-Excuse me for bad english-
I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
about CD Players.
Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK, i
respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking. I am
very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end", especially
because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall. I have
nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music from
MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that. Maybe are
my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste different, or
maybe i am crazy, who know?
Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in the past),
maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.
....and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to underestimate
nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings (although different then
mine), but i just want to say something what i think, especially because i
dont see large activity in this group, and because are my thinkings on
another way.

Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention

_Dejan_ wrote:
-Excuse me for bad english-
I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here,
especially about CD Players.
Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK,
i respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different
thinking. I am very surprised whit name of this group
"rec.audio.high-end", especially because from expression HIGH-END i
expect something more criticall. I have nothing against peoples what
thinking that is the same hear music from MustekDVD or
CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that. Maybe are my
ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste
different, or maybe i am crazy, who know?
Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in the
past), maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.
...and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to
underestimate nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings
(although different then mine), but i just want to say something what
i think, especially because i dont see large activity in this group,
and because are my thinkings on another way.

Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention

Dejan, it might seem what you imagine about high-end is *not* fulfilled
here. OTOH a lot of the contributers have really very good sounding gear at
home and know what they are talking about. A few even write articles in
mags. Many are engineers or sound engineers.
So it seems it is maybe you who has to drop a few of your believes and
preconcepts. It is quite a long way after all this indoctrination, but with
your post you have started the inquiry. Go on.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

_Dejan_ wrote:
-Excuse me for bad english-
I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
about CD Players.
Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK, i
respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking. I am
very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end", especially
because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall.

First, I'm not sure that anyone is saying 'all CD players sound the same',
without some sort of qualification of that claim.
Second, you don't consider a standard of proof that requires blind testing to be
*critical* enough?

I have
nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music from
MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that. Maybe are
my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste different, or
maybe i am crazy, who know?

Well, we do know that human perception is easily fooled when differences
are in fact small, or nonexistant. So if we want to verify that what
we think we hear is real, we have to take measures to account for the
'fooling' factors.

Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in the past),
maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.

First, define what you mean by 'true High End'.

...and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to underestimate
nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings (although different then
mine), but i just want to say something what i think, especially because i
dont see large activity in this group, and because are my thinkings on
another way.

Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention

If skepticism bothers you, there are plenty of audio discussion groups that
are less tolerant of it -- e.g. www.audioasylum.com.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any high-end
product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs more
than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does. It is disrupting the
group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end audio.
In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
pathetic.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"_Dejan_" wrote in message
...
-Excuse me for bad english-
I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here,
especially
about CD Players.
Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say
OK, i
respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking.
I am
very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end",
especially
because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall.
I have
nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music
from
MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that.
Maybe are
my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste
different, or
maybe i am crazy, who know?
Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in
the past),
maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.
...and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to
underestimate
nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings (although different
then
mine), but i just want to say something what i think, especially
because i
dont see large activity in this group, and because are my thinkings
on
another way.

Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention

In article ,
Uptown Audio writes:
That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any high-end
product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs more
than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does. It is disrupting the
group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end audio.
In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
pathetic.

As one of the moderators, I feel the need to point out this section of
the guidelines, something that has been there since before I began
moderating in 1997:


2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio

The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is

a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or

b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;
or

c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about
a) or b).

Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a
given component may be considered 'high-end'.

Products from mass-market corporations are less likely to be
considered high end insofar as such mass-market gear is designed
with apparent priority on things other than absolute sound quality.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-.- David Bath (rec.audio.high-end moderation team)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

_Dejan_ wrote:
-Excuse me for bad english-
I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here,
especially
about CD Players.
Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK,
i
respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking.
I am
very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end",
especially
because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall.

This newsgroup is called rec.audio.high-end for historical reasons.
"High end" is and probably always was a marketing term. "High end"
refers to products designed and marketed to appeal to people who care a
lot about the quality of audio reproduction--as opposed to people who
just want something to play their music on.

Now just because products are aimed at that segment of the market
doesn't mean that they will necessarily sound better--or even
different--than mass-market products. And there are good scientific
reasons to expect that many "high-end" amps, CD players, and wires do
not sound any different than mass-market alternatives.

You won't find out much information about that science on other
Internet discussion boards, because the topic is usually either banned
entirely or tightly constrained. And you won't find that scientific
perspective in the high-end magazines, because it would be very, very
bad for business. So consider yourself lucky that you have happened
upon one of the few places where you actually can get that scientific
perspective.

Also, lest you think we are frauds, rest assured that everyone who
posts here really is interested in the quality of audio reproduction.
But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate on
the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
the speakers inthe room.

I have
nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music
from
MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that.
Maybe are
my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste
different, or
maybe i am crazy, who know?

Your ears aren't better, and you are not crazy. I don't know about
those two disk players, and it may be that one or the other is
defective or poorly designed in some way that makes it sound different
from the other. But it is also quite likely that they sound different
to you for one of the following reasons:
1. One is playing louder than the other.
2. You expect them to sound different, and expectation can fool us.

And no, #2 isn't crazy. It's normal. All of us are subject to this sort
of illusion. (It's like the aural equivalent of an optical illusion.)
But if you compare them without knowing which is which, can you still
tell them apart? If not, then there's good reason to believe that they
aren't really audibly different, even if they seem to be.

bob

Uptown Audio wrote:
That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any
high-end
product.

For your information, this list does not exist to promote your product
line.

What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs
more
than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does.

This is just nonsense. First of all, the posting rules forbid "jumping"
on people who want to discuss any product. We do tend to jump on people
who want to advance pseudoscientific theories for why some products
*seem* to sound better than others. Sorry if that's bad for business.

It is disrupting the
group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end
audio.
In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
pathetic.

