Question for Don Pearce

[George M. Middius]

Don, you've kept your upper lip brilliantly stiff during the barrage of
malformed spitballs from "Eddie" and, of course, my own attempts to
lampoon your anti-consumer posturing. My question: What do you hope to
gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Don, you've kept your upper lip brilliantly stiff during the barrage of
> malformed spitballs from "Eddie" and, of course, my own attempts to
> lampoon your anti-consumer posturing. My question: What do you hope to
> gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

Don already made a valid point quite convincingly. That point he made is
that when you're dealing with audio true believers, there is no such thing
as a simple logical experience that will change their thinking one iota.

[124]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Don, you've kept your upper lip brilliantly stiff during the barrage of
> malformed spitballs from "Eddie" and, of course, my own attempts to
> lampoon your anti-consumer posturing.

Pro-consumer.

> My question: What do you hope to
> gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

Incidentally, quotation marks for _test_ should be
removed.

--124

[Powell]

"124" wrote

> > My question: What do you hope to
> > gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?
>
> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
>
How is reality validated when the end result is
null testing? What new model have we found for
prediction? Answer: None.

"one's ego"... you really don't understand
consumer behavior.

[George M. Middius]

Powell said:

> > > My question: What do you hope to
> > > gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?

> > And it is brutal on one's ego
> > for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.

> "one's ego"... you really don't understand
> consumer behavior.

4 of 12 has no opportunity to be a consumer. Like all 'borgs, he's
perpetually broke.

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "124" wrote
>
>> > My question: What do you hope to
>> > gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?
>>
>> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
>> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
>> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
>>
> How is reality validated when the end result is
> null testing? What new model have we found for
> prediction? Answer: None.
>
> "one's ego"... you really don't understand
> consumer behavior.
>
>
>
Should the informations that reveals some advertised upgrades are not real,
be hidden?
Is it not OK to at least provide that information and then let them decide
what course they may want to pursue?

Seems like useful information for some people. There will always be people
who will refuse to beleive that their eyes can fool their ears, but for the
rest let them have any and all useful information.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "124" wrote
>
>> > My question: What do you hope to
>> > gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?
>>
>> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
>> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
>> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
>>
> How is reality validated when the end result is
> null testing?

Null results validate theories that predict null results and invalidate
theories that predict positive results. A well-known example from the
history of science would be the scientific tests that were used to look for
the "Ether Wind".

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Powell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "124" wrote
> >
> >> > My question: What do you hope to
> >> > gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?
> >>
> >> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
> >> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
> >> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
> >>
> > How is reality validated when the end result is
> > null testing?
>
> Null results validate theories that predict null results and invalidate
> theories that predict positive results. A well-known example from the
> history of science would be the scientific tests that were used to look for
> the "Ether Wind".
>
> http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

Dear Arny never mind "history". Just give a reference (Title,
author(s), journal, year, volume, Nr,, page(s)) .to one single
moderated , statistically valid, comparison of comparable audio
components by a sizable representative panel.
Elsewhere you pleaded inability to buy, borrow, rent an SET amp for
comparison. That was just my attempt to make it easy for you to show
that your test does ever, ever show up differences (not just the null-
"it all sounds the same" results). Please pick the comparisons YOU
like: loudspeakers, cartridges, whatever. Something must sound
different from something else in audio yes, no?
Sorry it has to be a *reference*- like in your profession's journal
JAES at the end of every article. Not proclamations of faith by your
clown-prince- you know who- but *evidence* that your test WORKS..
Four decades have gone by and we're still waiting.
Sorry to be repetitive but what I'm asking for is elementary science. I
rub my eyes to see that this argument meanders perennially in circles
instead of staying with the simple, basic essentials. I think that
quite a few of your "subjectivist" opponents enjoy playing your games
and would not end give them up just for the boring, prosaic scientific
facts.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Powell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "124" wrote
>> >
>> >> > My question: What do you hope to
>> >> > gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?
>> >>
>> >> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
>> >> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
>> >> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
>> >>
>> > How is reality validated when the end result is
>> > null testing?
>>
>> Null results validate theories that predict null results and invalidate
>> theories that predict positive results. A well-known example from the
>> history of science would be the scientific tests that were used to look
>> for
>> the "Ether Wind".
>>
>> http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

> Dear Arny never mind "history".

What, and be like you Mirabel and continue to make the same stupid mistakes
again and again?

No!

[Powell]

> wrote

> >> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
> >> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
> >> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
> >>
> > How is reality validated when the end result is
> > null testing? What new model have we found for
> > prediction? Answer: None.
> >
> > "one's ego"... you really don't understand
> > consumer behavior.
> >
> Should the informations that reveals some
> advertised upgrades are not real, be hidden?
>
While to much information can lead one to make
the wrong choice, in general more information is
better than none. And statistical information is
good when it’s worth believing.


> Is it not OK to at least provide that information and
> then let them decide what course they may want
> to pursue?
>
Who should provide the information? All information
is tainted in one way or another. And in a way the
source you pick to provide the information will almost
certainly be based on your own personal
(non-science/cognitive/emotional) belief system.

In your own life experiences with audio equipment
do you place information (specifications) over your
actual empirical experiences? For example you
read a good review and audition the unit in you
home setup. Do you struggle to conform the
information into you experience or is the experience
(auditioning) a higher form of reality?

Do you have pride-of-ownership in anything audio
that you own? How does that manifest itself?


> Seems like useful information for some people. There
> will always be people who will refuse to beleive that their
> eyes can fool their ears, but for the rest let them have
> any and all useful information.
>
What's better than having choices? But you seem
to want censorship to your way of thinking because
you know what is best for everyone else.

You are missing the point. Hardly anyone purchasers
audio equipment based on specifications alone. It just
doesn't happen unless the purchase is an appliance/utility.
No pride of ownership is demonstrated in this behavior.
That is to say that the emotional component is also
necessary.

Here's what consumers are most interested in
when they make a purchase. Note that there is
no single reason and emotional components are
at play. And like shopping for cars if your
spouse is a party to the purchase no other
aspect/factor is more significant than their
approval (nontechnical factor).

Factors Considered Most Important When Purchasing
Hi'-Fi Equipment*:

Sound quality 97.5%
Price 77.0%
Quality of construction 74.2%
Reputation of manufacturer 70.5%
Reviews 59.6%
Design 49.7%
Appearance 33.1%
Reputation of dealer/supplier 30.4%
Brand 29.7%
Warranty 29.3%
Service 25.0%
Dealer recommendations 23.4%
Advice of friends 17.2%
Ease of operation 13.7%
Advertising 6.1%
Ease of installation 5.3%

* Stereophile paid survey.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> >> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
> >> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
> >> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
> >>
> > How is reality validated when the end result is
> > null testing?
>
> Null results validate theories that predict null results
> and invalidate theories that predict positive results.
> A well-known example from the history of science
> would be the scientific tests that were used to look for
> the "Ether Wind".
>
> http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html
>
Null does not appear anywhere in this document.

