From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/15/2004 2:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/15/2004 9:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/15/2004 6:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


I don't think anyone around here has any kind of problem with
consumer audio. That is a market-led business where you get pretty
much what you pay for.

Or less.

As for the con games of the high-end, I've really not a great deal
of sympathy for anyone who cons himself over some fanciful
"improvement".

It's not really about sympathy, its about heading people off from
going down the wrong path.

The wrong path? Whatever path one chooses for themselves and enjoys
is not the wrong path in any hobby.

Horsefeathers. Scotty, you said *any hobby* so I'll run with your
ball. Let's pick the hobby of skiing. Left to one's own choices one
might pick equipment that is a safety hazard. So, now one finds
oneself in the hospital, perhaps permanently disabled. Nothing wrong
with that you say? GMAB!

I suppose most hobbyists would prefer not to be disabled. If one
takes up skiing or mountain climbing or hang gliding one does take on
certain risks so it would be wise to look into objective safty issues
when purchasing equipment. So I'll qualify the claim to hobbies that
are not prone to such saftey issues (of course it is wise not to buy
defective equipment that may start a fire) and to hobbies that center
around aesthetic values.

Audio is different from other many other hobbies because of the way it is
prone to producing enjoyment due to placebo or expectation effects. For
example if your hobby is boating, expectations don't change the features or
size or speed or speed of the boat.

I'm not sure sure boating or many other hobbies are free from expectation
effects.


In audio, the expectation that a cable
will make your system sound better can create the perception that it sounds
better even when there is no reliably perceptible change.

No. It *can* . that doesn't mean it *will*. Many times I have been surprised
when actual auditions of various pieces of equipment and different issues of
recordings did not meet my expectations. Many is the time that i picked the
unexpected preference in sighted comparisons.


There is another
hobby that shares this problem, namely golfing. In both audio and golfing,
some improvements in equipment quality actually do improve one's enjoyment
of the game by improving what is in some sense objective performance. In
other cases there is a perception of improvement due to a change in
equipment, but there is no reliable change in actual performance when the
player plays the game.

Both golfers and audiophiles have their own personal methodologies for
evaluating new equipment. Let's say that we found a means for evaluating
golf clubs that would always translate into improved comfort and scores,
when used by just about any golfer. Let's say that we had another means for
evaluating golf clubs that had a random corrleation with improved comfort
and scores, regardless of who tried it.

I don't know much about golf but why would we want to imagine this unrealistic
scenereo? Aside from the fact that analogies prove nothing (I am assuming this
is building up to an analogy) why build an analogy that is so disconnected from
reality?


Given that both procedures involved achievable amounts of effort, which
would the average golfer choose? Rememeber that due to the degree to which
golfing is prone to expectation effects, a golfer will get some amount of
enjoyment out of his equipment purchase, simply because of his expectations.

I find the question fairlly useless since I don't see how it even relates to
golf much less audio.




The best systems I have heard
have been wrought by what you seem to consider the wrong path.

There's no accounting for taste or a lack of it.

Which is one reason why you are still allowed an opinion. Lets not
forget what piece of music you proclaimed as one of the most
emotionally moving pieces of music in the world.

You've got a problem with Pachelbel's Cannon in D?

Yes, I think it is a sappy piece of crap but that is irrelevant.You will be
hard pressed to find a knowledgable person who wouldn't laugh at the claim that
it is one of the most emotionally moving pieces of music ever. Every classical
music buff I know has heard the story Arny. They *all* belly laughed. Even the
ones who like Pachelbel's Canon. Hey I like Godzilla vs. The Smog Monster but I
know better than to call it a great achievement in cinema.



Scott, if you prefer
listening to tics and pops, flutter and wow, gratuitous noise and
distortion, what does that say about your appreciation for the
natural sound of music?

I prefer not hearing them and if all else were equal I would opt not
to hear them. All else is not equal though and this is the important
point you continue to ignore. But, as you say, there is no accounting
for taste.

Frankly, if music is as heavily contaminated with these added noises, there
isn't a whole lot left to compare,

If they are that heavily contanimated your rig or you record is defective, or
both.

other than the basic artistic properties
of the music which don't vary as the playback format changes.

Get a better record player if it is that bad.



Do the live concerts in your LA home area have LP-style noise and
distortion generators on stage?

Actually what they have is worse. Coughing, shuffling, clearing
throats. Didn't you know that?

So, have you installed a generator of coughing, shuffling, and clearing
throats to your audio system, Scott?

No. I guess you missed the point. I put up with the noise at live concerts so I
can hear the live music. I would be happier without the ambient noise form the
audience but it is inevitable.



Are they part of the equipment inventory at
the Hollywood Bowl?

