In article ,
"Buster Mudd" wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Quick-switching simply means the time it takes for the
*switching* is short. It does not
refer to the time you spend listening to the samples.



Wait, and the "subjectivists" have a problem with *that* ?!?!?!

Why would anyone even for a moment thing that "slow switching" is
preferable? I admit I've never heard anyone specifically endorse "slow
switching", but I keep hearing folks griping about problems with "quick
switching" comparisons, as if the "quick switching" aspect was germane
to the problems they have with the comparison. But it seems like what
they really mean when they complain about "quick switching" ABX tests
is actually *ANY* blind comparison, period. Yes?

No.

The confusion comes from the fact that there are those who thought
(think) that quick switching means short musical examples in the test,
i.e. listen to A for 2 seconds, then B for 2 seconds, etc.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 7 Mar 2006 00:49:37 GMT, wrote:


snip


One such 'fact' would likely be that, given level-matching to +/-
0.1dB across the audio band, and no gross distortion products, all of
human knowledge suggests that the items being compared will show no
audible differences. That is not an extraordinary claim, it is the
outcome of literally *thousands* of such comparisons, which is why
level-matched DBTs are the 'gold standard' in the audio industry,
including 'high end' brands like Revel.

Just out of curiosity, Stewart, where are the "thousands" of tests you cite
for reference purposes? In otherwords, wherein did you manage to
confabulate this statistic?


snip

On 9 Mar 2006 00:37:21 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 7 Mar 2006 00:49:37 GMT, wrote:


snip


One such 'fact' would likely be that, given level-matching to +/-
0.1dB across the audio band, and no gross distortion products, all of
human knowledge suggests that the items being compared will show no
audible differences. That is not an extraordinary claim, it is the
outcome of literally *thousands* of such comparisons, which is why
level-matched DBTs are the 'gold standard' in the audio industry,
including 'high end' brands like Revel.

Just out of curiosity, Stewart, where are the "thousands" of tests you cite
for reference purposes? In otherwords, wherein did you manage to
confabulate this statistic?

DBTs are used by Harman International, KEF, B&W and other major
manufacturers every working day. Given that they've been doing this
for decades, you do the math. DBTs are the gold standard ij audio
comparison for the very simple reason that they're the most sensitive
known test for *real* sonic differences.

They won't of course tell *you* what you want to hear, wherein lies
your problem with them. Where is your single solitary shred of
*evidence* in rebuttal?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 00:37:21 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 7 Mar 2006 00:49:37 GMT, wrote:


snip


One such 'fact' would likely be that, given level-matching to +/-
0.1dB across the audio band, and no gross distortion products, all of
human knowledge suggests that the items being compared will show no
audible differences. That is not an extraordinary claim, it is the
outcome of literally *thousands* of such comparisons, which is why
level-matched DBTs are the 'gold standard' in the audio industry,
including 'high end' brands like Revel.

Just out of curiosity, Stewart, where are the "thousands" of tests you cite
for reference purposes? In otherwords, wherein did you manage to
confabulate this statistic?

DBTs are used by Harman International, KEF, B&W and other major
manufacturers every working day. Given that they've been doing this
for decades, you do the math.

That;s nice. Do you have access to the data from their tests?



DBTs are the gold standard ij audio
comparison for the very simple reason that they're the most sensitive
known test for *real* sonic differences.


That's great. now produce the peer reviewed data from dbts that tell us
all amps CD players and cables sound the same with all the usual
conditions aside from this nonsense about exempting designs *you*
happen to not like.



They won't of course tell *you* what you want to hear, wherein lies
your problem with them.



You know this how?


Where is your single solitary shred of
*evidence* in rebuttal?

It isn't scientifically valid but it might ring a bell since it is your
test.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d94e22c8f458bf
"I positively identified several amps, the Yamaha
was closest to indistinguishable from the top runners (Krell, Hafler
and Audiolab in this case). The C370 was compared at a later date, to
the same Krell transfer standard. Interestingly, a Mark Levinson 333
also provided a positive result against the Krell, showing similar
treble sharpness. I did not compare Yamaha and Levinson directly, but
that would have been *very* interesting! :-) "
It is just plain wierd that you would argue that all amps that are
"competently designed" all sound the same when you, of all people,
heard differences under blind conditions. Were you wrong? Is there an
amp on this group that an consumer should have known was incompetently
designed? You are asking for evidence, do you accept your own tests?

Scott

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 00:37:21 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 7 Mar 2006 00:49:37 GMT, wrote:


snip


One such 'fact' would likely be that, given level-matching to +/-
0.1dB across the audio band, and no gross distortion products, all of
human knowledge suggests that the items being compared will show no
audible differences. That is not an extraordinary claim, it is the
outcome of literally *thousands* of such comparisons, which is why
level-matched DBTs are the 'gold standard' in the audio industry,
including 'high end' brands like Revel.

