"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion and low
noise.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?

When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used are
"preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
without
switching quickly between them.


He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and different
rooms.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not have
an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I have a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged. Nevertheless, I do not
challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer, are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing differnces and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.

as it has been practiced with respect to hifi. But if that is the mode of
thought that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all of your
prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate the process.

The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

"Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.


It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
challenged.