| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia updated
Jim H said: *great* site, Friend! Not a single negative review! Shows how healthy the hi-fi hobby must be to fund so much veiled advertising! Why do all you audio-hating nerds invest so much of yourselves in "discussing" audio? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
George M. Middius a écrit :
Jim H said: *great* site, Friend! Not a single negative review! Shows how healthy the hi-fi hobby must be to fund so much veiled advertising! Why do all you audio-hating nerds invest so much of yourselves in "discussing" audio? Is it what it's call "boomerang-question" ? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
more from the 'George M. Middius school' of rec.audio.opinion-ism:
Jim H said: *great* site, Friend! Not a single negative review! Shows how healthy the hi-fi hobby must be to fund so much veiled advertising! Why do all you audio-hating nerds invest so much of yourselves in "discussing" audio? Of course I don't 'hate' audio. I don't hate any of the products reviewed, not even their high-end cable (although I have never personally heard the benefits). But when a publication is automatically positive about every single product it reviews, it's approval becomes meaningless. Yes, audio is in large part about opinion. I just don't trust Audiophilia's. -- Jim H jh @333 .org |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
Jim H said:
more from the 'George M. Middius school' of rec.audio.opinion-ism: Jim H said: *great* site, Friend! Not a single negative review! Shows how healthy the hi-fi hobby must be to fund so much veiled advertising! Why do all you audio-hating nerds invest so much of yourselves in "discussing" audio? Of course I don't 'hate' audio. I don't hate any of the products reviewed, not even their high-end cable (although I have never personally heard the benefits). But when a publication is automatically positive about every single product it reviews, it's approval becomes meaningless. Yes, audio is in large part about opinion. I just don't trust Audiophilia's. JA said it best a few years ago, when he was similarly criticized about not having enough negative reviews in Stereophile. Readers don't want to read about products they should avoid, they want to read about products that are excellent. I suspect that any audio magazine's list of "products to persue for a review" would consist mostly of components creating a buzz out in the marketplace. If you picked the products to review out of a hat, you might have more negative reviews. Boon |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
Jim H wrote in message ...
more from the 'George M. Middius school' of rec.audio.opinion-ism: Jim H said: *great* site, Friend! Not a single negative review! Shows how healthy the hi-fi hobby must be to fund so much veiled advertising! Why do all you audio-hating nerds invest so much of yourselves in "discussing" audio? Of course I don't 'hate' audio. I don't hate any of the products reviewed, not even their high-end cable (although I have never personally heard the benefits). But when a publication is automatically positive about every single product it reviews, it's approval becomes meaningless. Yes, audio is in large part about opinion. I just don't trust Audiophilia's. I, as a matter of fact, love music and the technology to reproduce it. I just don't like being conned. Did anyone else see the $40.00 audiophile cryogenically treated duplex wall outlet? It really is a shame that there are people ignorant enough to fall for this sort of crap. Mike L. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 7/15/2004 6:50 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Don Pearce" wrote in message I don't think anyone around here has any kind of problem with consumer audio. That is a market-led business where you get pretty much what you pay for. Or less. As for the con games of the high-end, I've really not a great deal of sympathy for anyone who cons himself over some fanciful "improvement". It's not really about sympathy, its about heading people off from going down the wrong path. The wrong path? Whatever path one chooses for themselves and enjoys is not the wrong path in any hobby. Horsefeathers. Scotty, you said *any hobby* so I'll run with your ball. Let's pick the hobby of skiing. Left to one's own choices one might pick equipment that is a safety hazard. So, now one finds oneself in the hospital, perhaps permanently disabled. Nothing wrong with that you say? GMAB! The best systems I have heard have been wrought by what you seem to consider the wrong path. There's no accounting for taste or a lack of it. Scott, if you prefer listening to tics and pops, flutter and wow, gratuitous noise and distortion, what does that say about your appreciation for the natural sound of music? Do the live concerts in your LA home area have LP-style noise and distortion generators on stage? Are they part of the equipment inventory at the Hollywood Bowl? But as for the unscrupulous dealer who gives the volume control a subtle tweak when demonstrating some expensive fix, he need kneecapping. In the case of a cable swap, it's easy to see how a person can psych himself into perceiving a change, even when there is none. Doesn't mean one has to imagine a difference. Since I never made that claim, I feel no need to respond your straw man, Scott. That doesn't really prove anything at all in any particular case other than there is a possibility of such a mistake. Practical experience suggests that there is a near-certainty of making a mistake in judgment, if the difference is small and the test is poorly-designed. First off, small level changes don't sound like just louder or softer. In fact most people don't know what say a 0.5 or 1 dB level shift actually sounds like because they haven' heard one as an isolated change. How often do line level cables in short runs create such a change? Please see later comments about corrosion and dirt on connectors. Secondly, the time built-in time delay implied by cable swapping puts up to a dB or more perceived level shift ambiguity into the comparison. IOW if you put in a time delay of more than a few seconds into the swap, you may not be able to reliably detect a 0.8 dB level shift. This suggests that if I also add a 0.8 dB level shift, you might not be able to reliably detect it, either. The randomizing effect of time delays is one reason why for example Stereophile's insistence that its reviewers use the single presentation method turns every subject review they publish into an extremely questionable situation. But that is how most people actually use their systems. Most people use their systems to listen to music for pleasure, not judge audio components. Stereophile represents that their review staff is properly trained and well-equipped for a different mission than just listening to music for pleasure. Most hobby and professional magazines that review products don't restrict themselves to just the things that people do when they put the products to normal use. Popular Photography does technical resolution and distortion tests on lenses. Car and Driver does timed tests relating to top speed, acceleration, and cornering. PC Magazine runs a variety of real world and synthetic benchmarks. Why should audio hobbyist or professional magazines play by a different set of rules? they sit down and listen to music with the full awareness of what equipment is in play and they just listen to that setup without making any quick changes. Which is a fine thing to do if someone wants to do their equipment reviews the dumbest possible way. As soon as audio magazine editors say "Read my magazine, we do our equipment reviews as stupidly, naively, and as poorly-informed as we can" you'll have a market for your proposed procedures, Scott. Publications like audiophilia, though are simply (as far as I'm concerned) here to give us a laugh - like the PWB newsletter. Ah yes, Belt's religious tract. LOL! I find it ironic that Middius rants and raves about how scientific approaches to audio product evaluation are religious, and says nothing about faith-driven bozos like Belt. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 7/15/2004 9:49 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 7/15/2004 6:50 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Don Pearce" wrote in message I don't think anyone around here has any kind of problem with consumer audio. That is a market-led business where you get pretty much what you pay for. Or less. As for the con games of the high-end, I've really not a great deal of sympathy for anyone who cons himself over some fanciful "improvement". It's not really about sympathy, its about heading people off from going down the wrong path. The wrong path? Whatever path one chooses for themselves and enjoys is not the wrong path in any hobby. Horsefeathers. Scotty, you said *any hobby* so I'll run with your ball. Let's pick the hobby of skiing. Left to one's own choices one might pick equipment that is a safety hazard. So, now one finds oneself in the hospital, perhaps permanently disabled. Nothing wrong with that you say? GMAB! I suppose most hobbyists would prefer not to be disabled. If one takes up skiing or mountain climbing or hang gliding one does take on certain risks so it would be wise to look into objective safty issues when purchasing equipment. So I'll qualify the claim to hobbies that are not prone to such saftey issues (of course it is wise not to buy defective equipment that may start a fire) and to hobbies that center around aesthetic values. Audio is different from other many other hobbies because of the way it is prone to producing enjoyment due to placebo or expectation effects. For example if your hobby is boating, expectations don't change the features or size or speed or speed of the boat. In audio, the expectation that a cable will make your system sound better can create the perception that it sounds better even when there is no reliably perceptible change. There is another hobby that shares this problem, namely golfing. In both audio and golfing, some improvements in equipment quality actually do improve one's enjoyment of the game by improving what is in some sense objective performance. In other cases there is a perception of improvement due to a change in equipment, but there is no reliable change in actual performance when the player plays the game. Both golfers and audiophiles have their own personal methodologies for evaluating new equipment. Let's say that we found a means for evaluating golf clubs that would always translate into improved comfort and scores, when used by just about any golfer. Let's say that we had another means for evaluating golf clubs that had a random corrleation with improved comfort and scores, regardless of who tried it. Given that both procedures involved achievable amounts of effort, which would the average golfer choose? Rememeber that due to the degree to which golfing is prone to expectation effects, a golfer will get some amount of enjoyment out of his equipment purchase, simply because of his expectations. The best systems I have heard have been wrought by what you seem to consider the wrong path. There's no accounting for taste or a lack of it. Which is one reason why you are still allowed an opinion. Lets not forget what piece of music you proclaimed as one of the most emotionally