From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/19/2004 1:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:
Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

When you don't know what to measure - or are measuring the wrong things.

And I predicted someone would retort in this fashion, several days ago.
Thanks for proving me right.


--





Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?

On 6/19/04 11:47 PM, in article aN7Bc.143806$Ly.57935@attbi_s01, "S888Wheel"
wrote:

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/19/2004 1:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:
Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

When you don't know what to measure - or are measuring the wrong things.

And I predicted someone would retort in this fashion, several days ago.
Thanks for proving me right.

Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?


You should be a bit worried that if you set up a test that shows something
that observation shows otherwise - rather than assume that people are
deluding themselves (which may be entertaining and somewhat possible in some
cases) - you should entertain the notion that the test itself may not be
measuring the right things.

For instance - there is a lot of faith (yes FAITH) placed in ABX tests.
What are you measuring in an ABX test, really? It is repeatable, but is it
measuring the right things in the right method? These are the things that
should be bothering a true scientist. It is a bit like measuring the speed
of gravity and saying that the people who observe a feather falling slower
than a bowling ball are deluding themselves. Perhaps you aren't measuring
the right things .....

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/19/2004 1:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:
Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

When you don't know what to measure - or are measuring the wrong things.

And I predicted someone would retort in this fashion, several days ago.
Thanks for proving me right.


--





Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?

Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured. Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.

The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving. The second is a
truism, but again, where's the independent evidence or argument-from-data
to believe it's true in *this* case?

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

On 6/20/04 12:47 PM, in article XcjBc.148843$Ly.52420@attbi_s01, "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?

Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured. Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.

The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving. The second is a
truism, but again, where's the independent evidence or argument-from-data
to believe it's true in *this* case?

I would agree with you broadly - though it is just as wrong for people who
think they (or really do hear) differences to shut up and 'accept' the
status quo as it is wrong for those who have technical measurements to show
the state of the art cannot find any reason a person ought to be able to
hear differences.

Bromo wrote:



On 6/20/04 12:47 PM, in article XcjBc.148843$Ly.52420@attbi_s01, "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything
that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?

Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured. Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.

The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving. The second is a
truism, but again, where's the independent evidence or argument-from-data
to believe it's true in *this* case?

I would agree with you broadly - though it is just as wrong for people who
think they (or really do hear) differences to shut up and 'accept' the
status quo as it is wrong for those who have technical measurements to show
the state of the art cannot find any reason a person ought to be able to
hear differences.

Of course, but we should also keep in mind that after 30-40 years of argument
about wire/amplifier/bit sounds we still do not have a single credible
bias-controlled listening test where any subject has been able to show an
ability to 'hear' these qualitiies when normal sources of listener bias have
been screened.

If there were real differences of such a nature than someone would have
observed them under bias-controlled or accidental conditions. I wonder why it's
only the "subjectivists" who espouse them; and why none of them has ever
produced a replicable experiment that shows they actually have an acoustic
cause? Not a single one.

I'm not arguing against the possibility of differences occuring, indeed I've
spent the last 20 years chasing them down, but IF there were things to "hear"
that are replicable (to a given subject or multiple subjects) then I wonder
why some interested party hasn't shown that they remain 'hearable' when even
the most modest of bias controls are implemented?

In my opinion the "status quo" is the reverse of what you suggest. The state of
audio is that one is expected to believe in amp/wire/parts/bit sound even when
it hasn't been shown to have an acoustical source or cause. This because
manufacturers/salesmen/high-end audio reviews "say" so.

I would agree with you broadly - though it is just as wrong for people who
think they (or really do hear) differences to shut up and 'accept' the
status quo as it is wrong for those who have technical measurements to show
the state of the art cannot find any reason a person ought to be able to
hear differences.

I think that those who "(or really do hear) differences" should shut up and
show that they really CAN hear these differences.

I've spent a considerable amount of time and money tracking down these
"differences" that always seem to be just a fine-hair away from being "proven"
or validated ..... but so far not one person (this covers 20 years of personal
research and 25 years of published work) has ever been able to show an ability
to hear amplifiers (of wildly differing cost), cables (interconnects and
speaker wire .... including the 'designer' of same) and only ONE subject was
able to differentiate a 14-bit Phillips cd player from a Sony ES of 10 years
its junior (and that test was not closely time sync'd).

