEEN a Dish Network 500 channel package and you might not have seen a
> Direct TV similar package.

The "package" has nothing to do with it you technophobe.
>
> > Your statement is simply irrepairably flawed.
>
> And you can't say that it isn't due to compression. In fact, these
> artifacts can ONLY come from compression, as far as I know. I'm not
> talking about snow, or raster, or herringbone, or any of the other
> "signal strength" and "interference" issues. and since I DEFINITELY
> have those issues, AND, you agree that my provider has problems with
> their quality, my statement holds perfectly together. After all, I
> didn't say *all* satellite transmissions, so it's absolutely true,
> according to you.

Why don't you just fix it... say Dishnet instead of generic
satellite transmissions, drop storage which has nothing to do with
it... and drop US as that geographic limitation also does not apply.
Now... how much of your original statement is left?..... not much.
>
> >>You claimed (or implied at least) that it *couldn't* be the
> >> satellite delivery system, that it had to be my cables and/or a "cheap
> >> bottom-feeding receiver". Glad to see that you've come around.
> >
> > I'm sure if you had the reciever you originally claimed to have...
> >your problems would be worse.
>
> I don't know. As you said, the DVR portion *might* very well be
> contributing, so a 'simpler" receiver *could* offer a better picture,
> even if it doesn't use S-video.

Are you claiming there is no way to check video without the DVR
running at all?
I find that pretty hard to believe.

>After all, RCA connectors didn't 'fix"
> the problem that I described, even though the picture wasn't *quite*
> as good in terms of sharpness as the S-video connection (but that's a
> different issue).

RCA wasn't going to fix it... it was going to make it worse... which
it apparently did.
>
> > But you chose to obfuscate and lie...
>
> No, I chose to trick you inmuch the same way that Tom Nousaine's
> friend's son tricked him by secretely substituting an SS amp for his
> tube amp.

Seems to me you found that deplorable.... now you're saying what you
did acceptable.
Your hypocrisy is showing... again.

> And then, you started to try to make the "facts" fit your
> hypothesis. *That's* the sort of "science" that you were asking about.
>
> >sacrifice any shred of moral character you had... just to play your
> >debating trade game. Hope it was worth it.
>
> Well, since you don't seem to have learned anything from this
> excercise, it probably wasn't.

Nice admission that your last shred of moral character isn't worth
much.
>
> >> >>And no, I can't seem to find a single
> >> >> channel where there's NO compression evident, although some of the
> >> >> content providers are better than others (ESPN and FX being pretty
> >> >> good, for example).
> >> >>
> >> >> It was rather foolish of you to use your cable system to try to
> >> >> discredit my claims about satellite reception. I hinted that I
> >> >> suspected that when I had cable, it was probably better. In fact, I'm
> >> >> thinking of going back to cable because of it, especially since they
> >> >> offer DVR now (they didn't offer it at the time I switched), DVR being
> >> >> quite important to me at this point.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
> >> >> use a particularly bad compression scheme.
> >> >
> >> > It's not NBC you ****... its Dishnet
> >>
> >> I have nothing to do with Dishnet, nor do they have anything to do
> >> with me.
> >
> > Then why does your sat service provider have a website... dishnet.com?
>
> Why don't you look closer at that website and then compare it to this
> one:
>
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/
>
> Then get back to me.
>
> > Keep grasping at straws in frantic efforts to acquire a point in your
> >game. Let me know when you score.
>
> OK, now that you've gone to http://www.dishnetwork.com/, I suppose
> it's time to say 40 love.

No Dave... I just "tricked" you into demonstrating how quickly you
will grasp any irrelevant obfuscation to score a point in your debating
trade game. Honestly.. in this conversation is dishnet or
dishnetwork relevant to digital compression in transmission or storage.
Obviously it isn't.... but you latch on like a tick anyway. Enjoy the
ride.

>
> >>I got my Dish Network system from a different retailer. and
> >> yet, NBC has a problem that is far worse than most of the other
> >> channels on my system, so I *suspect* (please take careful note of the
> >> word) that much of it *might* have something to do with the product
> >> that they deliver to the satellite provider.
> >>
> >> > that creates your problem which
> >> >may be aggravated by your DVR... did you try pulling it out of the
> >> >chain?
> >>
> >> Hmmm, did you think about the fact that if I "pull it out of the
> >> chain", I'd get no signal from the satellite?
> >
> > So now you have an integrated DVR/receiver.
>
> Well yes. That's why I made the TIVO-esque remark. That's why I've
> been talking about rewinding and pausing live TV.

None of these abilities require those receivers.. you can get the
same with an off the shelf DVR.

> If you're curious,
> I have the older 5 series receiver that you might have seen when you
> went to "dishnet".
>
> > I guess in your king of
> >the hill appreciating world... you have plenty of time to waste.
>
> Yes, i happen to like that show, because it's a damn fine show. It's
> probably too "highbrow" for a San Diegoian like you though.

I find the humor childish and the willingness to exploit stereotypes
less than admirable.
But I can understand why your morality doesn't find anything
objectionable.

>
> >> >>You seem to support Mr.
> >> >> Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
> >> >> the actual broadcast.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah... for dishnet... not DirectTV..
> >>
> >> i spoke about my own experience (I even capitalized the word ME in the
> >> initial post). And that's just about 50% of the satellite delivery
> >> systems in the US.
> >
> > So you personally have 50% of the sat delivery systems in the US.
> >Thats one hell of an accomplishment their Dave.
>
> How many other satellite delivery systems in the US are there than
> DirectTV and Dish Net do you know? I still see an occasional 12 foot
> dish floating around, but they are very few and far between (which is
> why I said "just about").
>
> >> I can't tell you about Direct TV, and frankly, I'm
> >> not willing to take your word for hearsay evidence.
> >
> > Check the web.. lots of dishnet subscribers complaining about digital
> >artifacts
>
> Hmmmm, EXACTLY what I said. The very statement that you went after
> like a rabid dog.
>
> >and dishnet compression. OTOH.. DirectTV complaints are
> >mostly signal strength related. Good signal.. good picture.
>
> Well, perhaps I might consider changing, although I'm leaning toward
> going back to cable at this point (sad that the price just keeps going
> up and up and up on cable).
>
> >>I'm guessing that
> >> if someone has a large package from them, that they might also suffer
> >> the same sort of images due to bandwidth limitations.
> >
> > You're beyond dumb... what the hell do you mean large package? You
> >think they're using PtoP transmission? Its a broadcast you dip****..
> >everyone gets the same thing. They just control what you can
> >receive... not what they xmit.
>
> > You need to just purge your house of all things more technically
> >complicated than an alarm clock. I think Quaker is the best life
> >style for you.. except they'd expect you to quit lying.
>
> Well, since my satellite receiver is far more advanced than your cable
> box, I guess it's time to go back to your oatmeal.

Intellectual abdication noted..... you really didn't have a clue
what you were talking about.

I'll take my HD box over your ****ty satellite with DVR anytime.
Let's take another guess.... you probably don't even have 5.1 for your
TV audio.

ScottW

ScottW

January 19th 06, 12:32 AM

Ruud Broens wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:Y0izf.34836$0G.30466@dukeread10...
> :
> : "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, > wrote:
> : >
> : >>> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
> : >>> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
> : >>> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
> : >>> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
> : >>> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
> : >>> that doesn't reflect future reality.
> : >>>
> : >>> d
> : >>I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
> : >>on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
> : >>picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
> : >>the
> : >>picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
> : >>projection.
> : >>
> : >>One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
> : >>that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
> : >>that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
> : >>improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
> : >>
> : >>
> : >>
> : >
> : > Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
> : > the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
> : > and more channels want to get in on the act.
> :
> : Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
> : companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth to the
> : problem.
> :
> : Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?
> :
> : http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/fl/technology/technology.html
> :
> : Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the country.
> :
> : ScottW
> :
> actually, it says:
> "
> a.. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited bandwidth,
> a.. as much as 20 times faster than today's fastest
> a.. high-speed data connections."
>
> which is pretty nondescriptive.
> around here, that'd be 400 Mbs, not bad, but rather underutilizing
> fiber capacity.

Gross underestimation of cable bandwidth noted. They don't like
publicize but you seem to be assuming that all of cables BW is used for
internet... I'm guessing its only a fraction.

For example... if 1080i HD requires 20 to 30 Mbs (I don't know the
number so I've no reason to doubt you).... then cable is bringing about
400 Mbs into my home for HD alone today... I have no idea what the
total BW cable offers but if your number is correct... it has to be
around 2gig or so.

> 4 Mbs satellite up/downstreams i've seen are pretty
> good for normal quality tv channels, HD done the right way is some
> 20 to 30 Mbs, so no way you can have many HD channels on a 400 Mbs
> capacity link
>
> some problems with ftth rollout:
>
> world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to facilitate the US
> alone would take decades of production

I am not aware of any fiber shortage... lets see a reference. Last I
looked.. Dow was having a problem keep fiber prices where they wanted
them.

>
> the associated cost is not equipment, nor fiber cost, it's the digging that
> is extremely costly - it'll have to be paid for in some way to make ftth viable

Sure.. many cable companies went bankrupt after deployment... they
couldn't recover the cost of network rollout. Every satellite phone
offering did the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the phone
companies don't suffer in this project. But they have no choice. The
silly little twisted pair is going to leave them with no product anyone
wants and no customers. Plus they don't have to share fiber like
copper networks. Its they only way they can fight back against the
cable companies. If they don't.. they're doomed.

ScottW

dave weil

January 19th 06, 01:21 AM

On 18 Jan 2006 16:19:50 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> No it wasn't. First of all, it was confined to satellite
>> transmissions.
>
> What happenned to storage? What happenned to the problem being a US
>one?

I think you misunderstand. I mean storage in the network archives, the
source of the programming supplied to Dish Networks.

>>Second of all, it was clearly based on my personal
>> experience with a certain delivery system. You tried to DEFEND "DT" in
>> a broad scope, even though you didn't believe it yourself.
>
> Direct TV is better than dishnet. You're just too cheap to find out
>for yourself.

Cheap has nothing to do with it. They both cost about the same.

>> >"I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
>> >used in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME. "
>>
>> You see? Even you agree that the satellite transmission of the 500
>> channel Dish Network package isn't all that good. And I maintain that
>> compression is part of the problem, if not most of the problem. the
>> reason i say that is that what I see is analogous to heavy compression
>> schemes with digital photgraphy (something that I have some experience
>> in). Maybe it's just coincidence that the banding that I see looks
>> like some of the lower rez jpeg levels.
>>
>> > What you really have is a problem with one Sat service provider (they
>> >aren't equal you know) who isn't limited to providing ****ty service in
>> >just the US and has nothing to do with storage.
>>
>> I DON'T know that they aren't equal. And you apparently haven't even
>> SEEN a Dish Network 500 channel package and you might not have seen a
>> Direct TV similar package.
>
> The "package" has nothing to do with it you technophobe.
>>
>> > Your statement is simply irrepairably flawed.
>>
>> And you can't say that it isn't due to compression. In fact, these
>> artifacts can ONLY come from compression, as far as I know. I'm not
>> talking about snow, or raster, or herringbone, or any of the other
>> "signal strength" and "interference" issues. and since I DEFINITELY
>> have those issues, AND, you agree that my provider has problems with
>> their quality, my statement holds perfectly together. After all, I
>> didn't say *all* satellite transmissions, so it's absolutely true,
>> according to you.
>
> Why don't you just fix it... say Dishnet

Because it's not "dishnet", I suppose.

> instead of generic
>satellite transmissions, drop storage which has nothing to do with
>it... and drop US as that geographic limitation also does not apply.

