[Sander deWaal]

Bill Riel said:


I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.


Hi Sander,

I'd never be critical of anyone's preferences, and I do tend to do
almost all of my listening in 2 channel as well. However, I have heard
some music in 5.1 that was very impressive - usually the best will be
classical music and the surrounds simply provide hall ambience and can
be a tremendously immersive experience.



I'm sure it is possible, I just said it isn't my thing.
That's why I always use disclaimers like "IMO", "in my case" etc. etc.


I've heard some nice jazz that way, too, though I hate it when
instruments get mixed to the surrounds.

If properly set up, subs shouldn't "boom" (well, perhaps except in
movies). But, imo, it's actually non-trivial to position and "dial-in" a
sub properly so it blends seamlessly. When it does, you shouldn't even
know that it's on - you just get tremendous, clean bass extension.


That is also possible, but seldom the case.
I'm a dipole user, and integrating a sub with dipoles can be quite
frustrating IMO.

With films, it mostly is unnatural, unnerving and sometimes outright
ridiculous.
James Bond shutting the door of a car, and 3 houses further, the
pictures start falling from the wall.


Anyway, I'm not trying to lecture you - I know you've forgotten more
about audio than I'll ever know, but 5.1 can be a pretty amazing
experience with the right source & setup imo.


Dunno if I know as much about audio as you seem to think I do (or that
it even matters), I'm just saying that stereo is enough for me, for
music.

I'm reacting strongly to people who seem to think there's only one
possible way of doing things right, and that the only right way is
always *their* way.

I try to offer alternate views, but don't shove them in your face with
a.....well, a shovel ;-)

This place is called rec.audio.OPINION, everyone's 2 cents worth about
audio.

Please, read my posts in that context.
I'll try to be more clear about presenting my views as opinions, not
as gospel, in the future.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
Nobody is stupider than duh-Mikey. Not even you, Scooter.

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.

Of course, but some people like to see if there's any differences that
might be worth paying for.

"Dumber than a box of rocks" about sums it up.

Is not2cool4u named Scott? or are you too senile to know who you're
responding too?

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
"R. Stanton" wrote in message
oups.com

It wasn't a troll. I really think a simpler test would be
better, than ABX.

Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the
only game in town. It is the defacto standard.

Nope, AFAIK ABC/hr is the far more commonly-used methodology these days.
Check ITU recommendation BS 1116, for example. OK, so there are only about
21,000 google hits. That's because the riff-raff can handle three letters,
but 5 letters and a slash exceeds their mental abiliites. ;-)

Arny chastises the lesser borgs!

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" wrote in message


On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
a few of the industry periodicals also help."

These are words you never lived by, Arny.

Delusions of omnisicence noted. Powell, how can you say that I've never
attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
periodicals? Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch me
24/7?

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
a few of the industry periodicals also help."

These are words you never lived by, Arny.


Delusions of omnisicence noted. Powell, how can you say that I've never
attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
periodicals? Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch me
24/7?


Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that no one is out there to
get you, Arns ;-)

BTW what does "omnisicence" mean, Webster's Online Dictionary doesn't
seem to know it. Thank you.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Jenn]

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" said:


On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
a few of the industry periodicals also help."

These are words you never lived by, Arny.


Delusions of omnisicence noted. Powell, how can you say that I've never
attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
periodicals? Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch me
24/7?


Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that no one is out there to
get you, Arns ;-)

BTW what does "omnisicence" mean, Webster's Online Dictionary doesn't
seem to know it. Thank you.

"Obviously Arny doesn't care about accuracy..."

[Bill Riel]

Sander wrote:

I'm reacting strongly to people who seem to think there's only one
possible way of doing things right, and that the only right way is
always *their* way.

I try to offer alternate views, but don't shove them in your face with
a.....well, a shovel ;-)

This place is called rec.audio.OPINION, everyone's 2 cents worth about
audio.

Please, read my posts in that context.
I'll try to be more clear about presenting my views as opinions, not
as gospel, in the future.

Hey Sander, I can totally respect where you're coming from - and no
worries, you do a better job than most of not being dogmatic about your
opinions. I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Cheers,

Bill

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
"Powell" wrote in message


On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
a few of the industry periodicals also help."

These are words you never lived by, Arny.

Delusions of omnisicence noted. Powell, how can you say that I've never
attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
periodicals? Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch me
24/7?

He got a report from Boon.

[Sander deWaal]

Bill Riel said:


Hey Sander, I can totally respect where you're coming from - and no
worries, you do a better job than most of not being dogmatic about your
opinions. I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.


Well, thanks anyway.
Keeps me sharp ;-)


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg gets into a huff.

Powell, how can you say that I've never
attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
periodicals?

Lack of affirmative declaration noted. This is a classic "debating trade"
dodge. We now know with absolutely certainty that you never did any of the
above.

Besides, they all cost money. QED.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

Delusions of omnisicence noted.

BTW what does "omnisicence" mean, Webster's Online Dictionary doesn't
seem to know it. Thank you.

It's one of Arnii's $1,000 words for feces.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

BTW what does "omnisicence" mean, Webster's Online Dictionary doesn't
seem to know it. Thank you.

"Obviously Arny doesn't care about accuracy..."

You're going to make him cry. Can you live with that?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
said:


- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.

Who said anything about weird or artificial? Not that it really
matters, My only concern is, does it improve the experience or not? If
you watch a scene in a movie that has jets flying overhead or bullets
flying by, then having the sound travel from front to rear or vice
versa adds to the dram and realism IMO.

As for sub-woofers, they have the same job as other speakers, to
produce the sound that was recorded, nothing more, and there is plenty
of music that has content in the bottom octaves, that makes a
sub-woofer an added benefit IMO.


When you listen to live music, the sound bounces around the room,
arriving at your ears at different times. Multi-channel recordings are
trying to accomplish the same thing, and I suppose you might say it is
done with various levels of success. If you're happy with simple 2
channel listening, fine, but as the technology moves on, there will no
doubt be improvements in 5.1, 6.1 or whatever number of channels is
determined optimum.

I've heard some very good 2 channel recordings that gave me the
impression that the sound was moving from front to back. Of course
music other than pop/rock, etc. tend not to have use for such things,
but I and probably you listen to more than one kind of music.

Well recorded music in 5.1 is a treat to my ears, it's just a pity
there isn't more of it IMO.
I do prefer DTS to Dolby though, especially for movies. The scene in
War of the Worlds where the lightening bolts are being observed by Tom
Cruise and Dakota Fanning are much more impressive and tension inducing
in DTS, and the film O Brother Where Art Thou, and Peter Gabriel's
concert videos all sound better to me in DTS.

Now that you mention it, I *might* not have ever heard a properly set
up 5.1 system.
I only installed many of them, and adjusted them per the manuals.

Ergo: either the manuals are all wrong, or there's something wrong
with the standard.


Or you just don't like it. It's still and always has been a matter of
choice.
--
As with regular 2 channel recordings, the really good ones are few and
far between.

A good one IMO is Last of the Mohicans where the extra channels add
depth and give the viewer/listener a better sense of being in the
places where the movie is set.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 7, 2:24 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg said:

Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the only game in
town. It is the defacto standard.The "standard" that nobody ever uses? Including you, by your own admission.
What are you smoking?

Fix your newsreader, 'borg.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

What do you consider the standard, or are you just against all unbiased
testing?

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 5:17 pm, " wrote:
Powell wrote:
"R. Stanton" wrote

Better than ABX?

"Better" than what?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison
of audio components.

Based on the periodicals that I'm aware over the last 30
years, no manufacture or audio magazine has ever used
ABX in product development or reviews. To imply
"standard" is to denote a battery of protocols in its use.
There are none to date do to a whole raft of
limitations/unknowns.

It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it.

That depends on the application. It is most successful when
differences can be detected as a result of its use. But it is
of no statistical practicality/significance when you generate
null data. Only proving that one can in fact discern the
difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).

Their complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to
hear differences between components.

True, but this doesn't necessarily rule out the device. One
must consider the psychological disposition, hearing acuity
and training of the subjects. There are many "standards"
(cross-checks) to limit or isolate the human influence
variable per say, but it is very expensive.

What if someone tries to cheat?

That's why the sample group size is significant.

1) Answers of: "sounds different" to all trials would give
a score of 50% correct.

Ok

2) Answers of: "sounds the same" to all trials would give a score
of 50% correct.

This data is discarded. Only proving that one can in fact
discern the difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).

3) Totally random answers to all trials would give a score
of of 50% correct.

Ok... or the model wasn't designed suitably for the task
at hand.

A score of 50% correct indicates the subject can *not*
hear a difference. So cheating wouldn't work.

"*not* hear a difference"... an actual difference could
exist but the methodology may not be statistically sensitive
enough to discern it from the data.

I think the X-Y test would be easier on the subject, than the
ABX test, and would give a more accurate indication of
someones ability to hear a difference in the components.

Maybe, maybe not.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Powell answers R. Stanton

2) Answers of: "sounds the same" to all trials would give a score
of 50% correct.

This data is discarded. Only proving that one can in fact
discern the difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).I don't have to tell you that this was pointed out to the ABX crowd
many times before. It never made any difference and it will not make
any now.

There is ongoing attraction in the notion that "science" is on your
side. It showis that what you can not hear does not exist..

Mr. Stanton's "improvements" are a case in point.

Against the grain one comes reluctantly to agree with Middius.
Rationality has no hope. Ridicule works just a shade better
Ludovic Mirabel

Science is not on your side, if you don't understand science.

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg needs a smackdown.

It is the defacto standard.The "standard" that nobody ever uses?

Fix your newsreader, 'borg.

Fix your newsreader, 'borg.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Sander deWaal]

said:


- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.


Who said anything about weird or artificial? Not that it really
matters, My only concern is, does it improve the experience or not?


Hold that thought, we have that in common..
I get that with tube amps.
Inaccurate, coloring, power-limited tube amps.

And vinyl, of course.


If
you watch a scene in a movie that has jets flying overhead or bullets
flying by, then having the sound travel from front to rear or vice
versa adds to the dram and realism IMO.


Yup.
And I specifically said "listening to MUSIC in the above.

I don't do movies, just Stargate episodes ;-)


As for sub-woofers, they have the same job as other speakers, to
produce the sound that was recorded, nothing more, and there is plenty
of music that has content in the bottom octaves, that makes a
sub-woofer an added benefit IMO.


It certainly can be, when implemented well.
Also, when using cone drivers, it's easier to merge them with a sub
IMO.

I have had severe difficulties in merging my Maggies with several
subs.
In the end, I gave up, and bought two more Maggies.
I now have enough SPL in the lower regions.


When you listen to live music, the sound bounces around the room,
arriving at your ears at different times. Multi-channel recordings are
trying to accomplish the same thing, and I suppose you might say it is
done with various levels of success. If you're happy with simple 2
channel listening, fine, but as the technology moves on, there will no
doubt be improvements in 5.1, 6.1 or whatever number of channels is
determined optimum.


I'll wait for that to happen.
Until then, all of my CDs, LPs and mp3s are two channel.

Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


I've heard some very good 2 channel recordings that gave me the
impression that the sound was moving from front to back. Of course
music other than pop/rock, etc. tend not to have use for such things,
but I and probably you listen to more than one kind of music.


Yup, ranging from Bach to breakbeat and inbetween.


Well recorded music in 5.1 is a treat to my ears, it's just a pity
there isn't more of it IMO.


Aye, here lies the rub.
And of the music I have heard that was in surround, it mostly was
either uninspiring effects music, or bad recording.

I don't know if you have any recording experience, but it can be hard
enough to make a fine *stereo* recording, let alone more channels.
Unless one just pans some mics to the rear etc......not my idea of a
good recording.

Most releaes are also film soundtracks, boombastic and unrealistic.
Example: pirates of the carribean..


