[paul packer]

Do you think Harry is lying?

It is very clear that Harry doesn't know better. He's a high end audio true
believer.


I have a question, Arnold. If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others? I mean. you say that sighted listening is unreliable
because the listener could be influenced by the visual impressiveness
or sheer reputation of a piece of equipment, but it can easily be
demonstrated that "audiophools" will often turn their noses up at the
more expensive or better credentialed equipment in favour of something
more modest or obscure--happens all the time. Likewise with tweaks,
some will appear to offer improvement, others not; or they offer
improvement on one piece of equipment but not another of the same type
(a la damping on Harry's CD player but not DVD player). I've
encountered this myself. I once damped the lid of a Sony CD65 player
and the sound improved markedly. Great, I thought, and few months
later I tried the same trick on a NAD CD player expecting similar
improvements. Nope, nothing, it sounded exactly the same. So if
self-delusion is the cause, why was I not deluded into hearing an
improvement in the NAD player? Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?
I'm most confused by this psychological conundrum, Arnie, and
desperately hoping you can offer some plausible explanation.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

I have a question, Arnold. If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others?

Asked and answered.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...

If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others?

If a person's perceptions are not grounded in sonic differences, then they
are likely to be affected by other, non-sonic differences. That's
essentially what I've been telling Harry.

You say that sighted listening is unreliable
because the listener could be influenced by the visual impressiveness
or sheer reputation of a piece of equipment, but it can easily be
demonstrated that "audiophools" will often turn their noses up at the
more expensive or better credentialed equipment in favour of something
more modest or obscure--happens all the time.

It's a big universe out there. I can't predict what affects someone the
most. On the "newer, more expensive is always better" side we have natural
human optimism, the high end audiophile press, manufacturers and sales guys
who want to eat, and so on. On the minus side we have buyer resource
limitations, WAF, sentimentality, etc. It's not a one-sided battle for
everybody.

Likewise with tweaks,
some will appear to offer improvement, others not; or they offer
improvement on one piece of equipment but not another of the same type
(a la damping on Harry's CD player but not DVD player).

People make their own choices. They can follow science or they can follow
anything else. People who pick unreliable guides are less likely to end up
where they actually want to be.

I've
encountered this myself. I once damped the lid of a Sony CD65 player
and the sound improved markedly. Great, I thought, and few months
later I tried the same trick on a NAD CD player expecting similar
improvements. Nope, nothing, it sounded exactly the same. So if
self-delusion is the cause, why was I not deluded into hearing an
improvement in the NAD player?

God knows. I can't read your mind, and I don't know everything that happened
in your life at that time.

Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.

I'm most confused by this psychological conundrum, Arnie, and
desperately hoping you can offer some plausible explanation.

As I pointed to Harry, it is often possible to figure out how well a piece
of equipment is working. In the case of digital players, it is especially
easy. Harry seems to want people to think that he is technically
sophisticated, but he can't seem to do relatively simple tests that would
support his claims.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"paul packer" wrote in message
...

If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others?

If a person's perceptions are not grounded in sonic differences, then they
are likely to be affected by other, non-sonic differences. That's
essentially what I've been telling Harry.

Arny refuses to consider that "risk" is related to resources consumed, and
pleasure obtained. He is a Puritan when it comes to such things.


You say that sighted listening is unreliable
because the listener could be influenced by the visual impressiveness
or sheer reputation of a piece of equipment, but it can easily be
demonstrated that "audiophools" will often turn their noses up at the
more expensive or better credentialed equipment in favour of something
more modest or obscure--happens all the time.

It's a big universe out there. I can't predict what affects someone the
most. On the "newer, more expensive is always better" side we have natural
human optimism, the high end audiophile press, manufacturers and sales
guys who want to eat, and so on. On the minus side we have buyer resource
limitations, WAF, sentimentality, etc. It's not a one-sided battle for
everybody.

Years ago, on RAHE, I described a situation where I bought (used) some
top-of-the-line Monster speaker cable to replace my basic Monster speaker
cable, and how dissappointed I was that it actually sounded less good than
what I was using...so I took it back. I made the same argument...and the
answer from Arny and his like-minded cohorts on RAHE was that I *must* have
had buyer's remorse, and didn't want the speaker cable in the first place.
In other words, if the facts don't support their argument, they'll simply
invent explainations that they think support their theories. In reality, I
received a Masters from Northwestern studying under one of the most
distinquished Behavioral Psychologists in the country, and am well aware of
"buyer's remorse" and what, when, and how it is triggered. Buyer's remorse
was not an explanation, but that did not stop Arny and gang from insisting
that it "must have been". Otherwise their theory wouldn't hold up, and as
Arny has said here several times:

"theory = experience"

LOL!


Likewise with tweaks,
some will appear to offer improvement, others not; or they offer
improvement on one piece of equipment but not another of the same type
(a la damping on Harry's CD player but not DVD player).

People make their own choices. They can follow science or they can follow
anything else. People who pick unreliable guides are less likely to end up
where they actually want to be.

Notice the lack of cogent response to the dilemma posed.


I've
encountered this myself. I once damped the lid of a Sony CD65 player
and the sound improved markedly. Great, I thought, and few months
later I tried the same trick on a NAD CD player expecting similar
improvements. Nope, nothing, it sounded exactly the same. So if
self-delusion is the cause, why was I not deluded into hearing an
improvement in the NAD player?

