[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 9:54=A0am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 10:33=A0am, Scott wrote:

Well OK....if the reason is that it's been covered in the past so
extensively that it is old news/established conclusions based on a
substantial body of evidence that would explain why it isn't being
covered *now* But audio is a reletviely new technology in the grand
scheme of things so there must have been a time when it wasn't old
news. So what about the peer reviewed research that was done back when
it was news not old news? Can you cite the old news/body of peer
reviewed research from the past that supports your assertions of
transparency?

The invention of high-fidelity home audio reproduction was not a
revolutionary event in the field of psychoacoustics. It's not a study
of equipment; it's a study of human perception. And human perception
did not suddenly change when Avery Fisher started making amps. So, no,
the issue of the audibility of consumer audio products was never of
great interest to the field.

Well there is this little publication called the AESJ. I have it on
good authority that they actually are concerned with such things and
have actually published papers on the subject. Is it your position
that audio engineers have never been concerned with the issue of
audibile qualities of consumer audio products and that there are no
papers published by the AESJ concerning the subject?



There's also a fallacy at work here about the centrality of peer-
reviewed journals. The vast majority of what we know in any academic
field never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.

We are not talking about academics here we are talking about science.
the science of audio. The standard of acceptance in science *is* peer
review. Anything less is junk in the world of science. You can't have
it both ways. You can't wave the science flag and point out that there
are no peer reviewed studies supporting opinions you disagree with and
then say science really isn't important when the same is pointed out
about your opinions. If this is you putting away the science flag then
fine. IMO that is the right thing to do.


In most fields other
than medicine, peer review was not really formalized until well into
the 20th century.

Shouldn't be an issue with audio. The topics we debate here are even
newer.

Even since then, a lot of good, hard science never
makes it into one of the few top journals in any given field.

Nice subtle movement of the goal posts. No one said anything about the
"top" journals. Clearly the AESJ isn't one of them and I accepted the
one peer reviewed paper cited from that journal. The fact is peer
review is the measuring stick and millions of papers pass peer review
in science.


And just
because something makes it into a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make
it right.

That is very true. So what does that say of the "body of evidence" on
one subject when there is just one peer reviewed paper?



A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)

I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?



As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests on
the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped against
the measured performance of audio gear.

And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of peer
reviewed published studies.

The DBTs that have been done,
either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
science.


What science? Show me the actual science, please.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 9:54=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Yes I developed ABX, but no I don't rely on it exclusively.

You developed ABX?

[C. Leeds]

On 3/28/2011 5:59 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about his use of hyperbole as
an audio reviewer):

In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophiles
DO think that new stuff is better than old.

How do you know this? Is it an assumption, is it hyperbole, or do you
actually have information to support your claim?

Hell, much of the business model
of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his
components to the latest and the greatest.

Again, how do you know this? I'm not certain that the image of the
always-upgrading audiophile isn't just a stereotype.

Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I've
been with the same publication for more than 16 years.

Which publication? Since you claim to be a journalist, you shouldn't
mind telling us.

[C. Leeds]

On 3/28/2011 5:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about his use of hyperbole as
an audio reviewer):

Any reviewer worth his salt, knows that what he is writing is ENTERTAINMENT,
first and foremost.

Is it more important to be entertaining than it is to be accurate?

If his writing style doesn't engage the reader, then the
reader won't read his stuff.

Doesn't the writer risk being ignored if the reader can't distinguish
the writer's hyperbole from fact?

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 2, 5:30=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):


Could it be that the real scientists have a different standard for
what constitutes proof than you do?

I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my standards for pro=
of
yet. =A0Remember, I'm not anti-DBT, I just have a few niggling doubts abo=
ut its
efficacy for testing audio equipment.

And whose standard should we
trust, in that case?

Only those who prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt

YIKES!

Lemme see if I can help.

DBT as it applies to audio equipment (only) is useful for one (1)
thing: Discerning audible differences via a relatively short test.
Period.

It DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to suggest one item being better/worse than
another, only audibly different within that test period or not. It
DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to predict the long-term viability of one choice
or another for any given user. Only that one unit is (or is not)
audibly different within that test period or not.

To reason from the specific (piece A is-or-is-not audibly different
from piece B within THAT test) to the general - DBT is the be-all/end-
all *or* DBT is necessarily fatally flawed - is a classic fallacy. As
perceived from either camp.

DBT tests are necessarily short and therefore necessarily cannot be
predictive of long-term effects that may simply be too subtle to show
in a short-term test. It is useful as a screening mechanism. No more.
Nor does it even pretend to be any more than that.

So - there is no valid argument based on the merits as the actual
value of the process is self-evident. The only argument comes from
either denying that the test has any merit at all *or* forcing the
test to extend beyond its intentions.

If a $50 piece of vintage equipment modified on a hobbyist's bench
will in a well-designed DBT perform indistinguishably from a $15,000
piece of esoteric audio hardware it suggests (but does not prove) that
the $50 piece does at least as good a job as the more expensive piece
- and perhaps may be a valid alternative to test long-term.
Accordingly:

What I would like to see is a long term test where both pieces were
installed in 'the home'. And each day at 3:00 am (or the time closest
to that when the system has been off for at least one (1) hour), a
computer would run an algorithm and pick which of the two will be on
line for the next 24 hours. Each day the user votes UP or DOWN on the
listening experience of that day. That same computer will then deliver
the result after each unit has been on-line for about the same time
and over at least a 90 day total period. Naturally, results would be
available day-by-day as well.

Never gonna happen, but would put -paid- to all the drivel spouted
around DBT.

Too many oxen being gored for this subject to ever lie down and die
the death it so richly deserves, sadly. Consider only a few of them:

Audio venues & the staffs thereof - If speakers and other transducers
were the only valid subjects of discussion, most of them would be
instantly out of a job.

Esoteric electronics manufacturers - if the $200 amp performs
indistinguishably from the $15,000 amp - the same. The $200 amp guy
might be pretty happy - but the $15,000 guy might not.