Then don't read it. There are other places on the Web where you can
read exactly what you want to read. Try www.audiogon.com, where only
scientifically illiterate posts seem to be tolerated. Or the Asylum,
where "legendary audio designers" can be found extolling the virtues of
the "Intelligent Chip." You might be happier there. Why put up with us
if we cause you so much agita?

bob

That's fine if that is the way you want to define it, but it is not
accurate. High-end is a well known descriptor for products in the top
of their price class and is used in every industry. Hi-Fi is what the
guidelines attempt to describe. As it is fair enough for people to
have any view they choose on what is hi-fi and what is not, it is a
bore and completely out of place however to see the same posts about
the same crap over and over even when it is not brought up. Even
though people may have very different ideas about what is and what is
not hi-fi, the continual changing of topic and cheast beating here is
more than disruptive. It prevents anyone with any interest in what is
"generally accepted" (hell I love getting that one in!) as being Hi-Fi
from participating or even from being able to read anything of
interest. As every time one of the usual suspects wants to bully
someone who has or is interested in a nice system, they bring up
"cables" or DBT and usually both. The topic may have been about
amplifiers, but that does not stop the relentless badgering from going
down the same rutted path every time. It is ridiculous.
If that is the way everyone wants it, then fine and good riddence. It
is a waste of time. I move that another group be started or chartered
with new guidelines or moderators, otherwise this place is for the
nuts and is of no more use to high-end or hi-fi than RAO...
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Uptown Audio writes:
That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any
high-end
product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and
jump
on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs
more
than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does. It is disrupting
the
group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end
audio.
In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals
to
hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
pathetic.

As one of the moderators, I feel the need to point out this section
of
the guidelines, something that has been there since before I began
moderating in 1997:


2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio

The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is

a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or

b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;
or

c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about
a) or b).

Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a
given component may be considered 'high-end'.

Products from mass-market corporations are less likely to be
considered high end insofar as such mass-market gear is designed
with apparent priority on things other than absolute sound quality.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-.- David Bath (rec.audio.high-end moderation team)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"_Dejan_" wrote in message
...
-Excuse me for bad english-
I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
about CD Players.
Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK, i
respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking. I am
very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end", especially
because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall. I have
nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music from
MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that. Maybe
are
my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste different,
or
maybe i am crazy, who know?
Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in the
past),
maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.
...and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to
underestimate
nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings (although different then
mine), but i just want to say something what i think, especially because i
dont see large activity in this group, and because are my thinkings on
another way.

Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention

Don't apologize. You are basically saying that you find it hard to believe
that many people here think all players sound the same. And you think they
are discussing not-very-high-end gear. I believe you will find that there
are many who read this group who feel the same way...but are intimidated
to speak out. I wish more would venture to speak
up and say what John Atkinson did at the New York Show...he was once an
objectivist who took part in a test of amps, came to the conclusion the
tests were wrong when he found he couldn't live with a piece of gear that he
bought based on that test (that drew a "null" in the blind test), and
concluded there was a "big" difference when listened to normally over time.

I've owned five different CD players myself (currently use three), and have
auditioned another two at my brother-in-law's house on a system I know well.
Of the seven, only two have sounded alike. And they are decent but not
outstanding CD players. In addition, I have an outboard dejitterer and
high-end DAC attached to one player and while the timbral balance between it
and the player are very similar (leading to "no difference" if one listens
only briefly, casually, and superficially) the outboard unit has more depth,
dimensionality, and definition if one listens at all closely. And
interestingly enough, after about an hour of listening to the CD player
alone, I lose interest. But through the DAC I can listen to two, three,
four CD's one after the other without my attention flagging too much.

On 12 May 2005 20:10:53 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote:

That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any high-end
product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs more
than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does.

That is utterly untrue. You have *never* seen any of the so-called
'objectivsist' objecting to expensive loudspeakers, or indeed
expensive turntables. Both (especially turntables) involve extremely
precise mechanical engineering, which will never be cheap.

CD players and amplifiers however, are a different matter. It remains
a truism that, once you get past the very bottom of the market, the
only time CD players or amps really do sound different is indeed in
the 'high end' at stratospheric prices. Unfortunately, that difference
is a deliberate *degradation* of the sound from the functional
near-perfection which is ubiquitous in the mid-market.

It is disrupting the
group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end audio.

Sure there are - just not about some of the overpriced dross which can
be found in 'high end' audio stores.

In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
pathetic.

That's rubbish, and if you didn't own a 'high end' audio store, you'd
recognise that.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[ Moderator's note: This discussion is ended here and is moved to
rahe-discuss per the guidelines. -- deb ]

wrote in message ...
Uptown Audio wrote:

snip

It is disrupting the
group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end
audio.
In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
pathetic.

Then don't read it. There are other places on the Web where you can
read exactly what you want to read. Try www.audiogon.com, where only
scientifically illiterate posts seem to be tolerated. Or the Asylum,
where "legendary audio designers" can be found extolling the virtues of
the "Intelligent Chip." You might be happier there. Why put up with us
if we cause you so much agita?

Probably because he feels that he has as much right to be there as you do,
and resists being "driven away". This group has the potential to be the
best on the web...except "opposing views" are not tolerated, and a certain
cadre here seem unable to let any post go by that they might comment on, if
it contains anything the least bit objectionable to their world view. That
is what makes it so disheartening to so many that they leave. It is also
why this same group and others like them have been "banned" (or at least
their topics) from many other moderated groups. Not because their views
can't be tolerated in proper doses, but because these views are "pushed" to
the point of obnoxiousness bordering on harassment to others in the
newsgroups.

The behavior of this small self-selected group suggests an attitude of "we
are right; you are wrong; and we will continue to challenge you until either
you agree, shut up, or leave." When what would simply suffice in many cases
(especially newbies) would be a simple "Here is the issue. Here are the
opposing points of view. This has been discussed in this forum many times.
We suggest you simply search the archives on Google for threads including
"xxx", "xxx", "xxx".) Then lets talk further after you've read them and
reached your own conclusion." I'd suggest we all start practicing it and
try to make the forum a little better than it has been.

There has never been a time restriction on blind testing. Now you have
listened to those bits of gear long enough to have come to the conclusion
and are now satisfied you can now detect one from another, you are also
now in the perfect place to do the blind tests using them.