I do prefer DTS to Dolby though, especially for movies. The scene in
War of the Worlds where the lightening bolts are being observed by Tom
Cruise and Dakota Fanning are much more impressive and tension inducing
in DTS, and the film O Brother Where Art Thou, and Peter Gabriel's
concert videos all sound better to me in DTS.


Films again, just not my thing.
I was addressing good old music here.

Concert videos are even worse: the eye is kept busy, so they can wreck
the audio recording without too much protesting ;-)


Now that you mention it, I *might* not have ever heard a properly set
up 5.1 system.
I only installed many of them, and adjusted them per the manuals.

Ergo: either the manuals are all wrong, or there's something wrong
with the standard.


Or you just don't like it. It's still and always has been a matter of
choice.


That's a very likely possibility.

Let's keep it at that, then.


As with regular 2 channel recordings, the really good ones are few and
far between.


I found there's far more interesting and valuable material in old
fashioned 2 channel, even mono doesn't bother me much.
Listening to music in multi channel just doesn't do it for me.

Let alone have your decoder process a 2-channel signal to match all
speakers...........argh.

YMMV ;-)


A good one IMO is Last of the Mohicans where the extra channels add
depth and give the viewer/listener a better sense of being in the
places where the movie is set.


Movies again..............my arguments are restricted to music only.

For movies, the effect is nice.
The eye is entertained, the ear doesn't protest.

Well, to each his own, I guess.
While I was working at this PC this night, the Maggies were playing
Bach's Brandenburg Concertoes by I Musici and Frans Bruggen.

The listening position is slightly out of the sweet spot when I'm at
the PC, but the enjoyment was there, nevertheless.
meanwhile, I finished a PCB for my new DAC project, and had some fun
reading forums.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 7, 5:30 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg needs a smackdown.

It is the defacto standard.The "standard" that nobody ever uses?
Fix your newsreader, 'borg.Fix your newsreader, 'borg.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 7, 5:30 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg needs a smackdown.

It is the defacto standard.The "standard" that nobody ever uses?
Fix your newsreader, 'borg.Fix your newsreader, 'borg.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Do it irritate you George?

[Harry Lavo]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
said:


snip



As for sub-woofers, they have the same job as other speakers, to
produce the sound that was recorded, nothing more, and there is plenty
of music that has content in the bottom octaves, that makes a
sub-woofer an added benefit IMO.


It certainly can be, when implemented well.
Also, when using cone drivers, it's easier to merge them with a sub
IMO.

I have had severe difficulties in merging my Maggies with several
subs.
In the end, I gave up, and bought two more Maggies.
I now have enough SPL in the lower regions.


When you listen to live music, the sound bounces around the room,
arriving at your ears at different times. Multi-channel recordings are
trying to accomplish the same thing, and I suppose you might say it is
done with various levels of success. If you're happy with simple 2
channel listening, fine, but as the technology moves on, there will no
doubt be improvements in 5.1, 6.1 or whatever number of channels is
determined optimum.


I'll wait for that to happen.
Until then, all of my CDs, LPs and mp3s are two channel.

Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


Sander, are you aware that Harry Pearson's reference surround system uses
large Maggies in the front, and the center and wall-mounted little Maggies
specifically designed for surround? He claims he's never heard a better
surround system. If you've got the space, and can set up the proper
configuration of speakers (ITU) and seating, I suspect you would surprise
yourself with a similar setup.

[[email protected]]

R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?

Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
all different, thank God.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
Bill Riel said:


I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.


Hi Sander,

I'd never be critical of anyone's preferences, and I do tend to do
almost all of my listening in 2 channel as well. However, I have heard
some music in 5.1 that was very impressive - usually the best will be
classical music and the surrounds simply provide hall ambience and can
be a tremendously immersive experience.



I'm sure it is possible, I just said it isn't my thing.
That's why I always use disclaimers like "IMO", "in my case" etc. etc.


I've heard some nice jazz that way, too, though I hate it when
instruments get mixed to the surrounds.