God knows. I can't read your mind, and I don't know everything that
happened in your life at that time.

Notice the lack of cogent response to the dilemma posed.


Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.


Notice the lack of cogent response to the dilemma posed. "Or not" means
even Arny doesn't believe it.

I'm most confused by this psychological conundrum, Arnie, and
desperately hoping you can offer some plausible explanation.

As I pointed to Harry, it is often possible to figure out how well a piece
of equipment is working. In the case of digital players, it is especially
easy. Harry seems to want people to think that he is technically
sophisticated, but he can't seem to do relatively simple tests that would
support his claims.

Arny you've got to publish this and win your Nobel! Gosh, a bench test that
determines what we are hearing better than what we are hearing.

[Harry Lavo]

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


paul packer said:

I have a question, Arnold. If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others?

Asked and answered.


NOT. Lack of cogent response noted.



--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and
supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


paul packer said:

I have a question, Arnold. If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others?

Asked and answered.


NOT. Lack of cogent response noted.

Finally, someone takes Middius to task for being crappy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"paul packer" wrote in message
...

If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others?

If a person's perceptions are not grounded in sonic differences, then
they are likely to be affected by other, non-sonic differences. That's
essentially what I've been telling Harry.

Arny refuses to consider that "risk" is related to resources consumed, and
pleasure obtained. He is a Puritan when it comes to such things.

No such thing. In fact it is Harry who refuses to consider the that risk is
related to resources consumed and pleasure obtained. I'm not a puritan, I'm
just being practical.

You say that sighted listening is unreliable
because the listener could be influenced by the visual impressiveness
or sheer reputation of a piece of equipment, but it can easily be
demonstrated that "audiophools" will often turn their noses up at the
more expensive or better credentialed equipment in favour of something
more modest or obscure--happens all the time.

It's a big universe out there. I can't predict what affects someone the
most. On the "newer, more expensive is always better" side we have
natural human optimism, the high end audiophile press, manufacturers and
sales guys who want to eat, and so on. On the minus side we have buyer
resource limitations, WAF, sentimentality, etc. It's not a one-sided
battle for everybody.

Years ago, on RAHE, I described a situation where I bought (used) some
top-of-the-line Monster speaker cable to replace my basic Monster speaker
cable, and how dissappointed I was that it actually sounded less good than
what I was using...so I took it back.

In fact it probably sounded no different. But Harry always has to hear some
difference.

I made the same argument...and the answer from Arny and his like-minded
cohorts on RAHE was that I *must* have had buyer's remorse, and didn't
want the speaker cable in the first place.

Given Harry's track record for accurately portraying other people's posts, I
wouldn't try to take this to the bank.

In other words, if the facts don't support their argument, they'll simply
invent explainations that they think support their theories.

Harry piles false analysis on top of false claim.

In reality, I received a Masters from Northwestern studying under one of
the most distinquished Behavioral Psychologists in the country, and am
well aware of "buyer's remorse" and what, when, and how it is triggered.

So, are you indicting yourself or what, Harry? You should know better but
you obviously don't.

Buyer's remorse was not an explanation, but that did not stop Arny and
gang from insisting that it "must have been".

Playing Harry's silly game, I'd like to see a detailed analsysis of why this
absolutely positively never could have ever been buyer's remorse.

Otherwise their theory wouldn't hold up, and as Arny has said here
several times:

"theory = experience"

Note the use of out-of-context quoting. I used that phrase in an entirely
different context, and now Harry being his usual intellectually deceitful
self, tries to apply it to a situation that he probably made up.

LOL!

Hyenas are said to laugh.

Likewise with tweaks,
some will appear to offer improvement, others not; or they offer
improvement on one piece of equipment but not another of the same type
(a la damping on Harry's CD player but not DVD player).

People make their own choices. They can follow science or they can follow
anything else. People who pick unreliable guides are less likely to end
up where they actually want to be.

Notice the lack of cogent response to the dilemma posed.

Harry, its easy to say that this isn't a cogent response and thus dismiss
it. Again, lets see a cogent response from you, other than just dissmissing
my comment.

I've
encountered this myself. I once damped the lid of a Sony CD65 player
and the sound improved markedly. Great, I thought, and few months
later I tried the same trick on a NAD CD player expecting similar
improvements. Nope, nothing, it sounded exactly the same. So if
self-delusion is the cause, why was I not deluded into hearing an
improvement in the NAD player?

God knows. I can't read your mind, and I don't know everything that
happened in your life at that time.

Notice the lack of cogent response to the dilemma posed.

I'd like to see how a specific response is even reasonable or possible given
the lack of relaible information.


Why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.

Notice the lack of cogent response to the dilemma posed. "Or not" means
even Arny doesn't believe it.

I'd like to see how a specific response is even reasonable or possible given
the lack of relaible information.

I'm most confused by this psychological conundrum, Arnie, and
desperately hoping you can offer some plausible explanation.

As I pointed to Harry, it is often possible to figure out how well a
piece of equipment is working. In the case of digital players, it is
especially easy. Harry seems to want people to think that he is
technically sophisticated, but he can't seem to do relatively simple
tests that would support his claims.

