http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities of
sound.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.


I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
improve it.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities of
sound.
It's not an argument, it's your denial.
It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results are
the results.
Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause them to
be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.


I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
improve it.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
of
sound.
It's not an argument, it's your denial.
It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results are
the results.
Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause them
to
be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.

Wow. Big words for Mikey. Are you sure you know what they mean?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities of
sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it discussed so
much more in reviews of speakers.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.


I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
improve it.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities of
sound.
It's not an argument, it's your denial.
It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results are
the results.
Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause them
to be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.


to you, yes.
speak for yourself

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities of
sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it discussed
so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.


I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
improve it.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
of sound.
It's not an argument, it's your denial.
It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results
are the results.
Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause them
to be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.


to you, yes.
speak for yourself
You're volunteering then?

The fact is that the above is true for everybody that has ever made such a
comparison.
It's no great leap to suppose it would hold true for everybody else.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it discussed
so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.


I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
improve it.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
of sound.
It's not an argument, it's your denial.
It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results
are the results.
Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause
them to be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.


to you, yes.
speak for yourself
You're volunteering then?

The fact is that the above is true for everybody that has ever made such a
comparison.

False

It's no great leap to suppose it would hold true for everybody else.


Therefore, False

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it discussed
so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.


I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how to
improve it.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
of sound.
It's not an argument, it's your denial.
It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the results
are the results.
Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same. The
proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause
them to be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.


to you, yes.
speak for yourself
You're volunteering then?

The fact is that the above is true for everybody that has ever made such
a comparison.

False

It's no great leap to suppose it would hold true for everybody else.


Therefore, False
Therefore, very likely true.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
With what?

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.


I just thought you'd be inerested in in research on imaging and how
to
improve it.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities
of sound.
It's not an argument, it's your denial.
It doesn't how rudimentary you think the measurements are, the
results
are the results.
Get 2 amps that measure close enough and they will sound the same.
The
proof of that is that if you EQ out any differences that would cause
them to be differentiated, and then they sound the same then as well.


to you, yes.
speak for yourself
You're volunteering then?

The fact is that the above is true for everybody that has ever made
such
a comparison.

False

It's no great leap to suppose it would hold true for everybody else.


Therefore, False
Therefore, very likely true.

Apparently, Mikey McKelviphibian, listening with his tympanic membrane,
thinks that frequency response is the only difference between amplifiers.
This is false.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the complexities
of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.
Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
conducted listening comparisons.

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.
Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
I am sorry that you are so insecure with yourself that
you feel you have to do that.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.


Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.

Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking about
how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or decent amps to
sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then you've made a claim that
you ought to be able to back up.

I am sorry that you are so insecure with yourself that
you feel you have to do that.
I don't allow myself to be deluded into thinking properly designed equipment
sounds drastically different from other properly designed equipment.

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.


Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.

Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking about
how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or decent amps
to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then you've made a claim
that you ought to be able to back up.


Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
that many of them sound quite different from each other.
And there is plenty of reason for them to sound different.
You ought to know better.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.


Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.

Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking about
how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or decent amps
to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then you've made a claim
that you ought to be able to back up.


Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
that many of them sound quite different from each other.

Which of them were compared blind and level matched?

And there is plenty of reason for them to sound different.
You ought to know better.
So should you.

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.


Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.

Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then you've
made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.


Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
that many of them sound quite different from each other.

Which of them were compared blind and level matched?


No, that is unnecessary.
On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
you DBT each and every one of them against each other.
Of course, that still leaves open the possibility
that toother individuals, some might cd players sound different
each other. good luck,I hope you have enough centuries left to
conduct all of you necessary protocols.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see
it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.


Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and
poorly conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.

Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.


Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
that many of them sound quite different from each other.

Which of them were compared blind and level matched?


No, that is unnecessary.
On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
you DBT each and every one of them against each other.

Since there is only one situation I've ever ehard of, (and that was from
Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD players, I'm
convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.

Of course, that still leaves open the possibility
that toother individuals, some might cd players sound different
each other. good luck,I hope you have enough centuries left to
conduct all of you necessary protocols.
I don't think I'll bother, they all are so vastly superior to LP and to any
other playback medium that I am satisfied.

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see
it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.


Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are
just another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and
poorly conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.

Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.


Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
that many of them sound quite different from each other.

Which of them were compared blind and level matched?


No, that is unnecessary.
On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
you DBT each and every one of them against each other.

Since there is only one situation I've ever ehard of, (and that was from
Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD players, I'm
convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.


Yes based upon your ONE paired comparison!


Of course, that still leaves open the possibility
that toother individuals, some might cd players sound different
each other. good luck,I hope you have enough centuries left to
conduct all of you necessary protocols.
I don't think I'll bother, they all are so vastly superior to LP and to
any other playback medium that I am satisfied.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic
measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see
it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.


Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are
just another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias
and poorly conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.

Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.


Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
that many of them sound quite different from each other.

Which of them were compared blind and level matched?


No, that is unnecessary.
On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
you DBT each and every one of them against each other.

Since there is only one situation I've ever heard of, (and that was from
Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD players, I'm
convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.


Yes based upon your ONE paired comparison!

Why would you assume that? It was based on a particular design, not on a
single comparison.

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic
measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you
see it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.


Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are
just another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias
and poorly conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.

Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.


Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell you
that many of them sound quite different from each other.

Which of them were compared blind and level matched?


No, that is unnecessary.
On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
you DBT each and every one of them against each other.

Since there is only one situation I've ever heard of, (and that was from
Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD players,
I'm convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.


Yes based upon your ONE paired comparison!

Why would you assume that? It was based on a particular design, not on a
single comparison.

Then you admit that your comparisons are based on comparing specs and
design,
rather than on comparative listening tests.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic
measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of
the complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring
dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you
see it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.


Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are
just another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias
and poorly conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.

Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.


Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell
you
that many of them sound quite different from each other.

Which of them were compared blind and level matched?


No, that is unnecessary.
On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
you DBT each and every one of them against each other.

Since there is only one situation I've ever heard of, (and that was
from Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD
players, I'm convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.


Yes based upon your ONE paired comparison!

Why would you assume that? It was based on a particular design, not on a
single comparison.

Then you admit that your comparisons are based on comparing specs and
design,
rather than on comparative listening tests.
I admit no such thing. What is it with you and reading comprehension? I
said the only difffernce I heard OF in CD players was from a description
Arny gave. The first one I recieved as a gift, the second one was based on
the reading I'd done on the performance of CD players and the reputation and
my personal experience with Rotel.

As much as you would like to try and make it seem like I have always
recomended DBT's for buying audio equipment, a cursory look at the history
of what I've said, shows that I have always said people should use whatever
criteria they desire. Since the differences between CD players tend to be
in thousandths of a dB, it hardly makes sense to spend a lot of time doing
listening comparisons, unless of course you are considering one of those
units that s designed to sound different because it was badly designed, or
has tubes.