Physics theory is usually ahead of empirical findings.
Another way of saying imagination and art are more
insightful for explanations rather than just relying on
observations alone.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>> >> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
>> >> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
>> >> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
>> >>
>> > How is reality validated when the end result is
>> > null testing?
>>
>> Null results validate theories that predict null results
>> and invalidate theories that predict positive results.
>> A well-known example from the history of science
>> would be the scientific tests that were used to look for
>> the "Ether Wind".
>>
>> http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

> Null does not appear anywhere in this document.

But the following does:

"To the researchers surprise, any interference effects were not seen through
the telescope."

Now Powell, I suspect that any person of normal intelligence can see the
connection between the sbove sentence and the phrase "null results". With
all your superior intelligence, why can't you?

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
>> >> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
>> >> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
>> >> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
>> >>
>> > How is reality validated when the end result is
>> > null testing? What new model have we found for
>> > prediction? Answer: None.
>> >
>> > "one's ego"... you really don't understand
>> > consumer behavior.
>> >
>> Should the informations that reveals some
>> advertised upgrades are not real, be hidden?
>>
> While to much information can lead one to make
> the wrong choice, in general more information is
> better than none. And statistical information is
> good when it's worth believing.
>
>
>> Is it not OK to at least provide that information and
>> then let them decide what course they may want
>> to pursue?
>>
> Who should provide the information? All information
> is tainted in one way or another.

A DBT is not tainted except by foolish people who dislike the truth of what
they reveal.
Relevant measurements done accurately are not tainted, they simply are what
they are.

And in a way the
> source you pick to provide the information will almost
> certainly be based on your own personal
> (non-science/cognitive/emotional) belief system.
>
The personal taste in music is certainly a factor, but there are plenty of
known choices for evaluation that can be used for people who rely on them.

> In your own life experiences with audio equipment
> do you place information (specifications) over your
> actual empirical experiences?

I use actual bench tests to evaluate what I buy. If you know what is
important in measurements, then you really can go without an audition. I
tend to perfer to hear the stuff I buy with my own speakers, but that's not
all that difficult since they are easy enough to carry around when I need
to.


For example you
> read a good review and audition the unit in you
> home setup. Do you struggle to conform the
> information into you experience or is the experience
> (auditioning) a higher form of reality?
>
I don't struggle at all, I find out how they perform on the test bench and
decide from that.

> Do you have pride-of-ownership in anything audio
> that you own? How does that manifest itself?
>
I take pride in the fact that whatever I own performs the way it is supposed
to, IOW without any sonic signature of its own, speakers excluded of course.
I don't look for things that have status attached to them, but I don't shy
away from well respected stuff either. I'm concerned with performance
first, features second and looks last.
>
>> Seems like useful information for some people. There
>> will always be people who will refuse to beleive that their
>> eyes can fool their ears, but for the rest let them have
>> any and all useful information.
>>
> What's better than having choices? But you seem
> to want censorship to your way of thinking because
> you know what is best for everyone else.
>
Nonsense, I want no such thing. I want honest reporting by the mags and I'd
like to have everything compared to some known reference in a DBT, although
I personally have no need for them, I think people who do rely on reviews
should have the most honest, and relevant ones possible. I'd like to see
more stuff from the pro sound market included in reviews aimed at commercial
buyers, since I think they are missing out on a lot of truly great deals.

> You are missing the point. Hardly anyone purchasers
> audio equipment based on specifications alone.

If they had all the relevant ones that were done accurately, it would be
possible to do exactly that.

It just
> doesn't happen unless the purchase is an appliance/utility.
> No pride of ownership is demonstrated in this behavior.
> That is to say that the emotional component is also
> necessary.
>
Not for me. The electronics are in a cabinet that are far enough away form
the listening position that they may as wll be invisible. The only thing
that is a source of pride is speakers and not just the fact that I built my
own, but the fact that they tend to represent some sort of form follows
function aspects,a nd that can lead to some very attractive looking designs.
such as with Avalon.

The only other emotional component is from the playing of the music.

> Here's what consumers are most interested in
> when they make a purchase. Note that there is
> no single reason and emotional components are
> at play. And like shopping for cars if your
> spouse is a party to the purchase no other
> aspect/factor is more significant than their
> approval (nontechnical factor).
>
> Factors Considered Most Important When Purchasing
> Hi'-Fi Equipment*:
>
> Sound quality 97.5%
That makes perfect sense.

> Price 77.0%
An obvious factor for many people.

> Quality of construction 74.2%
I might put that higher than price, but not neccessarilly.


> Reputation of manufacturer 70.5%
Insofar as one should know if the company has a good customer service
department.


> Reviews 59.6%
If from someplace like SP where their reviews are worthless asided from the
measurements, that makes sense as well.


> Design 49.7%
> Appearance 33.1%
> Reputation of dealer/supplier 30.4%
> Brand 29.7%
> Warranty 29.3%
> Service 25.0%
> Dealer recommendations 23.4%
> Advice of friends 17.2%
> Ease of operation 13.7%
> Advertising 6.1%
> Ease of installation 5.3%
>
> * Stereophile paid survey.
>
>
I think if more people knew what a DBT would show about audibilty, more
people would likely insist on them. Unfortunately, DBT has been maligned
for so long by the people they would harm, that only one source does them
AFAIK, and that's TAC.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Powell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "124" wrote
>> >
>> >> > My question: What do you hope to
>> >> > gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?
>> >>
>> >> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
>> >> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
>> >> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
>> >>
>> > How is reality validated when the end result is
>> > null testing?
>>
>> Null results validate theories that predict null results and invalidate
>> theories that predict positive results. A well-known example from the
>> history of science would be the scientific tests that were used to look
>> for
>> the "Ether Wind".
>>
>> http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html
>
> Dear Arny never mind "history". Just give a reference (Title,
> author(s), journal, year, volume, Nr,, page(s)) .to one single
> moderated , statistically valid, comparison of comparable audio
> components by a sizable representative panel.

Why do you insist on a panel? Do you not think that no difference or
differnce is not going to be pretty much the same for everybody? And even
if it's not, it's still a personal decision on what one chooses to buy, so a
DBT would only apply to that person.

> Elsewhere you pleaded inability to buy, borrow, rent an SET amp for
> comparison.

When did he say that? I've only seen him say he didn't want to be
responsible for coming up with one.

That was just my attempt to make it easy for you to show
> that your test does ever, ever show up differences (not just the null-
> "it all sounds the same" results).

Yo just can't stop lying, can you?

Please pick the comparisons YOU
> like: loudspeakers, cartridges, whatever. Something must sound
> different from something else in audio yes, no?

And there are examples of such at the ABX web site

> Sorry it has to be a *reference*- like in your profession's journal
> JAES at the end of every article. Not proclamations of faith by your
> clown-prince- you know who- but *evidence* that your test WORKS..

If it didn't work nobody would use it, but we know that they do, otherwise
there wouldn't be anyone manufacturing them.

> Four decades have gone by and we're still waiting.

For decades, you've been ignoring the reality.

> Sorry to be repetitive but what I'm asking for is elementary science.

Then why not do your own tests and show everybody.

I
> rub my eyes to see that this argument meanders perennially in circles
> instead of staying with the simple, basic essentials.