Not living in Europe anymore, not living in Japan, not living anywhere
other than the US, I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of
those delivery systems. Of course, that didn't stop YOU from
commenting on a system that you hadn't seen (and ironically, it turns
out that you now believe what I said in the first place).

And let's not forget what my one of my first statements about this
was:

"The current state of the video signal that I receive is mostly NOT
debatable when it comes to "DVD quality", or even VCR tape quality for
that matter (at least at the best settings). Not even close. Even a
dbt would settle that pretty quickly <g>".

No statements about any other systems here or the rest of the world.
and now you've tried to offer support for this very statement. That
must *really* get your goat.

> Now... how much of your original statement is left?..... not much.

Enough that you now apparently believe EXACTLY what I said.

>> >>You claimed (or implied at least) that it *couldn't* be the
>> >> satellite delivery system, that it had to be my cables and/or a "cheap
>> >> bottom-feeding receiver". Glad to see that you've come around.
>> >
>> > I'm sure if you had the reciever you originally claimed to have...
>> >your problems would be worse.
>>
>> I don't know. As you said, the DVR portion *might* very well be
>> contributing, so a 'simpler" receiver *could* offer a better picture,
>> even if it doesn't use S-video.
>
> Are you claiming there is no way to check video without the DVR
>running at all?
>I find that pretty hard to believe.

As far as i know, there's no way to watch "live". As far as I know,
everything is automatically dumped to hard drive.

>>After all, RCA connectors didn't 'fix"
>> the problem that I described, even though the picture wasn't *quite*
>> as good in terms of sharpness as the S-video connection (but that's a
>> different issue).
>
> RCA wasn't going to fix it...

you're right, I misspoke. I should have said, RCA connectors didn't
8affect* the specific problems that I mentioned. My bad.

>it was going to make it worse... which
>it apparently did.

But not in regard to the compression artifacts.

>> > But you chose to obfuscate and lie...
>>
>> No, I chose to trick you inmuch the same way that Tom Nousaine's
>> friend's son tricked him by secretely substituting an SS amp for his
>> tube amp.
>
> Seems to me you found that deplorable.... now you're saying what you
>did acceptable.

No, I've advocated taking a page from that for a while now. You'd know
that if you'd been paying attention. I said as much to Howard Ferstler
over a year ago.

> Your hypocrisy is showing... again.
>
>> And then, you started to try to make the "facts" fit your
>> hypothesis. *That's* the sort of "science" that you were asking about.

<no comment from you, I see>

>> >sacrifice any shred of moral character you had... just to play your
>> >debating trade game. Hope it was worth it.
>>
>> Well, since you don't seem to have learned anything from this
>> excercise, it probably wasn't.
>
> Nice admission that your last shred of moral character isn't worth
>much.

Shoot me for trying to "help you" (like you claimed to be helping me).
If you look closely at this, you'll see that your ability to analyse a
situation is seriously compromised.

>> >> >>And no, I can't seem to find a single
>> >> >> channel where there's NO compression evident, although some of the
>> >> >> content providers are better than others (ESPN and FX being pretty
>> >> >> good, for example).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It was rather foolish of you to use your cable system to try to
>> >> >> discredit my claims about satellite reception. I hinted that I
>> >> >> suspected that when I had cable, it was probably better. In fact, I'm
>> >> >> thinking of going back to cable because of it, especially since they
>> >> >> offer DVR now (they didn't offer it at the time I switched), DVR being
>> >> >> quite important to me at this point.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
>> >> >> use a particularly bad compression scheme.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not NBC you ****... its Dishnet
>> >>
>> >> I have nothing to do with Dishnet, nor do they have anything to do
>> >> with me.
>> >
>> > Then why does your sat service provider have a website... dishnet.com?
>>
>> Why don't you look closer at that website and then compare it to this
>> one:
>>
>> http://www.dishnetwork.com/
>>
>> Then get back to me.
>>
>> > Keep grasping at straws in frantic efforts to acquire a point in your
>> >game. Let me know when you score.
>>
>> OK, now that you've gone to http://www.dishnetwork.com/, I suppose
>> it's time to say 40 love.
>
> No Dave... I just "tricked" you into demonstrating how quickly you
>will grasp any irrelevant obfuscation to score a point in your debating
>trade game.

It's not irrelevant to point out the difference between a reseller and
the actual service provider.

> Honestly.. in this conversation is dishnet or
>dishnetwork relevant to digital compression in transmission or storage.

You're the one who tried to use "dishnet's" web site as some sort of
"point generator".

> Obviously it isn't.... but you latch on like a tick anyway. Enjoy the
>ride.
>
>>
>> >>I got my Dish Network system from a different retailer. and
>> >> yet, NBC has a problem that is far worse than most of the other
>> >> channels on my system, so I *suspect* (please take careful note of the
>> >> word) that much of it *might* have something to do with the product
>> >> that they deliver to the satellite provider.
>> >>
>> >> > that creates your problem which
>> >> >may be aggravated by your DVR... did you try pulling it out of the
>> >> >chain?
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm, did you think about the fact that if I "pull it out of the
>> >> chain", I'd get no signal from the satellite?
>> >
>> > So now you have an integrated DVR/receiver.
>>
>> Well yes. That's why I made the TIVO-esque remark. That's why I've
>> been talking about rewinding and pausing live TV.
>
> None of these abilities require those receivers.. you can get the
>same with an off the shelf DVR.

Oh, I have a DVD recorder as well. One would think that the reference
to TIVO would have given even *you* a clue, but, well, there ya go.

>> If you're curious,
>> I have the older 5 series receiver that you might have seen when you
>> went to "dishnet".
>>
>> > I guess in your king of
>> >the hill appreciating world... you have plenty of time to waste.
>>
>> Yes, i happen to like that show, because it's a damn fine show. It's
>> probably too "highbrow" for a San Diegoian like you though.
>
> I find the humor childish and the willingness to exploit stereotypes
>less than admirable.

Well then, that's the difference between us.

> But I can understand why your morality doesn't find anything
>objectionable.

No, because I even like Lenny Bruce. Of course, he probably turns your
McCarthyesque stomach. Your humor probably gravitates towards Ann
Coulter, who's childish humor and exploitation of stereotypes is more
in line with your right wing agenda.

>> >> >>You seem to support Mr.
>> >> >> Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
>> >> >> the actual broadcast.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yeah... for dishnet... not DirectTV..
>> >>
>> >> i spoke about my own experience (I even capitalized the word ME in the
>> >> initial post). And that's just about 50% of the satellite delivery
>> >> systems in the US.
>> >
>> > So you personally have 50% of the sat delivery systems in the US.
>> >Thats one hell of an accomplishment their Dave.
>>
>> How many other satellite delivery systems in the US are there than
>> DirectTV and Dish Net do you know? I still see an occasional 12 foot
>> dish floating around, but they are very few and far between (which is
>> why I said "just about").

<Oops, can't respond, can we?>

>> >> I can't tell you about Direct TV, and frankly, I'm
>> >> not willing to take your word for hearsay evidence.
>> >
>> > Check the web.. lots of dishnet subscribers complaining about digital
>> >artifacts
>>
>> Hmmmm, EXACTLY what I said. The very statement that you went after
>> like a rabid dog.
>>
>> >and dishnet compression. OTOH.. DirectTV complaints are
>> >mostly signal strength related. Good signal.. good picture.
>>
>> Well, perhaps I might consider changing, although I'm leaning toward
>> going back to cable at this point (sad that the price just keeps going
>> up and up and up on cable).
>>
>> >>I'm guessing that
>> >> if someone has a large package from them, that they might also suffer
>> >> the same sort of images due to bandwidth limitations.
>> >
>> > You're beyond dumb... what the hell do you mean large package? You
>> >think they're using PtoP transmission? Its a broadcast you dip****..
>> >everyone gets the same thing. They just control what you can
>> >receive... not what they xmit.
>>
>> > You need to just purge your house of all things more technically
>> >complicated than an alarm clock. I think Quaker is the best life
>> >style for you.. except they'd expect you to quit lying.
>>
>> Well, since my satellite receiver is far more advanced than your cable
>> box, I guess it's time to go back to your oatmeal.
>
> Intellectual abdication noted..... you really didn't have a clue
>what you were talking about.

What abdication? Abdication to the idea that I shouldn't have anything
more complicated than an alarm clock? that I should be a Quaker? Even
though my receiver is far more technically advanced than yours, in
addition to the fact that I have far more digital sources than you?

> I'll take my HD box over your ****ty satellite with DVR anytime.

Cool. I'll bet that you enjoy your handful of HD channels. I, OTOH,
enjoy the convenience of not being tied to a schedule.

>Let's take another guess.... you probably don't even have 5.1 for your
>TV audio.

Oh, I've got it. You'd know that if you'd been paying attention.

Ruud Broens

January 19th 06, 02:26 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: > "ScottW" > wrote in message
: > news:Y0izf.34836$0G.30466@dukeread10...
: > :
: > : "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
: > : ...
: > : > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, > wrote:
: > : >
: > : >>> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
: > : >>> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
: > : >>> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
: > : >>> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
: > : >>> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
: > : >>> that doesn't reflect future reality.
: > : >>>
: > : >>> d
: > : >>I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it
was
: > : >>on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
: > : >>picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
: > : >>the
: > : >>picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
: > : >>projection.
: > : >>
: > : >>One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
: > : >>that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
: > : >>that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
: > : >>improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
: > : >>
: > : >>
: > : >>
: > : >
: > : > Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
: > : > the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
: > : > and more channels want to get in on the act.
: > :
: > : Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
: > : companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth to the
: > : problem.
: > :
: > : Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?
: > :
: > : http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/fl/technology/technology.html
: > :
: > : Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the
country.
: > :
: > : ScottW
: > :
: > actually, it says:
: > "
: > a.. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited bandwidth,
: > a.. as much as 20 times faster than today's fastest
: > a.. high-speed data connections."
: >
: > which is pretty nondescriptive.
: > around here, that'd be 400 Mbs, not bad, but rather underutilizing
: > fiber capacity.
:
: Gross underestimation of cable bandwidth noted. They don't like
: publicize but you seem to be assuming that all of cables BW is used for
: internet... I'm guessing its only a fraction.

repeated reading error noted. it says "high speed data connections", that
has nothing to do with the cable bandwidth. *that* would be, depending
on length and quality, up to several Gbs for cable. you're confusing total
capacity with the fraction that is currently reserved for _data connections_.
:
: For example... if 1080i HD requires 20 to 30 Mbs (I don't know the
: number so I've no reason to doubt you).... then cable is bringing about
: 400 Mbs into my home for HD alone today... I have no idea what the
: total BW cable offers but if your number is correct... it has to be
: around 2gig or so.

that is what is broadcasted, not a data connection over cable.
:
:
: > 4 Mbs satellite up/downstreams i've seen are pretty
: > good for normal quality tv channels, HD done the right way is some
: > 20 to 30 Mbs, so no way you can have many HD channels on a 400 Mbs
: > capacity link
: >
: > some problems with ftth rollout:
: >
: > world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to facilitate the US
: > alone would take decades of production
:
: I am not aware of any fiber shortage... lets see a reference. Last I
: looked.. Dow was having a problem keep fiber prices where they wanted
: them.

sorry, what *you*'re not aware of doesn't set any standard. as Ferstler would
say: trust me, i know of what i speak :-)
Rudy

:
: >
: > the associated cost is not equipment, nor fiber cost, it's the digging that
: > is extremely costly - it'll have to be paid for in some way to make ftth
viable
:
: Sure.. many cable companies went bankrupt after deployment... they
: couldn't recover the cost of network rollout. Every satellite phone
: offering did the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the phone
: companies don't suffer in this project. But they have no choice. The
: silly little twisted pair is going to leave them with no product anyone
: wants and no customers. Plus they don't have to share fiber like
: copper networks. Its they only way they can fight back against the
: cable companies. If they don't.. they're doomed.
:
: ScottW

ScottW

January 19th 06, 03:37 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Jan 2006 16:19:50 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>> No it wasn't. First of all, it was confined to satellite
>>> transmissions.
>>
>> What happenned to storage? What happenned to the problem being a US
>>one?
>
> I think you misunderstand. I mean storage in the network archives, the
> source of the programming supplied to Dish Networks.