moving pieces of music in the world. You've got a problem with Pachelbel's Cannon in D? Scott, if you prefer listening to tics and pops, flutter and wow, gratuitous noise and distortion, what does that say about your appreciation for the natural sound of music? I prefer not hearing them and if all else were equal I would opt not to hear them. All else is not equal though and this is the important point you continue to ignore. But, as you say, there is no accounting for taste. Frankly, if music is as heavily contaminated with these added noises, there isn't a whole lot left to compare, other than the basic artistic properties of the music which don't vary as the playback format changes. Do the live concerts in your LA home area have LP-style noise and distortion generators on stage? Actually what they have is worse. Coughing, shuffling, clearing throats. Didn't you know that? So, have you installed a generator of coughing, shuffling, and clearing throats to your audio system, Scott? Are they part of the equipment inventory at the Hollywood Bowl? Funny you would cite one of the worst sounding venues for music in the L.A, area. But, there is no accounting for taste. Funny that there are so many people who disagree with you, Scott. But as for the unscrupulous dealer who gives the volume control a subtle tweak when demonstrating some expensive fix, he need kneecapping. In the case of a cable swap, it's easy to see how a person can psych himself into perceiving a change, even when there is none. Doesn't mean one has to imagine a difference. That doesn't really prove anything at all in any particular case other than there is a possibility of such a mistake. Practical experience suggests that there is a near-certainty of making a mistake in judgment, if the difference is small and the test is poorly-designed. Your opinion is noted. Maybe this is a problem for you but You can hardly make any universal claims based on your experience. This claim isn't based on just my experience, Scott. But thanks for showing your ignornace of various standards and recommendations of professional organizations that agree that good design for listening tests is of the essence. I'm sure some are more likely than others to make these kinds of mistakes. Too much is too much, even if it varies. First off, small level changes don't sound like just louder or softer. In fact most people don't know what say a 0.5 or 1 dB level shift actually sounds like because they haven' heard one as an isolated change. How often do line level cables in short runs create such a change? Please see later comments about corrosion and dirt on connectors. The later comments don't answer the question, they don't even address it. So says you, Scott. Most well-informed people know that dirt and corrosion on connectors can create changes of that size or even larger. Secondly, the time built-in time delay implied by cable swapping puts up to a dB or more perceived level shift ambiguity into the comparison. IOW if you put in a time delay of more than a few seconds into the swap, you may not be able to reliably detect a 0.8 dB level shift. This suggests that if I also add a 0.8 dB level shift, you might not be able to reliably detect it, either. The randomizing effect of time delays is one reason why for example Stereophile's insistence that its reviewers use the single presentation method turns every subject review they publish into an extremely questionable situation. But that is how most people actually use their systems. Most people use their systems to listen to music for pleasure, not judge audio components. Most audiophiles are eminently aware of their judgement of their systems as they enjoy listening to music. That would be your personal opinion, Scott. Provide recommendations and international standards that agree with you, as I can for my comments about experimental design. Stereophile represents that their review staff is properly trained and well-equipped for a different mission than just listening to music for pleasure. Where does it say that? What is proper training for a reviewer? One place is http://www.stereophile.com//features/20/ . Most hobby and professional magazines that review products don't restrict themselves to just the things that people do when they put the products to normal use. That's a rather braod claim. Prove me wrong. My claim is well-supported. Popular Photography does technical resolution and distortion tests on lenses. Sure but they also take pictures with them as well and offer a subjective review of the results. Besides Stereophile does offer alll sorts of measurements with many of their subjective reviews. Straw man argument because I never claimed actual use testing didn't also happen. You claimed that these sorts of tests are useless because they don't duplicate actual use. Car and Driver does timed tests relating to top speed, acceleration, and cornering. They also drive the car just as any prospective buyer may drive it and offer a subjective impression of it. Straw man argument because I never claimed actual use testing didn't also happen. You claimed that these sorts of tests are useless because they don't duplicate actual use. PC Magazine runs a variety of real world and synthetic benchmarks. Why should audio hobbyist or professional magazines play by a different set of rules? Of the magazines you named and I have read you have yet to find one that does things so terribly differently than Stereophile. Look Scott, even Atkinson admits that Stereophile doesn't do bias-controlled listening tests. None of them use DBTs that I know of. The products they test aren't nearly as likely to have subjectively indentical performance, as does much of the