If properly set up, subs shouldn't "boom" (well, perhaps except in
movies). But, imo, it's actually non-trivial to position and "dial-in" a
sub properly so it blends seamlessly. When it does, you shouldn't even
know that it's on - you just get tremendous, clean bass extension.


That is also possible, but seldom the case.
I'm a dipole user, and integrating a sub with dipoles can be quite
frustrating IMO.

With films, it mostly is unnatural, unnerving and sometimes outright
ridiculous.
James Bond shutting the door of a car, and 3 houses further, the
pictures start falling from the wall.


Anyway, I'm not trying to lecture you - I know you've forgotten more
about audio than I'll ever know, but 5.1 can be a pretty amazing
experience with the right source & setup imo.


Dunno if I know as much about audio as you seem to think I do (or that
it even matters), I'm just saying that stereo is enough for me, for
music.

I'm reacting strongly to people who seem to think there's only one
possible way of doing things right, and that the only right way is
always *their* way.

I try to offer alternate views, but don't shove them in your face with
a.....well, a shovel ;-)

This place is called rec.audio.OPINION, everyone's 2 cents worth about
audio.

Please, read my posts in that context.
I'll try to be more clear about presenting my views as opinions, not
as gospel, in the future.
--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -
===========================

I agree with you about the average movie house sound these days. It is
too loud most of the time, and the surround effect is too often between
ridiculous and disturbing. .

Having said that I go back to my JVC XP 1000 (no longer made) to get an
illusion closer to a real symphony orchestra than I get from stereo.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
Bill Riel said:


I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.


Hi Sander,

I'd never be critical of anyone's preferences, and I do tend to do
almost all of my listening in 2 channel as well. However, I have heard
some music in 5.1 that was very impressive - usually the best will be
classical music and the surrounds simply provide hall ambience and can
be a tremendously immersive experience.



I'm sure it is possible, I just said it isn't my thing.
That's why I always use disclaimers like "IMO", "in my case" etc. etc.


I've heard some nice jazz that way, too, though I hate it when
instruments get mixed to the surrounds.

If properly set up, subs shouldn't "boom" (well, perhaps except in
movies). But, imo, it's actually non-trivial to position and "dial-in" a
sub properly so it blends seamlessly. When it does, you shouldn't even
know that it's on - you just get tremendous, clean bass extension.


That is also possible, but seldom the case.
I'm a dipole user, and integrating a sub with dipoles can be quite
frustrating IMO.

With films, it mostly is unnatural, unnerving and sometimes outright
ridiculous.
James Bond shutting the door of a car, and 3 houses further, the
pictures start falling from the wall.


Anyway, I'm not trying to lecture you - I know you've forgotten more
about audio than I'll ever know, but 5.1 can be a pretty amazing
experience with the right source & setup imo.


Dunno if I know as much about audio as you seem to think I do (or that
it even matters), I'm just saying that stereo is enough for me, for
music.

I'm reacting strongly to people who seem to think there's only one
possible way of doing things right, and that the only right way is
always *their* way.

I try to offer alternate views, but don't shove them in your face with
a.....well, a shovel ;-)

This place is called rec.audio.OPINION, everyone's 2 cents worth about
audio.

Please, read my posts in that context.
I'll try to be more clear about presenting my views as opinions, not
as gospel, in the future.
--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -
===========================

I agree with you about the average movie house sound these days. It is
too loud most of the time, and the surround effect is too often between
ridiculous and disturbing. .

Having said that I go back to my JVC XP 1000 (no longer made) to get an
illusion closer to a real symphony orchestra than I get from stereo.
Ludovic Mirabel

[George M. Middius]

LD said:

What is the standard for comparison tests?

Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
all different, thank God.

It is precisely because humans "are all different" that audio 'borgism is
the perfect cure for audiophilia. Join the Hive today and become an
indistinguishable (and undistinguishing) drone.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 8, 1:57 am, " wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
all different, thank God.
Ludovic Mirabel

Your point would be true if we were using audio equipment to test human
beings. (We could do that by reversing the ABX test and check on how
well different people precieve differences in sound.)

We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.