Only because you refuse to accept reality.

I think that
> quite a few of your "subjectivist" opponents enjoy playing your games
> and would not end give them up just for the boring, prosaic scientific
> facts.

You seem to choose to ignore the scientific facts, in favor of endless
jabbering.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Powell" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "124" wrote
> >> >
> >> >> > My question: What do you hope to
> >> >> > gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?
> >> >>
> >> >> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
> >> >> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
> >> >> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
> >> >>
> >> > How is reality validated when the end result is
> >> > null testing?
> >>
> >> Null results validate theories that predict null results and invalidate
> >> theories that predict positive results. A well-known example from the
> >> history of science would be the scientific tests that were used to look
> >> for
> >> the "Ether Wind".
> >>
> >> http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html
> >
> > Dear Arny never mind "history". Just give a reference (Title,
> > author(s), journal, year, volume, Nr,, page(s)) .to one single
> > moderated , statistically valid, comparison of comparable audio
> > components by a sizable representative panel.
>
> Why do you insist on a panel? Do you not think that no difference or
> differnce is not going to be pretty much the same for everybody? And even
> if it's not, it's still a personal decision on what one chooses to buy, so a
> DBT would only apply to that person.
>
> > Elsewhere you pleaded inability to buy, borrow, rent an SET amp for
> > comparison.
>
> When did he say that? I've only seen him say he didn't want to be
> responsible for coming up with one.
>
> That was just my attempt to make it easy for you to show
> > that your test does ever, ever show up differences (not just the null-
> > "it all sounds the same" results).
>
> Yo just can't stop lying, can you?
>
> Please pick the comparisons YOU
> > like: loudspeakers, cartridges, whatever. Something must sound
> > different from something else in audio yes, no?
>
> And there are examples of such at the ABX web site
>
> > Sorry it has to be a *reference*- like in your profession's journal
> > JAES at the end of every article. Not proclamations of faith by your
> > clown-prince- you know who- but *evidence* that your test WORKS..
>
> If it didn't work nobody would use it, but we know that they do, otherwise
> there wouldn't be anyone manufacturing them.
>
> > Four decades have gone by and we're still waiting.
>
> For decades, you've been ignoring the reality.
>
> > Sorry to be repetitive but what I'm asking for is elementary science.
>
> Then why not do your own tests and show everybody.
>
> I
> > rub my eyes to see that this argument meanders perennially in circles
> > instead of staying with the simple, basic essentials.
>
> Only because you refuse to accept reality.
>
> I think that
> > quite a few of your "subjectivist" opponents enjoy playing your games
> > and would not end give them up just for the boring, prosaic scientific
> > facts.
>
> You seem to choose to ignore the scientific facts, in favor of endless
> jabbering.
_____________________________________________

Clown-Prince responds in his customary littler Goebbels way:
> Yo just can't stop lying, can you?

His "hifi" salesman life experience, sheer stupidity and ingrained
dishonesty tell him that people do not hold disinterested opinions
other than the only one he is capable of grasping. They are "lying" to
sell a diffferent brand than the one he happens to be selling.
His grey matter that accomodates only one idea at a time can not
conceive that someone searching for the best musical reproduction
would be delighted to endorse any wrinkle he believed would help him in
his search. For NYOB like for every salesman of "truth" anyone who
doesn't accept his faith is "lying". Give him
the control of Inquisition pyres and see what happens...

If I sound exasperated that is because I am. There is no way one can
continue a civilised discourse with someone for who believes that
distortion, forgery, and lies are normal discourse.
I'm also tired of rephrasing so for evidence of IQ handicap coupled
with malignancy see: "DBT in audio- a protocol" thread, (my message on
Jan. 17.)
For evidence that he is a shameless forger of documents see below*
Ludovic Mirabel
-----------------------------------
*He emailed Sean Olive thus:
<<The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests
on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better
quality
speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind>>
Which of course was the exact opposite of my views, clearly expressed
in my previous messages. I stressed (and do) that Sean Olive excellent
testing confirmed that when not distracted by trying to concentrate on
"difference" between A and B and X most people can tell " I prefer this
speaker to that one" easily and with statistical validity.
Our forger emailed his fabrication about a "preson" (not naming any
names) to Sean Olive and then published Olive's disagreement with that
"preson's" alleged views under this heading: ""Guess what Sean Olive
had to say about Ludovic's remarks" (See: "Another lie exposed" thread,
Nov 18 2005)thus deceiving the readers here and denouncing me to Sean
Olive with whom I had had excellent relationship by correspondece (He
sent me unasked reprints of his papers in recognition of my "scientific
attitude")
This insolent and stupidly transparent forger has the temerity to call
others "liar".

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Powell" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "124" wrote
> >> >
> >> >> > My question: What do you hope to
> >> >> > gain, or prove, with your beloved "test" for cables?
> >> >>
> >> >> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
> >> >> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
> >> >> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
> >> >>
> >> > How is reality validated when the end result is
> >> > null testing?
> >>
> >> Null results validate theories that predict null results and invalidate
> >> theories that predict positive results. A well-known example from the
> >> history of science would be the scientific tests that were used to look
> >> for
> >> the "Ether Wind".
> >>
> >> http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html
>
> > Dear Arny never mind "history".
>
> What, and be like you Mirabel and continue to make the same stupid mistakes
> again and again?
>
> No!

__________________________________________________ ________

Arny applies scissors to my posting and comes up with one sentence:
> > Dear Arny never mind "history".
>
And responds:
> What, and be like you Mirabel and continue to make the same stupid mistakes
> again and again?
> No!

Arny you really are desperate aren't you?
Ludovic Mirabel

[Powell]

> wrote

> >> >> A demonstration of the variant of the placebo effect
> >> >> that applies to audio. And it is brutal on one's ego
> >> >> for one to admit that one has fallen for hype.
> >> >>
> >> > How is reality validated when the end result is
> >> > null testing? What new model have we found for
> >> > prediction? Answer: None.
> >> >
> >> > "one's ego"... you really don't understand
> >> > consumer behavior.
> >> >
> >> Should the informations that reveals some
> >> advertised upgrades are not real, be hidden?
> >>
> > While to much information can lead one to make
> > the wrong choice, in general more information is
> > better than none. And statistical information is
> > good when it's worth believing.
> >
> >
> >> Is it not OK to at least provide that information and
> >> then let them decide what course they may want
> >> to pursue?
> >>
> > Who should provide the information? All information
> > is tainted in one way or another.
>
> A DBT is not tainted except by foolish people
> who dislike the truth of what they reveal.
>
If you say so. DBT is not relevant to building
a satisfying audio system. It doesn’t sell more
audio magazines or influence manufacturers'
sales.

Many years ago Absolute Sound was an
underground magazine. HP purchased the
equipment reviewed in the magazine. The
notion being that he would not be beholding
to the manufacturer for product reviews.
This he felt would provide open insightful
reviews. This approach has its own fleas,
unfortunately.


> Relevant measurements done accurately are not
> tainted, they simply are what they are.
>
All information, without exception, must be
interpreted in order to determine relevancy.