Arny you've got to publish this and win your Nobel! Gosh, a bench test
that determines what we are hearing better than what we are hearing.

Harry, despite your claims that you are well-educated, you seem to want to
ignore all the well-known flaws in sighted listening evaluations, as applied
to situations where the possible differences are subtle or even inaudible.

How do you know for sure that there is any difference to hear?

How do you know for sure that there is any difference that any human can
hear?

Harry, do you completely disbelieve that there are such things as inaudible
differences or ineffective changes?

[George M. Middius]

The Big **** rolls around in his pile of feces.

Asked and answered.

NOT. Lack of cogent response noted.

Finally, someone takes Middius to task for being crappy.

snicker




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote

Years ago, on RAHE, I described a situation where I bought (used) some
top-of-the-line Monster speaker cable to replace my basic Monster speaker
cable, and how dissappointed I was that it actually sounded less good than
what I was using...so I took it back.

In fact it probably sounded no different. But Harry always has to hear some
difference.

That perhaps or the extra low resistance altered the frequency response subtly
in a way he disapproved of.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote

Years ago, on RAHE, I described a situation where I bought (used) some
top-of-the-line Monster speaker cable to replace my basic Monster
speaker
cable, and how dissappointed I was that it actually sounded less good
than
what I was using...so I took it back.

In fact it probably sounded no different. But Harry always has to hear
some
difference.

That perhaps or the extra low resistance altered the frequency response
subtly
in a way he disapproved of.

The "top-of-the-line" Monster cables I've checked out have about the same
resistance as the basic Monster cable. It's something like 12 gauge either
way.

The physical differences I've seen related to how the wire was insulated -
single bundle of bare strands versus multiple separately-insulated strands,
etc.

For years Monster sold speaker cables with separately-insulated strands as
addressing skin effect. Lab tests that should have shown the tiny decreased
impedance at high frequencies due to addressing skin effect, didn't.

It turns out that separately-insulated strands don't address skin effect.
You need something like a hollow conductor with a far larger outside
diameter to do that. Later on Monster did come out with a cable that
addressed skin effect, by properly changing the conductor geometry from a
bundle of wires to what amounted to being a hollow tube with far larger
outside diameter.

Of course the larger diameter hollow decreased mutual inductance between the
conductors, which in turn increased series inductance. So they just
exchanged the tiny losses due to skin effect for tiny losses due to series
inductance.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

LOL!

Hyenas are said to laugh.

Arny at his emptiest...

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

Arny at his emptiest...

Why, did he have a bout of diarrhea?




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote

Years ago, on RAHE, I described a situation where I bought (used) some
top-of-the-line Monster speaker cable to replace my basic Monster
speaker cable, and how dissappointed I was that it actually sounded less
good than what I was using...so I took it back.

In fact it probably sounded no different. But Harry always has to hear
some difference.

That perhaps or the extra low resistance altered the frequency response
subtly in a way he disapproved of.

The "top-of-the-line" Monster cables I've checked out have about the same
resistance as the basic Monster cable. It's something like 12 gauge either
way.

The physical differences I've seen related to how the wire was insulated -
single bundle of bare strands versus multiple separately-insulated strands,
etc.

For years Monster sold speaker cables with separately-insulated strands as
addressing skin effect. Lab tests that should have shown the tiny decreased
impedance at high frequencies due to addressing skin effect, didn't.

It turns out that separately-insulated strands don't address skin effect.
You need something like a hollow conductor with a far larger outside
diameter to do that. Later on Monster did come out with a cable that
addressed skin effect, by properly changing the conductor geometry from a
bundle of wires to what amounted to being a hollow tube with far larger
outside diameter.

Of course the larger diameter hollow decreased mutual inductance between the
conductors, which in turn increased series inductance. So they just
exchanged the tiny losses due to skin effect for tiny losses due to series
inductance.

Check out the various styles of Litz construction.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote

Years ago, on RAHE, I described a situation where I bought (used)
some
top-of-the-line Monster speaker cable to replace my basic Monster
speaker cable, and how dissappointed I was that it actually sounded
less
good than what I was using...so I took it back.

In fact it probably sounded no different. But Harry always has to hear
some difference.

That perhaps or the extra low resistance altered the frequency response
subtly in a way he disapproved of.

The "top-of-the-line" Monster cables I've checked out have about the same
resistance as the basic Monster cable. It's something like 12 gauge
either
way.

The physical differences I've seen related to how the wire was
insulated -
single bundle of bare strands versus multiple separately-insulated
strands,
etc.

For years Monster sold speaker cables with separately-insulated strands
as
addressing skin effect. Lab tests that should have shown the tiny
decreased
impedance at high frequencies due to addressing skin effect, didn't.

It turns out that separately-insulated strands don't address skin effect.
You need something like a hollow conductor with a far larger outside
diameter to do that. Later on Monster did come out with a cable that
addressed skin effect, by properly changing the conductor geometry from a
bundle of wires to what amounted to being a hollow tube with far larger
outside diameter.

Of course the larger diameter hollow decreased mutual inductance between
the
conductors, which in turn increased series inductance. So they just
exchanged the tiny losses due to skin effect for tiny losses due to
series
inductance.

Check out the various styles of Litz construction.

Theoretically, cables made up of fine wires or small individually insulated
wires does not address skin effect. Lab measurements bear that out.
Therefore Litz wire doesn't do a lot for skin effect.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others?

If a person's perceptions are not grounded in sonic differences, then they
are likely to be affected by other, non-sonic differences. That's
essentially what I've been telling Harry.

You say that sighted listening is unreliable
because the listener could be influenced by the visual impressiveness
or sheer reputation of a piece of equipment, but it can easily be
demonstrated that "audiophools" will often turn their noses up at the
more expensive or better credentialed equipment in favour of something
more modest or obscure--happens all the time.

It's a big universe out there. I can't predict what affects someone the
most. On the "newer, more expensive is always better" side we have natural
human optimism, the high end audiophile press, manufacturers and sales guys
who want to eat, and so on. On the minus side we have buyer resource
limitations, WAF, sentimentality, etc. It's not a one-sided battle for
everybody.

Likewise with tweaks,
some will appear to offer improvement, others not; or they offer
improvement on one piece of equipment but not another of the same type
(a la damping on Harry's CD player but not DVD player).

People make their own choices. They can follow science or they can follow
anything else. People who pick unreliable guides are less likely to end up
where they actually want to be.

I've
encountered this myself. I once damped the lid of a Sony CD65 player
and the sound improved markedly. Great, I thought, and few months
later I tried the same trick on a NAD CD player expecting similar
improvements. Nope, nothing, it sounded exactly the same. So if
self-delusion is the cause, why was I not deluded into hearing an
improvement in the NAD player?

God knows. I can't read your mind, and I don't know everything that happened
in your life at that time.

Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.

I'm most confused by this psychological conundrum, Arnie, and
desperately hoping you can offer some plausible explanation.

As I pointed to Harry, it is often possible to figure out how well a piece
of equipment is working. In the case of digital players, it is especially
easy. Harry seems to want people to think that he is technically
sophisticated, but he can't seem to do relatively simple tests that would
support his claims.
=========================
Krueger says to Harry Lavo:
People make their own choices. They can follow science or they can follow
anything else. People who pick unreliable guides are less likely to end up
where they actually want to be
and:.
,,,,Harry seems to want people to think that he is technically
sophisticated, but he can't seem to do relatively simple tests that would
support his claims.
Several old pretences repeated: 1) Krueger has a patent on "science"
and a signpost to "reliable guides" 2) Krueger knows of "relatively
simple tests" for "sonic differences" that Harry ignores but which
would 3) remedy "sighted bias.
The "simple test" must be the ABX (or one of its variants) buried
umpteen times but resurrected from its grave like Phoenix; all
fresh-smelling and polished up.
So just to refresh memories: Recently and for umpteenth time I renewed
my plea for some experimental evidence supporting the validity of this
"test" as a tool for recognition of "sonic differences.
I'll quote myself to show how accomodating I was and still am: On Sept.
7 in the "Is Arny a professional organisation ?" .thread I asked:
":So now we know. It is all about Arny's cherished friend's Ludo's
neglected Versailles manners known elsewhere as Kinderstube.
That is why he has been refusing to answer my simple request for
enlightenment and education like this one:
"Produce one single peer-reviewed paper accepted and
published by such as JAES, (the voice of his "professional
organisation"), that would validate the use of ABX as a tool for
discriminating between audio components".
Let no one say that I do not know how to amend my failings. So here
goes:
"Pretty please, Produce one single peer-reviewed paper accepted and
published by such as JAES, (the voice of his "professional
organisation"), that would validate the use of ABX as a tool for
discriminating between audio components.
Pretty please"
Will this do? Can't wait to hear.
Your bosom pal "Ludo""
There was no answer. For the umpteenth time. No repetition of Krueger's
previous dodge that I must ask the scientist Krueger "politely".Not
even something like "read and answered" or his latest favourite "non
sequitur.noted". (misspelled as "non sequitor") Silly tags that he is
in the habit of sticking in here and there to conceal that he has no
answer.
Should I start saying something like" Unfounded arrogance noted", "Red
herrings again..." and so on?
Ludovic Mirabel.
A further note about arrogance. When I quoted to him outstanding audio
designers of transistor gear such as Meitner, D;Agostino of Krell,
Stuart of Meridian saying explicitly that they aim at equalling the
analogue in their transistor design his answer was:
"Ludo no doubt defines "true audio designers" as those tiny noisy
minority
who still flog tubes and vinyl" (In the "Is Arny a professional
organisation?" thread on Sept 12th.).
They did not answer. I suppose they did not notice Arny Krueger's
existence.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:16:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...

If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others?

If a person's perceptions are not grounded in sonic differences, then they
are likely to be affected by other, non-sonic differences. That's
essentially what I've been telling Harry.

You say that sighted listening is unreliable
because the listener could be influenced by the visual impressiveness
or sheer reputation of a piece of equipment, but it can easily be
demonstrated that "audiophools" will often turn their noses up at the
more expensive or better credentialed equipment in favour of something
more modest or obscure--happens all the time.

It's a big universe out there. I can't predict what affects someone the
most. On the "newer, more expensive is always better" side we have natural
human optimism, the high end audiophile press, manufacturers and sales guys
who want to eat, and so on. On the minus side we have buyer resource
limitations, WAF, sentimentality, etc. It's not a one-sided battle for
everybody.