Funny you would cite one of the worst sounding venues for music in
the L.A, area. But, there is no accounting for taste.

Funny that there are so many people who disagree with you, Scott.

Really? Who? I want to know so I can ignore all their opinions on sound
quality. To be fair I haven't heard the new Bowl since they tried to make it
better. But the old one just plain sucked for sound. It was laughably bad. But
please name names as to those people who you know disagree with me on this one.
It always good to filter out opinions that will inevitably be worthless to me
ahead of time.


But as for the unscrupulous dealer who gives the volume control a
subtle tweak when demonstrating some expensive fix, he need
kneecapping.

In the case of a cable swap, it's easy to see how a person can
psych himself into perceiving a change, even when there is none.

Doesn't mean one has to imagine a difference.

That doesn't really
prove anything at all in any particular case other than there is a
possibility of such a mistake.

Practical experience suggests that there is a near-certainty of
making a mistake in judgment, if the difference is small and the
test is poorly-designed.

Your opinion is noted. Maybe this is a problem for you but You can
hardly make any universal claims based on your experience.

This claim isn't based on just my experience, Scott. But thanks for showing
your ignornace of various standards and recommendations of professional
organizations that agree that good design for listening tests is of the
essence.

You said "practical experience." If you didn't mean *your* practical experience
you should have said so and cited just what practical experience you are
refering to.



I'm sure
some are more likely than others to make these kinds of mistakes.

Too much is too much, even if it varies.

First off, small level changes don't sound like just louder or
softer. In fact most people don't know what say a 0.5 or 1 dB level
shift actually sounds like because they haven' heard one as an
isolated change.

How often do line level cables in short runs create such a change?

Please see later comments about corrosion and dirt on connectors.

The later comments don't answer the question, they don't even address it.

So says you, Scott. Most well-informed people know that dirt and corrosion
on connectors can create changes of that size or even larger.

That still doesn't answer my question or even adress it.



Secondly, the time built-in time delay implied by cable swapping
puts up to a dB or more perceived level shift ambiguity into the
comparison. IOW if you put in a time delay of more than a few
seconds into the swap, you may not be able to reliably detect a 0.8
dB level shift. This suggests that if I also add a 0.8 dB level
shift, you might not be able to reliably detect it, either.

The randomizing effect of time delays is one reason why for example
Stereophile's insistence that its reviewers use the single
presentation method turns every subject review they publish into an
extremely questionable situation.

But that is how most people actually use their systems.

Most people use their systems to listen to music for pleasure, not
judge audio components.

Most audiophiles are eminently aware of their judgement of their
systems as they enjoy listening to music.

That would be your personal opinion, Scott.

Yes, do you disagree with it?

Provide recommendations and
international standards that agree with you, as I can for my comments about
experimental design.

No you can't.



Stereophile represents that their review staff is properly
trained and well-equipped for a different mission than just
listening to music for pleasure.

Where does it say that? What is proper training for a reviewer?

One place is http://www.stereophile.com//features/20/ .

The page your link goes to says nothing about your claim.



Most hobby and professional magazines that review products don't
restrict themselves to just the things that people do when they put
the products to normal use.

That's a rather braod claim.

Prove me wrong. My claim is well-supported.

Why? You went on to prove yourself wrong later in your previous post. I even
thanked you for doing it for me.



Popular Photography does technical resolution and distortion
tests on lenses.

Sure but they also take pictures with them as well and offer a
subjective review of the results. Besides Stereophile does offer alll
sorts of measurements with many of their subjective reviews.

Straw man argument because I never claimed actual use testing didn't also
happen. You claimed that these sorts of tests are useless because they don't
duplicate actual use.

Car and Driver does timed tests relating to top speed,
acceleration, and cornering.

They also drive the car just as any prospective buyer may drive it
and offer a subjective impression of it.

Straw man argument because I never claimed actual use testing didn't also
happen. You claimed that these sorts of tests are useless because they don't
duplicate actual use.

You aren't even making sense Arny. Get it together. You are the one complaining
about Stereophile and audiophiles auditioning equipment by using it the way
they would use it once they own it. Then you cite a number of magazines to
support your assertion that this a bad method. Unfortunately for you, at least
three of the four magazines you cite as support use the very methods you decry
to review equipment.




PC Magazine runs a variety of real world and
synthetic benchmarks. Why should audio hobbyist or professional
magazines play by a different set of rules?

Of the magazines you named and I have read you have yet to find one
that does things so terribly differently than Stereophile.

Look Scott, even Atkinson admits that Stereophile doesn't do bias-controlled
listening tests.

Neither do the magazines you cited.

None of them use DBTs that I know of.