Newsgroup denizens determined to have the last word on a discussion
that is 100% artificial and entirely meaningless in the first place.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Esmond Pitt[_2_]]

On 4/04/2011 2:54 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
Do you have a source?

http://www.tubesandmore.com/

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 2:57=A0pm, "C. Leeds" wrote:
On 3/28/2011 5:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about his use of hyperbole as
an audio reviewer):

Any reviewer worth his salt, knows that what he is writing is ENTERTAIN=
MENT,
first and foremost.

Is it more important to be entertaining than it is to be accurate?

What constitutes an "accurate" subjective opinion?


If his writing style doesn't engage the reader, then the
reader won't read his stuff.

Doesn't the writer risk being ignored if the reader can't distinguish
the writer's hyperbole from fact?

Ignored? Apparently not.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 2:59=A0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Apr 2, 5:30=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):
Could it be that the real scientists have a different standard for
what constitutes proof than you do?

I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my standards for p=
roof
yet. =A0Remember, I'm not anti-DBT, I just have a few niggling doubts a=
bout its
efficacy for testing audio equipment.

And whose standard should we
trust, in that case?

Only those who prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt

YIKES!

Lemme see if I can help.

DBT as it applies to audio equipment (only) is useful for one (1)
thing: Discerning audible differences via a relatively short test.
Period.

Not true at all. It's useful for any sort of aural testing in which
bias may be an issue. It is quite useful for preference comparisons



It DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to suggest one item being better/worse than
another, only audibly different within that test period or not.

That depends on the DBT design. A DBT most certainly can and often is
designed to make such a determination.

It
DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to predict the long-term viability of one choice
or another for any given user. Only that one unit is (or is not)
audibly different within that test period or not.

To reason from the specific (piece A is-or-is-not audibly different
from piece B within THAT test) to the general - DBT is the be-all/end-
all *or* DBT is necessarily fatally flawed - is a classic fallacy. As
perceived from either camp.

DBT tests are necessarily short and therefore necessarily cannot be
predictive of long-term effects that may simply be too subtle to show
in a short-term test. It is useful as a screening mechanism. No more.
Nor does it even pretend to be any more than that.

No they are not "necessarily short." They can be as long as they are
designed to be.



Audio venues & the staffs thereof - If speakers and other transducers
were the only valid subjects of discussion, most of them would be
instantly out of a job.

What's an audio venue? Not really sure who you think would be out of a
job here. Audio review publications that believe this still sell
magazines. Audio retailers still sell product whether or not the buyer
believes one way or the other...who would be out of business again and
why?



Esoteric electronics manufacturers - if the $200 amp performs
indistinguishably from the $15,000 amp - the same. The $200 amp guy
might be pretty happy - but the $15,000 guy might not.

So it's the makers of esoteric electronics? This is what percentage of
the audio industry?

Can we put you in the catagory of believing all amps sound the same?

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Apr 3, 2:55=A0pm, Scott wrote:

We are not talking about academics here we are talking about science.
the science of audio.

"Audio" is not a science. It is a branch of engineering that uses
established science to do convey, among other things, musical
performances through time and space. I think this is part of the
problem you are having understanding what, for example, Arnie is
saying to you. Engineers are not usually doing science, they are
using science to do practical things like building radios or bridges.
Of course we can find areas where the two overlap, but a good designer
of, say, an amplifier needs to do no science, only to know the
applicable science and apply it. You don't need to be a scientist to
build a safe bridge, you need to be an engineer who understands the
science that others discovered and how to apply it.

There is electrical science, the science of human perceptions and the
limitations of human hearing, the science of materials and how they
function that all go into "audio", along with others. But to say
"Audio is a science" is, in my not so humble opinion, to completely
misunderstand what science is.

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 3, 8:03=A0pm, Scott wrote:

On Apr 3, 2:59=A0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
Can we put you in the catagory of believing all amps sound the same?- Hid=
e quoted text -

That all amps may or may not sound the same is neither relevant nor
important. Nor do I care. For me this is a hobby - and I intend to
enjoy it without being required to make artificial choices based on
artifical conditions based on artificial expectations. A DBT could be
quite useful to determine audible differences where that need to be at
issue. It would be utterly useless (to me) should I wish to enjoy
"testing" a piece of equipment in where I live. I have some tube amp
and I have some solid-state amps. They sound different - so what? I
enjoy them both very much. I could care less about which may be
'better'. And I know that my 40-watt power amp ain't nohow gonna cut
it when attempting to push the Saint-Saens organ symphony through the
Maggies at a more than moderate volume when compared to the 225 watt
amp. Sound alike? Define your terms. Sound different? Please define
those as well.

Again, when forcing a choice, much as forcing a card - the process is
flawed.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 8:25=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:55=A0pm, Scott wrote:

We are not talking about academics here we are talking about science.
the science of audio.

"Audio" is not a science.

Straw man. Never said it was.

=A0It is a branch of engineering that uses
established science to do convey, among other things, =A0musical
performances through time and space.

Yeah that would be the science of audio.

=A0I think this is part of the
problem you are having understanding what, for example, Arnie is
saying to you.

No I understand what he is saying just fine.

=A0Engineers are not usually doing science, they are
using science to do practical things like building radios or bridges.

Yeah..... not really relevant to the issue of the science that
alegedly supports of certain opinions of what is an is not audible in
audio....but yeah.


Of course we can find areas where the two overlap, but a good designer
of, say, an amplifier needs to do no science, only to know the
applicable science and apply it.

That's fine but what is your point? I never said anything about what
an audio engineer needs to do in the way of science when designing an
amp.


=A0You don't need to be a scientist to
build a safe bridge, you need to be an engineer who understands the
science that others discovered and how to apply it.