> And in a way the
> > source you pick to provide the information will almost
> > certainly be based on your own personal
> > (non-science/cognitive/emotional) belief system.
> >
> The personal taste in music is certainly a
> factor, but there are plenty of known choices
> for evaluation that can be used for people
> who rely on them.
>
"plenty of known choices"... yea, like what?


> > In your own life experiences with audio equipment
> > do you place information (specifications) over your
> > actual empirical experiences?
>
> I use actual bench tests to evaluate what
> I buy.
>
Give me an actual personal example of said.

Do you have any professional experience or
academic education which would give me an
understanding of your underpinning
(ideas/notions).


> If you know what is important in measurements,
> then you really can go without an audition.
>
Hehehe... oh rubbish!

Give me an actual personal example of said.


> I tend to perfer to hear the stuff I buy with my
> own speakers, but that's not all that difficult
> since they are easy enough to carry around when
> I need to.
>
You wrote: "I use actual bench tests to evaluate
what I buy."

Now you write: "perfer to hear the stuff I buy."

Which is it? Or are you admitting to using poor
judgement in actual practice?


> For example you
> > read a good review and audition the unit in you
> > home setup. Do you struggle to conform the
> > information into you experience or is the experience
> > (auditioning) a higher form of reality?
> >
> I don't struggle at all, I find out how they perform
> on the test bench and decide from that.
>
Why say then "perfer to hear the stuff I buy?"


> > Do you have pride-of-ownership in anything audio
> > that you own? How does that manifest itself?
> >
> I take pride in the fact that whatever I own
> performs the way it is supposed to, IOW
> without any sonic signature of its own,
> speakers excluded of course.
>
"without any sonic signature of its own"...
Not practically or theoretically possible.


> I don't look for things that have status
> attached to them, but I don't shy away
> from well respected stuff either.
>
Give me an actual personal example of said.


> I'm concerned with performance
> first, features second and looks last.
>
Doubtful. Given your limited financial capacity
a *budget* is number one with a bullet.


> > What's better than having choices? But you seem
> > to want censorship to your way of thinking because
> > you know what is best for everyone else.
> >
> Nonsense, I want no such thing. I want...

<snip quacking>


> > You are missing the point. Hardly anyone
> > purchasers audio equipment based on
> > specifications alone.
>
> If they had all the relevant ones that were
> done accurately, it would be possible to
> do exactly that.
>
Please site one industry or magazine in
which this approach is practiced. How
about none.


> It just
> > doesn't happen unless the purchase is an appliance/utility.
> > No pride of ownership is demonstrated in this behavior.
> > That is to say that the emotional component is also
> > necessary.
> >
> Not for me. The electronics are in a cabinet that
> are far enough away form the listening position
> that they may as wll be invisible.
>
Right, you own widgets.


> The only thing that is a source of pride is speakers
>
Why are low-end speakers acceptable?


> > Factors Considered Most Important When Purchasing
> > Hi'-Fi Equipment*:
> >
> > Sound quality 97.5%
> That makes perfect sense.
>
> > Price 77.0%
> An obvious factor for many people.
>
Who are you kidding?


> I think if more people knew what a DBT would
> show about audibilty, more people would likely
> insist on them.
>
Why, you don't use it in your selection
process. How dumb are you then?


> Unfortunately, DBT has been maligned for so
> long by the people they would harm, that only
> one source does them AFAIK, and that's TAC.
>
Humbug conspiracy theory. The reality you
can't accept is, there is no paying market for
this type of audio information.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> > Null does not appear anywhere in this document.
>
> But the following does:
>
> "To the researchers surprise, any interference effects
> were not seen through the telescope."
>
> Now Powell, I suspect that any person of normal
> intelligence can see the connection between the
> sbove sentence and the phrase "null results". With
> all your superior intelligence, why can't you?
>
Because I’m not of the Reductionist mindset :).

[George Middius]

Mickey, you are so damned clueless.

>I think if more people knew what a DBT would show about audibilty, more
>people would likely insist on them.

How does somebody like you cope with living in the modern world? Your idiocy is
so profound, you almost make cockroaches seem sophisticated.



..
..
..

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> If I sound exasperated that is because I am. There is no way one can
> continue a civilised discourse with someone for who believes that
> distortion, forgery, and lies are normal discourse.

Hence RAO since Middius and his crew arrived on the scene.

> I'm also tired of rephrasing so for evidence of IQ handicap coupled
> with malignancy see: "DBT in audio- a protocol" thread, (my message on
> Jan. 17.)
> For evidence that he is a shameless forger of documents see below*
> Ludovic Mirabel
> -----------------------------------
> *He emailed Sean Olive thus:
> <<The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests
> on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better
> quality
> speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind>>
> Which of course was the exact opposite of my views, clearly expressed
> in my previous messages. I stressed (and do) that Sean Olive excellent
> testing confirmed that when not distracted by trying to concentrate on
> "difference" between A and B and X most people can tell " I prefer this
> speaker to that one" easily and with statistical validity.

That would be one of your fabrications, Mirabel.

> Our forger emailed his fabrication about a "preson" (not naming any
> names) to Sean Olive and then published Olive's disagreement with that
> "preson's" alleged views under this heading: ""Guess what Sean Olive
> had to say about Ludovic's remarks" (See: "Another lie exposed" thread,
> Nov 18 2005)thus deceiving the readers here and denouncing me to Sean
> Olive with whom I had had excellent relationship by correspondece (He
> sent me unasked reprints of his papers in recognition of my "scientific
> attitude")

I'm sure that Sean was unaware of your history of posturing and deceiving
w/r/t DBTs, Mirabel.

> This insolent and stupidly transparent forger has the temerity to call
> others "liar".

If the shoe fits Mirabel, wear it.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > If I sound exasperated that is because I am. There is no way one can
> > continue a civilised discourse with someone for who believes that
> > distortion, forgery, and lies are normal discourse.
>
> Hence RAO since Middius and his crew arrived on the scene.
>
> > I'm also tired of rephrasing so for evidence of IQ handicap coupled
> > with malignancy see: "DBT in audio- a protocol" thread, (my message on
> > Jan. 17.)
> > For evidence that he is a shameless forger of documents see below*
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> > -----------------------------------
> > *He emailed Sean Olive thus:
> > <<The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests
> > on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better
> > quality
> > speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind>>
> > Which of course was the exact opposite of my views, clearly expressed
> > in my previous messages. I stressed (and do) that Sean Olive excellent
> > testing confirmed that when not distracted by trying to concentrate on
> > "difference" between A and B and X most people can tell " I prefer this
> > speaker to that one" easily and with statistical validity.
>
> That would be one of your fabrications, Mirabel.
>
> > Our forger emailed his fabrication about a "preson" (not naming any
> > names) to Sean Olive and then published Olive's disagreement with that
> > "preson's" alleged views under this heading: ""Guess what Sean Olive
> > had to say about Ludovic's remarks" (See: "Another lie exposed" thread,
> > Nov 18 2005)thus deceiving the readers here and denouncing me to Sean
> > Olive with whom I had had excellent relationship by correspondece (He
> > sent me unasked reprints of his papers in recognition of my "scientific
> > attitude")
>
> I'm sure that Sean was unaware of your history of posturing and deceiving
> w/r/t DBTs, Mirabel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Arny, I always responded to your arguments with arguments and never
resorted to personal attacks.
You're doing it now. I will still refrain from answering in kind though
you are tempting me.
My diagnosis was correct: you are getting desperate..
Ludovic Mirabel
>
> > This insolent and stupidly transparent forger has the temerity to call
> > others "liar".
>
> If the shoe fits Mirabel, wear it.

[Forwarder]

wrote:

> (about mickey mickmickey) His grey matter that accomodates only one idea at a time


Allow me to correct that:

"His grey matter that accomodates only one BAD idea at a time"

> This insolent and stupidly transparent

Yes the man is overwhelmingly stupid. It's uncanny, how stupid he is.
For example he once wrote that (while defending krueger's qsc amps to
paul packer) :

"Not all qsc amps sound the same you know, you should give a listen" ..

This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that
all amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
receivers.

[Arny Krueger]

"Forwarder" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:

> This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that all
> amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
> receivers.

Yet another live one who thinks that just because amps have great specs,
and/or cost a lot of bucks, they have to sound better.

[Forwarder]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>
>
>>This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that all
>>amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
>>receivers.
>
>
> Yet another live one who thinks that just because amps have great specs,
> and/or cost a lot of bucks, they have to sound better.
>
>

Find the word "better" in the sentence below:

"This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that
all amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
receivers."

Takes an idiot to rush to the defence of an idiot.

And yes, don't quote out of context too.

[Arny Krueger]

"Forwarder" > wrote in message
...

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Forwarder" > wrote in message

>> ...

>>>This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that all
>>>amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
>>>receivers.

>> Yet another live one who thinks that just because amps have great specs,
>> and/or cost a lot of bucks, they have to sound better.

> Find the word "better" in the sentence below:

> "This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that all
> amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
> receivers."

Don't need to. In this context "sounds better" and "sounds the same" are
natural opposites that we talk about all the time. Mentioning or implying
one is often the same as mentioning or implying the other.

> Takes an idiot to rush to the defence of an idiot.

Takes a lot of arrogance to come out against someone who is representing
orthodox thinking.

> And yes, don't quote out of context too.

The only way one can possibly quote out of context would be to do so on a
different group, outside Usenet, or in a different thread. In this case
anybody who wants to look at the context need only look at the previous
post, which my post clearly and uniquely identifies.

Besides, my quote must have represented your meaning correctly backward-one,
since you have no relevant meaningful corrections to make. All you've done
so far is whine and counter-attack with irrelevant trash and more personal
attacks.

[Forwarder]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Forwarder" > wrote in message
>
>
...
>
>
>>>>This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that all
>>>>amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
>>>>receivers.
>
>
>>>Yet another live one who thinks that just because amps have great specs,
>>>and/or cost a lot of bucks, they have to sound better.
>
>
>>Find the word "better" in the sentence below:
>
>
>>"This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that all
>>amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
>>receivers."
>
>
> Don't need to.


So says you.

The discussion was not even about any implications of betterness, or
some such.. *Different* make amps usually sound *different*. Nothing
about "better". You are just trying to derail the issue here. Debating
trade bull****. Now we're supposed to sit down and talk about
"implications" being done when saying that this or that sounds
*different* from each other.

The "better"ness aspect can come into play in all kinds of different
contexts and circumstances. A yamaha receiver can sound better then a
krell, for instance, given the right circumstances and context. It will
sound the same only when subjected to an ABX tough...

In anycase, that's not the issue. The issue is that your idiot sidekick
constantly whines about all sorts of amps sounding the same for years.
Then he goes and puts his foor in his mouth: quoted word for word:

"How many QSC amps have you listened to?
Not all are the same."

:))

Nuff said.

[Arny Krueger]

"Forwarder" > wrote in message
.. .
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Forwarder" > wrote in message
>>
>>
...
>>
>>
>>>>>This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that
>>>>>all amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
>>>>>receivers.
>>
>>
>>>>Yet another live one who thinks that just because amps have great specs,
>>>>and/or cost a lot of bucks, they have to sound better.
>>
>>
>>>Find the word "better" in the sentence below:
>>
>>
>>>"This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that
>>>all amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
>>>receivers."
>>
>>
>> Don't need to.

> So says you.

Hmmm, you deleted my explanation. In your spirit of "intellectual honesty",
I'll just delete your entire remaining post.

Nothing to respond to.

That was easy! ;-)

[Forwarder]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Forwarder" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Forwarder" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that
>>>>>>all amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
>>>>>>receivers.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Yet another live one who thinks that just because amps have great specs,
>>>>>and/or cost a lot of bucks, they have to sound better.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Find the word "better" in the sentence below:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that
>>>>all amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
>>>>receivers."
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't need to.
>
>
>>So says you.
>
>
> Hmmm, you deleted my explanation. In your spirit of "intellectual honesty",
> I'll just delete your entire remaining post.
>
> Nothing to respond to.
>
> That was easy! ;-)
>
>

Yes yes you can easily demonstrate, at any time, that you live in this
dream world and that you are able to do mental masturbation soo easily.

This is what your idiot sidekick said about different models of qsc amps
though, look again:

"How many QSC amps have you listened to?
Not all are the same."

:)

Ok, now reply saying something about nothing sounds different or better
then nothing else or some bul**** like that. :)

"How many QSC amps have you listened to?
Not all are the same."

Mickeymickey, krueger trusted sidekick:

"How many QSC amps have you listened to?
Not all are the same."

:))

"How many QSC amps have you listened to?
Not all are the same."

"How many QSC amps have you listened to?
Not all are the same."

"Forwarder" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> (about mickey mickmickey) His grey matter that accomodates only one idea
>> at a time
>
>
> Allow me to correct that:
>
> "His grey matter that accomodates only one BAD idea at a time"
>
>> This insolent and stupidly transparent
>
> Yes the man is overwhelmingly stupid. It's uncanny, how stupid he is. For
> example he once wrote that (while defending krueger's qsc amps to paul
> packer) :
>
> "Not all qsc amps sound the same you know, you should give a listen" ..
>
> This coming from an idiot that constantly purports to the notion that all
> amps sound the same, whether they be halcro monoblocks or yamaha
> receivers.

They don't sound the same because they do not all possess flat FR.

I don't claim that all amps sound the same as you just proved. The ones
that do sound the same are the ones that have FR that doesn't vary more than
..2 dB over the audible range and have no other noise of any kind that would
be audible. That holds true for any amp of any brand.

If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro you'd
discover how much alike they sound.

You do remember that Zip couldn't tell the difference between a pair of Pass
monoblocks against a Yamaha ingtegrated amp, don't you?

That you buy into the amplifier mythology is not my problem.
It is not difficult to build an amp that produces flat FR and inaudible
noise, it just costs more to buy one that is made by small comapnies that
can't buy parts in large enough quantities to reduce the price, or they have
labor costs that require them to sell for more to produce a profit.

If Beharinger can build an amp that is as flat as their A500 and sell it for
$189.00, then it should be a simple task for anyone to build a flatter one
for just a bit more. Read the review of the A500 at TAC online and you will
see that it's only off by a tiny bit in the HF, which is going to be
inaudible for most people and barely audible to the rest. Getting that last
bit of flat FR shouldn't cost thousands more, and doesn't for most
manufacturers.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:

>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro you'd
>discover how much alike they sound.

Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
have done.

Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
regarding those two brands.

TIA.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro
>>you'd
>>discover how much alike they sound.
>
> Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
> have done.
>
> Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
> regarding those two brands.
>
> TIA.

You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the Yamaha, or whatever
reciever I think will be able to compete.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:09:11 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro
>>>you'd
>>>discover how much alike they sound.
>>
>> Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
>> have done.
>>
>> Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
>> regarding those two brands.
>>
>> TIA.
>
>You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the Yamaha, or whatever
>reciever I think will be able to compete.

Oh, I see. You HAVEN'T done any blind comparisons or know of any that
have been done.

How can you make a statement like that, then? Someone might as well
say, "If you ever tried a blind comparison of X amp and Y amp, you'd
discover how much superior the sound quality of X amp is". Wouldn't
you not take exception to such a statement?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
link.net
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, >
>> wrote:
>>> If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha
>>> receiver vs. a Halcro you'd
>>> discover how much alike they sound.
>>
>> Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two
>> amps that you have done.
>>
>> Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has
>> done regarding those two brands.
>
> You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the
> Yamaha, or whatever reciever I think will be able to
> compete.

Yet another smokescreen play by Weil. Since Halcros don't show up very often
in local garage sales, there's not much chance of him being able to listen
to any, either.

While I saw posters advertising Halcro amps at HE2005, I never saw any
actual amps.

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro
>>you'd
>>discover how much alike they sound.
>
> Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
> have done.
>
> Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
> regarding those two brands.
>


A nasty expectations effect raises its dirty little head, yet again.



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

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:09:11 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro
>>>>you'd
>>>>discover how much alike they sound.
>>>
>>> Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
>>> have done.
>>>
>>> Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
>>> regarding those two brands.
>>>
>>> TIA.
>>
>>You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the Yamaha, or whatever
>>reciever I think will be able to compete.
>
> Oh, I see. You HAVEN'T done any blind comparisons or know of any that
> have been done.
>
> How can you make a statement like that, then?

Because it's generally true, amplifers tend to sound alike.

Someone might as well
> say, "If you ever tried a blind comparison of X amp and Y amp, you'd
> discover how much superior the sound quality of X amp is". Wouldn't
> you not take exception to such a statement?
>
I'm not discussing quality, that's a matter of taste. It is instructive
however, to note that without difference of sound there can be no difference
of sound quality. IOW, if it doesn't sound different, it can't sound better
or worse, it just sounds the same.

Becuase most amplifers are flat in their response and have inaudible noise,
sufficient slew rates, low crossover distortion and so on, they tend to
sound alike, unless designed to do otherwise.
I'm shocked that you didn't know this already. It's been discussed many
times here.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro
>>>you'd
>>>discover how much alike they sound.
>>
>> Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
>> have done.
>>
>> Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
>> regarding those two brands.
>>
>
>
> A nasty expectations effect raises its dirty little head, yet again.
>
>
Nope, just what is already known about amplifiers.
Unless it's your position that everybody who ever did a blind comparison of
an amp, expected them to sound the same. The fac is they tend to sound the
same, because the technology of how to make them do so is not new.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> While I saw posters advertising Halcro amps at HE2005, I never saw any
> actual amps.

Nor HEARD any.



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

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:09:11 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro
>>>>>you'd
>>>>>discover how much alike they sound.
>>>>
>>>> Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
>>>> have done.
>>>>
>>>> Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
>>>> regarding those two brands.
>>>>
>>>> TIA.
>>>
>>>You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the Yamaha, or whatever
>>>reciever I think will be able to compete.
>>
>> Oh, I see. You HAVEN'T done any blind comparisons or know of any that
>> have been done.
>>
>> How can you make a statement like that, then?
>
> Because it's generally true, amplifers tend to sound alike.
>

because you 'think' they do.
Just another expectation effect.



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

[Forwarder]

dave weil wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:09:11 GMT, > wrote:
>
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro
>>>>you'd
>>>>discover how much alike they sound.
>>>
>>>Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
>>>have done.
>>>
>>>Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
>>>regarding those two brands.
>>>
>>>TIA.
>>
>>You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the Yamaha, or whatever
>>reciever I think will be able to compete.
>
>
> Oh, I see. You HAVEN'T done any blind comparisons or know of any that
> have been done.
>
> How can you make a statement like that, then?


Because he damn well knows that those tests are designed to make
different amps (cd players, cables, etc) sound the same.

But in this world of cross brand, price, quality, design UNIVERSAL
sameness, only the different models of QSC amps shine through. :) So
much so that mickeymickmickey is able to say:

"How many QSC amps have you listened to?
Not all are the same."

AND when it comes to QSC!!, you suddenly dont need to triple or double
blind yourself. Just "listening to" them is sufficient... :) I quote,
yet again:

"How many QSC amps have you listened to?
Not all are the same."

:)


This man is bumping into tables, ant hills, his own prejudices, his own
dishonesty, his own idiocy.. Hard to beleive how anyone can be this
rock-bottom ultra dense stupid packed into blackhole stupid.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:09:11 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro
>>>>>>you'd
>>>>>>discover how much alike they sound.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
>>>>> have done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
>>>>> regarding those two brands.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA.
>>>>
>>>>You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the Yamaha, or whatever
>>>>reciever I think will be able to compete.
>>>
>>> Oh, I see. You HAVEN'T done any blind comparisons or know of any that
>>> have been done.
>>>
>>> How can you make a statement like that, then?
>>
>> Because it's generally true, amplifers tend to sound alike.
>>
>
> because you 'think' they do.
> Just another expectation effect.
>
>
No, it's because there's overwhelming evidence in support of that fact.
Amps sound differnt when and only when there is clipping, or sufficient
deviations from flat frequency response to be audible, or some other form of
distortion is audible. Such amps are the exception and not the rule.

"Forwarder" > wrote in message
.. .
> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:09:11 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro
>>>>>you'd
>>>>>discover how much alike they sound.
>>>>
>>>>Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
>>>>have done.
>>>>
>>>>Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
>>>>regarding those two brands.
>>>>
>>>>TIA.
>>>
>>>You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the Yamaha, or whatever
>>>reciever I think will be able to compete.
>>
>>
>> Oh, I see. You HAVEN'T done any blind comparisons or know of any that
>> have been done.
>>
>> How can you make a statement like that, then?
>
>
> Because he damn well knows that those tests are designed to make different
> amps (cd players, cables, etc) sound the same.
>
I "know" no such thing, that is simply what the facts keep showing.
They also show that when these things are different enough, people do detect
those differences in DBT.


> But in this world of cross brand, price, quality, design UNIVERSAL
> sameness, only the different models of QSC amps shine through. :) So much
> so that mickeymickmickey is able to say:
>
> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
> Not all are the same."
>
Some of them are different in their FR enough that they might well be
perceived in a DBT.