Just out of curiosity, Stewart, where are the "thousands" of tests you cite
for reference purposes? In otherwords, wherein did you manage to
confabulate this statistic?

DBTs are used by Harman International

IIRC Sean Olive's speaker preference paper involved more than
250 subjects...for just one paper.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2006 00:37:21 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 7 Mar 2006 00:49:37 GMT, wrote:


snip


One such 'fact' would likely be that, given level-matching to +/-
0.1dB across the audio band, and no gross distortion products, all of
human knowledge suggests that the items being compared will show no
audible differences. That is not an extraordinary claim, it is the
outcome of literally *thousands* of such comparisons, which is why
level-matched DBTs are the 'gold standard' in the audio industry,
including 'high end' brands like Revel.

Just out of curiosity, Stewart, where are the "thousands" of tests you
cite
for reference purposes? In otherwords, wherein did you manage to
confabulate this statistic?

DBTs are used by Harman International, KEF, B&W and other major
manufacturers every working day. Given that they've been doing this
for decades, you do the math. DBTs are the gold standard ij audio
comparison for the very simple reason that they're the most sensitive
known test for *real* sonic differences.

They won't of course tell *you* what you want to hear, wherein lies
your problem with them. Where is your single solitary shred of
*evidence* in rebuttal?

Notice that I did not ask if the DBT's were done. I asked where the
"evidence" was that thousands had been done that showed no level-matched
differences, which is what you claimed.

I have your answer. You are guessing at the number done, and you have
absolutely no knowledge of what the outcome of the tests is....since they
are "insider" and routine tests, and you have no particular access to such.

On 10 Mar 2006 21:08:05 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 00:37:21 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 7 Mar 2006 00:49:37 GMT, wrote:


snip


One such 'fact' would likely be that, given level-matching to +/-
0.1dB across the audio band, and no gross distortion products, all of
human knowledge suggests that the items being compared will show no
audible differences. That is not an extraordinary claim, it is the
outcome of literally *thousands* of such comparisons, which is why
level-matched DBTs are the 'gold standard' in the audio industry,
including 'high end' brands like Revel.

Just out of curiosity, Stewart, where are the "thousands" of tests you cite
for reference purposes? In otherwords, wherein did you manage to
confabulate this statistic?

DBTs are used by Harman International, KEF, B&W and other major
manufacturers every working day. Given that they've been doing this
for decades, you do the math.

That;s nice. Do you have access to the data from their tests?

Of course not - why would I want it? Further, how would that affect
the number of tests done?

DBTs are the gold standard ij audio
comparison for the very simple reason that they're the most sensitive
known test for *real* sonic differences.

That's great. now produce the peer reviewed data from dbts that tell us
all amps CD players and cables sound the same with all the usual
conditions aside from this nonsense about exempting designs *you*
happen to not like.

You've already seen results from those where experienced dealers tried
to prove that this was *not* the case, and they crashed and burned.
Can you find one single solitary example where any such equipment
*did* pass a DBT?

They won't of course tell *you* what you want to hear, wherein lies
your problem with them.

You know this how?

From your every post.


Where is your single solitary shred of
*evidence* in rebuttal?

It isn't scientifically valid but it might ring a bell since it is your
test.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d94e22c8f458bf
"I positively identified several amps, the Yamaha
was closest to indistinguishable from the top runners (Krell, Hafler
and Audiolab in this case). The C370 was compared at a later date, to
the same Krell transfer standard. Interestingly, a Mark Levinson 333
also provided a positive result against the Krell, showing similar
treble sharpness. I did not compare Yamaha and Levinson directly, but
that would have been *very* interesting! :-) "
It is just plain wierd that you would argue that all amps that are
"competently designed" all sound the same when you, of all people,
heard differences under blind conditions. Were you wrong? Is there an
amp on this group that an consumer should have known was incompetently
designed? You are asking for evidence, do you accept your own tests?

I've already stated that the Yammy almost certainly had high HF IMD,
because I've heard that effect before, and that the MF units had
drooping treble (as does my little Rotel on the PC system). The
Stereophile review of the ML 333 showed that it peaked in the treble
due to some kind of internal resonance. I have no problem with
real-world amplifiers sounding different - that's why I did the DBTs.

The point is not to buy one that sounds different, because there's
clearly something wrong with it. OTOH, if you had speakers with a
recessed top end, the Yamaha AX-570 would be an excellent and
cost-effective choice.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering