About Us

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Since I never made that claim, I feel no need to respond your straw man,
Scott.

It's not a straw man. It is a clarification of the reality of the situation
being discussed.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. None of them use DBTs that I
know of. They all use the equipment as would the buyer and they all comment on
their experience with using the equipment. Thanks for supporting my claim.

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. It makes sense to me to have the reviewer use the equipment under
review as would the potential user. I guess it doesn't make sense to you. 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.

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.

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. Belt is driven by
faith? News to me.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Updated Battery FAQ	Bill Darden	Car Audio	0	March 21st 04 04:05 PM
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 5/5)	Ian D. Bjorhovde	Car Audio	8	March 10th 04 07:34 AM
Audiophilia 2004 CES Report now online	Audiophilia	General	2	March 5th 04 01:42 AM
- TAS magazine Website Updated -	Steven R. Rochlin	Audio Opinions	1	July 24th 03 05:18 AM
- TAS Magazine Website Updated -	Steven R. Rochlin	General	0	July 23rd 03 02:47 PM

Menu

About Us