"I wish more would venture to speak
up and say what John Atkinson did at the New York Show...he was once an
objectivist who took part in a test of amps, came to the conclusion the
tests were wrong when he found he couldn't live with a piece of gear that
he
bought based on that test (that drew a "null" in the blind test), and
concluded there was a "big" difference when listened to normally over
time.

I've owned five different CD players myself (currently use three), and
have
auditioned another two at my brother-in-law's house on a system I know
well.
Of the seven, only two have sounded alike. And they are decent but not
outstanding CD players. In addition, I have an outboard dejitterer and
high-end DAC attached to one player and while the timbral balance between
it
and the player are very similar (leading to "no difference" if one listens
only briefly, casually, and superficially) the outboard unit has more
depth,
dimensionality, and definition if one listens at all closely. And
interestingly enough, after about an hour of listening to the CD player
alone, I lose interest. But through the DAC I can listen to two, three,
four CD's one after the other without my attention flagging too much."

[ Moderator's note: This discussion is ended here and is moved to
rahe-discuss per the guidelines. -- deb ]

Uptown Audio wrote:
That's fine if that is the way you want to define it, but it is not
accurate. High-end is a well known descriptor for products in the top
of their price class and is used in every industry. Hi-Fi is what the
guidelines attempt to describe. As it is fair enough for people to
have any view they choose on what is hi-fi and what is not, it is a
bore and completely out of place however to see the same posts about
the same crap over and over even when it is not brought up. Even
though people may have very different ideas about what is and what is
not hi-fi, the continual changing of topic and cheast beating here is
more than disruptive. It prevents anyone with any interest in what is
"generally accepted" (hell I love getting that one in!) as being Hi-Fi
from participating or even from being able to read anything of
interest. As every time one of the usual suspects wants to bully
someone who has or is interested in a nice system, they bring up
"cables" or DBT and usually both.

Actually, the moderators *don't* let us usual suspects do that. ;


The topic may have been about
amplifiers, but that does not stop the relentless badgering from going
down the same rutted path every time. It is ridiculous.
If that is the way everyone wants it, then fine and good riddence. It
is a waste of time. I move that another group be started or chartered
with new guidelines or moderators, otherwise this place is for the
nuts and is of no more use to high-end or hi-fi than RAO...

Speaking of rutted paths....we've been downt his one before too.

That reminds me, I haven't seen visited the yahoo RAHE meta-discussion
group in ages....

In article ,
Uptown Audio writes:
That's fine if that is the way you want to define it, but it is not
accurate. High-end is a well known descriptor for products in the top
of their price class and is used in every industry. Hi-Fi is what the
guidelines attempt to describe. As it is fair enough for people to
have any view they choose on what is hi-fi and what is not, it is a
bore and completely out of place however to see the same posts about
the same crap over and over even when it is not brought up. Even
though people may have very different ideas about what is and what is
not hi-fi, the continual changing of topic and cheast beating here is
more than disruptive. It prevents anyone with any interest in what is
"generally accepted" (hell I love getting that one in!) as being Hi-Fi
from participating or even from being able to read anything of
interest. As every time one of the usual suspects wants to bully
someone who has or is interested in a nice system, they bring up
"cables" or DBT and usually both. The topic may have been about
amplifiers, but that does not stop the relentless badgering from going
down the same rutted path every time. It is ridiculous.
If that is the way everyone wants it, then fine and good riddence. It
is a waste of time. I move that another group be started or chartered
with new guidelines or moderators, otherwise this place is for the
nuts and is of no more use to high-end or hi-fi than RAO...
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250


It is the definition used by this group for many years, and it is not
likely to change. We have had an unwritten rule against any intrusion
of Objectivism into pure equipment discussions. But once the
non-objectivists move the discussion into the objectivist realm, then
all bets are off. If you can find any case where this was not true in
the last few years, please bring it to the rahe-discuss list as that
is our forum for discussing any moderation policy types of topics.

As to creating a new group, that is up to you and any others of a like
mind to go to news.groups and start the new group creation effort. I
suggest you read the FAQs there about the process first. Also, the
idea of creating such a group has been proposed several times now and
has yet to get past the idea phase. Check the rec.audio.moderated
(RAM) discussions in rec.audio. opinion to see what happened the last
time.

This discussion is now ended here and if anyone else feels the need to
continue it they will have to do so on rahe-discuss per the
guidelines.



"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Uptown Audio writes:
That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any
high-end
product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and
jump
on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs
more
than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does. It is disrupting
the
group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end
audio.
In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals
to
hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
pathetic.

As one of the moderators, I feel the need to point out this section
of
the guidelines, something that has been there since before I began
moderating in 1997:


2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio

The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is

a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or

b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;
or

c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about
a) or b).

Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a
given component may be considered 'high-end'.

Products from mass-market corporations are less likely to be
considered high end insofar as such mass-market gear is designed
with apparent priority on things other than absolute sound quality.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-.- David Bath (rec.audio.high-end moderation team)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

_Dejan_ wrote:
-Excuse me for bad english-
I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
about CD Players.
Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK,

The digital part of the CD player should be able to read correctly the
bits on the CD. That leaves the DAC as the possible cause for sonic
differences (and that, only if you are not connecting the CD player
digitally to the receiver).

This was posted by Arny Krueger in another group:

: Many built-in DAC's are cheap, cheap, cheap.

: Despite their low prices, they are often up to the task at hand. Here
: are the measured performance specs for the DAC in a $39 DVD player - a
: Apex AD 1201:

: Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB: +0.07, -0.05
: Noise level, dB (A): -95.2
: Dynamic range, dB (A): 95.0
: THD, %: 0.0012
: IMD, %: 0.002
: Stereo crosstalk, dB:-92.9

I found it a bit strange that the test was not from 20 Hz to 20 kHz,
but then I found another (older) post with this:

| Frequency response +0.10 -0.16 dB 20-20 KHz into a 5.6 K load.
| Zero signal noise -95 dB A-weighted, -94 dB unweighted
| Dynamic range 96 dB A-weighted 93 dB unweighted
| THD 0.001%
| THD+N A-weighted 0.007%
| THD+N 0.007% unweighted
| IM (18 & 20 KHz) 0.003%

Note that the theoretical performance from 16bit PCM is
20* log(65536) ~= 96.33 dB

So the most expensive CD player in the world won't be able to improve
significantly this performance. Of course there are other qualities that
matter on a CD player, like mechanical noise, durability, ergonomics, etc..

In the case of DVD-Audio (20 or 24 bit, so 120 dB or 144 dB theoretically)
or SACD (about 120 dB on the audio band) things are somewhat different,
because the analog parts can't approach the theoretical limits, so one
can expect some differences between models.

For instance the very recent Yamaha DV-657:

DA Converter 24 bit
Signal-Noise (1 kHz) 110 dB
Dynamic range (1 kHz) 100 dB
Distortion and Noise (1 kHz) 0.003 %

The Pioneer DV-575A:

S/N ratio 115 dB
Dynamic range 101 dB
Total harmonic distortion 0.0020 %

Or the Yamaha DV-2500:

Signal-Noise Ratio 115 dB
Dynamic Range 103 dB (DVD 48 kHz 24 bit)
Total Harmonic Distortion (1 kHz) 0.0017 % (DVD 48 kHz 24 bit)

So there are _measurable_ differences between 24 bit players. But:

1 - Most amplifiers have worse signal/noise than this.

2 - The original performance probably has more noise than this.

3 - Human hearing is limited, so many people think that the
96 dB of CD are enough ("perfect sound forever" was the
original marketing slogan for the CD).

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

[ Moderator's note: This discussion is ended here and is moved to
rahe-discuss per the guidelines. -- deb ]

Uptown Audio writes:
That's fine if that is the way you want to define it, but it is not
accurate. High-end is a well known descriptor for products in the top
of their price class and is used in every industry.

Hold on now. To start with, this is a user forum and we don't have to
care at all what labels marketroids put on things.

Also, I dispute your definition of "high end": in my experience it
defines the highest performance equipment, not necessarily the most
expensive. This is how the phrase is used in computing, for example:
"high-end floating-point performance at PC prices."

Hi-Fi is what the guidelines attempt to describe. As it is fair
enough for people to have any view they choose on what is hi-fi and
what is not, it is a bore and completely out of place however to
see the same posts about the same crap over and over even when it
is not brought up.

Not everyone finds it boring. I find the dissent from the suffocating
orthodoxy of the Hi-Fi press refreshing. If there was such dissent in
the Hi-Fi magazines they would be a hell of a lot more interesting and
relevant, and I might even buy them.

There are some serious issues here. If what the skeptics say is true,
a large part of the Hi-Fi industry, with the connivance of the Hi-Fi
press, is not acting in the best interests of their customers. That
is, to say the least, an interesting idea. And very relevant to this
newsgroup.

Even though people may have very different ideas about what is and
what is not hi-fi, the continual changing of topic and cheast
beating here is more than disruptive.

That's Usenet. It's quite reasonable to expect people talking very
expensive cables or very expensive CD players to say "it doesn't
matter." That's a perfectly reasonable response. It's one you
disagree with, so feel free to do so.

It prevents anyone with any interest in what is "generally
accepted" (hell I love getting that one in!) as being Hi-Fi from
participating or even from being able to read anything of
interest.

It doesn't at all. It's not like people are shouting above others: if
you don't like a post, skip it.

As every time one of the usual suspects wants to bully someone who
has or is interested in a nice system, they bring up "cables" or
DBT and usually both. The topic may have been about amplifiers,
but that does not stop the relentless badgering from going down the
same rutted path every time. It is ridiculous. If that is the way
everyone wants it, then fine and good riddence. It is a waste of
time.

This is the place -- the only place that I am aware of -- where both
sides of the argument get to have their say in a reasonable
environment. It's not the bear pit of RAO.

I move that another group be started or chartered with new
guidelines or moderators, otherwise this place is for the nuts and
is of no more use to high-end or hi-fi than RAO...

It's useful to me, and to everyone else who is happy to hear both
sides of the story. I guess you would prefer not to be challenged by
some of the more capable people here. I can understand that.

Andrew.

Thanks for reply. I have a lot thinkings, but sorry, i dont want
discussing to match because i speak english like a Tarzan. I say
something for start, and now i leave finish to somebody else.

Greetings
Dejan, Croatia


....this i write before, but somebody dont like my thinking, and this
message you cant read in news group. Now i see that i must say more.
You say engineers. Hm. Read all, and you may see what i think about
this. After all this i am a little angry, and up to finish less polite.
Sadly.

[Moderator's note: The post he refers to was not posted due to the use
of an invalid address which is not allowed per the guidelines.
-- deb]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

First, I'm not sure that anyone is saying 'all CD players sound the
same',
without some sort of qualification of that claim.


From what i read here in some threads, i simply make this conclussion
because peoples often really say this


Second, you don't consider a standard of proof that requires blind
testing
to be
*critical* enough?


Blind test are not perfect! Blind test are relatively short, for good
conclusion is important long term hearing. It would be nice to make
long
blind test, but this is hard to make. Usual blind test often make
confuse,
this can be interesting, but not necessarily usefull. Many factors are
here,
for example maybe in that moment person dont think like after good
sleep, so results can be very different. I know this because i like
DIY, when i make something different i often dont know it is better or
not, but in another time things in my head can be totaly different.


Well, we do know that human perception is easily fooled when
differences
are in fact small, or nonexistant. So if we want to verify that what
we think we hear is real, we have to take measures to account for the
'fooling' factors.


Like i say, i like DIY, for example i can hear PSU snubbers in my
circuits. But i can't meassure them in otput signal.


First, define what you mean by 'true High End'.


Oh, sorry i dont want define this. But for sure this is not CD-Player
for 9$. Last what i try with this price have left channel louder then
another. This talk enough to me. Or maybe i dont have luck. I can try
again.