Then the problem would extend beyond dishnet... and it does not.

>
>>>Second of all, it was clearly based on my personal
>>> experience with a certain delivery system. You tried to DEFEND "DT" in
>>> a broad scope, even though you didn't believe it yourself.
>>
>> Direct TV is better than dishnet. You're just too cheap to find out
>>for yourself.
>
> Cheap has nothing to do with it. They both cost about the same.

The other possible reason for making such a choice isn't flattering Dave.

>
>>> >"I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
>>> >used in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME. "
>>>
>>> You see? Even you agree that the satellite transmission of the 500
>>> channel Dish Network package isn't all that good. And I maintain that
>>> compression is part of the problem, if not most of the problem. the
>>> reason i say that is that what I see is analogous to heavy compression
>>> schemes with digital photgraphy (something that I have some experience
>>> in). Maybe it's just coincidence that the banding that I see looks
>>> like some of the lower rez jpeg levels.
>>>
>>> > What you really have is a problem with one Sat service provider (they
>>> >aren't equal you know) who isn't limited to providing ****ty service in
>>> >just the US and has nothing to do with storage.
>>>
>>> I DON'T know that they aren't equal. And you apparently haven't even
>>> SEEN a Dish Network 500 channel package and you might not have seen a
>>> Direct TV similar package.
>>
>> The "package" has nothing to do with it you technophobe.

Have you figured out how irrelevant your package is now Dave?

>>>
>>> > Your statement is simply irrepairably flawed.
>>>
>>> And you can't say that it isn't due to compression. In fact, these
>>> artifacts can ONLY come from compression, as far as I know. I'm not
>>> talking about snow, or raster, or herringbone, or any of the other
>>> "signal strength" and "interference" issues. and since I DEFINITELY
>>> have those issues, AND, you agree that my provider has problems with
>>> their quality, my statement holds perfectly together. After all, I
>>> didn't say *all* satellite transmissions, so it's absolutely true,
>>> according to you.
>>
>> Why don't you just fix it... say Dishnet
>
> Because it's not "dishnet", I suppose.
>
>> instead of generic
>>satellite transmissions, drop storage which has nothing to do with
>>it... and drop US as that geographic limitation also does not apply.
>
> Not living in Europe anymore, not living in Japan, not living anywhere
> other than the US, I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of
> those delivery systems.

Why not dave? Don't you know that geosync satellite system cover a lot more
than the continental US and you could easily find that dishnet, direct, and
other satellite services are offered beyond our borders. You really don't
have to limit yourself to only what you think you can experience.

>Of course, that didn't stop YOU from
> commenting on a system that you hadn't seen (and ironically, it turns
> out that you now believe what I said in the first place).
>
> And let's not forget what my one of my first statements about this
> was:
>
> "The current state of the video signal that I receive is mostly NOT
> debatable when it comes to "DVD quality", or even VCR tape quality for
> that matter (at least at the best settings). Not even close. Even a
> dbt would settle that pretty quickly <g>".

Irrelevant. It doesn't change any of the parameters in your statement
about which I objected.

>
> No statements about any other systems here or the rest of the world

spin spin spin... let me know if you get one close to the hoop.
So far you've been dangerously close to scoring for me.

> and now you've tried to offer support for this very statement. That
> must *really* get your goat.
>
>
>> Now... how much of your original statement is left?..... not much.
>
> Enough that you now apparently believe EXACTLY what I said.

Delusion confirmed. Somebody call a medic.

>
>>> >>You claimed (or implied at least) that it *couldn't* be the
>>> >> satellite delivery system, that it had to be my cables and/or a
>>> >> "cheap
>>> >> bottom-feeding receiver". Glad to see that you've come around.
>>> >
>>> > I'm sure if you had the reciever you originally claimed to have...
>>> >your problems would be worse.
>>>
>>> I don't know. As you said, the DVR portion *might* very well be
>>> contributing, so a 'simpler" receiver *could* offer a better picture,
>>> even if it doesn't use S-video.
>>
>> Are you claiming there is no way to check video without the DVR
>>running at all?
>>I find that pretty hard to believe.
>
> As far as i know, there's no way to watch "live". As far as I know,
> everything is automatically dumped to hard drive.

As far as you know... which isn't very far.

>
>>>After all, RCA connectors didn't 'fix"
>>> the problem that I described, even though the picture wasn't *quite*
>>> as good in terms of sharpness as the S-video connection (but that's a
>>> different issue).
>>
>> RCA wasn't going to fix it...
>
> you're right, I misspoke. I should have said, RCA connectors didn't
> 8affect* the specific problems that I mentioned. My bad.
>
>>it was going to make it worse... which
>>it apparently did.
>
> But not in regard to the compression artifacts.
>
>>> > But you chose to obfuscate and lie...
>>>
>>> No, I chose to trick you inmuch the same way that Tom Nousaine's
>>> friend's son tricked him by secretely substituting an SS amp for his
>>> tube amp.
>>
>> Seems to me you found that deplorable.... now you're saying what you
>>did acceptable.
>
> No, I've advocated taking a page from that for a while now. You'd know
> that if you'd been paying attention. I said as much to Howard Ferstler
> over a year ago.

That endless bit of tripe? Pardon me for joining the rest of humanity
and marking it read. It was a mental imperative.

>
>> Your hypocrisy is showing... again.
>>
>>> And then, you started to try to make the "facts" fit your
>>> hypothesis. *That's* the sort of "science" that you were asking about.
>
> <no comment from you, I see>

Since I never discussed science I see no point in exploring the source
of your delusion.

>
>>> >sacrifice any shred of moral character you had... just to play your
>>> >debating trade game. Hope it was worth it.
>>>
>>> Well, since you don't seem to have learned anything from this
>>> excercise, it probably wasn't.
>>
>> Nice admission that your last shred of moral character isn't worth
>>much.
>
> Shoot me for trying to "help you" (like you claimed to be helping me).
> If you look closely at this, you'll see that your ability to analyse a
> situation is seriously compromised.

I find my compromised ability to analyze you... reassuring.

>
>>> >> >>And no, I can't seem to find a single
>>> >> >> channel where there's NO compression evident, although some of the
>>> >> >> content providers are better than others (ESPN and FX being pretty
>>> >> >> good, for example).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> It was rather foolish of you to use your cable system to try to
>>> >> >> discredit my claims about satellite reception. I hinted that I
>>> >> >> suspected that when I had cable, it was probably better. In fact,
>>> >> >> I'm
>>> >> >> thinking of going back to cable because of it, especially since
>>> >> >> they
>>> >> >> offer DVR now (they didn't offer it at the time I switched), DVR
>>> >> >> being
>>> >> >> quite important to me at this point.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems
>>> >> >> to
>>> >> >> use a particularly bad compression scheme.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It's not NBC you ****... its Dishnet
>>> >>
>>> >> I have nothing to do with Dishnet, nor do they have anything to do
>>> >> with me.
>>> >
>>> > Then why does your sat service provider have a website... dishnet.com?
>>>
>>> Why don't you look closer at that website and then compare it to this
>>> one:
>>>
>>> http://www.dishnetwork.com/
>>>
>>> Then get back to me.
>>>
>>> > Keep grasping at straws in frantic efforts to acquire a point in your
>>> >game. Let me know when you score.
>>>
>>> OK, now that you've gone to http://www.dishnetwork.com/, I suppose
>>> it's time to say 40 love.
>>
>> No Dave... I just "tricked" you into demonstrating how quickly you
>>will grasp any irrelevant obfuscation to score a point in your debating
>>trade game.
>
> It's not irrelevant to point out the difference between a reseller and
> the actual service provider.

Nice try... you've known from the beginning who I mean by dishnet....
you're just obfuscating... again.

>
>> Honestly.. in this conversation is dishnet or
>>dishnetwork relevant to digital compression in transmission or storage.
>
> You're the one who tried to use "dishnet's" web site as some sort of
> "point generator".

I'm sorry.... did I score? I don't pay attention to such nonsense so
you'll have to let me know if I inadvertently put one home.

>
>> Obviously it isn't.... but you latch on like a tick anyway. Enjoy the
>>ride.
>>
>>>
>>> >>I got my Dish Network system from a different retailer. and
>>> >> yet, NBC has a problem that is far worse than most of the other
>>> >> channels on my system, so I *suspect* (please take careful note of
>>> >> the
>>> >> word) that much of it *might* have something to do with the product
>>> >> that they deliver to the satellite provider.
>>> >>
>>> >> > that creates your problem which
>>> >> >may be aggravated by your DVR... did you try pulling it out of the
>>> >> >chain?
>>> >>
>>> >> Hmmm, did you think about the fact that if I "pull it out of the
>>> >> chain", I'd get no signal from the satellite?
>>> >
>>> > So now you have an integrated DVR/receiver.
>>>
>>> Well yes. That's why I made the TIVO-esque remark. That's why I've
>>> been talking about rewinding and pausing live TV.
>>
>> None of these abilities require those receivers.. you can get the
>>same with an off the shelf DVR.
>
> Oh, I have a DVD recorder as well. One would think that the reference
> to TIVO would have given even *you* a clue, but, well, there ya go.

Did you score? Is there a point here? I think we should differentiate
between main subject points and obfuscation points.. don't you?
>
>>> If you're curious,
>>> I have the older 5 series receiver that you might have seen when you
>>> went to "dishnet".
>>>
>>> > I guess in your king of
>>> >the hill appreciating world... you have plenty of time to waste.
>>>
>>> Yes, i happen to like that show, because it's a damn fine show. It's
>>> probably too "highbrow" for a San Diegoian like you though.
>>
>> I find the humor childish and the willingness to exploit stereotypes
>>less than admirable.
>
> Well then, that's the difference between us.
>
>> But I can understand why your morality doesn't find anything
>>objectionable.
>
> No, because I even like Lenny Bruce.

But Lenny isn't on primetime network TV 6 or 7 nights a week.. now is he?
Thats really an absurd comparison.

> Of course, he probably turns your
> McCarthyesque stomach. Your humor probably gravitates towards Ann
> Coulter, who's childish humor and exploitation of stereotypes is more
> in line with your right wing agenda.

I don't find Ann Coulter funny nor particularly insightful so she hasn't
captured my attention. Care to try again?

>
>>> >> >>You seem to support Mr.
>>> >> >> Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in
>>> >> >> terms of
>>> >> >> the actual broadcast.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Yeah... for dishnet... not DirectTV..
>>> >>
>>> >> i spoke about my own experience (I even capitalized the word ME in
>>> >> the
>>> >> initial post). And that's just about 50% of the satellite delivery
>>> >> systems in the US.
>>> >
>>> > So you personally have 50% of the sat delivery systems in the US.
>>> >Thats one hell of an accomplishment their Dave.
>>>
>>> How many other satellite delivery systems in the US are there than
>>> DirectTV and Dish Net do you know? I still see an occasional 12 foot
>>> dish floating around, but they are very few and far between (which is
>>> why I said "just about").
>
> <Oops, can't respond, can we?>

Globecast is still around.... with a C-band one can still get plenty of
free to air content including most major networks. All the small dish
suppliers have folded into dishnet or direct like Voom etc.