Likewise with tweaks,
some will appear to offer improvement, others not; or they offer
improvement on one piece of equipment but not another of the same type
(a la damping on Harry's CD player but not DVD player).

People make their own choices. They can follow science or they can follow
anything else. People who pick unreliable guides are less likely to end up
where they actually want to be.

I've
encountered this myself. I once damped the lid of a Sony CD65 player
and the sound improved markedly. Great, I thought, and few months
later I tried the same trick on a NAD CD player expecting similar
improvements. Nope, nothing, it sounded exactly the same. So if
self-delusion is the cause, why was I not deluded into hearing an
improvement in the NAD player?

God knows. I can't read your mind, and I don't know everything that happened
in your life at that time.

Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.

All very tepid and none too convincing, Arnie. In fact I'm reminded of
the typical rationalist explanation for certain apparently
supernatural phenomina---more preposterous than the supernatural one.

There's one possible explanation here that I bet you never thought
of--that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of
in your philosophy.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote

Years ago, on RAHE, I described a situation where I bought (used)
some
top-of-the-line Monster speaker cable to replace my basic Monster
speaker cable, and how dissappointed I was that it actually sounded
less good than what I was using...so I took it back.

In fact it probably sounded no different. But Harry always has to hear
some difference.

That perhaps or the extra low resistance altered the frequency response
subtly in a way he disapproved of.

The "top-of-the-line" Monster cables I've checked out have about the same
resistance as the basic Monster cable. It's something like 12 gauge
either way.

The physical differences I've seen related to how the wire was
insulated - single bundle of bare strands versus multiple
separately-insulated
strands, etc.

For years Monster sold speaker cables with separately-insulated strands
as
addressing skin effect. Lab tests that should have shown the tiny
decreased
impedance at high frequencies due to addressing skin effect, didn't.

It turns out that separately-insulated strands don't address skin effect.
You need something like a hollow conductor with a far larger outside
diameter to do that. Later on Monster did come out with a cable that
addressed skin effect, by properly changing the conductor geometry from a
bundle of wires to what amounted to being a hollow tube with far larger
outside diameter.

Of course the larger diameter hollow decreased mutual inductance between
the conductors, which in turn increased series inductance. So they just
exchanged the tiny losses due to skin effect for tiny losses due to
series inductance.

Check out the various styles of Litz construction.

Theoretically, cables made up of fine wires or small individually insulated
wires does not address skin effect. Lab measurements bear that out.
Therefore Litz wire doesn't do a lot for skin effect.

Well..... it has to or high frequency smps transformers would be hoplessly
inefficient.

Having said that there are many forms of construction. Aside from just skin
effect there some kind of magnetic coupling involved too for multiple conductors
but I'm no expert regarding that.

These guys have loads of info on it though. I was evaluating some of their Litz
wire.
http://www.newenglandwire.com/

Graham

[dave weil]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:16:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.

Hmmmm.../funny to hear that CD players can be "broke" in a way that
doing some dampening can help them out.

Now THAT'S science at its best!

[Robert Morein - Dangerous Psychotic and Anti-Social Psychopath]

George M. Middius wrote:
The Big **** rolls around in his pile of feces.

Asked and answered.

NOT. Lack of cogent response noted.

Sylvan Morein, DDS wrote:
Local police have suggested that their WARNING FLYER about my sick son
Robert Morein be circulated to the areas where he's been stalking people.
This is the same flyer they circulated around our Philadelphia
neighbourhood.


http://photosbysylvan.fotopic.net/c1070076.html


Please feel free to send to any other victims of Robert Morein.

Sylvan Morein, DDS

You have my sympathy Dr. Morein.

A quick check of Google shows the tens of thousands of harassing
messages sent by your son. I hope the police put him away in the
mental hospital he deserves.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:16:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.

Hmmmm.../funny to hear that CD players can be "broke" in a way that
doing some dampening can help them out.

Now THAT'S science at its best!

Or not.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote

Years ago, on RAHE, I described a situation where I bought (used)
some
top-of-the-line Monster speaker cable to replace my basic Monster
speaker cable, and how dissappointed I was that it actually
sounded
less good than what I was using...so I took it back.

In fact it probably sounded no different. But Harry always has to
hear
some difference.

That perhaps or the extra low resistance altered the frequency
response
subtly in a way he disapproved of.

The "top-of-the-line" Monster cables I've checked out have about the
same
resistance as the basic Monster cable. It's something like 12 gauge
either way.

The physical differences I've seen related to how the wire was
insulated - single bundle of bare strands versus multiple
separately-insulated
strands, etc.

For years Monster sold speaker cables with separately-insulated
strands
as
addressing skin effect. Lab tests that should have shown the tiny
decreased
impedance at high frequencies due to addressing skin effect, didn't.

It turns out that separately-insulated strands don't address skin
effect.
You need something like a hollow conductor with a far larger outside
diameter to do that. Later on Monster did come out with a cable that
addressed skin effect, by properly changing the conductor geometry
from a
bundle of wires to what amounted to being a hollow tube with far
larger
outside diameter.

Of course the larger diameter hollow decreased mutual inductance
between
the conductors, which in turn increased series inductance. So they
just
exchanged the tiny losses due to skin effect for tiny losses due to
series inductance.

Check out the various styles of Litz construction.

Theoretically, cables made up of fine wires or small individually
insulated
wires does not address skin effect. Lab measurements bear that out.
Therefore Litz wire doesn't do a lot for skin effect.

Well..... it has to or high frequency smps transformers would be hoplessly
inefficient.

The smps transformers I've taken apart were made with plain enameled wire.
Sometimes a couple of strands for one winding, but I think that was for a
bifilar winding. Heck many SMPS only run at 30-60 KHz - I used to see their
(small) effects when I recorded at 24/96.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com...


Krueger says to Harry Lavo:
People make their own choices. They can follow science or they can follow
anything else. People who pick unreliable guides are less likely to end
up
where they actually want to be

and:.
,,,,Harry seems to want people to think that he is technically
sophisticated, but he can't seem to do relatively simple tests that would
support his claims.

Several old pretences repeated: 1) Krueger has a patent on "science"
and a signpost to "reliable guides"

Nonsense. Maybe compared to you, Ludo but you're way out of your training
and life's experiences when you talk about audio.

2) Krueger knows of "relatively
simple tests" for "sonic differences" that Harry ignores but which
would 3) remedy "sighted bias.

This is an incredible misquote. Elmir as usual you missed the point.

The "simple test" must be the ABX (or one of its variants) buried
umpteen times but resurrected from its grave like Phoenix; all
fresh-smelling and polished up.

Not at all. I was talking about test equipment based tests.

Come back when you learn a little intellectual honesty, Ludo and can
actually provide a reliable quote of what I said.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:16:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did
sound
better. Or not.

Hmmmm.../funny to hear that CD players can be "broke" in a way that
doing some dampening can help them out.

Now THAT'S science at its best!

Or not.

What I was speaking of is a player that was broken and had marginal
tracking. In that case a band aid might help it out.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:10:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:16:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.

Hmmmm.../funny to hear that CD players can be "broke" in a way that
doing some dampening can help them out.

Now THAT'S science at its best!


What confuses me about Arnie's quote is that I said the new player
didn't sound better. He then says a possible reason the new player
sounded better was that the old one was "broke". I simply want to know
why real world experience appears to fly in the face of Arny's
contention that we're all being fooled by appearances, brand
reputations and our expectations. My experiences, and much anecdotal
evidence, shows there's no pattern of that at all.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

I simply want to know
why real world experience appears to fly in the face of Arny's
contention that we're all being fooled by appearances, brand
reputations and our expectations. My experiences, and much anecdotal
evidence, shows there's no pattern of that at all.

Arnii lives to argue with strangers on the Internet. Without this outlet,
he'd have imploded long ago, probably by shooting up a shopping mall.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:10:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:16:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.

Hmmmm.../funny to hear that CD players can be "broke" in a way that
doing some dampening can help them out.

Now THAT'S science at its best!


What confuses me about Arnie's quote is that I said the new player
didn't sound better. He then says a possible reason the new player
sounded better was that the old one was "broke".

No, I didn't say that. I said and I have to quote since you are so incapable
of reading and grasping simple meanings, Paul:

"It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not."


I simply want to know
why real world experience appears to fly in the face of Arny's
contention that we're all being fooled by appearances, brand
reputations and our expectations.

Another example of your inability to read and grasp simple meanings, Paul. I
never said that "...we're all being fooled by appearances, (and) brand
reputations...".

My experiences, and much anecdotal evidence, shows there's no pattern of
that at all.

The bottom line Paul is that unless one or the other of the optical disc
players that you are comparing is in really bad shape, you have no way of
knowing which sounds better, worse, or even different.

Please see my comments about Marc's ludicrous means for comparing
turntables. Many of them apply to your optical disc player comparisons.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

Theoretically, cables made up of fine wires or small individually
insulated wires does not address skin effect. Lab measurements bear that
out. Therefore Litz wire doesn't do a lot for skin effect.

Well..... it has to or high frequency smps transformers would be hoplessly
inefficient.

The smps transformers I've taken apart were made with plain enameled wire.
Sometimes a couple of strands for one winding, but I think that was for a
bifilar winding. Heck many SMPS only run at 30-60 KHz - I used to see their
(small) effects when I recorded at 24/96.

Very few smps designs run below 100kHz now. The first one I did was 130kHz. At
such frequencies you don't want any conductor 0.3mm dia.

I took apart a low-voltage 12V DC halogen lighting 'transformer' recently. The
smsps secondary was about 10 strands of ~ 0.3 dia.

200-300 kHz is quite common now, 500kHz not unusual. The parts are available
including the low-loss ferrites for up to 1MHz. Printed windings ( Cu foil 35-70
um ) are sometimes used with these.

Graham

[paul packer]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:09:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


What confuses me about Arnie's quote is that I said the new player
didn't sound better. He then says a possible reason the new player
sounded better was that the old one was "broke".

No, I didn't say that. I said and I have to quote since you are so incapable
of reading and grasping simple meanings, Paul:

"It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not."

Yes, and I had said that the new player didn't sound better. So why
give a possible reason why the new player sounded better when I said
the new player didn't sound better.