audio gear that Stereophile tests. They all use the equipment as would the buyer and they all comment on their experience with using the equipment. They all also use the bias-controlled testing producdures I listed. Even Atkinson admits that Stereophile doesn't do bias-controlled listening tests. Thanks for supporting my claim. Thanks for showing that the fine points of audio equipment testing are over your head, Scott. they sit down and listen to music with the full awareness of what equipment is in play and they just listen to that setup without making any quick changes. Which is a fine thing to do if someone wants to do their equipment reviews the dumbest possible way. As per the magazines you cited it looks like a very common means of reviewing equipment. The products they test aren't nearly as likely to have subjectively indentical performance, as does much of the audio gear that Stereophile tests. It makes sense to me to have the reviewer use the equipment under review as would the potential user. Since I never claimed otherwise, that would be yet another of your stram man arguments, Scott. I guess it doesn't make sense to you. As usual, you guess wrong, Scott. Or maybe you simply do not use your audio equipment the same way as do many audiophiles and as a consequence you have trouble relating to such reviews. Arain, you guess wrong, Scott. I use my audio equipment the same way as do most audiophiles, which you don't do Scott. I rarely if ever use my equipment to listen to LP's directly off the turntable, which you claim you do quite often, if not most of the time. The vast majority of audiophiles don't even have turntables these days, and those that do don't use them very much. As soon as audio magazine editors say "Read my magazine, we do our equipment reviews as stupidly, naively, and as poorly-informed as we can" you'll have a market for your proposed procedures, Scott. You say this as though your personal opinion on methods were some sort of universal truth. It isn't. Scott, the need for bias-controlled subjective tests isn't just based on my personal opinion. It's writtent into the recommendations and standards for many professional organizations, including many that are related to audio. Bias-controlled subjective tests have the force of law in certain very important sitautions like drug testing. You're the guy who wants to exclude bias-controlled listening tests, not me. You're the guy that tries to justify ragazines that avoid using bias-controlled listening tests, not me. Publications like audiophilia, though are simply (as far as I'm concerned) here to give us a laugh - like the PWB newsletter. Ah yes, Belt's religious tract. LOL! I find it ironic that Middius rants and raves about how scientific approaches to audio product evaluation are religious, and says nothing about faith-driven bozos like Belt. I don't think Middius is speaking of legitimate scientific approaches but of agenda driven approaches cloaed in a phoney veil of science. Middius has never shown any evidence of this alleged phoney veil of science. Middius just belittles what he can't understand, he never provides a thoughful, factual critique of anything. Most of his claims are false. But thanks for showing that you support him, Scott. Speaks to your inability to tell the difference between truth and lies, which is already well-documented Belt is driven by faith? News to me. Just another example of how naive you are, Scott. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/15/2004 2:45 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 7/15/2004 9:49 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 7/15/2004 6:50 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Don Pearce" wrote in message I don't think anyone around here has any kind of problem with consumer audio. That is a market-led business where you get pretty much what you pay for. Or less. As for the con games of the high-end, I've really not a great deal of sympathy for anyone who cons himself over some fanciful "improvement". It's not really about sympathy, its about heading people off from going down the wrong path. The wrong path? Whatever path one chooses for themselves and enjoys is not the wrong path in any hobby. Horsefeathers. Scotty, you said *any hobby* so I'll run with your ball. Let's pick the hobby of skiing. Left to one's own choices one might pick equipment that is a safety hazard. So, now one finds oneself in the hospital, perhaps permanently disabled. Nothing wrong with that you say? GMAB! I suppose most hobbyists would prefer not to be disabled. If one takes up skiing or mountain climbing or hang gliding one does take on certain risks so it would be wise to look into objective safty issues when purchasing equipment. So I'll qualify the claim to hobbies that are not prone to such saftey issues (of course it is wise not to buy defective equipment that may start a fire) and to hobbies that center around aesthetic values. Audio is different from other many other hobbies because of the way it is prone to producing enjoyment due to placebo or expectation effects. For example if your hobby is boating, expectations don't change the features or size or speed or speed of the boat. I'm not sure sure boating or many other hobbies are free from expectation effects. In audio, the expectation that a cable will make your system sound better can create the perception that it sounds better even when there is no reliably perceptible change. No. It *can* . that doesn't mean it *will*. Many times I have been surprised when actual auditions of various pieces of equipment and different issues of recordings did not meet my expectations. Many is the time that i picked the unexpected