Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
reason I work here.

Proper valid listening tests cost lots of time and money, money that most
companies feel is better spent on marketing and advertising -- or profit
margin. To a large extent they can get away with it because there are few
checks and balances. For example:

1) 99% of audio equipment review magazines don't do valid controlled
listening tests and their objective measurements of the equipment is often
missing or is incomplete.

2) the consumer is increasingly less able to do a valid comparison of
products in the stores, as audio equipment has become a big-box store
commodity

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd.
Northridge, CA, 91329


If you want the attachments, email me for the .pdf files.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, wrote:

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International

Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, wrote:

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International

Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

Probably better than you are.

wrote in message
. net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting this.

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, wrote:

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International

Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

Probably better than you are.

But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of higher mental
processes.

nyob123 wrote


Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
reason I work here.

Proper valid listening tests cost lots of time and money, money that most
companies feel is better spent on marketing and advertising -- or profit
margin. To a large extent they can get away with it because there are few
checks and balances. For example:

1) 99% of audio equipment review magazines don't do valid controlled
listening tests and their objective measurements of the equipment is often
missing or is incomplete.

2) the consumer is increasingly less able to do a valid comparison of
products in the stores, as audio equipment has become a big-box store
commodity

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling the
dice in Las Vegas..


Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
audiophiles hear physically exist or not.



Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd.
Northridge, CA, 91329


If you want the attachments, email me for the .pdf files.


Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or what ??

You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak for
himself.
This is an open forum.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
.net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting this.

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling the dice in Las Vegas..

So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
.net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting this.

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling the dice in Las Vegas..

So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, wrote:

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling
the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International

Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

Probably better than you are.

But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of higher
mental
processes.

How big was that telescope?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
this.


No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
k.net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
this.

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling the dice in Las Vegas..

So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.

Depends on which ones.

Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

As usual.

"EddieM" wrote in message
m...

nyob123 wrote


Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
this test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used
this method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners
could not tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one
of the very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which
is the reason I work here.

Proper valid listening tests cost lots of time and money, money that most
companies feel is better spent on marketing and advertising -- or profit
margin. To a large extent they can get away with it because there are few
checks and balances. For example:

1) 99% of audio equipment review magazines don't do valid controlled
listening tests and their objective measurements of the equipment is
often missing or is incomplete.

2) the consumer is increasingly less able to do a valid comparison of
products in the stores, as audio equipment has become a big-box store
commodity

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
the dice in Las Vegas..


Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
audiophiles hear physically exist or not.

Eddie, the man says it's one of a couple valid ways to test for difference.
Once again the world is amused at your incredible blindness.


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd.
Northridge, CA, 91329


If you want the attachments, email me for the .pdf files.


Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or what
??

It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.

You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak for
himself.

He just did, you twit.

This is an open forum.


Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, wrote:

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling
the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International

Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

Probably better than you are.

But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of higher
mental
processes.

How big was that telescope?
Obsessive interests in telescopes, noted.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
.net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
this.

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling the dice in Las Vegas..

So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

They don't, because the measurements used are antiquated, and not
insightfull designed. All the quoted measurements are things an E.E. could
do back in the 60's and 70's with a couple of test-tone oscillators, and
some filters. It reminds me of the story about the drunk who lost his
wallet, and spent the night circling a street lamp, staring at the ground.
When asked why he spent all night looking in one location, he replied,
"Because that's where the light is."

There is a tendency of the engineering contingent of this group to be
captured by what they consider "revealed truths"? It's as if they've grabbed
a live wire; the electricity caused their hand to contract, and they can't
let go. Of course, the cream of the profession evades this, but they are
seldom represented here. Some of these people are not engineers at all; some
are technical workers, and some are poseurs.

Yet there is truth to the notion of the "engineering mentality". Part of
this is due to self-selection; part is due to the way the curricula is
taught. In fact, one of the things engineering students are taught is that
it is simply impossible to think about every choice you have to make. It is
better to know, than to "reinvent the wheel." But this has a bad effect.
Minds that have a cosmic grasp can get beyond this, and become originators.
Those who cannot can still be very good engineers, but as with any
mechanistic frame of mind, sometimes end in ruts they cannot themselves
perceive.

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
this.


No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.

Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?

wrote in message
.net...

"EddieM" wrote in message
m...

nyob123 wrote
[snip]

You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak
for
himself.

He just did, you twit.

This is an open forum.


Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.


It appears Mikey posted this communication from Mr. Olive without his
permission.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:27:10 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
this.


No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.

Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?

A Mistress?

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:51:06 GMT, wrote:


Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

As usual.

Glib non answer, Mike. Try again.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
a lot more time

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:49:29 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, wrote:

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International

Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

Probably better than you are.

I don't think so.

Reference your thread about comparing Krell and QSC amps for instance.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound
quality of amps. Thus all well-designed, similarly
measuring amps do not sound the same. Or am I
mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

below is a corrected version of Packer's *******ization of
what I said

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...44a6c3e558f35b

"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same."

They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same."

They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that
I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.

And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

Depends on how the Supreme Being feels about hypocrisy. It might be a
few hundred thousand years before Arnold makes it through the various
rings of purgatory.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:39:22 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

Depends on how the Supreme Being feels about hypocrisy. It might be a
few hundred thousand years before Arnold makes it through the various
rings of purgatory.

I'll wait. What else have I got to do? :-)

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, wrote:

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given
by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling
the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International

Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

Probably better than you are.

But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of higher
mental
processes.

How big was that telescope?
Obsessive interests in telescopes, noted.


Yawn.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:49:29 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, wrote:

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International

Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

Probably better than you are.

I don't think so.

Reference your thread about comparing Krell and QSC amps for instance.

You're making assumptions that are not true.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:51:06 GMT, wrote:


Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

As usual.

Glib non answer, Mike. Try again.

Why is it you don't get the difference between published specs and measured
performance?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
this.


No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.

Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?

Your goat.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.net...

"EddieM" wrote in message
m...

nyob123 wrote
[snip]

You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak
for
himself.

He just did, you twit.

This is an open forum.


Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.


It appears Mikey posted this communication from Mr. Olive without his
permission.


Wanna bet?

paul packer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
a lot more time

Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
magazines bother with bench tests?



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, wrote:

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given
by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance
and
sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling
the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International

Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

Probably better than you are.

But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of higher
mental
processes.

How big was that telescope?
Obsessive interests in telescopes, noted.


Yawn.

Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same."

They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that
I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.

And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.

Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a nasty
person

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
paul packer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of
amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
a lot more time

Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
magazines bother with bench tests?

That is a really stupid question.

wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below.
In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used
this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners
could
not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which
is
the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi
design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for
posting
this.


No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.

Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?

Your goat.

Mikey, it's a sheep, not a goat. Can't you tell the difference?
I hope you're enjoying her.

wrote in message
. net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.net...

"EddieM" wrote in message
m...

nyob123 wrote
[snip]

You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak
for
himself.

He just did, you twit.

This is an open forum.


Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.


It appears Mikey posted this communication from Mr. Olive without his
permission.


Wanna bet?

Prove it.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

Depends on how the Supreme Being feels about hypocrisy. It might be a
few hundred thousand years before Arnold makes it through the various
rings of purgatory.

He might not bother. Arny seems to like heat.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:27:10 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below.
In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used
this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners
could
not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which
is
the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi
design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for
posting
this.


No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.

Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?

A Mistress?
He says he has my goat. It's actually a sheep. I wonder what he's doing with
it.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
paul packer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of
amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
a lot more time

Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
magazines bother with bench tests?

That is a really stupid question.


And as usual, you don't have an answer.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. net...
Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below.
In
this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used
this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners
could
not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled
double-blind
tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one
of
the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which
is
the
reason I work here.


Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi
design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for
posting
this.


No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.

Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?

Your goat.

Mikey, it's a sheep, not a goat. Can't you tell the difference?
I hope you're enjoying her.

She does say she misses her Daaaaaaad, so I think I'll send her back.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.net...

"EddieM" wrote in message
m...

nyob123 wrote
[snip]

You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man
speak
for
himself.

He just did, you twit.

This is an open forum.


Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.


It appears Mikey posted this communication from Mr. Olive without his
permission.


Wanna bet?

Prove it.

Why don't you just e-mail him yourself and ask?

I would never post anything that anybody asked to keep private, with one
exception.

Sean is a very nice guy who is totally comitted to better audio and
information about the subject. He said in no uncertain terms that he
believes in listening tests and that it is because Harman uses them that he
chose to work for them.