I simply want to know
why real world experience appears to fly in the face of Arny's
contention that we're all being fooled by appearances, brand
reputations and our expectations.

Another example of your inability to read and grasp simple meanings, Paul. I
never said that "...we're all being fooled by appearances, (and) brand
reputations...".

In those words? Possibly not, but you've said it in other words a
thousand times. C'mon, Arnie, stop dodging about. What else is the
"sighted listening" you're always decrying but being fooled by
appearances. As for brand reputations, how many times have you
implied that audiophools are prepared to love the sound of a Krell or
whatever simply because it is a Krell and not a JVC integrated? It's
the main stanchion of your politican platform.

My experiences, and much anecdotal evidence, shows there's no pattern of
that at all.

The bottom line Paul is that unless one or the other of the optical disc
players that you are comparing is in really bad shape, you have no way of
knowing which sounds better, worse, or even different.

Well, that is ludicrous. Here I confess that my powers of
comprehension really do fail me. Arnie, I have no idea what you're
talking about.

Next time I'm comparing two CD players, I'll smash one on the floor
first so that I know which sounds better and which worse, and which
just different. .

[Arny Krueger]

paul packer wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:09:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


What confuses me about Arnie's quote is that I said the new player
didn't sound better. He then says a possible reason the new player
sounded better was that the old one was "broke".

No, I didn't say that. I said and I have to quote since you are so
incapable of reading and grasping simple meanings, Paul:

"It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did
sound better. Or not."

Yes, and I had said that the new player didn't sound better. So why
give a possible reason why the new player sounded better when I said
the new player didn't sound better.

OK Paul, you're so dense that you can't apply something I say if it isn't
spelled out for you, up front and personal. Here was my response from my
previous post, put where you shouldn't be able to miss it:

The bottom line Paul is that unless one or the other of the optical
disc players that you are comparing is in really bad shape, you have
no way of knowing which sounds better, worse, or even different.

Please see my comments about Marc's ludicrous means for comparing
turntables. Many of them apply to your optical disc player comparisons.

I simply want to know
why real world experience appears to fly in the face of Arny's
contention that we're all being fooled by appearances, brand
reputations and our expectations.

Another example of your inability to read and grasp simple meanings,
Paul. I never said that "...we're all being fooled by appearances,
(and) brand reputations...".

In those words? Possibly not, but you've said it in other words a
thousand times.

Nice job of not taking responsibility for your false claims, Paul.

C'mon, Arnie, stop dodging about. What else is the
"sighted listening" you're always decrying but being fooled by
appearances.

Please see my comments about Marc's ludicrous means for comparing
turntables. Many of them apply to your optical disc player comparisons.

As for brand reputations, how many times have you
implied that audiophools are prepared to love the sound of a Krell or
whatever simply because it is a Krell and not a JVC integrated? It's
the main stanchion of your politican platform.

Please see my comments about Marc's ludicrous means for comparing
turntables. Many of them apply to your optical disc player comparisons.

My experiences, and much anecdotal evidence, shows there's no
pattern of that at all.

The bottom line Paul is that unless one or the other of the optical
disc players that you are comparing is in really bad shape, you have
no way of knowing which sounds better, worse, or even different.

Here's the explanatory text that Paul cut out as part of his ongoing
attempts to win arguments with intellectual dishonesty

Please see my comments about Marc's ludicrous means for comparing
turntables. Many of them apply to your optical disc player comparisons.

Well, that is ludicrous.

Dismissive attitude noted.

Here I confess that my powers of
comprehension really do fail me. Arnie, I have no idea what you're
talking about.

Yes you do Paul. That's why you butcher what I write - you understand
exactly what I said and how I destroyed your objections.

Next time I'm comparing two CD players, I'll smash one on the floor
first so that I know which sounds better and which worse, and which
just different. .

Be my guest Paul -that would be a very childish thing for you to do, but it
would be completely in character.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 04:43:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Here's the explanatory text that Paul cut out as part of his ongoing
attempts to win arguments with intellectual dishonesty


I don't often make straight-out derogatory remarks, but you're a
goose, Arny.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

Theoretically, cables made up of fine wires or small individually
insulated wires does not address skin effect. Lab measurements bear
that
out. Therefore Litz wire doesn't do a lot for skin effect.

Well..... it has to or high frequency smps transformers would be
hoplessly
inefficient.

The smps transformers I've taken apart were made with plain enameled
wire.
Sometimes a couple of strands for one winding, but I think that was for a
bifilar winding. Heck many SMPS only run at 30-60 KHz - I used to see
their
(small) effects when I recorded at 24/96.

Very few smps designs run below 100kHz now. The first one I did was
130kHz. At
such frequencies you don't want any conductor 0.3mm dia.

I took apart a low-voltage 12V DC halogen lighting 'transformer' recently.
The
smsps secondary was about 10 strands of ~ 0.3 dia.

How were the 10 strands wound?

Twisted together?

Next to each other?

My point is that twisting doesn't do much for skin effect because skin
effect is about magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are about geometry.
Sticking in very thin layers of insulation doesn't affect magnetic fields
that much. Thick layers of insulation could make a dramatic enough change.