>
>>> >> I can't tell you about Direct TV, and frankly, I'm
>>> >> not willing to take your word for hearsay evidence.
>>> >
>>> > Check the web.. lots of dishnet subscribers complaining about digital
>>> >artifacts
>>>
>>> Hmmmm, EXACTLY what I said. The very statement that you went after
>>> like a rabid dog.
>>>
>>> >and dishnet compression. OTOH.. DirectTV complaints are
>>> >mostly signal strength related. Good signal.. good picture.
>>>
>>> Well, perhaps I might consider changing, although I'm leaning toward
>>> going back to cable at this point (sad that the price just keeps going
>>> up and up and up on cable).
>>>
>>> >>I'm guessing that
>>> >> if someone has a large package from them, that they might also suffer
>>> >> the same sort of images due to bandwidth limitations.
>>> >
>>> > You're beyond dumb... what the hell do you mean large package? You
>>> >think they're using PtoP transmission? Its a broadcast you dip****..
>>> >everyone gets the same thing. They just control what you can
>>> >receive... not what they xmit.
>>>
>>> > You need to just purge your house of all things more technically
>>> >complicated than an alarm clock. I think Quaker is the best life
>>> >style for you.. except they'd expect you to quit lying.
>>>
>>> Well, since my satellite receiver is far more advanced than your cable
>>> box, I guess it's time to go back to your oatmeal.
>>
>> Intellectual abdication noted..... you really didn't have a clue
>>what you were talking about.
>
> What abdication?

Forgot about your package already? Or just a bad dream you'd like to
forget?

> Abdication to the idea that I shouldn't have anything
> more complicated than an alarm clock? that I should be a Quaker? Even
> though my receiver is far more technically advanced than yours, in
> addition to the fact that I have far more digital sources than you?

Never knew you to be a quantity over quality guy Dave. So you must be a
closet Asian Buffet fan. Don't tell the cooks at your restaurant... they
wouldn't understand.

>
>> I'll take my HD box over your ****ty satellite with DVR anytime.
>
> Cool. I'll bet that you enjoy your handful of HD channels. I, OTOH,
> enjoy the convenience of not being tied to a schedule.

Thats right... you are hereby released from King 'o the Hill bondage.

Funny thing.. I don't recall ever going out of my way to watch something
on TV on a schedule except a sporting event. You probably don't understand
but watching sports less than live detracts from the event. Trying to
cheer for something that is already history doesn't work for me. TIVO can't
change that.

ScottW

dave weil

January 19th 06, 04:06 AM

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> Not living in Europe anymore, not living in Japan, not living anywhere
>> other than the US, I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of
>> those delivery systems.
>
>Why not dave? Don't you know that geosync satellite system cover a lot more
>than the continental US and you could easily find that dishnet, direct, and
>other satellite services are offered beyond our borders. You really don't
>have to limit yourself to only what you think you can experience.

Yes, i know that systems like Astra exist. Until I actually SEE them,
I'm not going to comment on them You might try that sometime.

dave weil

January 19th 06, 04:08 AM

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>>> Are you claiming there is no way to check video without the DVR
>>>running at all?
>>>I find that pretty hard to believe.
>>
>> As far as i know, there's no way to watch "live". As far as I know,
>> everything is automatically dumped to hard drive.
>
> As far as you know... which isn't very far.

Well, I've actually got the box, and you don't. You can believe what
you want, but feel free to research it and get back to us. The unit is
the 501 that's referenced on the "dishnet" site. Please let me know
how to disengage the hard drive.

dave weil

January 19th 06, 04:09 AM

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>>> Now... how much of your original statement is left?..... not much.
>>
>> Enough that you now apparently believe EXACTLY what I said.
>
> Delusion confirmed. Somebody call a medic.

OK, so now Dish Network DOESN'T suffer from compression artifacts.

I wish you'd make up your mind.

ScottW

January 19th 06, 04:16 AM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> :
> : Ruud Broens wrote:
> : > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> : > news:Y0izf.34836$0G.30466@dukeread10...
> : > :
> : > : "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> : > : ...
> : > : > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, > wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : >>> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to
> spend
> : > : >>> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of
> HD.
> : > : >>> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest
> will
> : > : >>> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today
> on
> : > : >>> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the
> demos -
> : > : >>> that doesn't reflect future reality.
> : > : >>>
> : > : >>> d
> : > : >>I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD
> picture it
> was
> : > : >>on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting
> an HD
> : > : >>picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved
> quality of
> : > : >>the
> : > : >>picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
> : > : >>projection.
> : > : >>
> : > : >>One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3
> years ago
> : > : >>that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD
> signal. Now
> : > : >>that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
> : > : >>improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
> : > : >>
> : > : >>
> : > : >>
> : > : >
> : > : > Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it
> is
> : > : > the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as
> more
> : > : > and more channels want to get in on the act.
> : > :
> : > : Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
> : > : companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth
> to the
> : > : problem.
> : > :
> : > : Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?
> : > :
> : > :
> http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/fl/technology/technology.html
> : > :
> : > : Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the
> country.
> : > :
> : > : ScottW
> : > :
> : > actually, it says:
> : > "
> : > a.. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited bandwidth,
> : > a.. as much as 20 times faster than today's fastest
> : > a.. high-speed data connections."
> : >
> : > which is pretty nondescriptive.
> : > around here, that'd be 400 Mbs, not bad, but rather underutilizing
> : > fiber capacity.
> :
> : Gross underestimation of cable bandwidth noted. They don't like
> : publicize but you seem to be assuming that all of cables BW is used for
> : internet... I'm guessing its only a fraction.
>
> repeated reading error noted. it says "high speed data connections", that
> has nothing to do with the cable bandwidth. *that* would be, depending
> on length and quality, up to several Gbs for cable. you're confusing total
> capacity with the fraction that is currently reserved for _data
> connections_.
> :
> : For example... if 1080i HD requires 20 to 30 Mbs (I don't know the
> : number so I've no reason to doubt you).... then cable is bringing about
> : 400 Mbs into my home for HD alone today... I have no idea what the
> : total BW cable offers but if your number is correct... it has to be
> : around 2gig or so.
>
> that is what is broadcasted, not a data connection over cable.
> :
> :
> : > 4 Mbs satellite up/downstreams i've seen are pretty
> : > good for normal quality tv channels, HD done the right way is some
> : > 20 to 30 Mbs, so no way you can have many HD channels on a 400 Mbs
> : > capacity link

Your entire response has shown this comment to be irrelevant.
Fiber is going to far exceed 400Mbs. Users will get all the HD they
are willing to pay for.

> : >
> : > some problems with ftth rollout:
> : >
> : > world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to facilitate
> the US
> : > alone would take decades of production
> :
> : I am not aware of any fiber shortage... lets see a reference. Last I
> : looked.. Dow was having a problem keep fiber prices where they wanted
> : them.
>
> sorry, what *you*'re not aware of doesn't set any standard. as Ferstler
> would
> say: trust me, i know of what i speak :-)

I trust no one on usenet I don't know. So a little research shows no
mention of fiber shortage
since '01 and that was semicustom stuff. No doubt FttP rollout will take
time and have its
hiccups... but it is and will continue to happen.
I only hope Verizon's aggressive plan for putting fiber past 6 million homes
by the end of '06
will motivate SBC to get off the dime.

ScottW

dave weil

January 19th 06, 04:18 AM

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> Funny thing.. I don't recall ever going out of my way to watch something
>on TV on a schedule except a sporting event.

Well, that says it all, doesn't it. Your one dimensionalistic tastes
don't surprise me though.

BTW, I've used "TIVO" (to use the new generic term for manipulating
live TV events) to even time shift live sporting events by a few
minutes when it's more convenient for me to watch something slightly
later than "live" (or when I don't want to be subjected to
commercials). After all, if I don't know the outcome, it doesn't
matter to me that the events occured 30 minutes before.

For you to be so freaked out about seeing something "not live" shows
you to be the Luddite that Arnold accuses others of.

dave weil

January 19th 06, 04:18 AM

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>>>> No it wasn't. First of all, it was confined to satellite
>>>> transmissions.
>>>
>>> What happenned to storage? What happenned to the problem being a US
>>>one?
>>
>> I think you misunderstand. I mean storage in the network archives, the
>> source of the programming supplied to Dish Networks.
>
> Then the problem would extend beyond dishnet... and it does not.

Then it MUST be compression on the satellite's end.

I win.

Again.

ScottW

January 19th 06, 04:19 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Not living in Europe anymore, not living in Japan, not living anywhere
>>> other than the US, I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of
>>> those delivery systems.
>>
>>Why not dave? Don't you know that geosync satellite system cover a lot
>>more
>>than the continental US and you could easily find that dishnet, direct,
>>and
>>other satellite services are offered beyond our borders. You really
>>don't
>>have to limit yourself to only what you think you can experience.
>
> Yes, i know that systems like Astra exist. Until I actually SEE them,
> I'm not going to comment on them You might try that sometime.

I was actually referring to the fact that dishnet and DirectTV operate in
more than just the US... offering exactly the same signal you get.

ScottW

ScottW

January 19th 06, 04:25 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>>> Now... how much of your original statement is left?..... not much.
>>>
>>> Enough that you now apparently believe EXACTLY what I said.
>>
>> Delusion confirmed. Somebody call a medic.
>
> OK, so now Dish Network DOESN'T suffer from compression artifacts.
>
> I wish you'd make up your mind.

I wish you could tell the difference between being exactly correct and only
~1/4 correct.

Have you figured out that package size impact yet?

ScottW

ScottW

January 19th 06, 04:27 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>> Funny thing.. I don't recall ever going out of my way to watch something
>>on TV on a schedule except a sporting event.
>
> Well, that says it all, doesn't it. Your one dimensionalistic tastes
> don't surprise me though.
>
> BTW, I've used "TIVO" (to use the new generic term for manipulating
> live TV events) to even time shift live sporting events by a few
> minutes when it's more convenient for me to watch something slightly
> later than "live" (or when I don't want to be subjected to
> commercials). After all, if I don't know the outcome, it doesn't
> matter to me that the events occured 30 minutes before.
>
> For you to be so freaked out about seeing something "not live" shows
> you to be the Luddite that Arnold accuses others of.

Sure Dave.... bash my preference... you are borg.

ScottW

ScottW

January 19th 06, 04:29 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>>>> No it wasn't. First of all, it was confined to satellite
>>>>> transmissions.
>>>>
>>>> What happenned to storage? What happenned to the problem being a US
>>>>one?
>>>
>>> I think you misunderstand. I mean storage in the network archives, the
>>> source of the programming supplied to Dish Networks.
>>
>> Then the problem would extend beyond dishnet... and it does not.
>
> Then it MUST be compression on the satellite's end.
>
> I win.
>
> Again.

Lets see... out of 4 nutty ideas you tossed out... one was right. You go
blind squirrel.

ScottW

ScottW

January 19th 06, 04:30 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:NrEzf.38159$0G.18156@dukeread10...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Not living in Europe anymore, not living in Japan, not living anywhere
>>>> other than the US, I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of
>>>> those delivery systems.
>>>
>>>Why not dave? Don't you know that geosync satellite system cover a lot
>>>more
>>>than the continental US and you could easily find that dishnet, direct,
>>>and
>>>other satellite services are offered beyond our borders. You really
>>>don't
>>>have to limit yourself to only what you think you can experience.
>>
>> Yes, i know that systems like Astra exist. Until I actually SEE them,
>> I'm not going to comment on them You might try that sometime.
>
> I was actually referring to the fact that dishnet and DirectTV operate in
> more than just the US... offering exactly the same signal you get.