> AND when it comes to QSC!!, you suddenly dont need to triple or double
> blind yourself. Just "listening to" them is sufficient... :) I quote, yet
> again:
>
Depends on the application the amp is designed for and the kind of amp it
is.

> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
> Not all are the same."
>
> :)
>
I was referring to the fact at the time that some were class AB and others
were so called class H, and some people seem to think class H amps sound
different. Also, some of their amps rollof the HF by as much as 3 dB, so a
person with very good HF hearing would be able to hear a difference, other
QSC amps are flat to within .2dB. Compare the latter with any other
consumer amp and see if you hear a difference.

The person making the comments, never stated which amp they listened to,
making the comments meaningless.

Mostly the condemnation of the QSC amp came from someone who had not
bothered to use any sort of control like level matching or quick swithcing,
so we'll never know anything for sure about what the amp sounded like.



>
> This man is bumping into tables, ant hills, his own prejudices, his own
> dishonesty, his own idiocy.. Hard to beleive how anyone can be this
> rock-bottom ultra dense stupid packed into blackhole stupid.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:50:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the
>> Yamaha, or whatever reciever I think will be able to
>> compete.
>
>Yet another smokescreen play by Weil. Since Halcros don't show up very often
>in local garage sales, there's not much chance of him being able to listen
>to any, either.

Let's remember what the claim was:

> If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs.
>a Halcro you'd discover how much alike they sound.

Now, if ANYONE is guilty of a smokescreen, it's Arnold. I asked about
the results of such a blind comparison. Mike says, by default, that
he's never done such a comparison or knows of a result that he can
quote (he may not have even HEARD a Halcro, for all I know). Then
Arnold comes in talking about how rare one of the components is. This,
of course, has nothing to do with the claim.

Apparently, now you don't even have to DO dbts, you just have to talk
about them.

Welll then, here's a counterclaim that's just as verifiable as Mike's.
If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a
Halcro, you'd discover how different they sound.

The fact that I've never heard a Halcro apparently doesn't matter.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:29:12 GMT, > wrote:

>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>> Not all are the same."
>>
>> :)
>>
>I was referring to the fact at the time that some were class AB and others
>were so called class H, and some people seem to think class H amps sound
>different.

What do the dbts say about class H vs. class AB?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:09:11 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:09:24 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a
>>>>>>>Halcro
>>>>>>>you'd
>>>>>>>discover how much alike they sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please tell us about the blind comparisons of those two amps that you
>>>>>> have done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, alternately, point us to such a test that anyone has done
>>>>>> regarding those two brands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TIA.
>>>>>
>>>>>You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the Yamaha, or whatever
>>>>>reciever I think will be able to compete.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I see. You HAVEN'T done any blind comparisons or know of any that
>>>> have been done.
>>>>
>>>> How can you make a statement like that, then?
>>>
>>> Because it's generally true, amplifers tend to sound alike.
>>>
>>
>> because you 'think' they do.
>> Just another expectation effect.
>>
>>
> No, it's because there's overwhelming evidence in support of that fact.
> Amps sound differnt when and only when there is clipping, or sufficient
> deviations from flat frequency response to be audible, or some other form
> of distortion is audible. Such amps are the exception and not the rule.
>

There is no such overwhelming evidence. Not that would apply
to any two particular amps. Not that would apply to any person or
group of people who never took any comparison test. Not even that
would apply to any of the few people who have taken such test comparing
any other amps but the 2 in question, And, not even applying
to any people who participated in any tests of the 2 amps in question,
NOT THAT ANYONE HAS.

you have no idea what differences any other person might perceive.
You only have an idea as waht YOU might or might not hear, because
you are besotten with expectation effects. You don't 'know',
you only 'expect'.



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

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:29:12 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>>> Not all are the same."
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>I was referring to the fact at the time that some were class AB and others
>>were so called class H, and some people seem to think class H amps sound
>>different.
>
> What do the dbts say about class H vs. class AB?

I haven't seen any. I have had plenty of opportunity to listen to a so
called class H amp over a period of some years and found it be as good
sounding as any amp I'd ever heard before.

Still nothing affects what one hears nearly as much as speakers and the room
they are in.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:50:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> You supply the Halcro equipment and I'll bring the
>>> Yamaha, or whatever reciever I think will be able to
>>> compete.
>>
>>Yet another smokescreen play by Weil. Since Halcros don't show up very
>>often
>>in local garage sales, there's not much chance of him being able to listen
>>to any, either.
>
> Let's remember what the claim was:
>
>> If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs.
>>a Halcro you'd discover how much alike they sound.
>
> Now, if ANYONE is guilty of a smokescreen, it's Arnold. I asked about
> the results of such a blind comparison. Mike says, by default, that
> he's never done such a comparison or knows of a result that he can
> quote (he may not have even HEARD a Halcro, for all I know). Then
> Arnold comes in talking about how rare one of the components is. This,
> of course, has nothing to do with the claim.
>
> Apparently, now you don't even have to DO dbts, you just have to talk
> about them.
>
> Welll then, here's a counterclaim that's just as verifiable as Mike's.
> If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a
> Halcro, you'd discover how different they sound.
>
> The fact that I've never heard a Halcro apparently doesn't matter.

Is there any reason that you know of that would make them sound different
form each other?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
et
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:29:12 GMT, >
>> wrote:
>>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>>>> Not all are the same."
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>> I was referring to the fact at the time that some were
>>> class AB and others were so called class H, and some
>>> people seem to think class H amps sound different.
>>
>> What do the dbts say about class H vs. class AB?
>
> I haven't seen any. I have had plenty of opportunity to
> listen to a so called class H amp over a period of some
> years and found it be as good sounding as any amp I'd
> ever heard before.

One well-known advocate of both ABX tests and Class H amplifiers is QSC.
They've made a big point out of inviting people who say that their amps
sound different to ABX them. QSC even makes and sells ABX boxes for the
purpose, and gives free demos of them.

> Still nothing affects what one hears nearly as much as
> speakers and the room they are in.

You forgot about the preconceived notions of certain listeners. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
. net
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...


>> Welll then, here's a counterclaim that's just as
>> verifiable as Mike's. If you ever tried a blind
>> comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro, you'd
>> discover how different they sound.

BZZZT! someone wants Weil to back up his claims or taunts?

Kryptonite.

>> The fact that I've never heard a Halcro apparently
>> doesn't matter.


The fact that I've never heard a Halcro doesn't matter. The fact that they
are so rare that you can't even find them at major exhibits like HE2005
suggests that we're talking about amps with a goodly dose of unobtainium.

> Is there any reason that you know of that would make them
> sound different form each other?