You don't need to be a scientist when cooking a fine meal or painting
a picture or roller skating. None of this has any relevance to any
point I have made. none




There is electrical science, =A0the science of human perceptions and the
limitations of human hearing, the science of materials and how they
function that all go into =A0"audio", along with others. =A0But to say
"Audio is a science" is, in my not so humble opinion, to completely
misunderstand what science is.

I never said it. So what is that? I say a blatent misrepresentation of
my position.


[ Please steer this back towards audio-related topics and
away from metadiscussion. -- dsr ]

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my
standards for proof yet.

First off, its not up to me to personally satisfy you. In fact I have no
interest in doing so. I've got you pegged as a true believer who will never
be convinced.

Secondly, the mainstream audio, acoustical, and psychoacoustic establishment
has been reserarching this area for decades, and continue to make new
findings. For the most part my role has been to bring in releviant pieces of
evidence that they have developed. You dissatisfaction is not with me, it
is with them.

I would go so far as to say that the mainstream audio, acoustical, and
psychoacoustic establishment are well-informed and have a practical
viewpoint. Most discussions on RAHE involve people who are not particularly
well-informed about modern audio technology, and their judgements are
neither binding nor representative.

I think a good recent example of the poor level of awareness of relevant
facts that is typical of some posters on RAHE has been the ofte-repeated
false rumor that the listening panels that were the basis of the Meyer and
Moran JAES paper were just poorly-informed untrained college students who
generally listened to low-bitrate MP3 recordings. Just another audiophile
myth!

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Of course not. As I said earlier in this thread,
scientific journals don't waste space on old news.

As a rule they also waste little if any time discussing branded
implementations of specific technology. People who read scientific journals
looking for test results of comparisions of branded products are bound to be
forever frustrated. If branded products are discussed, they are either
described using arbitrary symbols or via technical descriptions.

And the fact that several categories of audio gear are
audibly transparent is very old news in the
psychoacoustics field.

Exactly. For example the MPEG coder tests (covered by several peer-reviewed
papers) which go back to the previous millenium are obviously based on the
idea that the revealtory powers of speakers and amplifiers could be counted
on to be very, very good. The practice of using trained listeners in blind
tests was already generally accepted at that time. I will provide a
practical example of this at the end of this post.

Well OK....if the reason is that it's been covered in the
past so extensively that it is old news/established
conclusions based on a substantial body of evidence that
would explain why it isn't being covered *now*.

Finally!

But audio
is a reletviely new technology in the grand scheme of
things...

Which scheme of things? Audio gear that was either totally transparent or
very close to it has been generally available since no later than the late
1960s. At that time a leading source of non-transparency in both
professional and home audio systems was the necessary reliance on analog
recorded media. That was 50 years ago! Other than tranducers and rooms,
entirely transparent transparent audio systems for recording and playback
have been generally availible since the 1980s, which was 30 years ago.

Compared to other mainstream technology such as that related to information
science, 30-50 years ago is very old news. In 1983 a 16 mips computer with 2
gigabytes of strorage required maybe 50 killowatts of power to run,
required thousands of square feet in a climate-controlled machine room and
cost millions of dollars to obtain and maintain. Today a Sansa Clip has a
physical footprint the size of a comemerative stamp, has 200 mips of
computational power, over 18 gigabytes of memory, costs less than $60
including removable storage array (SDHC card available at your local drug
store!), and runs for at least a dozen hours on its built-in rechargable
lithium ion battery.

so there must have been a time when it wasn't old news.

That was some time near the end of the past millenium. Details at the end
of this post.

So what about the peer reviewed research that was
done back when it was news not old news? Can you cite the
old news/body of peer reviewed research from the past
that supports your assertions of transparency?

Much of that is implied, not stated explicitly. There is a third source of
information that actually trumps peer-reviewed papers because the required
level of acceptance by the relevant approving body is even tougher. This
would be international standards. The relevant standard would be ITU BS
1116. ITU stands for the International Telecommuncations Union, and their
review board is easily as technically solid and prestigious as any
professional journal.

http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/...0-I!!PDF-E.pdf

Interstingly enough, this document is dated near the end the previous
millenium, which serves to underscore my point that general acceptance of
the idea that sonically transparent audio gear is generally available is
"Old news".

[Arny Krueger]

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message


There is electrical science, the science of human
perceptions and the limitations of human hearing, the
science of materials and how they function that all go
into "audio", along with others. But to say "Audio is a
science" is, in my not so humble opinion, to completely
misunderstand what science is.

Exactly. Audio is a technology, which means that it is the combination of
art and science.

One of the interesting things about audio is the fact that it largely ceased
to be a defining science or one that drove technological innovations in the
60s or 70s. Since then virtually every advance in audio has been a
derivative of advances made in other technological areas, largely
information technology.

The transistor was arguably invented for the purposes of the communcations
branch of audio technology, and that was the last major development that I
know of that was driven by the needs of audio technology.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

Lemme see if I can help.

Oh, boy! ;-)

DBT as it applies to audio equipment (only) is useful for
one (1) thing: Discerning audible differences via a
relatively short test. Period.

That's not helping, that's imposing a false personal agenda.

It DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to suggest one item being
better/worse than another, only audibly different within
that test period or not.

That is false to, because it ignores the purpose and widespread use of
well-known DBT testing technologies such as ABC/hr.

It DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to
predict the long-term viability of one choice or another
for any given user.

It is true that pure technological testing is often inadequate for marketing
and psychological purposes. So what?

Only that one unit is (or is not)
audibly different within that test period or not.

A false claim, repeated. See above.

DBT tests are necessarily short

An often-falsifed erroneous claim.

This post demonstrated the futility of trying to using facts and logic to
deal with people with tightly-held personal agendas.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Apr 3, 8:03 pm, Scott wrote:

On Apr 3, 2:59 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
Can we put you in the catagory of believing all amps
sound the same?- Hide quoted text -

That all amps may or may not sound the same is neither
relevant nor important.

Let's call a spade a spade. The above is a straw man argument.

Nor do I care.

If you don't care Peter, why do you repeat the above false mantra over and
over again?