Twisting insulated wires does not do much to change the geometry of the
composite conductor much unless the conductor is thin and the insulation is
relatively thick. Modern enameled 28 gauge wire (ca. 0.3 mm) seems to miss
the mark. Monster was using more like 24 gauge enameled wire, and it
definitely missed the mark.

Laying small wires out next to each other in a transformer winding will help
skin effect because it dramatically changes the geometry of the composite
conductor.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

Here's the explanatory text that Paul cut out as part of his ongoing
attempts to win arguments with intellectual dishonesty

I don't often make straight-out derogatory remarks, but you're a
goose, Arny.

Arnii believes that no matter how much of a ****head he is while in
"debating trade" frenzy, he can make up for all of it by going to church
every now and then. He has this fantasy that "god" is sitting up in heaven
with an abacus, racking up the "good works" to offset Turdborg's mean and
nasty behavior. (I'm not making this up -- Krooger has described all of it
previously.)





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[JimC]

George M. Middius wrote:

paul packer said:


I simply want to know
why real world experience appears to fly in the face of Arny's
contention that we're all being fooled by appearances, brand
reputations and our expectations. My experiences, and much anecdotal
evidence, shows there's no pattern of that at all.


Arnii lives to argue with strangers on the Internet. Without this outlet,
he'd have imploded long ago, probably by shooting up a shopping mall.

Does anyone remember the last time Middius posted anything about audio?
Any audio topics introduced by Middius this year, for example?

Jim

[George M. Middius]

Queenie Catie apologizes for the Krooborg.

I simply want to know
why real world experience appears to fly in the face of Arny's
contention that we're all being fooled by appearances, brand
reputations and our expectations. My experiences, and much anecdotal
evidence, shows there's no pattern of that at all.

Arnii lives to argue with strangers on the Internet. Without this outlet,
he'd have imploded long ago, probably by shooting up a shopping mall.

Does anyone remember the last time Middius posted anything about audio?
Any audio topics introduced by Middius this year, for example?

Queenie, I wasn't talking to you or about you. Why did you jump in to
deflect the focus from Arnii Kroofeces? Are you in love with Mr. ****?

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
JimC wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:

paul packer said:


I simply want to know
why real world experience appears to fly in the face of Arny's
contention that we're all being fooled by appearances, brand
reputations and our expectations. My experiences, and much anecdotal
evidence, shows there's no pattern of that at all.


Arnii lives to argue with strangers on the Internet. Without this outlet,
he'd have imploded long ago, probably by shooting up a shopping mall.

Does anyone remember the last time Middius posted anything about audio?
Any audio topics introduced by Middius this year, for example?

Good on you for bottom-posting.

Stephen

[JimC]

George M. Middius wrote:

Queenie Catie apologizes for the Krooborg. /

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????

Queenie, I wasn't talking to you or about you. Why did you jump in to
deflect the focus from Arnii Kroofeces? Are you in love with Mr. ****?


Actually, Georgie, I wasn't talking to you either. You must be getting
somewhat defensive to think people who talk about you (naturally) are
trying to "deflect the focus" away from your very important, scholarly
note.

Jim

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:31:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Of course the larger diameter hollow decreased mutual inductance
between
the
conductors, which in turn increased series inductance. So they just
exchanged the tiny losses due to skin effect for tiny losses due to
series
inductance.

Check out the various styles of Litz construction.

Theoretically, cables made up of fine wires or small individually
insulated
wires does not address skin effect. Lab measurements bear that out.
Therefore Litz wire doesn't do a lot for skin effect.

True, but I think the real lesson here is that, at audio frequencies
and with the cable lengths used in home stereo systems, skin effect is
just not an issue.

Agreed.

Arguing about it or about various cable construction methods for
reducing it is a bit silly. :-)

Agrred.

Well it may be silly, but it apparently has been a pretty good business for
Monster Cable.

[George M. Middius]

HumorBorg gets off a good one.

Agreed.
Agrred.

Note to paul packer: That was the punchline you were looking for.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:44:39 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:



Do you think Harry is lying?

It is very clear that Harry doesn't know better. He's a high end audio
true
believer.


I have a question, Arnold. If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others? I mean. you say that sighted listening is unreliable

When you're perceiving non-existent things, it's always a bit of a
crapshoot as to whether you'll like the result or not. :-)

Nicely said. Let's see if Paul can grasp the concept, this time.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:11:22 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote

Years ago, on RAHE, I described a situation where I bought (used) some
top-of-the-line Monster speaker cable to replace my basic Monster
speaker
cable, and how dissappointed I was that it actually sounded less good
than
what I was using...so I took it back.

In fact it probably sounded no different. But Harry always has to hear
some
difference.

That perhaps or the extra low resistance altered the frequency response
subtly
in a way he disapproved of.

I'd think it more likely that added capacitance caused instability in
his power amplifier.

Once you get to the basic ca. 12 gauge Monster, upgraded versions have
about the same copper per foot, and capacitance remains pretty low.
Exactly what the top-of-the-line Monster does has varied a lot. They did the
weirdness with different gauge wires "for bass and treble", and then they
did individually insulated smaller wires per conductor, and then they did
the thing with the hollow conductors. They have added networks to each end
for a long time, but the last time anybody took some apart, they were just
100 ohm resistors.