preference in sighted comparisons. There is another hobby that shares this problem, namely golfing. In both audio and golfing, some improvements in equipment quality actually do improve one's enjoyment of the game by improving what is in some sense objective performance. In other cases there is a perception of improvement due to a change in equipment, but there is no reliable change in actual performance when the player plays the game. Both golfers and audiophiles have their own personal methodologies for evaluating new equipment. Let's say that we found a means for evaluating golf clubs that would always translate into improved comfort and scores, when used by just about any golfer. Let's say that we had another means for evaluating golf clubs that had a random corrleation with improved comfort and scores, regardless of who tried it. I don't know much about golf but why would we want to imagine this unrealistic scenereo? Aside from the fact that analogies prove nothing (I am assuming this is building up to an analogy) why build an analogy that is so disconnected from reality? Given that both procedures involved achievable amounts of effort, which would the average golfer choose? Rememeber that due to the degree to which golfing is prone to expectation effects, a golfer will get some amount of enjoyment out of his equipment purchase, simply because of his expectations. I find the question fairlly useless since I don't see how it even relates to golf much less audio. The best systems I have heard have been wrought by what you seem to consider the wrong path. There's no accounting for taste or a lack of it. Which is one reason why you are still allowed an opinion. Lets not forget what piece of music you proclaimed as one of the most emotionally moving pieces of music in the world. You've got a problem with Pachelbel's Cannon in D? Yes, I think it is a sappy piece of crap but that is irrelevant.You will be hard pressed to find a knowledgable person who wouldn't laugh at the claim that it is one of the most emotionally moving pieces of music ever. Every classical music buff I know has heard the story Arny. They *all* belly laughed. Even the ones who like Pachelbel's Canon. Hey I like Godzilla vs. The Smog Monster but I know better than to call it a great achievement in cinema. Scott, if you prefer listening to tics and pops, flutter and wow, gratuitous noise and distortion, what does that say about your appreciation for the natural sound of music? I prefer not hearing them and if all else were equal I would opt not to hear them. All else is not equal though and this is the important point you continue to ignore. But, as you say, there is no accounting for taste. Frankly, if music is as heavily contaminated with these added noises, there isn't a whole lot left to compare, If they are that heavily contanimated your rig or you record is defective, or both. other than the basic artistic properties of the music which don't vary as the playback format changes. Get a better record player if it is that bad. Do the live concerts in your LA home area have LP-style noise and distortion generators on stage? Actually what they have is worse. Coughing, shuffling, clearing throats. Didn't you know that? So, have you installed a generator of coughing, shuffling, and clearing throats to your audio system, Scott? No. I guess you missed the point. I put up with the noise at live concerts so I can hear the live music. I would be happier without the ambient noise form the audience but it is inevitable. Are they part of the equipment inventory at the Hollywood Bowl? Funny you would cite one of the worst sounding venues for music in the L.A, area. But, there is no accounting for taste. Funny that there are so many people who disagree with you, Scott. Really? Who? I want to know so I can ignore all their opinions on sound quality. To be fair I haven't heard the new Bowl since they tried to make it better. But the old one just plain sucked for sound. It was laughably bad. But please name names as to those people who you know disagree with me on this one. It always good to filter out opinions that will inevitably be worthless to me ahead of time. But as for the unscrupulous dealer who gives the volume control a subtle tweak when demonstrating some expensive fix, he need kneecapping. In the case of a cable swap, it's easy to see how a person can psych himself into perceiving a change, even when there is none. Doesn't mean one has to imagine a difference. That doesn't really prove anything at all in any particular case other than there is a possibility of such a mistake. Practical experience suggests that there is a near-certainty of making a mistake in judgment, if the difference is small and the test is poorly-designed. Your opinion is noted. Maybe this is a problem for you but You can hardly make any universal claims based on your experience. This claim isn't based on just my experience, Scott. But thanks for showing your ignornace of various standards and recommendations of professional organizations that agree that good design for listening tests is of the essence. You said "practical experience." If you didn't mean *your* practical experience you should have said so and cited just what practical experience you are refering to. I'm sure some are more likely than others to make these kinds of mistakes. Too much is too much, even if it varies. First off, small level changes don't sound like just louder or softer. In fact most people don't know what say a 0.5 or 1 dB level shift actually sounds like because they haven' heard one as an isolated change. How often do line level cables in short runs create such a change? Please see later comments about corrosion