Greetings

Thanks for support. It's realy nice to hear same opinion.
And enjoy in the music, this is most important!
....in buisness is sometimes hard enjoy, i know, i wish you luck

Cheers

Petrovic Dejan

wrote

Now just because products are aimed at that segment of the market
doesn't mean that they will necessarily sound better--or even
different--than mass-market products. And there are good scientific
reasons to expect that many "high-end" amps, CD players, and wires do
not sound any different than mass-market alternatives.


You must to learn a lot about this science, believe me


You won't find out much information about that science on other
Internet discussion boards, because the topic is usually either
banned
entirely or tightly constrained. And you won't find that scientific
perspective in the high-end magazines, because it would be very, very
bad for business. So consider yourself lucky that you have happened
upon one of the few places where you actually can get that scientific
perspective.


Again, this is not scientific perspective!!!


But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate
on
the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
the speakers inthe room.


Aleluja! Placement of the speakers in the room? I am surprised that you
care
about this


But it is also quite likely that they sound different
to you for one of the following reasons:
1. One is playing louder than the other.
2. You expect them to sound different, and expectation can fool us.


Now you realy make me idiot. Obviously i AM crazy. From your scientific
perspective i expect much more.


But if you compare them without knowing which is which, can you still
tell them apart? If not, then there's good reason to believe that
they
aren't really audibly different, even if they seem to be.


Who say this? I not! It IS different! Often drastical! But not
necessarily, this is true.

....and it's true that are price often to large, but this is no reason
for bad informations. I simply say: Yes this is really good sound but i
dont have money for this. Science is not needed to say this. And if you
dont hear difference you must know: this is just your perspective. You
talking about silence, but you dont have proof that somebody dont hear.
And please, dont say now: blind test!


Dejan

Harry Lavo wrote:
"_Dejan_" wrote in message
...

-Excuse me for bad english-
I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
about CD Players.
Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK, i
respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking. I am
very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end", especially
because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall. I have
nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music from
MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that. Maybe

are

my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste different,

or

maybe i am crazy, who know?
Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in the

past),

maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.
...and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to

underestimate

nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings (although different then
mine), but i just want to say something what i think, especially because i
dont see large activity in this group, and because are my thinkings on
another way.

Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention


Don't apologize. You are basically saying that you find it hard to believe
that many people here think all players sound the same. And you think they
are discussing not-very-high-end gear. I believe you will find that there
are many who read this group who feel the same way...but are intimidated
to speak out. I wish more would venture to speak
up and say what John Atkinson did at the New York Show...he was once an
objectivist who took part in a test of amps, came to the conclusion the
tests were wrong when he found he couldn't live with a piece of gear that he
bought based on that test (that drew a "null" in the blind test), and
concluded there was a "big" difference when listened to normally over time.

I've owned five different CD players myself (currently use three), and have
auditioned another two at my brother-in-law's house on a system I know well.
Of the seven, only two have sounded alike. And they are decent but not
outstanding CD players. In addition, I have an outboard dejitterer and
high-end DAC attached to one player and while the timbral balance between it
and the player are very similar (leading to "no difference" if one listens
only briefly, casually, and superficially) the outboard unit has more depth,
dimensionality, and definition if one listens at all closely. And
interestingly enough, after about an hour of listening to the CD player
alone, I lose interest. But through the DAC I can listen to two, three,
four CD's one after the other without my attention flagging too much.


Of course, Harry is living proof that high-end discussions, in the
conventional way, are alive and kicking in this newsgroup.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

CD players and amplifiers however, are a different matter. It remains
a truism that, once you get past the very bottom of the market, the
only time CD players or amps really do sound different is indeed in
the 'high end' at stratospheric prices. Unfortunately, that difference
is a deliberate *degradation* of the sound from the functional
near-perfection which is ubiquitous in the mid-market.

Amps have to be reliable, have good warranties, have decent binding posts,
not be unnecessarily large or heavy, do not emit sounds of their own (no
fans please), be up to the task of driving your "current" loudspeakers and
have lotsa reserve power, watts and current, and be up to the task of doing
so with any speakers which may lie in your future. If they satisfy all of
the above, their designers will most probably have assured that they will
sound good (neutral). I think if you choose accordingly you will be safe
(happy).

wrote
For your information, this list does not exist to promote your
product
line.


I dont know nothing abouth shop "Uptown Audio" but i understand comment
from
Bill because bad informations threaten this buisness, often
unjustified.


Then don't read it. There are other places on the Web where you can
read exactly what you want to read.


I never before read this news group, and i must admit that is really
strange and fun. But i dont like when somebody ask for information, and
then only 3-4 person talking, only bad informations. This is reason why
i write this. Just for balance


Try www.audiogon.com, where only
scientifically illiterate posts seem to be tolerated.


I dont see science here, i see only that many here talking about
science.


Dejan

Uptown Audio wrote:
That's fine if that is the way you want to define it, but it is not
accurate. High-end is a well known descriptor for products in the top
of their price class and is used in every industry. Hi-Fi is what the
guidelines attempt to describe. As it is fair enough for people to
have any view they choose on what is hi-fi and what is not, it is a
bore and completely out of place however to see the same posts about
the same crap over and over even when it is not brought up. Even
though people may have very different ideas about what is and what is
not hi-fi, the continual changing of topic and cheast beating here is
more than disruptive. It prevents anyone with any interest in what is
"generally accepted" (hell I love getting that one in!) as being Hi-Fi
from participating or even from being able to read anything of
interest. As every time one of the usual suspects wants to bully
someone who has or is interested in a nice system, they bring up
"cables" or DBT and usually both. The topic may have been about
amplifiers, but that does not stop the relentless badgering from going
down the same rutted path every time. It is ridiculous.
If that is the way everyone wants it, then fine and good riddence. It
is a waste of time. I move that another group be started or chartered
with new guidelines or moderators, otherwise this place is for the
nuts and is of no more use to high-end or hi-fi than RAO...
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

Can you please stop top-posting? It makes it much less convenient to
follow the discussion.

BTW, isn't nice for the rest of us who are not dealers to find out what
some people really think about amplifiers and other high-end products? I
would think that this is very valuable information...

"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Uptown Audio writes:

That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any
high-end
product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and
jump
on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs
more
than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does. It is disrupting
the
group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end
audio.
In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals
to
hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
pathetic.

As one of the moderators, I feel the need to point out this section
of
the guidelines, something that has been there since before I began
moderating in 1997:


2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio

The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is

a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or

b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;
or

c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about
a) or b).

Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a
given component may be considered 'high-end'.

Products from mass-market corporations are less likely to be
considered high end insofar as such mass-market gear is designed
with apparent priority on things other than absolute sound quality.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-.- David Bath (rec.audio.high-end moderation team)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

May I suggest that "high end" audio is a spread of notions about the same
gear and not a theological system of thought. All the perspectives are in
the "high end" camp. There are other web discussion places where
discussion of testing to confirm perception is not allowed and I think
they are not "high end" but theologically correct places for the choir to
practice.

The differences arise as to how to answer questions about the origin of
the perceptions we have when experiencing reproduction of sound events.
It is equally valid to suggest that much of the perception resides in the
brain and does not exist until after the signal has reached the ears and
that perspective is one that commends itself well to testing using what
are routine approaches in all other areas of human testing. The critical
area is how willing is one to accept that which seems to contridict normal
expectation and which is counter intuitive as commonly understood. Much
of science leads one to the counter intuitive which is the source of it
being rejected in many areas. We find repeated the same objections in
audio as in other areas which science leads to counter intuitive
perception.

That is itself an intresting scientific question. How is it that
astrology, esp, and a host of other areas find in common the same reasons
to reject the product of testing when it comes to answering questions.
The test is flawed, it can not measure in enough detail or the right
thing, doing the testing destroys the thing being eximaned, the context
where the item being tested is spoiled by the test method. the people
doing the test are biased, science can not explain all things and the item
is one such, scientific answers are proposed with no way to confirm their
reality or validity, and we could go on in listing the common ground where
belief held in common contrasts with testing results.

This is why much "high end" gear is now in the commodity category. Style
and electrical parameters and utility only seperates amps when it comes to
neutral sound reproduction. Price is used to evoke an arena of exclusive
membership about which all manner of subjective feelings of self
satisfaction can be experienced and sound "quality" imagined therefrom.
The current state of listening alone tests confirms this. The 200k
dollar 5 watt amp with extra high distortion but highly touted is the flip
side of listening tests and confirms it also.

"Amps have to be reliable, have good warranties, have decent binding
posts,
not be unnecessarily large or heavy, do not emit sounds of their own (no
fans please), be up to the task of driving your "current" loudspeakers and
have lotsa reserve power, watts and current, and be up to the task of
doing
so with any speakers which may lie in your future. If they satisfy all of
the above, their designers will most probably have assured that they will
sound good (neutral). I think if you choose accordingly you will be safe
(happy)."

"Thanks for support. It's realy nice to hear same opinion.
And enjoy in the music, this is most important!"

Enjoying is the key, and the first step is to cure oneself of the "better
sound" is in the gear I don't currently have or can afford. In place of
which we can be highly assured that most audio gear now is a commodity
item except for speakers and the control of the space in which we place
them.

Yes, this is OK, but i heard amplifiers what have all this
charactersitics, but i dont like them. I am again foolish probably.

This is just my illusion, i know.

Why scientists in this group dont unite mental power to make somethig
useful, for example high efficient, compact and good sounding speaker,
or something similar.
This discussion is waste of energy, i am sad what i start this.

I give up and go to another place.
And sorry to all for bad words what i say.

Bye to all

_Dejan_ wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

First, I'm not sure that anyone is saying 'all CD players sound the
same',
without some sort of qualification of that claim.


From what i read here in some threads, i simply make this conclussion
because peoples often really say this


Second, you don't consider a standard of proof that requires blind
testing
to be
*critical* enough?


Blind test are not perfect! Blind test are relatively short, for good
conclusion is important long term hearing.

lots of similar misinformation snipped

You really need to google search threads about blind testing here.
You have a lot of learning to do.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

wrote

Now just because products are aimed at that segment of the market
doesn't mean that they will necessarily sound better--or even
different--than mass-market products



Voice of ratinality from me: Yes, this is true. Really.
And many are insane expensive - this is not good. True.
From another side, many high-end products deserve attention!

But i dont talk about this.

wrote in message ...
May I suggest that "high end" audio is a spread of notions about the same
gear and not a theological system of thought. All the perspectives are in
the "high end" camp. There are other web discussion places where
discussion of testing to confirm perception is not allowed and I think
they are not "high end" but theologically correct places for the choir to
practice.


By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where firm belief in
DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of questions
raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being measured....eg
music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by the
faithful to ever verify the test's applicability.

The differences arise as to how to answer questions about the origin of
the perceptions we have when experiencing reproduction of sound events.
It is equally valid to suggest that much of the perception resides in the
brain and does not exist until after the signal has reached the ears and
that perspective is one that commends itself well to testing using what
are routine approaches in all other areas of human testing.

Sorry, I spent years in the food industry were we spent enormous amounts of
time, energy, and intellectual capital on testing...much much more
sophisticated than the testing you suggest. Simple blind comparative
testing was use to answer simple questions...is the salt level correct, is
the sweetness correct, how do they affect preference, etc. The tests were
blinded to eliminate differences in color or appearance, often because we
were dealing with prototypes that were not fully developed. But when it
came to evaluating the overall appeal of the product, with the decision on
the line to go to test marketing (and therefore spend a lot of money and
expose the product to the competition) we always used monadic testing among
samples of no less than 300 people. Therefore a simple test might involve
600 people (test and control). A complex test could involve twice that
many. The were blind (what we call "white box" but they were not
comparative). They were used/eaten in the environment of normal use, and
were rated after. Something similar would be a big step forward in audio
evaluation vs. DBt. I can't speak for othe subjectivists, but I know I (and
at least some others) simply want appropriate testing rather than
inappropriate testing. .