For me this is a hobby - and I
intend to enjoy it without being required to make artificial
choices based on artifical conditions based on artificial expectations.

I agree that hobbiests don't need to pay attention to reality or
practicality as they pursue their whims.

A DBT could be quite useful to determine audible differences where that
need to be at issue. It would be utterly useless (to me) should I wish
to enjoy "testing" a piece of equipment in where I live.

The idea of testing products as a means of enjoying them strikes me as being
pretty strange. I enjoy listening to music and audio gear is just a means to
that end. I mostly test audio gear when I am unsure that it is suitable for
my intended purpose. For example I was unsure of the sound quality of my
brand new Sansa Clip, so I ran some technical tests on it. Doing the tests
was not particularly enjoyable, but the confidence their results gave me was
helpful.

I have some tube amp and I have some solid-state amps. They sound
different -
so what? I enjoy them both very much. I could care less about which
may be 'better'.

Then by all means don't test it in any formal way!

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Apr 3, 9:54 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Yes I developed ABX, but no I don't rely on it
exclusively.

You developed ABX?

I built the first ABX comparator for audio gear and did the first ABX test
of audio gear.

The background is that our audio club (SMWTMS) was trying to develop a
practical methodology for doing DBTs. A series ofn equipment comparators
were built that were enhanced again and again based on experiences with them
by a committee of six club members including myself. I took the lead at one
point in the development process and produced a series of three comparators
that were successive enhancments of previously-developed concepts. The last
of the 3 could clearly be called a full implementation of the concept of ABX
testing. Additional enhancments by others resulted in the development of the
ABX Comparator that was described in detail in the Clark ABX JAES paper. I
also developed the first known relay box that could switch between two
pieces of high gain, high powered audio gear without audible switching
transients or other artifacts. The contact closure strategy for this relay
box was also described in Clark's JAES paper. I am mentioned by name in the
Clark JAES paper.

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 3, 12:54=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage gear, including=
a
Citation One preamp. I was told by everybody that these multi-section cap=
s
aren't available any more. Do you have a source?

https://www.tubeworld.com/metcaps.htm

http://www.radiodaze.com/capsMS.htm

http://www.dynakitparts.com/store/product.aspx?id=3D273

http://www.vibroworld.com/parts/tech15.html

However, it is better, cheaper and more precise to simply re-stuff the
existing can with new capacitors terminating through the phenolic
wafer base. It takes a bit of skill and your wife's hair-dryer to
release the old innards (well, more practice than skill), but once you
have done it a few times it becomes quite simple. The most difficult
part of the process is de-soldering and releasing the old can from the
chassis without breaking off the twist-tabs. Modern capacitors are
tiny as compared to older types and so this is entirely practical.

Better: Single-value capacitors may be screened individually for
whatever parameters apply. A typical electrolytic may be -20%/+100%
and still meet 'tolerance'. Too much capacitance may mean a higher B+,
especially mixed with higher wall-plate voltages these days -
something to be considered. Better also as one may use a higher
voltage with little or no cost penalty - Dynaco as one very typical
example drove its power-supply filter caps at very, very near their
rated voltage. Mix that with wallplate voltages often in excess of
120V, and that can be a bad combination.

Cheaper: Individual capacitors made as-such are remarkably cheaper per
uF than sectional caps. And, you already have the can and know that it
will fit just fine. \

More precise - closely matched values, higher voltages, and the
ability to add small-value film caps internally across the individual
cap leads.

I stopped looking for sectionals 20 years ago - and haven't lost a
patient yet. Nor would I trust any NOS unit as (electrolytic)
capacitors age whether they are in use or not - in fact, they age more
from disuse than from use. Reforming is *possible*, but something I do
only with the full understanding that eventual failure is just that -
eventual. Will, not May, and When, not If.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote
(in article
):


I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic
capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few
weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety
for the guitar amplifier market.

Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage
gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by
everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available
any more. Do you have a source?

As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of
modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is
generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end product.
For example one of my friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt
tubed amps.

[bob]

On Apr 3, 5:55=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:54=A0am, bob wrote:

Well there is this little publication called the AESJ. I have it on
good authority that they actually are concerned with such things and
have actually published papers on the subject. Is it your position
that audio engineers have never been concerned with the issue of
audibile qualities of consumer audio products and that there are no
papers published by the AESJ concerning the subject?

Well, if you're so sure they're there, why don't you go find them?
AES.org has a search function, you know.

There's also a fallacy at work here about the centrality of peer-
reviewed journals. The vast majority of what we know in any academic
field never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.

We are not talking about academics here we are talking about science.
the science of audio. The standard of acceptance in science *is* peer
review. Anything less is junk in the world of science. You can't have
it both ways. You can't wave the science flag and point out that there
are no peer reviewed studies supporting opinions you disagree with and
then say science really isn't important when the same is pointed out
about your opinions. If this is you putting away the science flag then
fine. IMO that is the right thing to do.

I'm not having both ways. There are *textbooks* that support my
claims, for heaven's sake. There is nothing that supports yours. But
not everything we know to be true has been published directly in a
peer-reviewed journal. Science is about establishing general
principles--like the limits of human hearing perception--that can be
applied to more specific questions, such as the audibility of
differences between audio components. Real scientists focus on the
former. Questions such as the latter are left for the reader, so to
speak.

snip

Nice subtle movement of the goal posts. No one said anything about the
"top" journals. Clearly the AESJ isn't one of them and I accepted the
one peer reviewed paper cited from that journal. The fact is peer
review is the measuring stick and millions of papers pass peer review
in science.

Only the top few journals in most fields are peer-reviewed. That's all
I meant.

And just
because something makes it into a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make
it right.

That is very true. So what does that say of the "body of evidence" on
one subject when there is just one peer reviewed paper?

There isn't. But I can't help you understand if you don't want to
understand.

A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)

I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?

The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.

As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests on
the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped against
the measured performance of audio gear.

And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of peer
reviewed published studies.

What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon has
a search function, too.

The DBTs that have been done,
either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
science.

What science? Show me the actual science, please.

If I thought you wanted to know, I would.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 4, 8:20=A0am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:55=A0pm, Scott wrote:

On Apr 3, 9:54=A0am, bob wrote:
Well there is this little publication called the AESJ. I have it on
good authority that they actually are concerned with such things and
have actually published papers on the subject. Is it your position
that audio engineers have never been concerned with the issue of
audibile qualities of consumer audio products and that there are no
papers published by the AESJ concerning the subject?

Well, if you're so sure they're there, why don't you go find them?
AES.org has a search function, you know.

I have checked. Strangely enough, nothing on amplifier transparency
per se. Plenty on other such things.


There's also a fallacy at work here about the centrality of peer-
reviewed journals. The vast majority of what we know in any academic
field never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.

We are not talking about academics here we are talking about science.
the science of audio. The standard of acceptance in science *is* peer
review. Anything less is junk in the world of science. You can't have
it both ways. You can't wave the science flag and point out that there
are no peer reviewed studies supporting opinions you disagree with and
then say science really isn't important when the same is pointed out
about your opinions. If this is you putting away the science flag then
fine. IMO that is the right thing to do.

I'm not having both ways.

Of course not, because I'm calling you on it.

There are *textbooks* that support my
claims, for heaven's sake.

Well now you are moving the goal posts. 1. it is irrelevant that there
are such text books. There are "text books" that support creationism.
Does that make the creationists right? 2. If we allow for a sub
discussion that has nor relevance to the assertion of *scientific
support* of transparency of amplifiers and move to a discussion of
"text book" proof then you need to provide the support. You *say* Text
books support your claim. OK fine. Make your claim clear and then
provide refferences from textbooks that support it.


There is nothing that supports yours. But
not everything we know to be true has been published directly in a
peer-reviewed journal. Science is about establishing general
principles--like the limits of human hearing perception--that can be
applied to more specific questions, such as the audibility of
differences between audio components. Real scientists focus on the
former. Questions such as the latter are left for the reader, so to
speak.

You haven't shown any scientifially valid evidence showing a
corolation between established thresholds of human hearing and
transparency of amplifiers. Real scientists don't make assumptions
about such claims.



snip

Nice subtle movement of the goal posts. No one said anything about the
"top" journals. Clearly the AESJ isn't one of them and I accepted the
one peer reviewed paper cited from that journal. The fact is peer
review is the measuring stick and millions of papers pass peer review
in science.

Only the top few journals in most fields are peer-reviewed. That's all
I meant.

Then you are plainly wrong. That is a level of wrong that for me calls
into question your ability to discuss the subject of science and the
peer review process. Here are some primers on the subject. I suggest
you review them before discussing the issue nay further.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...te/project/29/
"There is a system called peer review that is used by scientists to
decide which research results should be published in a scientific
journal. The peer review process subjects scientific research papers
to independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific experts (peers)
before they are made public.

More than one million scientific research papers are published in
scientific journals worldwide every year."

Yikes! More than one million per year!!! all these by only a few top
journals? Sure about that?


And just
because something makes it into a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make
it right.

That is very true. So what does that say of the "body of evidence" on
one subject when there is just one peer reviewed paper?

There isn't.

Bingo. So the claim that one is scientifically illiterate if one does
not buy into amplifier transparecy is a bogus one. The claim that
science supports the belief in amplifier transparecy is a bogus one.
The flag waving about the scientific validity of that position is
plainly bogus. Thank you for finally acknowledging the dead moose in
the middle of the objectivists' room. The science isn't there to
support the assertion of amplifier transparency.


But I can't help you understand if you don't want to
understand.

Apparently I can't help you understand that if the science isn't there
the claim of scientific support is bogus.



A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)

I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?

The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.

I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0. I get the feeling
you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm


As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests on
the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped agains=
t
the measured performance of audio gear.

And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of peer
reviewed published studies.

What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon has
a search function, too.

Bottom line is you got nothing to show. Posturing about my ability to
find pyschoacosustic books won't cover that fact up. Your assertion,
your burden of proof. I ask knowing there is nothing to support your
assertion. Feel free to prove me wrong.


The DBTs that have been done,
either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
science.

What science? Show me the actual science, please.

If I thought you wanted to know, I would.


The fact is you can't. The science isn't there. Feel free to prove
me wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Well now you are moving the goal posts.

No, Bob is pointing out the existence of goal posts that have been there all
along.

1. it is irrelevant that there are such text books.

This is an attempt to dismiss evidence whose investigation is relevant and
warranted.

There are "text books" that support creationism.

There are also peer-reviewed professional journals that support creationism.

Does that make the creationists right?

We're talking technology not religion, so metaphysical topics like
creationism are irrelevant.

2. If we allow for a sub discussion
that has nor relevance to the assertion of *scientific
support* of transparency of amplifiers and move to a
discussion of "text book" proof then you need to provide
the support. You *say* Text books support your claim. OK
fine. Make your claim clear and then provide refferences
from textbooks that support it.

Zwicker and Fastl's classic text about psychoacoustics comes to mind. It
discusses the threshold of audibility of many kinds of noise and distortion.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:48:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my
standards for proof yet.

First off, its not up to me to personally satisfy you. In fact I have no
interest in doing so. I've got you pegged as a true believer who will never
be convinced.

It was a rhetorical statement as you cannot possibly convince me that all
this stuff sounds EXACTLY the same. I have too many correctly set-up and
conducted DBTs under MY belt to think for a moment that there are no
differences. There most assuredly ARE differences. They are mostly
inconsequential to be sure, but the do exist. If a DBT doesn't bring them to
light for the statistically significant majority of listeners, then one of
several things must be true: The test procedure is somehow faulty, the
listeners aren't listening for the right things, and the difference go
unnoticed, or that DBT doesn't work for audio gear, possibly because of my
second alternative. I do know that people have different levels of audio
perception. Notice I didn't say that they had different hearing acumen as the
levels and scope of the actual physical process of hearing (audiometry) are
very well understood. But there is listening and there is listening, and most
people just don't notice the same differences as others, and many don't
notice any differences at all. From what you write, I gather that you are in
the latter category.

Secondly, the mainstream audio, acoustical, and psychoacoustic establishment
has been reserarching this area for decades, and continue to make new
findings. For the most part my role has been to bring in releviant pieces of
evidence that they have developed. You dissatisfaction is not with me, it
is with them.

I have no dissatisfaction at all. It's just that while your arguments are
cogent and well presented, so are your prejudices. In light of those, your
arguments do not compel.

I would go so far as to say that the mainstream audio, acoustical, and
psychoacoustic establishment are well-informed and have a practical
viewpoint. Most discussions on RAHE involve people who are not particularly
well-informed about modern audio technology, and their judgements are
neither binding nor representative.

It also probably involves people whose ability to hear many of the things
discussed here is not fully formed or is lacking altogether. I know that it
involves people whose passion and/or prejudicial baggage is such that they
cannot and will not see both sides of a debate.

I think a good recent example of the poor level of awareness of relevant
facts that is typical of some posters on RAHE has been the ofte-repeated
false rumor that the listening panels that were the basis of the Meyer and
Moran JAES paper were just poorly-informed untrained college students who
generally listened to low-bitrate MP3 recordings. Just another audiophile
myth!

I think that a good recent example of the poor level of awareness of relative
facts is that some of the posters on RAHE fail to read what Meyer/Moran
actually wrote, and then twist what other RAHE poster wrote about that paper
in order to discredit them.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:21:09 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 1, 7:40=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and e=
ven
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. =A0Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

This is a good example of subjectivists' penchant for inventing
science. (There have been plenty of others in this thread.) Harry
takes it upon himself to declare something to be true--that our
hearing perception is somehow different for music than for other
sounds--without a shred of evidence.

In fact, DBTs have been accepted as valid by the field of
psychoacoustics (of which Harry is not a part and in which he has no
training), to the point where no peer reviewed journal will accept
reports of listening tests that are NOT double-blind.

The claim that human hearing perception is more acute when listening
to music is not only unproven but false. Music, because of its dynamic
changes and the phenomenon of masking, makes for a very poor medium
for objective listening tests of any kind.

Someone is confusing hearing acumen with LISTENING acumen. It is pretty well
established that most normal people hear the same range of sounds, both as to
frequency response and dynamic range and that they respond to these things in
a similar way. OTOH, some people, when listening to music, hear things in
music that other people miss entirely. This is LISTENING ability. You
encounter all the time the myth about "golden-eared audiophiles". Well, I'm
sure that I need to tell no one here that there is no such thing. But there
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for the minutest
anomalies in the reproduction of music by audio gear. There's nothing
"golden" about it, all it takes is a willingness to do it and many years of
listening experience. Anyone can do it, it just takes discipline and
dedication. Of course, the reality is that most people don't bother. Most
audiophiles don't even develop the skill. Noticing that others have developed
this ability has given rise to the "golden-ear" myth. Everyone knows the old
saw, "you look but you do not see." Well, the audio implementation of that
old saw is, "you listen but you do not hear."

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:19:40 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 2, 12:25=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Only if you concede that the average iPod toting teen wouldn't know decen=
t
sound if it came up and bit them in the arse!


Someone once said that the construct of the test itself intereferes
with the normal evaluative process.

Is that the same as saying that testing the hypothesis often changes it's
result?

This would imply that the iPod toting teen has, knowingly or
unknowingly, come to terms with the conundrum of determining good
sound interfering with the normal evaluative process of the music.

And that's relevant to the point, exactly how?

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:34:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 06:29:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

This just reinforces my point about the quality of
listeners that take part in these university level DBT
studies such as the Meyer/Moran paper that you are so
fond of.

The Meyer Moran tests were done "With the help of about
60 members of the Boston Audio Society and many other
interested parties.."

(The above is a quote from page one of the Meyer JAES Peer-reviewed
paper. )

Your claim is totally falsified.

The paper also says that they used over one hundred
participants, "of widely varying ages, activities, and
levels of musical and audio experience.'

Thank you for presenting more evidence that is contrary to your previous
statements about the listening panels being compsed of just university
students.

You're welcome, except that I never said that the panel was composed of JUST
university students.

While there may have been *some* university students in the listening
panels, it is abundently clear that the listeners were people of "of widely
varying ages, activities, and
levels of musical and audio experience."

BTW the rest of the sentence I quoted said:

"a series of double-blind (A/B/X) listening tests were
held over a period of about a year"

Yep.

Thus we have recent confirmation of the validity of ABX
testing in a peer-reviewed paper.

I didn't see the peer-review info noted in that paper.

I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with the protocols that are used to
qualify papers that are published in the JAES.

Since I'm not a member of JAES, It shouldn't be surprising. However, you are
addressing a forum that I dare say has very few participants who are members
of the JAES. Therefore it is incumbent upon you to enlighten us about these
matters when you make such a statement as you do above. Otherwise, your
statement is merely empty rhetoric.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:56:50 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

On 3/28/2011 5:59 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about his use of hyperbole as
an audio reviewer):

In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophiles
DO think that new stuff is better than old.

How do you know this? Is it an assumption, is it hyperbole, or do you
actually have information to support your claim?

Hell, much of the business model
of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his
components to the latest and the greatest.

Again, how do you know this? I'm not certain that the image of the
always-upgrading audiophile isn't just a stereotype.

Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I've
been with the same publication for more than 16 years.

Which publication? Since you claim to be a journalist, you shouldn't
mind telling us.


Normally I wouldn't respond to you, Mr, leeds, but for the record, I am
directly enjoined from giving out that information. The editor of the
magazine for which I write feels that it is a conflict of interests for his
writers to engage in debating on these forums using his/her published name or
by identifying the publication. What I say here are MY thoughts, MY opinions
and have nothing whatsoever to do with the publications for which I might
write except that some of my opinions might actually show up in some of my
published writings - since they're my opinions, they would almost have to,
now, wouldn't they? That's why I use a nom-de-plume when posting here.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:54:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote
(in article
):


I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic
capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few
weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety
for the guitar amplifier market.

Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage
gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by
everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available
any more. Do you have a source?

As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of
modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is
generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end product.
For example one of my friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt
tubed amps.



Yes, that was certainly an alternative. Since the Citation had ample space
under the chassis, I merely replaced the multi-section cap with modern caps
wired under the chassis. I left the old multi-section cap on the chassis but
completely disconnected, however, to maintain an authentic look.

[bob]

On Apr 4, 2:38=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Someone is confusing hearing acumen with LISTENING acumen.

That someone would be you, as you are about to demonstrate:

It is pretty well
established that most normal people hear the same range of sounds, both a=
s to
frequency response and dynamic range and that they respond to these thing=
s in
a similar way. OTOH, some people, when listening to music, hear things in
music that other people miss entirely. This is LISTENING ability.

Fine. In that case, the difference between two audio components has
nothing to do with what you are calling listening ability. It is not
that there are "things in music" which can be heard through one amp
but not another. It is that there are *partial loudness differences*
between the two. If you don't understand and recognize the difference,
you can't begin to understand the issues here.

You
encounter all the time the myth about "golden-eared audiophiles". Well, I=
'm
sure that I need to tell no one here that there is no such thing. But the=
re
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for the minutest
anomalies in the reproduction of music by audio gear. There's nothing
"golden" about it, all it takes is a willingness to do it and many years =
of
listening experience.

I seriously doubt there are many audiophiles in the world who have
trained themselves properly to hear differences, or would even know
how. If you think it takes "many years of listening experience," we
can confidently put you in the category of not knowing how. You can't
train your ears to hear the kinds of sonic differences we are talking
about simply by listening to music. Sean Olive does not train his
listening panel that way. The people who test audio codecs do not
train their test subjects that way, nor would it pass muster with the
ITU.

bob

[bob]

On Apr 4, 2:38=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

It was a rhetorical statement as you cannot possibly convince me that all
this stuff sounds EXACTLY the same. I have too many correctly set-up and
conducted DBTs under MY belt to think for a moment that there are no
differences. There most assuredly ARE differences

Just for the record, your past efforts to describe these DBTs has left
me with very low confidence that you know what a true DBT entails. You
were unable to describe anything resembling a forced-choice protocol
(absolutely necessary for a meaningful test), nor could you present
any results that could be analyzed for statistical significance.
Indeed, despite your insistence that these tests had positive results,
you admitted that you didn't know what the results were.

You'll have to do much better than that if you want your experiences
taken seriously.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 4, 12:54=A0pm, ScottW wrote:
On Apr 4, 10:00=A0am, Scott wrote:



=A0I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0. I get the feeling
you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm

=A0 =A00/0 is undefined. =A0You might want to review your math.

That would be true if that were a *fraction* and while it does give
that appearance as I posted it, it is not a fraction. It is a ratio.
If it were to move to 1/0 the "ratio" would be 100%-0%. If it were a
fraction it would still be "undefined" or more accurately an
irrational number. My math is fine on this one. Gues I should have
used a dash the first time as well as the second time. my bad.


[ Metadiscussion isn't helpful. Let's return to audio. -- dsr ]

[bob]

On Apr 4, 1:00=A0pm, Scott wrote:

You haven't shown any scientifially valid evidence showing a
corolation between established thresholds of human hearing and
transparency of amplifiers. Real scientists don't make assumptions
about such claims.

snip

Bingo. So the claim that one is scientifically illiterate if one does
not buy into amplifier transparecy is a bogus one. The claim that
science supports the belief in amplifier transparecy is a bogus one.
The flag waving about the scientific validity of that position is
plainly bogus. Thank you for finally acknowledging the dead moose in
the middle of the objectivists' room. The science isn't there to
support the assertion of amplifier transparency.

But I can't help you understand if you don't want to
understand.

Apparently I can't help you understand that if the science isn't there
the claim of scientific support is bogus.

snip

=A0The fact is you can't. The science isn't there. =A0Feel free to prove
me wrong.

See, here's the thing, Scott. You're not a scientist. You're a
cosmetologist. So you don't get to say what does and does not
constitute science, or what would constitute meaningful scientific
evidence for any given proposition.

What you do get to say is that you, personally, will not be convinced
by anything less than a published, peer-reviewed study directly
comparing amps, DACs, etc. But you've already been told that no such
studies exist and that no working scientist would bother conducting
such a study. Which makes it very convenient for someone who wants to
pretend that the audiophile mythologies he clings to haven't been
exposed as myth. But that's not science, that's denialism.

There isn't much point in arguing with someone hiding behind that
particular fig leaf.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:54:30 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 4, 2:38=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

It was a rhetorical statement as you cannot possibly convince me that all
this stuff sounds EXACTLY the same. I have too many correctly set-up and
conducted DBTs under MY belt to think for a moment that there are no
differences. There most assuredly ARE differences

Just for the record, your past efforts to describe these DBTs has left
me with very low confidence that you know what a true DBT entails. You
were unable to describe anything resembling a forced-choice protocol
(absolutely necessary for a meaningful test), nor could you present
any results that could be analyzed for statistical significance.
Indeed, despite your insistence that these tests had positive results,
you admitted that you didn't know what the results were.

You are painting with much too broad a brush, here. The only DBT that I
didn't know the results of was one that I attended that was put on by a
high-end DAC manufacturer. All the others I know the results. And yes, I did
mention that fact here. But that was THE ONLY ONE.

You'll have to do much better than that if you want your experiences
taken seriously.

Taken seriously by you, you mean.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


But there
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for
the minutest anomalies in the reproduction of music by
audio gear.

I'm not so sure about that. In our experience, audiophiles who claim to have
sensitive ears generally don't do better than those who don't, once you
remove the crutch of seeing what is being listened to.

Blind testing is a prerequisite for learning how to be a sensitive listener
in the same sense that watching to see where the ball lands and rolls to is
a prerequisite for becoming a good golfer. Without the discipline of blind
testing, how does one know for sure that one is actually hearing or not
hearing a difference?

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 28, 5:59=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophil=
es
DO think that new stuff is better than old. Hell, much of the business mo=
del
of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his
components to the latest and the greatest. The reality is that while many
audiophiles do not think that newer stuff is necessarily better than olde=
r
stuff, the vast majority probably do. But, by reminding the reader of thi=
s
widely held wisdom, I create a literary "peg" to hang my anecdote on.
Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I'=
ve
been with the same publication for more than 16 years.

hmmmm..... Business Model - I get that. And in order for the business
to survive, it _must_ support and adopt the myth (for lack of a better
word) that new equipment is necessarily better than old equipment. And
this is an absolute necessity when the equipment in question does not
age in a linear, predictable manner as to many other consumer goods -
vehicles, appliances, clothing and so forth - nor does it go in or out
of fashion as other consumer goods, nor does it become more or less
energy-efficient as do appliances, vehicles, or safer as do appliances
and vehicles as they advance. If {insert favorite maker name here}
states that the amplifier made and sold today is absolutely the best
there is upon which no improvement may be made - where does that leave
them tomorrow?

Audio 'improvements' remind me of that proverbial Vanishing Bird (not
to be mistaken for the Ooh-AHhhh bird) that flies in ever decreasing
circles until it finally vanishes up its own fundament (the Ooh-AHhhh
bird is a one-pound bird that lays a two-pound egg).

I know more than a few audiophiles - and more than a few purveyors of
audio equipment. I have found from long association with both that the
one more-or-less excludes the other during the sales process. I know
one (1) reviewer-of-equipment at a professional level - and bluntly, I
would not trust that individual to call it daytime at noon. A decent
individual - but within that profession no better than any given
congress person.

Ah, well. I really do not believe for one hummingbird heartbeat that
"new" is necessarily better than old - and in many cases I would posit
that it is far worse. Nor do I think that outside of transducers and
other analog media (tape, vinyl, FM *analog* tuners) that there is
much room for improvement. See "vanishing bird" above. And I also
would suggest that at least within my limited experience most
audiophiles - really - with even half-a-brain pretty much know what
they like and pretty much leave it at that eschewing the magic Kool-
Aid entirely. Starting with cables and other interconnects....

It was Mr. Menken who wrote that famous phrase: Nobody ever went broke
underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

The high-end audio industry lives by that. Nor, of course do I think
that "all amps sound alike". The one does not follow from the other.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:22:13 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


But there
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for
the minutest anomalies in the reproduction of music by
audio gear.

I'm not so sure about that. In our experience, audiophiles who claim to have
sensitive ears generally don't do better than those who don't, once you
remove the crutch of seeing what is being listened to.

Blind testing is a prerequisite for learning how to be a sensitive listener
in the same sense that watching to see where the ball lands and rolls to is
a prerequisite for becoming a good golfer. Without the discipline of blind
testing, how does one know for sure that one is actually hearing or not
hearing a difference?

Difference? I'm not so much talking about hearing differences as I am just
listening to say, a phono cartridge and concluding that it's too bright,
deficient in bass, has a broad suckout in the midrange etc.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:34:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with the protocols
that are used to qualify papers that are published in
the JAES.

Since I'm not a member of JAES, It shouldn't be
surprising. However, you are addressing a forum that I
dare say has very few participants who are members of the
JAES.

The fallacy here is the idea that only AES members have access to AES
papers. For years I relied on a local library's JAES collection. In fact I
haven't been an AES member for over 20 years.

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 4, 3:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:54:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):





"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote
(in article
):

I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic
capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few
weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety
for the guitar amplifier market.

Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage
gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by
everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available
any more. Do you have a source?

As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of
modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this=
is
generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end produc=
t.

[Andrew Haley]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage
gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by
everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available
any more. Do you have a source?

As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection
of modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough
that this is generally very easy to do, and results in an
equal-or-better end product. For example one of my friends did this
with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt tubed amps.

I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point of replacing a
multi-section cap with another one? Can't you just put a single-
section cap in its place, or is the problem that the values/ voltages
aren't available?

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:22:13 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

But there
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen
for the minutest anomalies in the reproduction of music
by audio gear.

I'm not so sure about that. In our experience,
audiophiles who claim to have sensitive ears generally
don't do better than those who don't, once you remove
the crutch of seeing what is being listened to.

Blind testing is a prerequisite for learning how to be a
sensitive listener in the same sense that watching to
see where the ball lands and rolls to is a prerequisite
for becoming a good golfer. Without the discipline of
blind testing, how does one know for sure that one is
actually hearing or not hearing a difference?

Difference? I'm not so much talking about hearing
differences as I am just listening to say, a phono
cartridge and concluding that it's too bright, deficient
in bass, has a broad suckout in the midrange etc.

Now you've got two problems. The first problem is a matter of references.
What is your reliable reference for establishing the proper sonic balance?
Don't tell me its the concert that you went to three months ago because we
know for sure that you can;t possibly hear with precision based on a
reference that is days, weeks, and months old. The reference needs to be
very recent, preferably in the last few seconds. Then you still have the
possibility that your perception is a matter of bias and illusion, and not
actually happening.

I would say that your reliability as a listener is highly questionable,
simply because you deny potential strong influences and take no steps to
control them. Nothing personal - I would say the same of anybody who listens
like you, and science completely backs me up.

Why not turn the question around on me? Ask me why I'm not affected by the
same influences when I mix, equalize, choose and position mics, and apply
EFX when I mix live sound.