The products they test aren't nearly as likely to have subjectively
indentical performance, as does much of the audio gear that Stereophile
tests.

Sorry you are arguing your point on the premise that you are right about things
sounding the same. Anyone can prove themselves right if they are allowed to
argue from the premise that they are already right. Your citations of other
magazines as support are at best useless given the fact that they use the very
methods you decry.


They all use the equipment as would the
buyer and they all comment on their experience with using the
equipment.

They all also use the bias-controlled testing producdures I listed.

Really? Citation please of bias controled usage tests from the magazines you
cited. Good luck.

Even
Atkinson admits that Stereophile doesn't do bias-controlled listening tests.

Neither do the magazines you cited.



Thanks for supporting my claim.

Thanks for showing that the fine points of audio equipment testing are over
your head, Scott.

Your argument doeswn't hold water, your own citations reject your assertion. I
guess personal attack is all you have left.



they sit down
and listen to music with the full awareness of what equipment is in
play and they just listen to that setup without making any quick
changes.

Which is a fine thing to do if someone wants to do their equipment
reviews the dumbest possible way.

As per the magazines you cited it looks like a very common means of
reviewing equipment.

The products they test aren't nearly as likely to have subjectively
indentical performance, as does much of the audio gear that Stereophile
tests.

In your opinion. That does not change the fact that you cited these magazines
as support to your assertion that Stereophiles methods are inferior and yet
these magazines more or less use the very same methods. That's just kinda dumb.



It makes sense to me to have the reviewer use
the equipment under review as would the potential user.

Since I never claimed otherwise, that would be yet another of your stram man
arguments, Scott.

Sure you did. You asserted that audiophiles and Stereophile use inferior
evaluation methods. This is the method commonly used by both. If it is an
inferior method than it doesn't make sense to use it. You really need to keep
track of what you are saying.



I guess it doesn't make sense to you.

As usual, you guess wrong, Scott.

Then why argue that it is a an inferior method?



Or maybe you simply do not use your audio
equipment the same way as do many audiophiles and as a consequence
you have trouble relating to such reviews.

Arain, you guess wrong, Scott.

Of course. It is inevitable that one would guess wrong when you agrue against
these method s and now say you are not against them.




As soon as audio magazine editors say "Read my
magazine, we do our equipment reviews as stupidly, naively, and as
poorly-informed as we can" you'll have a market for your proposed
procedures, Scott.

You say this as though your personal opinion on methods were some
sort of universal truth. It isn't.

Scott, the need for bias-controlled subjective tests isn't just based on my
personal opinion. It's writtent into the recommendations and standards for
many professional organizations, including many that are related to audio.

For subjective evaluations? I know that Floyd Toole is real big on it for
development. I don't know of "many" professional organizations that recomend it
for hobbyists in their evaluations or for review magazines for that matter.


Bias-controlled subjective tests have the force of law in certain very
important sitautions like drug testing.

That's good but legal drug use is not really a matter of taste or personal
preference is it?

You're the guy who wants to
exclude bias-controlled listening tests, not me.

Bull****. I don't want to exclude them. I use them all the time for
comparisons.


You're the guy that tries
to justify ragazines that avoid using bias-controlled listening tests, not
me.

I justtify magazines that use equipment as the user would. You did to
ufortunately for your argument.



Publications like audiophilia, though are simply (as far as I'm
concerned) here to give us a laugh - like the PWB newsletter.

Ah yes, Belt's religious tract. LOL!

I find it ironic that Middius rants and raves about how scientific
approaches to audio product evaluation are religious, and says
nothing about faith-driven bozos like Belt.

I don't think Middius is speaking of legitimate scientific approaches
but of agenda driven approaches cloaed in a phoney veil of science.

Middius has never shown any evidence of this alleged phoney veil of science.

He doesn't have to. We are speaking of his position only. But it would be best
to let him speak for himself. I was speculating and I could be wrong.


Middius just belittles what he can't understand,

I think he understands you much more than you give him credit for.

he never provides a
thoughful, factual critique of anything.

He tends to take another road in his critiques.

Most of his claims are false.

Most of his "claims" are outright opinions. Pretty hard to argue that they are
false.

But
thanks for showing that you support him, Scott.

Support him? I don't give him money.

Speaks to your inability to
tell the difference between truth and lies, which is already well-documented

Yeah, this from the guy who makes false accusations of pedophilia. Sorry but
you are in no position to be pointing fingers.



Belt is driven by faith? News to me.

Just another example of how naive you are, Scott.


That would be ignorance Arny. I have never spoken to him and I have no idea if
his beliefs in audio are faith based. You have to work on your deductive
reasoning.