Your reasoning is completely backwards!

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:



We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.

Your reasoning is completely backwards!


go the full mile why bother with humans at all
they are completeli irrelevant.

[Sander deWaal]

"Harry Lavo" said:


Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


Sander, are you aware that Harry Pearson's reference surround system uses
large Maggies in the front, and the center and wall-mounted little Maggies
specifically designed for surround? He claims he's never heard a better
surround system. If you've got the space, and can set up the proper
configuration of speakers (ITU) and seating, I suspect you would surprise
yourself with a similar setup.


I didn' t know that about HP (in fact, I haven't kept track of any
home- audio magazine or their editors/reviewers since a long time).

But it seems like a nice enough setup.

I have 4 MG1 improved speakers in the main system, mounted together
like some weird kind of Tympani. ;-)
2 SMGA-s are used in a second stereo system.

All I'd need is a Magneplanar center to finish a complete surround
set. (no subwoofers, please. There's plenty off bass in 4 big
Maggies).

Hmmm........I'm tempted to try this out.
I can buy a DTS/Dolby soundcard and use it as a source to supply 3
badass stereo tube amps.

I'm just afraid the dispersion pattern of a SMGA mounted vertically as
a center speaker, won't be satisfying .
I went that route when adjusting the sound with the big Maggies, with
disappointing results.
I tried to imitate the stacked Quad setup that ML introduced, but with
the radiation pattern and size of the MG1i, this can't be successfull.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Sander deWaal]

" said:


I agree with you about the average movie house sound these days. It is
too loud most of the time, and the surround effect is too often between
ridiculous and disturbing. .

Having said that I go back to my JVC XP 1000 (no longer made) to get an
illusion closer to a real symphony orchestra than I get from stereo.


Delusion's of, knowlege about audio, noted. LOL!

Wahtever float's your bote, Ludo, NOt! ;-)


Enjoy!


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Harry Lavo]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" said:


Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


Sander, are you aware that Harry Pearson's reference surround system uses
large Maggies in the front, and the center and wall-mounted little Maggies
specifically designed for surround? He claims he's never heard a better
surround system. If you've got the space, and can set up the proper
configuration of speakers (ITU) and seating, I suspect you would surprise
yourself with a similar setup.


I didn' t know that about HP (in fact, I haven't kept track of any
home- audio magazine or their editors/reviewers since a long time).

But it seems like a nice enough setup.

I have 4 MG1 improved speakers in the main system, mounted together
like some weird kind of Tympani. ;-)
2 SMGA-s are used in a second stereo system.

All I'd need is a Magneplanar center to finish a complete surround
set. (no subwoofers, please. There's plenty off bass in 4 big
Maggies).

Hmmm........I'm tempted to try this out.
I can buy a DTS/Dolby soundcard and use it as a source to supply 3
badass stereo tube amps.

I'm just afraid the dispersion pattern of a SMGA mounted vertically as
a center speaker, won't be satisfying .
I went that route when adjusting the sound with the big Maggies, with
disappointing results.
I tried to imitate the stacked Quad setup that ML introduced, but with
the radiation pattern and size of the MG1i, this can't be successfull.

I don't know about a soundcard, but many SACD players and DVD-A players
allow you to configure with no center channel, keeping the virtual center
channel you currently have. Only problem I can see with that is that you
can't do it without switching into the PCM mode, which tends to choke off
the extremely fine ambience hearable in straight DSD decoding. But since
your soundcard would be PCM to begin with, if it allows you to configure
that way, you'd have a solution. 'Course, the used Sony C2000ES available
on Audiogon for $225 would do it a lot better.

[[email protected]]

R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 8, 1:57 am, " wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
all different, thank God.
Ludovic Mirabel

Your point would be true if we were using audio equipment to test human
beings. (We could do that by reversing the ABX test and check on how
well different people precieve differences in sound.)

We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.

Your reasoning is completely backwards!

===========================================

If I understand you we're in complete agreement:

You say:
We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.