They measure so much better? ;-)

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: > wrote in message
: et
: > "dave weil" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:29:12 GMT, >
: >> wrote:
: >>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
: >>>> Not all are the same."
: >>>>
: >>>> :)
: >>>>
: >>> I was referring to the fact at the time that some were
: >>> class AB and others were so called class H, and some
: >>> people seem to think class H amps sound different.
: >>
: >> What do the dbts say about class H vs. class AB?
: >
: > I haven't seen any. I have had plenty of opportunity to
: > listen to a so called class H amp over a period of some
: > years and found it be as good sounding as any amp I'd
: > ever heard before.
:
: One well-known advocate of both ABX tests and Class H amplifiers is QSC.
: They've made a big point out of inviting people who say that their amps
: sound different to ABX them. QSC even makes and sells ABX boxes for the
: purpose, and gives free demos of them.

you mean, something like ICEpower ?
doesn't seem to be so according to this google hit :

"The class "H" amps are simply traditional a/b amps with switching supplies,
at different rail voltages (for increased effeciency). Kind of a variation of the
old Carver amps. These QSC/Behringer amps don't use the
Tripath/Motorola/ICEPower chips, so they are not "digital" in any sense.
Some say that they aren't as "clean" as traditional amps"
:::
or was it class H just in your opinion, Arny ?
RB.


: > Still nothing affects what one hears nearly as much as
: > speakers and the room they are in.
:
: You forgot about the preconceived notions of certain listeners. ;-)
:
:

> wrote in message
et...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:29:12 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>>>> Not all are the same."
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>I was referring to the fact at the time that some were class AB and
>>>others
>>>were so called class H, and some people seem to think class H amps sound
>>>different.
>>
>> What do the dbts say about class H vs. class AB?
>
> I haven't seen any. I have had plenty of opportunity to listen to a so
> called class H amp over a period of some years and found it be as good
> sounding as any amp I'd ever heard before.

What is Class H?

Norm Strong

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in message
>> et
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:29:12 GMT,
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>>>>>> Not all are the same."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>
>>>>> I was referring to the fact at the time that some were
>>>>> class AB and others were so called class H, and some
>>>>> people seem to think class H amps sound different.
>>>>
>>>> What do the dbts say about class H vs. class AB?
>>>
>>> I haven't seen any. I have had plenty of opportunity to
>>> listen to a so called class H amp over a period of some
>>> years and found it be as good sounding as any amp I'd
>>> ever heard before.
>>
>> One well-known advocate of both ABX tests and Class H
>> amplifiers is QSC. They've made a big point out of
>> inviting people who say that their amps sound different
>> to ABX them. QSC even makes and sells ABX boxes for the
>> purpose, and gives free demos of them.

> you mean, something like ICEpower ?

No, that's class D, not class G or class H.

> doesn't seem to be so according to this google hit :

> "The class "H" amps are simply traditional a/b amps with
> switching supplies,
> at different rail voltages (for increased effeciency).

That's one definition.

The difference between Class G and Class H are kinda fuzzed up in some
people'sminds.

> Kind of a variation of the old Carver amps. These
> QSC/Behringer amps don't use the
> Tripath/Motorola/ICEPower chips, so they are not
> "digital" in any sense.

Agreed, but neither are the Tripath amps digital. They are switchmode.

> Some say that they aren't as "clean" as traditional amps"

Some people say lots of crazy things.

> or was it class H just in your opinion, Arny ?

Class G and Class H done right simply work.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:29:12 GMT,
>>> > wrote:
>>>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>>>>> Not all are the same."
>>>>>
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>> I was referring to the fact at the time that some were
>>>> class AB and others
>>>> were so called class H, and some people seem to think
>>>> class H amps sound different.
>>>
>>> What do the dbts say about class H vs. class AB?
>>
>> I haven't seen any. I have had plenty of opportunity to
>> listen to a so called class H amp over a period of some
>> years and found it be as good sounding as any amp I'd
>> ever heard before.
>
> What is Class H?

http://www.screensound.gov.au/glossary.nsf/Pages/Amplifier?OpenDocument

[Pooh Bear]

dave weil wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:29:12 GMT, > wrote:
>
> >> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
> >> Not all are the same."
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >I was referring to the fact at the time that some were class AB and others
> >were so called class H, and some people seem to think class H amps sound
> >different.
>
> What do the dbts say about class H vs. class AB?

At normal listening levels 'class H' amplifiers *are* class AB.

Graham

[dave weil]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:41:01 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:29:12 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>>>> Not all are the same."
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>I was referring to the fact at the time that some were class AB and others
>>>were so called class H, and some people seem to think class H amps sound
>>>different.
>>
>> What do the dbts say about class H vs. class AB?
>
>I haven't seen any. I have had plenty of opportunity to listen to a so
>called class H amp over a period of some years and found it be as good
>sounding as any amp I'd ever heard before.

So then, the question "How many QSC amps have you listened to?" was
pretty much irrelevant, right?

And, your above statment presumes one of two states:

1. SETs sound just as good as any other amp.

Or:

2. You've never heard an SET.

Well, there's another:

1. I have no ability to discern what "good sounding" means in relation
fo real music.

(just waiting on some asshole to attribute the above statement to
me...)

[dave weil]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:42:55 GMT, > wrote:

>>
>> Welll then, here's a counterclaim that's just as verifiable as Mike's.
>> If you ever tried a blind comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a
>> Halcro, you'd discover how different they sound.
>>
>> The fact that I've never heard a Halcro apparently doesn't matter.
>
>Is there any reason that you know of that would make them sound different
>form each other?

I don't know. I've never done a dbt of the amps, nor have I auditioned
a Halcro. <g>

I don't even know what Yamaha receiver you were talking about, *or*
the type of speaker that you were proposing using, both facts being
somewhat important to the equation.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:11:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>
>>> Welll then, here's a counterclaim that's just as
>>> verifiable as Mike's. If you ever tried a blind
>>> comparison of a Yamaha receiver vs. a Halcro, you'd
>>> discover how different they sound.
>
>BZZZT! someone wants Weil to back up his claims or taunts?

Why on earth are you replying to me?

Just for giggles, how does *my* claim differ from Mike's? They'e both
from people who have never heard one of the products being discussed
and there's apparently no dbt that has been done on the components
being discussed. heck, there are few dbts published regarding ANY
power amps. Certainly not enough to be any where close to
definitive...

[dave weil]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:57:16 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:29:12 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>> >> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>> >> Not all are the same."
>> >>
>> >> :)
>> >>
>> >I was referring to the fact at the time that some were class AB and others
>> >were so called class H, and some people seem to think class H amps sound
>> >different.
>>
>> What do the dbts say about class H vs. class AB?
>
>At normal listening levels 'class H' amplifiers *are* class AB.
>
>Graham

Well then, according to Mike, the question he posed was pretty much
irrelevant, right?

And yes, I've owned a couple of class H amps, one for a couple of
years and the other for about 10 years.

And no, I never did any dbts on them vs. other more "conventional"
amps, so I suppose that I'm disqualified from discussing supposed
sound differences. However, I can say this; I found the sound of both
amps acceptable to me, except when the power supply wasn't sufficient
and the amp's (one of them, not the other) protection circuitry cut
the output periodically. This occured when I was using said amp for a
party for my fiancee's family in a German "barn". Apparently the power
line was dirty or "saggy" enough to trigger the protection circuitry
and we had to reset things about 4 or 5 times during the evening. It
tended to interrupt the dancing. That was a little embarassing...