Oh.. and that signal is the same regardless of their package size.

ScottW

dave weil

January 19th 06, 04:30 AM

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:27:00 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> Sure Dave.... bash my preference

So said the guy who bashed me on King of the Hill.

Clyde Slick

January 19th 06, 07:58 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:27:00 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>> Sure Dave.... bash my preference
>
> So said the guy who bashed me on King of the Hill.

What episode was that?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[email protected]

January 19th 06, 07:37 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:NrEzf.38159$0G.18156@dukeread10...
> >
> > "dave weil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:37:13 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Not living in Europe anymore, not living in Japan, not living anywhere
> >>>> other than the US, I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of
> >>>> those delivery systems.
> >>>
> >>>Why not dave? Don't you know that geosync satellite system cover a lot
> >>>more
> >>>than the continental US and you could easily find that dishnet, direct,
> >>>and
> >>>other satellite services are offered beyond our borders. You really
> >>>don't
> >>>have to limit yourself to only what you think you can experience.
> >>
> >> Yes, i know that systems like Astra exist. Until I actually SEE them,
> >> I'm not going to comment on them You might try that sometime.
> >
> > I was actually referring to the fact that dishnet and DirectTV operate in
> > more than just the US... offering exactly the same signal you get.
>
> Oh.. and that signal is the same regardless of their package size.
>
> ScottW

Shouldn't you and Mr. Weil start another discussion forum and leave the
rest of us to continue discussing *audio*?
Ludovic Mirabel

Ruud Broens

January 19th 06, 08:48 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:4pEzf.38158$0G.26592@dukeread10...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > "ScottW" > wrote in message
: > oups.com...
: > :
: > : Ruud Broens wrote:
: > : > "ScottW" > wrote in message
: > : > news:Y0izf.34836$0G.30466@dukeread10...
: > : > :
: > : > : "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
: > : > : ...
: > : > : > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, > wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : > : >>> As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to
: > spend
: > : > : >>> the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of
: > HD.
: > : > : >>> There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest
: > will
: > : > : >>> be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today
: > on
: > : > : >>> standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the
: > demos -
: > : > : >>> that doesn't reflect future reality.
: > : > : >>>
: > : > : >>> d
: > : > : >>I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD
: > picture it
: > was
: > : > : >>on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting
: > an HD
: > : > : >>picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved
: > quality of
: > : > : >>the
: > : > : >>picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
: > : > : >>projection.
: > : > : >>
: > : > : >>One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3
: > years ago
: > : > : >>that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD
: > signal. Now
: > : > : >>that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
: > : > : >>improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
: > : > : >>
: > : > : >>
: > : > : >>
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it
: > is
: > : > : > the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as
: > more
: > : > : > and more channels want to get in on the act.
: > : > :
: > : > : Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
: > : > : companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth
: > to the
: > : > : problem.
: > : > :
: > : > : Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/fl/technology/technology.html
: > : > :
: > : > : Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the
: > country.
: > : > :
: > : > : ScottW
: > : > :
: > : > actually, it says:
: > : > "
: > : > a.. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited bandwidth,
: > : > a.. as much as 20 times faster than today's fastest
: > : > a.. high-speed data connections."
: > : >
: > : > which is pretty nondescriptive.
: > : > around here, that'd be 400 Mbs, not bad, but rather underutilizing
: > : > fiber capacity.
: > :
: > : Gross underestimation of cable bandwidth noted. They don't like
: > : publicize but you seem to be assuming that all of cables BW is used for
: > : internet... I'm guessing its only a fraction.
: >
: > repeated reading error noted. it says "high speed data connections", that
: > has nothing to do with the cable bandwidth. *that* would be, depending
: > on length and quality, up to several Gbs for cable. you're confusing total
: > capacity with the fraction that is currently reserved for _data
: > connections_.
: > :
: > : For example... if 1080i HD requires 20 to 30 Mbs (I don't know the
: > : number so I've no reason to doubt you).... then cable is bringing about
: > : 400 Mbs into my home for HD alone today... I have no idea what the
: > : total BW cable offers but if your number is correct... it has to be
: > : around 2gig or so.
: >
: > that is what is broadcasted, not a data connection over cable.
: > :
: > :
: > : > 4 Mbs satellite up/downstreams i've seen are pretty
: > : > good for normal quality tv channels, HD done the right way is some
: > : > 20 to 30 Mbs, so no way you can have many HD channels on a 400 Mbs
: > : > capacity link
:
: Your entire response has shown this comment to be irrelevant.

hardly. mentioning "20 times faster than today's fastest
high-speed data connections" is what is silly.

: Fiber is going to far exceed 400Mbs. Users will get all the HD they
: are willing to pay for.
:
ScottW, known for "I'm guessing its only a fraction" and
"I have no idea what the total BW cable offers" is going to tell *me*
what fiber optics are capable of - how silly do you want to appear here, eh ?
FYI, i have been professionally involved in implementing fiberoptics based
networks, i've walked the premises at ams-ix, one of the largest exchanges
in the world, i know all about LH Tbs ring topologies and metro Gbs networks,
DWDM, Ramann optical amplification, the C-band, L-band, etc. etc.
slam dunk , i'd say.

it's not about capability, it's about chosen level of implementation.

: > : >
: > : > some problems with ftth rollout:
: > : >
: > : > world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to facilitate
: > the US
: > : > alone would take decades of production
: > :
: > : I am not aware of any fiber shortage... lets see a reference. Last I
: > : looked.. Dow was having a problem keep fiber prices where they wanted
: > : them.
: >
: > sorry, what *you*'re not aware of doesn't set any standard. as Ferstler
: > would
: > say: trust me, i know of what i speak :-)
:
: I trust no one on usenet I don't know. So a little research shows no
: mention of fiber shortage
: since '01 and that was semicustom stuff. No doubt FttP rollout will take
: time and have its
: hiccups... but it is and will continue to happen.
: I only hope Verizon's aggressive plan for putting fiber past 6 million homes
: by the end of '06
: will motivate SBC to get off the dime.
:
: ScottW
:
LOL :-) yeah, right, what entails your 'little research' ? some googling,
perchance ??
so tell me, how much fiber is required for just a 6 million ptp fiber plant ,
Scott ?
on second thought, pls _don't_ answer that ;-)

cheers from a pro,
Rudy
--back to audio.mode
* will MPEG 4 -als become the audio lossless compression standard ?
* Memorex real gold CDR's/DVDr's promises centuries of storage (apr 06)

January 19th 06, 09:10 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Don Pearce wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
>> >> >in his Garden when no one is looking ...
>> >>
>> >> Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?
>> >>
>> > Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
>> > exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
>> > (same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
>> > usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
>> > forum!)
>> > But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
>> > Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
>> > "test" , the other one has a modification of it.
>> > Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
>> > show the audible differences between audio components.
>> >
>> > So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
>> > results only have shown up.
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>> It is up to you to show that the test will
>> > reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
>> > recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
>> > audiophiles and car audio lovers.
>>
>> It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
>> people
>> can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
>>
>> Till you have this evidence the
>> > logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
>> > follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
>> > result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
>> > much.
>
>
>>
>> The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
>> outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
>> hype.
>>
>> Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
>> > "test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
>> > explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
>> > it does not!
>>
>> Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.
>>
>> > To please you I looked for components where
>> > differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
>> > easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
>> > the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
>> > were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
>> > them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
>> > WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
>> > did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
>> > before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
>> > results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
>> > what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
>> > scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.
>> >
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>>
>
>> > ** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
>> >> I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
>> >> speakers should sound different. No takers.
>> > Krueger answers:
>> > Too easy. Been there, done that:
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the results
>> of
>> previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
>> convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Below find the "arguments" that the slight forger NYOB has to offer
> in a discussion that seemed serious before the clowns danced in..
> Argument #1
>> Liar.
> Argument #2
>> It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
>> people
>> can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
> Not a QUOTE, QUOTE, QUOTE to show where and when "it was done" and how
> would anyone other than the slight forger " know it"
> Argument #3
>> The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
>> outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
>> hype
> The question is for the nth. time. Quote one single published monitored
> "test" report in which a resonably-sized listener panel recognised
> differences between ANY, ANY, ANY comparable audio components. ANY,
> ANY, ANY**

Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
I count 3 positive results here:
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
assumptions?

There are 2 more positive results here:
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements, no?

There's another one here: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm

Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm

And here's 7 more: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm

Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX rests
of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby proving your
dishonesty.

So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX listening
tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to bitch
about.

ScottW

January 20th 06, 12:07 AM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> : Fiber is going to far exceed 400Mbs. Users will get all the HD they
> : are willing to pay for.
> :
> ScottW, known for "I'm guessing its only a fraction" and
> "I have no idea what the total BW cable offers" is going to tell *me*
> what fiber optics are capable of - how silly do you want to appear here,
> eh ?
> FYI, i have been professionally involved in implementing fiberoptics based
> networks, i've walked the premises at ams-ix, one of the largest exchanges
> in the world, i know all about LH Tbs ring topologies and metro Gbs
> networks,
> DWDM, Ramann optical amplification, the C-band, L-band, etc. etc.
> slam dunk , i'd say.
>
> it's not about capability, it's about chosen level of implementation.

Very impressive... but you haven't really made an arguement.
So let me help you.... are you claiming based upon your vast experience
that Verizons FiOs service won't have enough BW to support all the HD
content available, now and in the foreseeable future?

>
> : > : >
> : > : > some problems with ftth rollout:
> : > : >
> : > : > world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to
> facilitate
> : > the US
> : > : > alone would take decades of production
> : > :
> : > : I am not aware of any fiber shortage... lets see a reference.
> Last I
> : > : looked.. Dow was having a problem keep fiber prices where they
> wanted
> : > : them.
> : >
> : > sorry, what *you*'re not aware of doesn't set any standard. as
> Ferstler
> : > would
> : > say: trust me, i know of what i speak :-)
> :
> : I trust no one on usenet I don't know. So a little research shows no
> : mention of fiber shortage
> : since '01 and that was semicustom stuff. No doubt FttP rollout will
> take
> : time and have its
> : hiccups... but it is and will continue to happen.
> : I only hope Verizon's aggressive plan for putting fiber past 6 million
> homes
> : by the end of '06
> : will motivate SBC to get off the dime.
> :
> : ScottW
> :
> LOL :-) yeah, right, what entails your 'little research' ? some googling,
> perchance ??
> so tell me, how much fiber is required for just a 6 million ptp fiber
> plant ,
> Scott ?
> on second thought, pls _don't_ answer that ;-)

Verizon's rollout plan is on track. 6 Million homes by the end of this
year.
Fiber shortage... or not.

ScottW

Ruud Broens

January 20th 06, 07:21 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:9RVzf.41899$0G.15260@dukeread10...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > : Fiber is going to far exceed 400Mbs. Users will get all the HD they
: > : are willing to pay for.
: > :
: > ScottW, known for "I'm guessing its only a fraction" and
: > "I have no idea what the total BW cable offers" is going to tell *me*
: > what fiber optics are capable of - how silly do you want to appear here,
: > eh ?
: > FYI, i have been professionally involved in implementing fiberoptics based
: > networks, i've walked the premises at ams-ix, one of the largest exchanges
: > in the world, i know all about LH Tbs ring topologies and metro Gbs
: > networks,
: > DWDM, Ramann optical amplification, the C-band, L-band, etc. etc.
: > slam dunk , i'd say.
: >
: > it's not about capability, it's about chosen level of implementation.
:
: Very impressive... but you haven't really made an arguement.
: So let me help you.... are you claiming based upon your vast experience
: that Verizons FiOs service won't have enough BW to support all the HD
: content available, now and in the foreseeable future?

the day i need _your_ help is wayyyy into the future, if ever ;-)
as i said, depending on implementation (lot's of splitter boxes instead of true
p2p) you don't need so much fiber, obviously, but that sets up a broadcast
oriented structure. plenty capacity for HD channels broadcasted, not so
much available for datacommunication.