Just make it more precise by writing "using ONE (instead of A) human
being's perceptions".( I hope you'll not think I'm pedantic when I
correct your spelling).
With results valid for that (A) One human being's set of perceptions
Regards Ludovic M.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 8, 1:40 pm, " wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 8, 1:57 am, " wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
all different, thank God.
Ludovic Mirabel

Your point would be true if we were using audio equipment to test human
beings. (We could do that by reversing the ABX test and check on how
well different people precieve differences in sound.)

We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.

Your reasoning is completely backwards!======================================== ===

If I understand you we're in complete agreement:

You say: We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.Just make it more precise by writing "using ONE (instead of A) human
being's perceptions".( I hope you'll not think I'm pedantic when I
correct your spelling).
With results valid for that (A) One human being's set of perceptions
Regards Ludovic M.

I want to thank everyone who participated in "Better than ABX". I
have learned a lot from your comments. Many of you were very helpful,
and even to those of you who weren't very smart, thank you for having
the courage to put forth your opinions.

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Powell" wrote:

These are words you never lived by, Arny.

Delusions of omnisicence noted. Powell, how can you say that I've never
attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
periodicals? Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch me
24/7?

What nice people?

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

[[email protected]]

dizzy wrote:
Jenn wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

Serious thought by serious people was given once to the question of how
many angels could be accomodated on a headpin. Thoughts are fascinating
but results is what matters.
Ludovic Mirabel

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

Serious thought by serious people was given once to the question of how
many angels could be accomodated on a headpin.

That was quaint. :-)

Thoughts are fascinating but results is what matters.

The fact remains that nobody uses an aBxism box for anything. It's so far
from being the defacto standard, as Stantonborg speciously claimed, that
it's unknown outside of Usenet. I've said it before, but it bears repeating:
The dimbulbs who always preach about aBxism have never tried it for
themselves. Not once. duh-Mikey has never seen one, nor has Stupey Sillybot,
nor has Stantonborg. Not Ferstler, not Bozoborg, nor any of the lesser
'borgs who flunked out of engineering school -- none of Them has any
hands-on experience whatsoever with aBxism. Only Krooger may or may not have
one in his possession, but in view of his untreated mental disability, it's
moot.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
Ludo said:

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

Serious thought by serious people was given once to the question of how
many angels could be accomodated on a headpin.

That was quaint. :-)

Thoughts are fascinating but results is what matters.

The fact remains that nobody uses an aBxism box for anything. It's so far
from being the defacto standard, as Stantonborg speciously claimed, that
it's unknown outside of Usenet. I've said it before, but it bears repeating:
The dimbulbs who always preach about aBxism have never tried it for
themselves. Not once. duh-Mikey has never seen one, nor has Stupey Sillybot,
nor has Stantonborg. Not Ferstler, not Bozoborg, nor any of the lesser
'borgs who flunked out of engineering school -- none of Them has any
hands-on experience whatsoever with aBxism. Only Krooger may or may not have
one in his possession, but in view of his untreated mental disability, it's
moot--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

As you point out those who preach it for comparing audio components
don't use it themselves but they love the hearsay that it confirms
"scientifically" what they always have been feeling.: "It all sounds
the same" and the Best Buy is best.

The real researchers find one reason or another to skip it when
comparing components.(cf. Sean Olive in his classic loudspeaker
comparison).. They want a little more than one null sitting after
another.
Ludovic Mirabel.

Real researchers like Sean Olive don't use it for comparing audio
components.

[Jenn]

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

You're not making sense.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

You're not making sense.

I think he's "joking". dippy is a former Kroopologist, you know. That means
his sanity and social skills are borderline at best.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

..
==========================
Jenn says:
You're not making sense.

Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
as you like.

Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
put another random checkmark in one of the squares.

Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
all sound the same" outcome is assured.

But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
musical thinking.

Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article . com,
" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to
the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with
the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

.
==========================
Jenn says:
You're not making sense.

Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
as you like.

Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
put another random checkmark in one of the squares.

Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
all sound the same" outcome is assured.

But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
musical thinking.

Ludovic Mirabel

I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say,
Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be.
I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing
about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME!