If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them
extraordinary?

Stephen

PS Is "Fear and Loathing in Detroit" available on books-on-tape?

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them
extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening evaluation result
and a claim about the sound quality of an audio component, noted.

The short answer Stepehn is that you're not comparing apples and apples.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them
extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening evaluation result
and a claim about the sound quality of an audio component, noted.

If claims of sound quality in sighted listening are so commonplace that
DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them extraordinary?

The short answer Stepehn is that you're not comparing apples and apples.

Don't you claim we always are?

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them
extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening evaluation
result and a claim about the sound quality of an audio component,
noted.

If claims of sound quality in sighted listening are so commonplace
that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them extraordinary?

Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word mangling,
we've already got Atkinson to perform for us.

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:06:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word mangling,

just read Arnold Krueger's posts. Heck, he even has trouble with the
word Stephen.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them
extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening evaluation
result and a claim about the sound quality of an audio component,
noted.

If claims of sound quality in sighted listening are so commonplace
that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them extraordinary?

Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word mangling,
we've already got Atkinson to perform for us.

You wanted it reworded...

Why not answer the question?

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:06:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word mangling,

just read Arnold Krueger's posts. Heck, he even has trouble with the
word Stephen.

It's hard to type when hallucinating giant bats...

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them
extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening
evaluation result and a claim about the sound quality of an audio
component, noted.

If claims of sound quality in sighted listening are so commonplace
that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them extraordinary?

Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word
mangling, we've already got Atkinson to perform for us.

You wanted it reworded...

I was hoping for some clarity on your part, Stephen.

Why not answer the question?

You haven't addressed the issue I raised with it.

It's not a question, its a riddle, a word play.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them
extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening
evaluation result and a claim about the sound quality of an audio
component, noted.

If claims of sound quality in sighted listening are so commonplace
that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them extraordinary?

Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word
mangling, we've already got Atkinson to perform for us.

You wanted it reworded...

I was hoping for some clarity on your part, Stephen.

I clearly adopted your wording.

Why not answer the question?

You haven't addressed the issue I raised with it.

It's not a question, its a riddle, a word play.

No, it isn't. Many a time has a report of sound quality been called an
"extraordinary claim".

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes
them extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening
evaluation result and a claim about the sound quality of an audio
component, noted.

If claims of sound quality in sighted listening are so commonplace
that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them
extraordinary?

Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word
mangling, we've already got Atkinson to perform for us.

You wanted it reworded...

I was hoping for some clarity on your part, Stephen.

I clearly adopted your wording.

Why not answer the question?

You haven't addressed the issue I raised with it.

It's not a question, its a riddle, a word play.

No, it isn't. Many a time has a report of sound quality been called an
"extraordinary claim".

Thanks for answering your own question.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes
them extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening
evaluation result and a claim about the sound quality of an audio
component, noted.

If claims of sound quality in sighted listening are so commonplace
that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes them
extraordinary?

Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word
mangling, we've already got Atkinson to perform for us.

You wanted it reworded...

I was hoping for some clarity on your part, Stephen.

I clearly adopted your wording.

Why not answer the question?

You haven't addressed the issue I raised with it.

It's not a question, its a riddle, a word play.

No, it isn't. Many a time has a report of sound quality been called an
"extraordinary claim".

Thanks for answering your own question.

The question is, why?

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are
so commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what
makes them extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening
evaluation result and a claim about the sound quality of an
audio component, noted.

If claims of sound quality in sighted listening are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes
them extraordinary?

Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word
mangling, we've already got Atkinson to perform for us.

You wanted it reworded...

I was hoping for some clarity on your part, Stephen.

I clearly adopted your wording.

Why not answer the question?

You haven't addressed the issue I raised with it.

It's not a question, its a riddle, a word play.

No, it isn't. Many a time has a report of sound quality been called
an "extraordinary claim".

Thanks for answering your own question.

The question is, why?

Well Stephen I hate to insult you by pointing out somthing this obvious, but
you seem to be begging for it, and a boy has to do what a boy has to do.

Surely there's nothing extraordinary about a person reporting some kind of a
even mind-blowing difference in a sighted listening test. In fact, it is
virtually guaranteed that a difference will be reported, even if the two
items being listened to are identically the same thing. The google record of
Usenet audio groups over about two decades bears this out. There are dozens
of reports of audible differences for every report of two different things
sounding the same. After all, its a sighted evaluation and its usually very
easy to see that two different components are involved. What's hidden from
the listeners is the real possibilty that in 2004 the two components being
compared have, in many cases, an excellent chance of sounding identically
the same.

Furthermore, given how few people put any kind of serious effort into their
listening tests, its probable that most of these listening tests reports are
in a trivial way correct in that there was an audible difference, albeit a
trivial difference, that is there to hear. The audible differences that are
reported almost always have a trivial cause. The two most trivial causes are
poor level matching and inadequate time synching.

Other trivial causes of the perception of differences, involve recordings in
two different formats that aren't actually the same identical recording,
differing only by format. Instead, the two recordings were mastered
differently and therefore were intentially made to sound different. If two
recordings were intended by their maker(s) to sound different, that there is
a differnce is obviously quite a trivial observation.

Sepearate from the trivial and volumnous naive and/or fraudulent reports of
audible differences that have trivial causes, is the question as to whether
it is reasonable for the two alternatives being compared to sound different,
even when all the trivial outside causes are properly dealt with.

For example, if the comparison involves a SET power and and a good SS power
amp, then it's not earth-shaking news if a proper listening test finds that
they sound different. Again, the two alternatives were made to sound
different and they are technically different enough that it would be news if
they didn't sound different. If the technical test reports in Strereophile
are to believed, almost all SET power amps have fairly gross frequency
response variations into real-world loudspeaker loads. Stereophile documents
these frequency response variations almost competently and has done so for
years. In contrast, good SS power amps have relatively flat frequency
response. If one compares an amp with gross frequency response variations to
one with only small frequency response variations. then it is no surprise
that they sound different. This is NOT an exceptional result.

Finally, we have the comparisons for which there is no known reasonable
physical explanation for any non-trivial differences that might be heard. An
example of this might be almost all applications of the Shakti devices.
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm has a photograph of a
Shakti device laying on top of what appear to be shielded analog audio
cables. One might point out that the Shakti device appears to be a piece of
ferrite or something very much like ferrite, and that ferrite rings are
often placed around computer video cables to reduce EMI. An EMI-savvy
engineer would point out a shopping list of important differences. For
openers, the fact that a ferrite ring forms a continuous circle around the
cable is a highly significant advantage which the Shakti device cannot
provide. Secondly, PC video cables and analog audio cables carry vastly
different signals. Thirdly, the rings on PC video cables aren't there to
improve the picture on the CRT, they are there to keep high frequency noise
from high frequency signals in the cable from affecting just about anything
but the picture, including other unrelated electronic equipment that is
operating at the same time. The list goes on.

When there is no known reasonable explanation for an audible difference of a
non-trivial nature, then we have an exceptional result.

And of course, just about everybody with any kind of serious technical
background in modern electronics knows everything or almost everything that
I just wrote. This is, a trivial post. Noting exceptional about it at all.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are
so commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what
makes them extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening
evaluation result and a claim about the sound quality of an
audio component, noted.

If claims of sound quality in sighted listening are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes
them extraordinary?

Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word
mangling, we've already got Atkinson to perform for us.

You wanted it reworded...

I was hoping for some clarity on your part, Stephen.

I clearly adopted your wording.

Why not answer the question?

You haven't addressed the issue I raised with it.

It's not a question, its a riddle, a word play.

No, it isn't. Many a time has a report of sound quality been called
an "extraordinary claim".

Thanks for answering your own question.

The question is, why?

Well Stephen I hate to insult you by pointing out somthing this obvious, but
you seem to be begging for it, and a boy has to do what a boy has to do.

Surely there's nothing extraordinary about a person reporting some kind of a
even mind-blowing difference in a sighted listening test. In fact, it is
virtually guaranteed that a difference will be reported, even if the two
items being listened to are identically the same thing. The google record of
Usenet audio groups over about two decades bears this out. There are dozens
of reports of audible differences for every report of two different things
sounding the same. After all, its a sighted evaluation and its usually very
easy to see that two different components are involved. What's hidden from
the listeners is the real possibilty that in 2004 the two components being
compared have, in many cases, an excellent chance of sounding identically
the same.

Furthermore, given how few people put any kind of serious effort into their
listening tests, its probable that most of these listening tests reports are
in a trivial way correct in that there was an audible difference, albeit a
trivial difference, that is there to hear. The audible differences that are
reported almost always have a trivial cause. The two most trivial causes are
poor level matching and inadequate time synching.

Other trivial causes of the perception of differences, involve recordings in
two different formats that aren't actually the same identical recording,
differing only by format. Instead, the two recordings were mastered
differently and therefore were intentially made to sound different. If two
recordings were intended by their maker(s) to sound different, that there is
a differnce is obviously quite a trivial observation.

Sepearate from the trivial and volumnous naive and/or fraudulent reports of
audible differences that have trivial causes, is the question as to whether
it is reasonable for the two alternatives being compared to sound different,
even when all the trivial outside causes are properly dealt with.

For example, if the comparison involves a SET power and and a good SS power
amp, then it's not earth-shaking news if a proper listening test finds that
they sound different. Again, the two alternatives were made to sound
different and they are technically different enough that it would be news if
they didn't sound different. If the technical test reports in Strereophile
are to believed, almost all SET power amps have fairly gross frequency
response variations into real-world loudspeaker loads. Stereophile documents
these frequency response variations almost competently and has done so for
years. In contrast, good SS power amps have relatively flat frequency
response. If one compares an amp with gross frequency response variations to
one with only small frequency response variations. then it is no surprise
that they sound different. This is NOT an exceptional result.

Finally, we have the comparisons for which there is no known reasonable
physical explanation for any non-trivial differences that might be heard. An
example of this might be almost all applications of the Shakti devices.
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm has a photograph of a
Shakti device laying on top of what appear to be shielded analog audio
cables. One might point out that the Shakti device appears to be a piece of
ferrite or something very much like ferrite, and that ferrite rings are
often placed around computer video cables to reduce EMI. An EMI-savvy
engineer would point out a shopping list of important differences. For
openers, the fact that a ferrite ring forms a continuous circle around the
cable is a highly significant advantage which the Shakti device cannot
provide. Secondly, PC video cables and analog audio cables carry vastly
different signals. Thirdly, the rings on PC video cables aren't there to
improve the picture on the CRT, they are there to keep high frequency noise
from high frequency signals in the cable from affecting just about anything
but the picture, including other unrelated electronic equipment that is
operating at the same time. The list goes on.

When there is no known reasonable explanation for an audible difference of a
non-trivial nature, then we have an exceptional result.

And of course, just about everybody with any kind of serious technical
background in modern electronics knows everything or almost everything that
I just wrote. This is, a trivial post. Noting exceptional about it at all.

Thank you. I hope this ends the "extraordinary claim" argument.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


If claims of differences in sighted listening comparisons are
so commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what
makes them extraordinary?

Inability to recognize the diferences between a listening
evaluation result and a claim about the sound quality of an
audio component, noted.

If claims of sound quality in sighted listening are so
commonplace that DBTs are required to avoid them, what makes
them extraordinary?

Stop playing with words. If we want to see really tricky word
mangling, we've already got Atkinson to perform for us.

You wanted it reworded...

I was hoping for some clarity on your part, Stephen.

I clearly adopted your wording.

Why not answer the question?

You haven't addressed the issue I raised with it.

It's not a question, its a riddle, a word play.

No, it isn't. Many a time has a report of sound quality been called
an "extraordinary claim".

Thanks for answering your own question.

The question is, why?

Well Stephen I hate to insult you by pointing out somthing this obvious,
but
you seem to be begging for it, and a boy has to do what a boy has to do.

Surely there's nothing extraordinary about a person reporting some kind
of a
even mind-blowing difference in a sighted listening test. In fact, it is
virtually guaranteed that a difference will be reported, even if the two
items being listened to are identically the same thing. The google record
of
Usenet audio groups over about two decades bears this out. There are
dozens
of reports of audible differences for every report of two different
things
sounding the same. After all, its a sighted evaluation and its usually
very
easy to see that two different components are involved. What's hidden
from
the listeners is the real possibilty that in 2004 the two components
being
compared have, in many cases, an excellent chance of sounding identically
the same.

Furthermore, given how few people put any kind of serious effort into
their
listening tests, its probable that most of these listening tests reports
are
in a trivial way correct in that there was an audible difference, albeit
a
trivial difference, that is there to hear. The audible differences that
are
reported almost always have a trivial cause. The two most trivial causes
are
poor level matching and inadequate time synching.

Other trivial causes of the perception of differences, involve recordings
in
two different formats that aren't actually the same identical recording,
differing only by format. Instead, the two recordings were mastered
differently and therefore were intentially made to sound different. If
two
recordings were intended by their maker(s) to sound different, that there
is
a differnce is obviously quite a trivial observation.

Sepearate from the trivial and volumnous naive and/or fraudulent reports
of
audible differences that have trivial causes, is the question as to
whether
it is reasonable for the two alternatives being compared to sound
different,
even when all the trivial outside causes are properly dealt with.

For example, if the comparison involves a SET power and and a good SS
power
amp, then it's not earth-shaking news if a proper listening test finds
that
they sound different. Again, the two alternatives were made to sound
different and they are technically different enough that it would be news
if
they didn't sound different. If the technical test reports in
Strereophile
are to believed, almost all SET power amps have fairly gross frequency
response variations into real-world loudspeaker loads. Stereophile
documents
these frequency response variations almost competently and has done so
for
years. In contrast, good SS power amps have relatively flat frequency
response. If one compares an amp with gross frequency response variations
to
one with only small frequency response variations. then it is no surprise
that they sound different. This is NOT an exceptional result.

Finally, we have the comparisons for which there is no known reasonable
physical explanation for any non-trivial differences that might be heard.
An
example of this might be almost all applications of the Shakti devices.
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm has a photograph of a
Shakti device laying on top of what appear to be shielded analog audio
cables. One might point out that the Shakti device appears to be a piece
of
ferrite or something very much like ferrite, and that ferrite rings are
often placed around computer video cables to reduce EMI. An EMI-savvy
engineer would point out a shopping list of important differences. For
openers, the fact that a ferrite ring forms a continuous circle around
the
cable is a highly significant advantage which the Shakti device cannot
provide. Secondly, PC video cables and analog audio cables carry vastly
different signals. Thirdly, the rings on PC video cables aren't there to
improve the picture on the CRT, they are there to keep high frequency
noise
from high frequency signals in the cable from affecting just about
anything
but the picture, including other unrelated electronic equipment that is
operating at the same time. The list goes on.

When there is no known reasonable explanation for an audible difference
of a
non-trivial nature, then we have an exceptional result.

And of course, just about everybody with any kind of serious technical
background in modern electronics knows everything or almost everything
that
I just wrote. This is, a trivial post. Noting exceptional about it at
all.

Thank you. I hope this ends the "extraordinary claim" argument.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

Thank you. I hope this ends the "extraordinary claim" argument.




Really.
I have never seem such a boring dance.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

Thank you. I hope this ends the "extraordinary claim" argument.

Really.
I have never seem such a boring dance.

Really? I thought you were acquainted with Brother Harold.



"At least' the Professional Audio Clown is good for a few laughs.

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

Thank you. I hope this ends the "extraordinary claim" argument.

Really.
I have never seem such a boring dance.

Calling Dr. Freud! :-)

Seriously, just be glad we've taken a non-issue off the menu. Who knows,
maybe someday we can again use 'sound' colloquially.

Stephen

Stephen wrote:


In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

Thank you. I hope this ends the "extraordinary claim" argument.

Really.
I have never seem such a boring dance.

Calling Dr. Freud! :-)

Seriously, just be glad we've taken a non-issue off the menu. Who knows,
maybe someday we can again use 'sound' colloquially.

Stephen


The Ballad of Sigmund Freud
Written and performed by the Chad Mitchell Trio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Well, it started in Vienna not so many years ago
When not enough folks were getting sick

A starving young physician tried to better his position

By discovering what made his patients tick

He forgot about sterosis and invented the psychosis

And a hundred ways that sex could be enjoyed

He adopted as his credo "down repression of libido!"

And that was the start of Doctor Sigmund Freud

Well, Doctor Freud, oh Doctor Freud

How we wish you had been differently employed

But the set of circumstances

Still enhances the finances

of the followers of Doctor Sigmund Freud

Well, he analyzed the dreams of the teens and libertines

Substituted monologue for pills

He drew crowds just like Will Sadler

When along came Jung and Adler

And they said by God, there's gold in them there ills!

They encountered no resistance

When they served as Freud's assistants

As with ego and with id they deftly toyed

But instead of toting bedpans

They wore analytic deadpans

Those ambitious doctors Adler, Jung and Freud!

Now the big three have departed

But not so the code the started

No, it's being carried on by a goodly band

And to trauma shock and force us

Someone's gone and added Rorschach

And the whole thing's got completely out of hand!

So old boys with double chinsies

And a thousand would-be Kinseys

They discuss it at the drop of a repression

And I wouldn't be complaining

But for all the loot I'm paying

Just to lie on someone's couch and say confession!

------------------------------------------------------------

This can be found on the great live performance album - Harry Belafonte Returns
to Carnegie Hall - one of the great RCA Living Stereo recordings.




Bruce J. Richman