: > : > : >
: > : > : > some problems with ftth rollout:
: > : > : >
: > : > : > world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to
: > facilitate
: > : > the US
: > : > : > alone would take decades of production
: > : > :
: > : > : I am not aware of any fiber shortage... lets see a reference.
: > Last I
: > : > : looked.. Dow was having a problem keep fiber prices where they
: > wanted
: > : > : them.
: > : >
: > : > sorry, what *you*'re not aware of doesn't set any standard. as
: > Ferstler
: > : > would
: > : > say: trust me, i know of what i speak :-)
: > :
: > : I trust no one on usenet I don't know. So a little research shows no
: > : mention of fiber shortage
: > : since '01 and that was semicustom stuff. No doubt FttP rollout will
: > take
: > : time and have its
: > : hiccups... but it is and will continue to happen.
: > : I only hope Verizon's aggressive plan for putting fiber past 6 million
: > homes
: > : by the end of '06
: > : will motivate SBC to get off the dime.
: > :
: > : ScottW
: > :
: > LOL :-) yeah, right, what entails your 'little research' ? some googling,
: > perchance ??
: > so tell me, how much fiber is required for just a 6 million ptp fiber
: > plant ,
: > Scott ?
: > on second thought, pls _don't_ answer that ;-)
:
: Verizon's rollout plan is on track. 6 Million homes by the end of this
: year.
: Fiber shortage... or not.
:
: ScottW
:
you've repeatedly mentioned 'fiber shortage' - reading problems, again, i see.
*if* one want true p2p fiber to the home fibre plants for some 100 M
homes, *that* takes well above combined production capacity worldwide, for
several
years - of course, the world is bigger then the us, so i'd say ~capacity is
restricted~

using splitters will lower rollout costs and fiber requirement
so that's what we'll see
Rudy

[email protected]

January 21st 06, 12:09 AM

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Don Pearce wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM" >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
> >> >> >in his Garden when no one is looking ...
> >> >>
> >> >> Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?
> >> >>
> >> > Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
> >> > exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
> >> > (same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
> >> > usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
> >> > forum!)
> >> > But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
> >> > Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
> >> > "test" , the other one has a modification of it.
> >> > Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
> >> > show the audible differences between audio components.
> >> >
> >> > So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
> >> > results only have shown up.
> >>
> >> Liar.
> >>
> >> It is up to you to show that the test will
> >> > reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
> >> > recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
> >> > audiophiles and car audio lovers.
> >>
> >> It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
> >> people
> >> can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
> >>
> >> Till you have this evidence the
> >> > logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
> >> > follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
> >> > result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
> >> > much.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
> >> outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
> >> hype.
> >>
> >> Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
> >> > "test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
> >> > explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
> >> > it does not!
> >>
> >> Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.
> >>
> >> > To please you I looked for components where
> >> > differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
> >> > easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
> >> > the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
> >> > were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
> >> > them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
> >> > WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
> >> > did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
> >> > before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
> >> > results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
> >> > what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
> >> > scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.
> >> >
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >> > ** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
> >> >> I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
> >> >> speakers should sound different. No takers.
> >> > Krueger answers:
> >> > Too easy. Been there, done that:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the results
> >> of
> >> previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
> >> convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Below find the "arguments" that the slight forger NYOB has to offer
> > in a discussion that seemed serious before the clowns danced in..
> > Argument #1
> >> Liar.
> > Argument #2
> >> It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
> >> people
> >> can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
> > Not a QUOTE, QUOTE, QUOTE to show where and when "it was done" and how
> > would anyone other than the slight forger " know it"
> > Argument #3
> >> The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
> >> outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
> >> hype
> > The question is for the nth. time. Quote one single published monitored
> > "test" report in which a resonably-sized listener panel recognised
> > differences between ANY, ANY, ANY comparable audio components. ANY,
> > ANY, ANY**
>
> Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
> I count 3 positive results here:
> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
>
> Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
> assumptions?
>
> There are 2 more positive results here:
> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
> Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements, no?
>
> There's another one here: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm
>
> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm
>
>
> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm
>
> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm
>
> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm
>
> And here's 7 more: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm
>
> Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX rests
> of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby proving your
> dishonesty.
>
> So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX listening
> tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to bitch
> about.
------------------------------------------------------------

Clown-Prince has a question:
"Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
the identical pcavtech. dance routine.
Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
fresh.
So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
bored as is the writer.
The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
1) 10 watt tubes amps
They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
not bad but less than flat:
They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.
2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
"The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.

They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
or not.
Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
-repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
"different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
and one wrong.
First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"

The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
they?
If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
comment:
"The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "

Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.

Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
menu in the lock-up.

The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
against wire"
I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
positive ABX results.
For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference. But then I'm not ABXing.
The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
were not rather sad.
This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
offer a few years ago.

Ludovic Mirabel
Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
up again I'll just copy the text above

In keeping I'll requote what I wrote before"
"Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
randomised,
double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
media in children"
You know how many subjects? 512
Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
placebo".
Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not
like its ABX caricature."

------------------

ScottW

January 21st 06, 02:45 AM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:9RVzf.41899$0G.15260@dukeread10...
>
> using splitters will lower rollout costs and fiber requirement
> so that's what we'll see

And thats what they're doing

http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/fl/technology/fttp_arch.html

However... it still will provide a significant upgrade in available
bandwidth
over cable. And the vast majority of that capacity will be broadcast
but with plenty of HD and bandwidth left for video downloads and EOD.

You're starting to sound jealous.... no FttP coming to your neighborhood
soon?

ScottW

Ruud Broens

January 21st 06, 05:18 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:ZehAf.42881$0G.7576@dukeread10...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > "ScottW" > wrote in message
: > news:9RVzf.41899$0G.15260@dukeread10...
: >
: > using splitters will lower rollout costs and fiber requirement
: > so that's what we'll see
:
: And thats what they're doing
:
: http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/fl/technology/fttp_arch.html
:
: However... it still will provide a significant upgrade in available
: bandwidth
: over cable. And the vast majority of that capacity will be broadcast
: but with plenty of HD and bandwidth left for video downloads and EOD.
:
: You're starting to sound jealous.... no FttP coming to your neighborhood
: soon?
:
: ScottW

There are many issues involved in roll-out and implementation of such
networks. In Europe, having ownership of physical network and
service/content delivery spread over several parties is where it's
heading. It needs to be settled to a certain point, before synergies and
cost savings with setup and exploitation can work - no need to open up
'm streets 5 times, eh ;-)

Cable companies have a fibre to the curb implementation already in
place, the final mile then converted using coax - giving 96 digital
TV channels, 90 radio channels, 40 analog channels and Eurodocsys II
cable modems , presently 12M5/1M offered

Verizon's implementation could facilitate some 100 HD broadcasts
(or equivalent mix of HD/regular/radio) with 100/10 Mbs data
so that's a substantial upgrade, agreed, indeed :-)

Jealous ? Nahh, i'd much prefer a Blu ray jukebox over 5 times an hour
commercial-interrupted broadcasts ;-)
With a SED display, maybe ?

cheers,
Rudy

Ruud Broens

January 21st 06, 05:37 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...

: Jealous ? Nahh, i'd much prefer a Blu ray jukebox over 5 times an hour
: commercial-interrupted broadcasts ;-)
: With a SED display, maybe ?
:
: cheers,
: Rudy
:
see here:
http://www.canon.com/technology/display/

the possibility of screen printing manufacturing is awesome :-)

ok, enough vid on rao,
R.

ScottW

January 21st 06, 06:41 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> : Jealous ? Nahh, i'd much prefer a Blu ray jukebox over 5 times an hour
> : commercial-interrupted broadcasts ;-)
> : With a SED display, maybe ?

I've got 4 HD channels that are commercial free and about 10 digital
channels that are... none of these are premiere channels or pay channels
(HBO etc).. they're part of standard digital cable offerings.
One the old analogue side... I can only think of 3 that are commercial
free.. PBS and 2 C-spans. Anyway.. the more channels the more commercial
free content.... and hopefully.. lower cost and HD EOD.

> :
> : cheers,
> : Rudy
> :
> see here:
> http://www.canon.com/technology/display/
>
> the possibility of screen printing manufacturing is awesome :-)

Not to be a knit but I think the real advance there is in application of
inkjet.
That gives a big increase in resolution over screen printing. I worked for
a hybrid thick film circuit manufacturer some 20 years ago. All screen
printed stuff though as resolutions improved they went from screens to
stencils.

These guys are also doing some interesting stuff with print manufacturing.
You can get a 12 watt panel for about $20 now.
http://www.iowathinfilm.com/technology/index.html

ScottW

George M. Middius

January 21st 06, 06:51 PM

Scottie yapped:

> I've got 4 HD channels that are commercial free and about 10 digital
> channels that are... none of these are premiere channels or pay channels
> (HBO etc).. they're part of standard digital cable offerings.
> One the old analogue side... I can only think of 3 that are commercial
> free.. PBS and 2 C-spans. Anyway.. the more channels the more commercial
> free content.... and hopefully.. lower cost and HD EOD.

Do you like emeralds? Here's an offer for you: You can have 10 carats of
emeralds for $100 or 1 carat for $5000. Which one do you want?

ScottW

January 21st 06, 07:44 PM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Scottie yapped:
>
>> I've got 4 HD channels that are commercial free and about 10 digital
>> channels that are... none of these are premiere channels or pay channels
>> (HBO etc).. they're part of standard digital cable offerings.
>> One the old analogue side... I can only think of 3 that are commercial
>> free.. PBS and 2 C-spans. Anyway.. the more channels the more
>> commercial
>> free content.... and hopefully.. lower cost and HD EOD.
>
> Do you like emeralds? Here's an offer for you: You can have 10 carats of
> emeralds for $100 or 1 carat for $5000. Which one do you want?

Poor George... clarity eludes him again.... What's the matter George? Is
Liberty Medical late with your meds again?

ScottW

Ruud Broens

January 21st 06, 10:32 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:jfvAf.43096$0G.304@dukeread10...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: > see here:
: > http://www.canon.com/technology/display/
: >
: > the possibility of screen printing manufacturing is awesome :-)
:
: Not to be a knit but I think the real advance there is in application of
: inkjet.
: That gives a big increase in resolution over screen printing. I worked for
: a hybrid thick film circuit manufacturer some 20 years ago. All screen
: printed stuff though as resolutions improved they went from screens to
: stencils.

ok, picking a nitz pick: it doesn't say screenprinting (the printing technology)
but screen printing, as in making a screen by (various) printing technologies.

there is a blurring or fusion, depending on your views ;-), going on,
eg. here you can read that offset-like (hydrophile/hydrophobe) elements
are used together with inkjet (OLED; transistor circuits):
http://www.idtechex.com/printelecreview/en/articles/00000180.asp

so, a 16000*12000 160*100 cm screen is in the wings..
that will need local scaling and interpolation to be practical

printed transistor circuits at the edges of the display with several
times the current SOTA pc graphics chips' performance
- some challenges there :-)
R.