and dirt on connectors. The later comments don't answer the question, they don't even address it. So says you, Scott. Most well-informed people know that dirt and corrosion on connectors can create changes of that size or even larger. That still doesn't answer my question or even adress it. Secondly, the time built-in time delay implied by cable swapping puts up to a dB or more perceived level shift ambiguity into the comparison. IOW if you put in a time delay of more than a few seconds into the swap, you may not be able to reliably detect a 0.8 dB level shift. This suggests that if I also add a 0.8 dB level shift, you might not be able to reliably detect it, either. The randomizing effect of time delays is one reason why for example Stereophile's insistence that its reviewers use the single presentation method turns every subject review they publish into an extremely questionable situation. But that is how most people actually use their systems. Most people use their systems to listen to music for pleasure, not judge audio components. Most audiophiles are eminently aware of their judgement of their systems as they enjoy listening to music. That would be your personal opinion, Scott. Yes, do you disagree with it? Provide recommendations and international standards that agree with you, as I can for my comments about experimental design. No you can't. Stereophile represents that their review staff is properly trained and well-equipped for a different mission than just listening to music for pleasure. Where does it say that? What is proper training for a reviewer? One place is http://www.stereophile.com//features/20/ . The page your link goes to says nothing about your claim. Most hobby and professional magazines that review products don't restrict themselves to just the things that people do when they put the products to normal use. That's a rather braod claim. Prove me wrong. My claim is well-supported. Why? You went on to prove yourself wrong later in your previous post. I even thanked you for doing it for me. Popular Photography does technical resolution and distortion tests on lenses. Sure but they also take pictures with them as well and offer a subjective review of the results. Besides Stereophile does offer alll sorts of measurements with many of their subjective reviews. Straw man argument because I never claimed actual use testing didn't also happen. You claimed that these sorts of tests are useless because they don't duplicate actual use. Car and Driver does timed tests relating to top speed, acceleration, and cornering. They also drive the car just as any prospective buyer may drive it and offer a subjective impression of it. Straw man argument because I never claimed actual use testing didn't also happen. You claimed that these sorts of tests are useless because they don't duplicate actual use. You aren't even making sense Arny. Get it together. You are the one complaining about Stereophile and audiophiles auditioning equipment by using it the way they would use it once they own it. Then you cite a number of magazines to support your assertion that this a bad method. Unfortunately for you, at least three of the four magazines you cite as support use the very methods you decry to review equipment. PC Magazine runs a variety of real world and synthetic benchmarks. Why should audio hobbyist or professional magazines play by a different set of rules? Of the magazines you named and I have read you have yet to find one that does things so terribly differently than Stereophile. Look Scott, even Atkinson admits that Stereophile doesn't do bias-controlled listening tests. Neither do the magazines you cited. None of them use DBTs that I know of. The products they test aren't nearly as likely to have subjectively indentical performance, as does much of the audio gear that Stereophile tests. Sorry you are arguing your point on the premise that you are right about things sounding the same. Anyone can prove themselves right if they are allowed to argue from the premise that they are already right. Your citations of other magazines as support are at best useless given the fact that they use the very methods you decry. They all use the equipment as would the buyer and they all comment on their experience with using the equipment. They all also use the bias-controlled testing producdures I listed. Really? Citation please of bias controled usage tests from the magazines you cited. Good luck. Even Atkinson admits that Stereophile doesn't do bias-controlled listening tests. Neither do the magazines you cited. Thanks for supporting my claim. Thanks for showing that the fine points of audio equipment testing are over your head, Scott. Your argument doeswn't hold water, your own citations reject your assertion. I guess personal attack is all you have left. they sit down and listen to music with the full awareness of what equipment is in play and they just listen to that setup without making any quick changes. Which is a fine thing to do if someone wants to do their equipment reviews the dumbest possible way. As per the magazines you cited it looks like a very common means of reviewing equipment. The products they test aren't nearly as likely to have subjectively indentical performance, as does much of the audio gear that Stereophile tests. In your opinion. That does not change the fact that you cited these magazines as support to your assertion that Stereophiles methods are inferior and yet these magazines more or less use the very same methods. That's just kinda dumb. It makes sense to me to have the reviewer use the equipment under review as would the potential user. Since I never claimed otherwise, that would be yet another of your stram man