So I'm of the opinion that IF folks want us to buy into amp/wire/bit sound you
have to step up to the plate and hit the ball. Argument and debate just isn't
good enough.

On 6/20/04 11:08 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

So I'm of the opinion that IF folks want us to buy into amp/wire/bit sound you
have to step up to the plate and hit the ball. Argument and debate just isn't
good enough.

Except with a reality check - they do vote - with their wallets.

Bromo wrote:


On 6/20/04 11:08 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

So I'm of the opinion that IF folks want us to buy into amp/wire/bit sound
you
have to step up to the plate and hit the ball. Argument and debate just
isn't
good enough.

Except with a reality check - they do vote - with their wallets.

Exactly. Which is why Bose, Pioneer, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Harman, Klipsch,
Paradigm, Boston Acoustics, Polk and the like sell more products and generate
more revenue than high-end companies.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:fd9Cc.72269$2i5.31234@attbi_s52...
Exactly. Which is why Bose, Pioneer, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Harman,
Klipsch,
Paradigm, Boston Acoustics, Polk and the like sell more products and
generate
more revenue than high-end companies.

After years of playing this game and not being very happy or certain of
any calim I have learned to trust my own ears and perception. Frequently
I run across peopel who don't talk or think but, spit out the latest
internet hype as if it were fact. I played a game on a co-worker last
year. We both have Revel M20 speakers. He was running a integrated amp.
I told him I had just bought a McCormack DNA-125 to replace my Adcom
GFA-555 mkII as I thought the Adcom made music through the Revels sound
dry and boring, lab like. Very clear and concise but, no emotion to
them.
Time went by.
We engaged in conversation one afternoon as he wanted to upgrade from
integrated to separates but, he wasn't sure he would be able to tell the
difference as he loved his integrated. (Money was the real issue. If
what I have is perfect, then I don't need to spend money that I can use
elsewhere, therefore I'm happy)
I told him he could borrow my Adcom stuff as I had bought a new amp to
try out. He jumped on the chance and asked why I switched gear. (He had
forgotten our earlier conversation). I told him I thought the top end
was a little grainy on the top end. It wasn't as noticeable on the
Revels as it was on the Monitor Audio's I had. (terribly fatiguing
speakers btw).
2 weeks later he gave me the Adcom gear back saying that they made his
Revels sound Sterile, dry and boring. No emotion or musicalness to them.
It was almost verbatim what I had implanted in him 6 months earlier.

I would bet if I had the means to level match these two amps, no one
would be able to tell the difference between them except under or after
very long term listening. I do THINK the McCormack is a little fatter
sounding. I only notice it when I switch the amps out and after a few
weeks find myself yearning for the McCormack again.

This same thing happened between the Klipsch LaScala's I had and the
M20's. It took a lot of time to desire on one over the other. The
LaScala's were fuller and fatter sounding but the Revels were a tinge
smoother.
What would today's Klipsch Reference speakers be like? I bet they'd be
awesome and wish someone would lend me a set of 7's to try out. I
listened to them briefly before buying the M20's. They did everything
right but, I was determined to get a "special" speaker something that
was made as best as possible so I wouldn't want to upgrade anytime soon.
And Klipsch is run of the mill stuff, right? Phooey!

I had a set of Polk's that if they hadn't been stolen, they still be in
my system today, especially at the price new speakers sell for. I would
love to hear their new LSi series but it's not carried around here.

As to the Revels, I haven't found anything yet, to match them or make me
want to trade up other than another set of larger Revels like the F50.

A few months back, a neighbor contacted Transparent Audio and received a
$20k (USD) set of speaker cables and interconnects. Yes, twenty thousand
dollars! He runs Revels (studio or Salon) and Mark Levinson components.
I hooked the stuff up and switched so that he wasn't aware of what was
being used.

After a few hours, he was mildly upset as he couldn't hear any
difference between his $20k wires and much, much, cheaper Cardas
cabling. I bet him $20 that if I brought over my el cheapo wiring he
wouldn't be able to hear any difference either.

I haven't heard back from him.

John

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 6/22/2004 11:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: fd9Cc.72269$2i5.31234@attbi_s52

Bromo wrote:


On 6/20/04 11:08 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

So I'm of the opinion that IF folks want us to buy into amp/wire/bit sound
you
have to step up to the plate and hit the ball. Argument and debate just
isn't
good enough.

Except with a reality check - they do vote - with their wallets.