: These guys are also doing some interesting stuff with print manufacturing.
: You can get a 12 watt panel for about $20 now.
: http://www.iowathinfilm.com/technology/index.html
:
: ScottW
:
:

January 24th 06, 08:08 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Don Pearce wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM" >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
>> >> >> >in his Garden when no one is looking ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?
>> >> >>
>> >> > Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
>> >> > exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be
>> >> > tested,
>> >> > (same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
>> >> > usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an
>> >> > audio
>> >> > forum!)
>> >> > But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
>> >> > Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
>> >> > "test" , the other one has a modification of it.
>> >> > Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
>> >> > show the audible differences between audio components.
>> >> >
>> >> > So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
>> >> > results only have shown up.
>> >>
>> >> Liar.
>> >>
>> >> It is up to you to show that the test will
>> >> > reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
>> >> > recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and
>> >> > women,
>> >> > audiophiles and car audio lovers.
>> >>
>> >> It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
>> >> people
>> >> can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
>> >>
>> >> Till you have this evidence the
>> >> > logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
>> >> > follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
>> >> > result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear
>> >> > anything
>> >> > much.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a
>> >> guaranteed
>> >> outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
>> >> hype.
>> >>
>> >> Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
>> >> > "test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
>> >> > explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove
>> >> > that
>> >> > it does not!
>> >>
>> >> Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.
>> >>
>> >> > To please you I looked for components
>> >> > where
>> >> > differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good-
>> >> > "Too
>> >> > easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly
>> >> > sidetracks
>> >> > the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said
>> >> > they
>> >> > were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
>> >> > them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
>> >> > WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
>> >> > did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it
>> >> > WORKS
>> >> > before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable
>> >> > null
>> >> > results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
>> >> > what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
>> >> > scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> > ** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
>> >> >> I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
>> >> >> speakers should sound different. No takers.
>> >> > Krueger answers:
>> >> > Too easy. Been there, done that:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the
>> >> results
>> >> of
>> >> previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
>> >> convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Below find the "arguments" that the slight forger NYOB has to offer
>> > in a discussion that seemed serious before the clowns danced in..
>> > Argument #1
>> >> Liar.
>> > Argument #2
>> >> It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
>> >> people
>> >> can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
>> > Not a QUOTE, QUOTE, QUOTE to show where and when "it was done" and how
>> > would anyone other than the slight forger " know it"
>> > Argument #3
>> >> The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a
>> >> guaranteed
>> >> outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
>> >> hype
>> > The question is for the nth. time. Quote one single published monitored
>> > "test" report in which a resonably-sized listener panel recognised
>> > differences between ANY, ANY, ANY comparable audio components. ANY,
>> > ANY, ANY**
>>
>> Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
>> I count 3 positive results here:
>> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
>>
>> Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
>> assumptions?
>>
>> There are 2 more positive results here:
>> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
>> Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements, no?
>>
>> There's another one here: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm
>>
>> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm
>>
>>
>> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm
>>
>> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm
>>
>> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm
>>
>> And here's 7 more: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm
>>
>> Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX
>> rests
>> of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby proving
>> your
>> dishonesty.
>>
>> So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX
>> listening
>> tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to bitch
>> about.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Clown-Prince has a question:
> "Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
> Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
> members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
> one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
> the identical pcavtech. dance routine.

What has the age of the website to do with anything? Some of the tests
cited are far younger than that.

> Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
> audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
> will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
> fresh.
> So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
> bored as is the writer.
> The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
> amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
> They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
> 1) 10 watt tubes amps
> They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
> two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
> right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
> Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
> Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
> which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
> not bad but less than flat:
> They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
> subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.

As long as neither amp was clipping, what's the problem?

> 2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
> panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
> Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
> numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
> 3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
> "The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
> speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
> unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
> Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.
>
Proving that clipping amps is a bad thing when doing blind comaprisons.

> They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
> watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
> Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
> vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
> or not.
> Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
> Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
> cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
> -repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
> that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
> also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
> when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
> cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
> "different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
> Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
> and one wrong.
> First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
> made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
> Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
> They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
> player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
> technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"
>
And that proves what? CD players are supposed to produce perfect
reproduction.
Obviously this comparison showed otherwise.

> The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
> distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
> they?

Because some tape players sound different that others, at least according to
many people.

> If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
> by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
> comment:
> "The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
> operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
> between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
> conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
> difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
> Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
> heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
> low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "
>
> Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
> training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
> clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
> him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.
>

Sometimes music is not the most revealing way to discern difference.
Thanks for admitting that you didn't know that.

> Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
> wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
> right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
> another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
> menu in the lock-up.
See above. Sometimes signals other than music are more revealing.

>
> The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
> against wire"
> I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
> volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
> positive ABX results.

It shows that differences can be heard in an ABX test, something you seem to
think is not possible.

> For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
> between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
> have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference.

The standard for levcel matching is.1dB since more than that is aduible.

But then I'm not ABXing.
> The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
> were not rather sad.
> This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
> standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
> of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
> offer a few years ago.
>
> Ludovic Mirabel
> Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
> poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
> up again I'll just copy the text above
>

Because that's the best you can do. You have no real way to invalidate any
of the results.

January 25th 06, 07:28 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>
>> Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
>> I count 3 positive results here:
>> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
>>
>> Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
>> assumptions?
>>
>> There are 2 more positive results here:
>> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
>> Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements, no?
>>
>> There's another one here: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm
>>
>> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm
>>
>>
>> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm
>>
>> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm
>>
>> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm
>>
>> And here's 7 more: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm
>>
>> Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX
>> rests
>> of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby proving
>> your
>> dishonesty.
>>
>> So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX
>> listening
>> tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to bitch
>> about.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Clown-Prince has a question:
> "Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
> Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
> members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
> one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
> the identical pcavtech. dance routine.
> Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
> audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
> will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
> fresh.
> So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
> bored as is the writer.
> The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
> amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
> They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
> 1) 10 watt tubes amps
> They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
> two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
> right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
> Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
> Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
> which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
> not bad but less than flat:
> They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
> subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.
> 2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
> panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
> Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
> numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
> 3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
> "The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
> speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
> unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
> Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.
>
> They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
> watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
> Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
> vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
> or not.
> Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
> Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
> cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
> -repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
> that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
> also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
> when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
> cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
> "different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
> Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
> and one wrong.
> First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
> made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
> Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
> They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
> player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
> technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"
>
> The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
> distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
> they?
> If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
> by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
> comment:
> "The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
> operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
> between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
> conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
> difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
> Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
> heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
> low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "
>
> Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
> training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
> clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
> him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.
>
> Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
> wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
> right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
> another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
> menu in the lock-up.
>
> The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
> against wire"
> I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
> volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
> positive ABX results.
> For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
> between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
> have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference. But then I'm not ABXing.
> The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
> were not rather sad.
> This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
> standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
> of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
> offer a few years ago.
>
> Ludovic Mirabel
> Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
> poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
> up again I'll just copy the text above
>
> In keeping I'll requote what I wrote before"
> "Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
> issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
> randomised,
> double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
> media in children"
> You know how many subjects? 512
> Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
> better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
> placebo".
> Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not
> like its ABX caricature."

Believe it or not, I've actually run and--participated in--a double blind
test of mono v. bi-wiring. This was not an ABX test, it was an AB test.
Could the participants tell whether they were listening to a bi-wired
Vandersteen speaker or a mono-wired one? This test used 33' of wire having
sizes of 12, 18 or 24 AWG. For each wire size, the question was: can you
tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs. mono-wired. It
proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There was a very slight
difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24 wire, and the
comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least louder.) All of
these results were what I would have guessed ahead of time based on
electrical theory. IOW, no surprises.

Norm Strong

Clyde Slick

January 25th 06, 11:30 PM

> wrote in message
...
>
> Believe it or not, I've actually run and--participated in--a double blind
> test of mono v. bi-wiring. This was not an ABX test, it was an AB test.
> Could the participants tell whether they were listening to a bi-wired
> Vandersteen speaker or a mono-wired one? This test used 33' of wire
> having sizes of 12, 18 or 24 AWG. For each wire size, the question was:
> can you tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs.
> mono-wired. It proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There
> was a very slight difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24
> wire, and the comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least
> louder.) All of these results were what I would have guessed ahead of
> time based on electrical theory. IOW, no surprises.
>
> Norm Strong
>

Which Vandersteen speakers?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[email protected]

January 27th 06, 12:08 AM

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
> >> I count 3 positive results here:
> >> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
> >>
> >> Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
> >> assumptions?
> >>
> >> There are 2 more positive results here:
> >> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
> >> Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements, no?
> >>
> >> There's another one here: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm
> >>
> >> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm
> >>
> >> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm
> >>
> >> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm
> >>
> >> And here's 7 more: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm
> >>
> >> Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX
> >> rests
> >> of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby proving
> >> your
> >> dishonesty.
> >>
> >> So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX
> >> listening
> >> tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to bitch
> >> about.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Clown-Prince has a question:
> > "Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
> > Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
> > members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
> > one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
> > the identical pcavtech. dance routine.
> > Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
> > audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
> > will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
> > fresh.
> > So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
> > bored as is the writer.
> > The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
> > amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
> > They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
> > 1) 10 watt tubes amps
> > They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
> > two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
> > right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
> > Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
> > Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
> > which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
> > not bad but less than flat:
> > They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
> > subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.
> > 2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
> > panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
> > Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
> > numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
> > 3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
> > "The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
> > speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
> > unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
> > Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.
> >
> > They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
> > watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
> > Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
> > vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
> > or not.
> > Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
> > Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
> > cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
> > -repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
> > that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
> > also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
> > when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
> > cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
> > "different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
> > Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
> > and one wrong.
> > First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
> > made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
> > Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
> > They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
> > player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
> > technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"
> >
> > The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
> > distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
> > they?
> > If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
> > by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
> > comment:
> > "The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
> > operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
> > between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
> > conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
> > difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
> > Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
> > heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
> > low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "
> >
> > Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
> > training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
> > clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
> > him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.
> >
> > Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
> > wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
> > right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
> > another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
> > menu in the lock-up.
> >
> > The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
> > against wire"
> > I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
> > volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
> > positive ABX results.
> > For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
> > between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
> > have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference. But then I'm not ABXing.
> > The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
> > were not rather sad.
> > This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
> > standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
> > of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
> > offer a few years ago.
> >
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> > Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
> > poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
> > up again I'll just copy the text above
> >
> > In keeping I'll requote what I wrote before"
> > "Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
> > issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
> > randomised,
> > double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
> > media in children"
> > You know how many subjects? 512
> > Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
> > better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
> > placebo".
> > Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not
> > like its ABX caricature."
>
> Believe it or not, I've actually run and--participated in--a double blind
> test of mono v. bi-wiring. This was not an ABX test, it was an AB test.
> Could the participants tell whether they were listening to a bi-wired
> Vandersteen speaker or a mono-wired one? This test used 33' of wire having
> sizes of 12, 18 or 24 AWG. For each wire size, the question was: can you
> tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs. mono-wired. It
> proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There was a very slight
> difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24 wire, and the
> comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least louder.) All of
> these results were what I would have guessed ahead of time based on
> electrical theory. IOW, no surprises.
>
> Norm Strong

Norm I'm genuinely puzzled. You start by saying "believe me or not".
Why should anyone disbelieve that ABX sessions are feasible?
I could but hardly think it necessary to ask: how many participated,
how representative a group was it, what were your statistical criteria
etc.etc.
I accept your result. It is another negative result in the negative
null file of ABX results. For all I know it may be that no one would
hear anything else comparing biamping with single-amping.or else that
someone, somewhere might. Hardly a proof that otherl components sound
the same.to everyone on earth. Remember you were not satisfied with an
82% positive result of Greenhill's "golden ear" distinguishing cables.
You're happy that theory supports you but all scientific theory is
based on the experiments as availavle on 22 Jan 2006
Have you had any positive results? With anything in audio
Ludovic Mirabel