arguments, Scott. Sure you did. You asserted that audiophiles and Stereophile use inferior evaluation methods. This is the method commonly used by both. If it is an inferior method than it doesn't make sense to use it. You really need to keep track of what you are saying. I guess it doesn't make sense to you. As usual, you guess wrong, Scott. Then why argue that it is a an inferior method? Or maybe you simply do not use your audio equipment the same way as do many audiophiles and as a consequence you have trouble relating to such reviews. Arain, you guess wrong, Scott. Of course. It is inevitable that one would guess wrong when you agrue against these method s and now say you are not against them. As soon as audio magazine editors say "Read my magazine, we do our equipment reviews as stupidly, naively, and as poorly-informed as we can" you'll have a market for your proposed procedures, Scott. You say this as though your personal opinion on methods were some sort of universal truth. It isn't. Scott, the need for bias-controlled subjective tests isn't just based on my personal opinion. It's writtent into the recommendations and standards for many professional organizations, including many that are related to audio. For subjective evaluations? I know that Floyd Toole is real big on it for development. I don't know of "many" professional organizations that recomend it for hobbyists in their evaluations or for review magazines for that matter. Bias-controlled subjective tests have the force of law in certain very important sitautions like drug testing. That's good but legal drug use is not really a matter of taste or personal preference is it? You're the guy who wants to exclude bias-controlled listening tests, not me. Bull****. I don't want to exclude them. I use them all the time for comparisons. You're the guy that tries to justify ragazines that avoid using bias-controlled listening tests, not me. I justtify magazines that use equipment as the user would. You did to ufortunately for your argument. Publications like audiophilia, though are simply (as far as I'm concerned) here to give us a laugh - like the PWB newsletter. Ah yes, Belt's religious tract. LOL! I find it ironic that Middius rants and raves about how scientific approaches to audio product evaluation are religious, and says nothing about faith-driven bozos like Belt. I don't think Middius is speaking of legitimate scientific approaches but of agenda driven approaches cloaed in a phoney veil of science. Middius has never shown any evidence of this alleged phoney veil of science. He doesn't have to. We are speaking of his position only. But it would be best to let him speak for himself. I was speculating and I could be wrong. Middius just belittles what he can't understand, I think he understands you much more than you give him credit for. he never provides a thoughful, factual critique of anything. He tends to take another road in his critiques. Most of his claims are false. Most of his "claims" are outright opinions. Pretty hard to argue that they are false. But thanks for showing that you support him, Scott. Support him? I don't give him money. Speaks to your inability to tell the difference between truth and lies, which is already well-documented Yeah, this from the guy who makes false accusations of pedophilia. Sorry but you are in no position to be pointing fingers. Belt is driven by faith? News to me. Just another example of how naive you are, Scott. That would be ignorance Arny. I have never spoken to him and I have no idea if his beliefs in audio are faith based. You have to work on your deductive reasoning. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
....pedophilia... Why is it that Scott tries to change any discussion of audio a discussion of pedophilia? Is he obsessed with it? |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:49:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: The wrong path? Whatever path one chooses for themselves and enjoys is not the wrong path in any hobby. Horsefeathers. Scotty, you said *any hobby* so I'll run with your ball. Let's pick the hobby of skiing. Left to one's own choices one might pick equipment that is a safety hazard. So, now one finds oneself in the hospital, perhaps permanently disabled. Nothing wrong with that you say? GMAB! You're confusing hobby with sport. Now if you're talking about the hobby of collecting ski equipment, who are you to say what kind of gear they should collect? |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:45:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Which is one reason why you are still allowed an opinion. Lets not forget what piece of music you proclaimed as one of the most emotionally moving pieces of music in the world. You've got a problem with Pachelbel's Cannon in D? Is that a piece of a high caliber? |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophilia updated
In article ,
dave weil wrote: On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:45:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Which is one reason why you are still allowed an opinion. Lets not forget what piece of music you proclaimed as one of the most emotionally moving pieces of music in the world. You've got a problem with Pachelbel's Cannon in D? Is that a piece of a high caliber? Explosive and incendiary, yet tender. Stephen |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Updated Battery FAQ | Car Audio | |||
| rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 5/5) | Car Audio | |||
| Audiophilia 2004 CES Report now online | General | |||
| - TAS magazine Website Updated - | Audio Opinions | |||
| - TAS Magazine Website Updated - | General | |||
Linear Mode
