On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
.net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting this.

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling the dice in Las Vegas..

So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
.net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting this.

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling the dice in Las Vegas..

So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
a lot more time

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound
quality of amps. Thus all well-designed, similarly
measuring amps do not sound the same. Or am I
mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

below is a corrected version of Packer's *******ization of
what I said

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...44a6c3e558f35b

"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same."

They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

Depends on how the Supreme Being feels about hypocrisy. It might be a
few hundred thousand years before Arnold makes it through the various
rings of purgatory.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:39:22 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

Depends on how the Supreme Being feels about hypocrisy. It might be a
few hundred thousand years before Arnold makes it through the various
rings of purgatory.

I'll wait. What else have I got to do? :-)

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

Depends on how the Supreme Being feels about hypocrisy. It might be a
few hundred thousand years before Arnold makes it through the various
rings of purgatory.

He might not bother. Arny seems to like heat.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same."

They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that
I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.

And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same."

They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that
I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.

And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.

Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a nasty
person

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same."

They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that
I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.

And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.

Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a
nasty
person

Someone should explain to you that I don't give a ****.
If I get the answers I want from him about the questions I ask, then he's
done all I need him to do. He's never been anything but cordial to me and
to those who have always been cordial to him.

If he gets treated less than cordially he tends to hold a grudge, sorta like
you against McCarty, or me.

If your ego is so fragile that it can't stand somebody's criticism of you,
especially when you're dead wrong, which happens a lot it seems, then ****
off. You're obviously too big a candy ass to be here.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is
considered a nasty person

Someone should explain to Robert why he comes off as a
busybody and whiner, when he isn't taking some nasty licks
of his own.

paul packer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
a lot more time

Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
magazines bother with bench tests?



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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
paul packer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of
amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
a lot more time

Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
magazines bother with bench tests?

That is a really stupid question.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
paul packer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of
amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
a lot more time

Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
magazines bother with bench tests?

That is a really stupid question.


And as usual, you don't have an answer.

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
paul packer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of
amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
a lot more time

Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
magazines bother with bench tests?

That is a really stupid question.


And as usual, you don't have an answer.
It is a really stupid question, asked by a really dumb guy.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
k.net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
this.

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling the dice in Las Vegas..

So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.

Depends on which ones.

Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

As usual.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:51:06 GMT, wrote:


Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

As usual.

Glib non answer, Mike. Try again.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:51:06 GMT, wrote:


Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

As usual.

Glib non answer, Mike. Try again.

Why is it you don't get the difference between published specs and measured
performance?

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
.net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
this.

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling the dice in Las Vegas..

So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

They don't, because the measurements used are antiquated, and not
insightfull designed. All the quoted measurements are things an E.E. could
do back in the 60's and 70's with a couple of test-tone oscillators, and
some filters. It reminds me of the story about the drunk who lost his
wallet, and spent the night circling a street lamp, staring at the ground.
When asked why he spent all night looking in one location, he replied,
"Because that's where the light is."

There is a tendency of the engineering contingent of this group to be
captured by what they consider "revealed truths"? It's as if they've grabbed
a live wire; the electricity caused their hand to contract, and they can't
let go. Of course, the cream of the profession evades this, but they are
seldom represented here. Some of these people are not engineers at all; some
are technical workers, and some are poseurs.

Yet there is truth to the notion of the "engineering mentality". Part of
this is due to self-selection; part is due to the way the curricula is
taught. In fact, one of the things engineering students are taught is that
it is simply impossible to think about every choice you have to make. It is
better to know, than to "reinvent the wheel." But this has a bad effect.
Minds that have a cosmic grasp can get beyond this, and become originators.
Those who cannot can still be very good engineers, but as with any
mechanistic frame of mind, sometimes end in ruts they cannot themselves
perceive.