January 27th 06, 05:31 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
>> >> I count 3 positive results here:
>> >> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
>> >>
>> >> Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
>> >> assumptions?
>> >>
>> >> There are 2 more positive results here:
>> >> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
>> >> Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements,
>> >> no?
>> >>
>> >> There's another one here: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm
>> >>
>> >> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm
>> >>
>> >> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm
>> >>
>> >> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm
>> >>
>> >> And here's 7 more: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm
>> >>
>> >> Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX
>> >> rests
>> >> of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby
>> >> proving
>> >> your
>> >> dishonesty.
>> >>
>> >> So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX
>> >> listening
>> >> tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to
>> >> bitch
>> >> about.
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Clown-Prince has a question:
>> > "Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
>> > Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
>> > members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
>> > one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
>> > the identical pcavtech. dance routine.
>> > Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
>> > audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
>> > will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
>> > fresh.
>> > So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
>> > bored as is the writer.
>> > The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
>> > amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
>> > They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
>> > 1) 10 watt tubes amps
>> > They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
>> > two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
>> > right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
>> > Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
>> > Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
>> > which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
>> > not bad but less than flat:
>> > They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
>> > subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.
>> > 2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
>> > panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
>> > Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
>> > numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
>> > 3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
>> > "The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
>> > speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
>> > unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
>> > Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.
>> >
>> > They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
>> > watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
>> > Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
>> > vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
>> > or not.
>> > Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
>> > Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
>> > cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
>> > -repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
>> > that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
>> > also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
>> > when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
>> > cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
>> > "different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
>> > Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
>> > and one wrong.
>> > First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
>> > made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
>> > Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
>> > They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
>> > player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
>> > technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"
>> >
>> > The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
>> > distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
>> > they?
>> > If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
>> > by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
>> > comment:
>> > "The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
>> > operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
>> > between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
>> > conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
>> > difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
>> > Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
>> > heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
>> > low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "
>> >
>> > Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
>> > training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
>> > clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
>> > him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.
>> >
>> > Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
>> > wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
>> > right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
>> > another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
>> > menu in the lock-up.
>> >
>> > The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
>> > against wire"
>> > I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
>> > volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
>> > positive ABX results.
>> > For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
>> > between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
>> > have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference. But then I'm not ABXing.
>> > The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
>> > were not rather sad.
>> > This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
>> > standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
>> > of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
>> > offer a few years ago.
>> >
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> > Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
>> > poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
>> > up again I'll just copy the text above
>> >
>> > In keeping I'll requote what I wrote before"
>> > "Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
>> > issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
>> > randomised,
>> > double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
>> > media in children"
>> > You know how many subjects? 512
>> > Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
>> > better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
>> > placebo".
>> > Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not
>> > like its ABX caricature."
>>
>> Believe it or not, I've actually run and--participated in--a double blind
>> test of mono v. bi-wiring. This was not an ABX test, it was an AB test.
>> Could the participants tell whether they were listening to a bi-wired
>> Vandersteen speaker or a mono-wired one? This test used 33' of wire
>> having
>> sizes of 12, 18 or 24 AWG. For each wire size, the question was: can
>> you
>> tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs. mono-wired. It
>> proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There was a very
>> slight
>> difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24 wire, and the
>> comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least louder.) All
>> of
>> these results were what I would have guessed ahead of time based on
>> electrical theory. IOW, no surprises.
>>
>> Norm Strong
>
> Norm I'm genuinely puzzled. You start by saying "believe me or not".
> Why should anyone disbelieve that ABX sessions are feasible?
> I could but hardly think it necessary to ask: how many participated,
> how representative a group was it, what were your statistical criteria
> etc.etc.
> I accept your result. It is another negative result in the negative
> null file of ABX results. For all I know it may be that no one would
> hear anything else comparing biamping with single-amping.or else that
> someone, somewhere might. Hardly a proof that otherl components sound
> the same.to everyone on earth. Remember you were not satisfied with an
> 82% positive result of Greenhill's "golden ear" distinguishing cables.
> You're happy that theory supports you but all scientific theory is
> based on the experiments as availavle on 22 Jan 2006
> Have you had any positive results? With anything in audio
> Ludovic Mirabel

The AWG24 results were positive, were they not. This WAS a double blind
test. There WERE 3 people listening (and one to run the test.) The
bi-wired speakers sounded different than the mono-wired ones. My guess is
that the same results would have been obtained for AWG18 wires if I had run
the test backwards. Yes, it's true that I did not pursue the test further,
or with more subjects, largely because the results were what I would have
expected. If they had run counter to my expectations, I probably would
have run additional tests. I leave that task for others.

Norm

[email protected]

January 27th 06, 07:25 PM

wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > said:
> >
> >> Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
> >> show the audible differences between audio components.
> >
> > I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
> > simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
> > audible differences do not "really" exist.
> >
> >
> >
> They certainly prove that the non-existent ones don't exist, which covers a
> lot of gear and virtually all wire and interconnects.

I see no profit or pleasure in discussions with a document
forger whose main argument is "You're a liar
Ludovic Mirabel

Arny Krueger

January 27th 06, 07:34 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com
> wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
>> comcast [dot] net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
>>>> show the audible differences between audio components.
>>>
>>> I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true.
>>> Pearce and his simple-minded followers promote the
>>> "tests" in order to "prove" that audible differences do
>>> not "really" exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> They certainly prove that the non-existent ones don't
>> exist, which covers a lot of gear and virtually all wire
>> and interconnects.
>
> I see no profit or pleasure in discussions with a
> document forger whose main argument is "You're a liar

You don't seem to have any problems with working with Middius!

[email protected]

January 28th 06, 03:09 AM

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
> >> >> I count 3 positive results here:
> >> >> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
> >> >> assumptions?
> >> >>
> >> >> There are 2 more positive results here:
> >> >> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
> >> >> Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements,
> >> >> no?
> >> >>
> >> >> There's another one here: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> And here's 7 more: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX
> >> >> rests
> >> >> of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby
> >> >> proving
> >> >> your
> >> >> dishonesty.
> >> >>
> >> >> So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX
> >> >> listening
> >> >> tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to
> >> >> bitch
> >> >> about.
> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > Clown-Prince has a question:
> >> > "Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
> >> > Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
> >> > members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
> >> > one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
> >> > the identical pcavtech. dance routine.
> >> > Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
> >> > audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
> >> > will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
> >> > fresh.
> >> > So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
> >> > bored as is the writer.
> >> > The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
> >> > amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
> >> > They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
> >> > 1) 10 watt tubes amps
> >> > They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
> >> > two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
> >> > right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
> >> > Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
> >> > Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
> >> > which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
> >> > not bad but less than flat:
> >> > They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
> >> > subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.
> >> > 2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
> >> > panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
> >> > Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
> >> > numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
> >> > 3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
> >> > "The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
> >> > speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
> >> > unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
> >> > Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.
> >> >
> >> > They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
> >> > watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
> >> > Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
> >> > vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
> >> > or not.
> >> > Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
> >> > Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
> >> > cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
> >> > -repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
> >> > that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
> >> > also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
> >> > when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
> >> > cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
> >> > "different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
> >> > Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
> >> > and one wrong.
> >> > First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
> >> > made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
> >> > Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
> >> > They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
> >> > player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
> >> > technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"
> >> >
> >> > The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
> >> > distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
> >> > they?
> >> > If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
> >> > by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
> >> > comment:
> >> > "The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
> >> > operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
> >> > between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
> >> > conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
> >> > difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
> >> > Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
> >> > heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
> >> > low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "
> >> >
> >> > Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
> >> > training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
> >> > clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
> >> > him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.
> >> >
> >> > Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
> >> > wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
> >> > right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
> >> > another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
> >> > menu in the lock-up.
> >> >
> >> > The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
> >> > against wire"
> >> > I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
> >> > volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
> >> > positive ABX results.
> >> > For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
> >> > between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
> >> > have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference. But then I'm not ABXing.
> >> > The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
> >> > were not rather sad.
> >> > This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
> >> > standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
> >> > of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
> >> > offer a few years ago.
> >> >
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> > Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
> >> > poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
> >> > up again I'll just copy the text above
> >> >
> >> > In keeping I'll requote what I wrote before"
> >> > "Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
> >> > issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
> >> > randomised,
> >> > double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
> >> > media in children"
> >> > You know how many subjects? 512
> >> > Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
> >> > better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
> >> > placebo".
> >> > Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not
> >> > like its ABX caricature."
> >>
> >> Believe it or not, I've actually run and--participated in--a double blind
> >> test of mono v. bi-wiring. This was not an ABX test, it was an AB test.
> >> Could the participants tell whether they were listening to a bi-wired
> >> Vandersteen speaker or a mono-wired one? This test used 33' of wire
> >> having
> >> sizes of 12, 18 or 24 AWG. For each wire size, the question was: can
> >> you
> >> tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs. mono-wired. It
> >> proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There was a very
> >> slight
> >> difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24 wire, and the
> >> comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least louder.) All
> >> of
> >> these results were what I would have guessed ahead of time based on
> >> electrical theory. IOW, no surprises.
> >>
> >> Norm Strong
> >
> > Norm I'm genuinely puzzled. You start by saying "believe me or not".
> > Why should anyone disbelieve that ABX sessions are feasible?
> > I could but hardly think it necessary to ask: how many participated,
> > how representative a group was it, what were your statistical criteria
> > etc.etc.
> > I accept your result. It is another negative result in the negative
> > null file of ABX results. For all I know it may be that no one would
> > hear anything else comparing biamping with single-amping.or else that
> > someone, somewhere might. Hardly a proof that otherl components sound
> > the same.to everyone on earth. Remember you were not satisfied with an
> > 82% positive result of Greenhill's "golden ear" distinguishing cables.
> > You're happy that theory supports you but all scientific theory is
> > based on the experiments as availavle on 22 Jan 2006
> > Have you had any positive results? With anything in audio
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> The AWG24 results were positive, were they not. This WAS a double blind
> test. There WERE 3 people listening (and one to run the test.) The
> bi-wired speakers sounded different than the mono-wired ones. My guess is
> that the same results would have been obtained for AWG18 wires if I had run
> the test backwards. Yes, it's true that I did not pursue the test further,
> or with more subjects, largely because the results were what I would have
> expected. If they had run counter to my expectations, I probably would
> have run additional tests. I leave that task for others.
>
> Norm

--------------------------------------------------------------

Norm, I do not think there is anything to argue about, Your panel of 3
found that: (I'm quoting you):
>>>For each wire size, the question was: can
> >> you
> >> tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs. mono-wired. It
> >> proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There was a very
> >> slight
> >> difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24 wire, and the
> >> comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least louder.) .
Reminder: The argument is about validation of ABX method of testing for
difference between audio components. The above is your examplle of
proper research validating ABX/DBT in audio component comporison

If you feel that your panel and you perform a piece test is truly
scientific research good enought o validate a hjypothesis you leave me
wonder-struck,
You felt that Greenhill's "golden ear" who had 82% success in a series
of 90 tests distinguishing between cables ( in 60 out of ninety tests
cables of the same diameter) should be asked to repeat his exploit 4
more times to convince you and you quote your "research" as a positive
result validating the method you approve of.
For your information I approve of blind A/B testing too also as long a
one does not kid oneself that one's result are valid for anyone other
than oneself.
Just imagine that tomorrow someone repeats your comparison and doesn't
hear your "slight"difference" between mono and biamplified
loudspeakers with 24 gauge wire. Who's right you or he?
To repeat myself: :
> >> > "Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
> >> > issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
> >> > randomised,
> >> > double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
> >> > media in children"
> >> > You know how many subjects? 512
> >> > Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
> >> > better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
> >> > placebo".
This kind of validates DBT in serious drug research, no?
Ludovic Mirabel