Exactly. Which is why Bose, Pioneer, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Harman,
Klipsch,
Paradigm, Boston Acoustics, Polk and the like sell more products and generate
more revenue than high-end companies.








"They" can have Bose and McDonalds, I will stick with my Soundlabs, even if
they are not the best *selling* speakers in the world. I will not jump off a
cliff even if Johnny does.

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/20/2004 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: XcjBc.148843$Ly.52420@attbi_s01

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/19/2004 1:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:
Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

When you don't know what to measure - or are measuring the wrong things.

And I predicted someone would retort in this fashion, several days ago.
Thanks for proving me right.


--





Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything
that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?

Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured.

hardly the case here since nothing since no specific measurements are being
discussed.


Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.

Actually he didn't. He was clearly speaking about the possibility in the
practical world that some people may simply not be measuring everything that
makes a difference. He made no mention of anything actually being unmeasurable.
Scroll up and see for yourself.



The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving.


It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on
both sides.



The second is a
truism, but again, where's the independent evidence or argument-from-data
to believe it's true in *this* case?

There is no "case" here. One can hardly ask for independent evidence in regards
to arguments over hypathetics.

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Steven Sullivan ss wrote
....snips......

Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured.

hardly the case here since nothing since no specific measurements are being
discussed.


Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.

Actually he didn't. He was clearly speaking about the possibility in the
practical world that some people may simply not be measuring everything that
makes a difference. He made no mention of anything actually being
unmeasurable.
Scroll up and see for yourself.

The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving.


It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on
both sides.

Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be
heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a
difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then
asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound .....
and I don't recall a response.

Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't
already done?

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 6/20/2004 8:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Steven Sullivan ss wrote
...snips......

Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured.

hardly the case here since nothing since no specific measurements are being
discussed.


Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.

Actually he didn't. He was clearly speaking about the possibility in the
practical world that some people may simply not be measuring everything that
makes a difference. He made no mention of anything actually being
unmeasurable.
Scroll up and see for yourself.

The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving.


It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on
both sides.

Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be
heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a
difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then
asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound
.....
and I don't recall a response.

I didn't give one. I must have missed the question. I don't think I am the best
person to ask.


Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't
already done?

I don't know. Maybe you should be measuring the acoustic output of the
speakers? Any audible differences would certainly show up there. I think you
would do better to ask someone who designs amps. Maybe you could pose this
question to Bill Johnson or Jeff Roland or Nelson Pass.

On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on
both sides.

Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be
heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a
difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then
asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound .....
and I don't recall a response.

Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't
already done?

It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people
were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you
the expert on what measurements to make.

Bromo wrote:




On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here
on
both sides.

Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can
be
heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a
difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I
then
asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound
.....
and I don't recall a response.

Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we
haven't
already done?

It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people
were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you
the expert on what measurements to make.

So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some
people just lucky? If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then
I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:




On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here
on
both sides.

Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can
be
heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure
a
difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I
then
asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound
.....
and I don't recall a response.

Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we
haven't
already done?

It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people
were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you
the expert on what measurements to make.

So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some
people just lucky?

Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you pose
those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves.

If you would say they "listen" to them for validation
then
I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?


Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you
should have already considered this.

Nousaine wrote:

Bromo wrote:

On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:
It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on
both sides.
Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be
heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a
difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then
asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound
and I don't recall a response.
Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't
already done?

It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people
were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you
the expert on what measurements to make.

So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some
people just lucky? If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then
I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?

I often thought that they came up with the hyberbole first, and the
product to fit it second. I remember "Enid Lummey" of TAS fame way back
when. "She" said that having a telephone in the same room with your
system was bad. Something about the diaphram resonating in the phone
causing some sort of acoustic problem. Gee, I thought, and what about
the rest of the stuff in the room resonating? Light bulbs tend to have a
'bright' sound when they are on. A 'darker' sound when off.
There seems to a be a lot of pseudo science in high end audio.
I remember trying the VPI "magic" bricks about 20 years ago. They were
'suppose' to 'absorb' stray magnetic fields from power supplies along
with 'dampening' a components chassis. The 'absorb' thing went right by
me. The dampening, well, if that were a problem, a real brick is a lot
cheaper. Neither of those 'problems' seemed to effect my system. And
this 'magic brick' was from a company that makes an outstanding
turntable (I own a VPI HW19). Those magic bricks sure looked nice and
were heavy. But work? I can't see how.