The critical
area is how willing is one to accept that which seems to contridict normal
expectation and which is counter intuitive as commonly understood. Much
of science leads one to the counter intuitive which is the source of it
being rejected in many areas. We find repeated the same objections in
audio as in other areas which science leads to counter intuitive
perception.


This isn't a question of science. It is a question of questionable testing
proceedures used as a blind article of faith.

That is itself an intresting scientific question. How is it that
astrology, esp, and a host of other areas find in common the same reasons
to reject the product of testing when it comes to answering questions.
The test is flawed, it can not measure in enough detail or the right
thing, doing the testing destroys the thing being eximaned, the context
where the item being tested is spoiled by the test method. the people
doing the test are biased, science can not explain all things and the item
is one such, scientific answers are proposed with no way to confirm their
reality or validity, and we could go on in listing the common ground where
belief held in common contrasts with testing results.

The reasons you cite barely apply to the areas you consider suspect.
Perhaps ESP comes closest to being a fit. Astrology or religion hardly
qualify at all. How does a test "destroy" Astrology, for example. Or
religion? No, we are talking "faith" vs. "faith"...only your faith is in
uncritical acceptance of DBT'ng.

wrote in message
...
"Thanks for support. It's realy nice to hear same opinion.
And enjoy in the music, this is most important!"

Enjoying is the key, and the first step is to cure oneself of the
"better
sound" is in the gear I don't currently have or can afford. In place
of
which we can be highly assured that most audio gear now is a
commodity
item except for speakers and the control of the space in which we
place
them.

I allready say that i give up, but i am here again, ah.
I see sense in your words and i respect your words. But this is not so
simple. Believe me, i see many things. I dont want be part of one or
another extrem. This is problem here, you guys are EXTREM. I can accept
some things, but not all. I am lucky that i dont need to buy amps and
speakers. Everyone can make this if know something about electronic.
And i try many things. Often i expect a lot, sometimes not, and results
are not always like i expect. This is important! Theory about
foolishnes is here very weak. Some amps really make change sound! For
me this is so obviously that i really dont know what to say here and
how to response. You have your believes i have mine. And then we have
short-circuit. I dont want this. I try dont look further here, and
maybe sometime all we find on same wavelenght in better frame of mind

"I see sense in your words and i respect your words. But this is not so
simple. Believe me, i see many things. I dont want be part of one or
another extrem. This is problem here, you guys are EXTREM. I can accept
some things, but not all. I am lucky that i dont need to buy amps and
speakers. Everyone can make this if know something about electronic.
And i try many things. Often i expect a lot, sometimes not, and results
are not always like i expect. This is important! Theory about
foolishnes is here very weak. Some amps really make change sound! For
me this is so obviously that i really dont know what to say here and
how to response. You have your believes i have mine. And then we have
short-circuit. I dont want this. I try dont look further here, and
maybe sometime all we find on same wavelenght in better frame of mind"

It is easy to make an amp sound different and the electrical parameters by
which to do so are well known. For those amps not trying to sound
different but to only increase the signal as faithfully as it enters the
amp we have become so successful as to have created a commodity market.
In a large series of tests when the obvious and well known amp differences
are controlled,ie. frequency response and staying within it's power supply
design goals, by using listening alone they cann't be distinguished one
from another. People who did accept that such amps can sound different
and say they experience it on a common basis find that using listening
alone they cann't distinguish the amps. That is the benchmark of data and
experience from which we can have such a discussion by asking the question
- why do the differences said to exist and be heard disappear when
listening alone testing is done?

wrote:

This is why much "high end" gear is now in the commodity category.
Style
and electrical parameters and utility only seperates amps when it
comes to
neutral sound reproduction. Price is used to evoke an arena of
exclusive
membership about which all manner of subjective feelings of self
satisfaction can be experienced and sound "quality" imagined
therefrom.
The current state of listening alone tests confirms this. The 200k
dollar 5 watt amp with extra high distortion but highly touted is the
flip
side of listening tests and confirms it also.


Yes, 200k is really to much. I never heard something so expensive, so i
cant comment this sound.
BUT, you are extreme in your examples. And now i make next conclusion:
Maybe you so are so sceptic to expensive things, that are now your
brain into foolishnes. Similar like my brain, just opposite. Its
simple, similar scientific formula: I see that is expensive, so it must
be good. You see that is expensive, so must be crap (because is
expensive!). Now i am scientific.
This is maybe joke from me, maybe not, welcome to the world of
foolisnhes!
And maybe you think that you have proof with your blind test, but this
is not so simple like you think, with this you are just one step nearer
to more deeper foolishnes, but you dont understand this.
And imagine this foolishness: i dont speak english!

"Steven Sullivan" May 14, 3:44 pm wrote in message
...

lots of similar misinformation snipped

You really need to google search threads about blind testing here.
You have a lot of learning to do.

I see that you are very disappoint.
Sorry, same about google i can say to you, but you dont need search
only blind tests. You can find a lot good informations (and bad
informations offcours, and be carfully like i - not naive). Maybe in
that way you find real science.
Known conclusion blind tests is that audio components like CD-Players
and amplifiers are not important for sound quality. This is reason why
i am not interested in your blind test.
And yes its true, i dont know if you have revolutionary new blind test,
and i dont have intention look for this in google because i find some
answers a long time ago and now this is not interesting to me, sorry
again.
I want to learn, but i dont want learn about your blind tests.

"By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where firm belief
in
DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of questions
raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being measured....eg
music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by the
faithful to ever verify the test's applicability."

Science proceeds not by proving some thesis but by failing to disprove it.
The thesis at hand is that a benchmark of listening alone testing now
exists showing inability to distinguish amps, wire, etc. by listening
alone even and especially by those holding the contrary view. That, as
science, is what takes it outside the realm of belief system. Science to
support the contrary thesis would have to show a constant and continuing
failure, and thus disprove the thesis.

"Sorry, I spent years in the food industry were we spent enormous amounts
of
time, energy, and intellectual capital on testing...much much more
sophisticated than the testing you suggest. Simple blind comparative
testing was use to answer simple questions..."

And we have before us the simple question of can by listening alone can
one bit of audio gear be distinguished from another, can a difference, any
difference be shown. That is is simple as it gets. Any other complex
attributes suggested to exist between gear is mute if the simple reality
of simple difference, any difference can not be demonstrated by listening
alone tests.

"
This isn't a question of science. It is a question of questionable
testing
proceedures used as a blind article of faith."

That is atestable thesis, we will look forward to the results. Such
testing is the bread and butter in all other areas of human testing. If
it isn't valid for audio then it is not valid anywhere else either and
many decades of research in humans will have to be tossed. So the
evidence for such an extraordinary claim that audio is an exception will
require some equally extraordinary demonstration. Astrology and esp etc.
make that exact same claim. Testing can hand has been done on such thing
with expected results. The same litany of excuses those folk propose for
their failure to demonstrate any reality to their claims is exactly the
same offered for those whose worldview is upset when listening alone
testing doesn't support their worldview.

"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" May 13, 3:21 pm
wrote in message ...

The digital part of the CD player should be able to read correctly
the...
.../cut/...
...Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94


Now i realised "science": You forget say that is largest distorsion
factor from speakers, so with this logic all others is not important.
Strange theory. Instead of rewriting technical characteristics
CD-Players it would be smarter to use brain or ears for change. Do you
listen music? Do you like music? Or, if you are technical directed, did
you ever see something more then numbers for S/N, dynamic range and
distortion? And what is really important for good sound? I see you
allready know all. I understand that to you all components have same
sound and i dont see nothing bad in this. But wrong is this: Do you
really think that are all audiophiles so foolish? If you something dont
see (dont hear), dont mean that this dont exist. Your omission, not
mine.
And, you probably dont have problems with components and sound. You
have less then 0.01% distorsions. Voila! Why you then reading this?
Just dont tell me that you are soooo good man and you want help to
others. You are allready happy with your sound and its time for
something new. I see you like F1 so you can be another Schumacher. But
this is not so easy like telling nonsenses.
Or, maybe you trying to find speakers with 0.0001% distorsions. This is
only thing what you need. Like i see in this group we have scientists,
so you are maybe another one and you maybe have idea how to achieve
this. I am very interested in this. You know much about CD-players,
maybe about speakers too. Horns, TQWP, transmission line, bass reflex,
closed box, variovent, open baffle, MKP, MKT, Elcos, air coils,
ferrites, cooper foil coils, MF resistors..bla..bla....single drive
speakers, two-way, three-way, or more??, co-axial speakers,
tri-axial?...passive crossovers, active.. What is better for you? Or
you again dont hear differences because are distorsons always high? I
can only gues what you think about peoples what cares about materials
for boxes, even about varnish. This is hard to measure. Many things can
be strange to me too, but i am openend mind, you are not, and this is
not good. Sorry.

Harry Lavo wrote:

By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where firm
belief in
DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of
questions
raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being
measured....eg
music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by the
faithful to ever verify the test's applicability.

A cult religion apparently also embraced by every accredited psychology
department in the country. Talk about brainwashing.

The differences arise as to how to answer questions about the
origin of
the perceptions we have when experiencing reproduction of sound
events.
It is equally valid to suggest that much of the perception resides
in the
brain and does not exist until after the signal has reached the
ears and
that perspective is one that commends itself well to testing using
what
are routine approaches in all other areas of human testing.

Sorry, I spent years in the food industry were we spent enormous
amounts of
time, energy, and intellectual capital on testing...much much more
sophisticated than the testing you suggest. Simple blind comparative
testing was use to answer simple questions...is the salt level
correct, is
the sweetness correct, how do they affect preference, etc. The tests
were
blinded to eliminate differences in color or appearance, often
because we
were dealing with prototypes that were not fully developed. But when
it
came to evaluating the overall appeal of the product, with the
decision on
the line to go to test marketing (and therefore spend a lot of money
and
expose the product to the competition) we always used monadic testing
among
samples of no less than 300 people. Therefore a simple test might
involve
600 people (test and control). A complex test could involve twice
that
many. The were blind (what we call "white box" but they were not
comparative). They were used/eaten in the environment of normal use,
and
were rated after. Something similar would be a big step forward in
audio
evaluation vs. DBt. I can't speak for othe subjectivists, but I know
I (and
at least some others) simply want appropriate testing rather than
inappropriate testing.

Why in the world would we expect that the protocols of food testing
would be appropriate for audio testing, or pharmaceutical testing,
or...

bob

On 14 May 2005 19:42:02 GMT, "_Dejan_" wrote:

Yes, this is OK, but i heard amplifiers what have all this
charactersitics, but i dont like them. I am again foolish probably.

This is just my illusion, i know.

Possibly, or possibly there actually is something wrong with them. The
existence of many good amplifiers does not preclude the existence of
many bad ones!

Why scientists in this group dont unite mental power to make somethig
useful, for example high efficient, compact and good sounding speaker,
or something similar.

That's simple. Such a loudspeaker is physically impossible - if it is
to cover the full acoustic range. There are however many reasonably
efficient and very high quality 'minimonitors' which can be combined
with a good subwoofer to provide SOTA performance.

This discussion is waste of energy, i am sad what i start this.

Sorry you feel that way, but it's hard to tell what is your position.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 14 May 2005 18:05:22 GMT, wrote:

This is why much "high end" gear is now in the commodity category. Style
and electrical parameters and utility only seperates amps when it comes to
neutral sound reproduction. Price is used to evoke an arena of exclusive
membership about which all manner of subjective feelings of self
satisfaction can be experienced and sound "quality" imagined therefrom.

Are these scientific remarks of yours? Do you have test results? Do
you have documentation? Lab reports?

Or do I have to repeat Dejan's remark: "I do not see science here, I
only see talk about science."

Which is the only thing the objectivists are good at: talk about
"science" in a rather metaphysical way.

Ernesto.

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."

Richard Feynman