[Jenn]

Like all of us (I suspect) my journey to get the best sound possible in
my home (given normal budget limitations) has led me to the purchase of
several pieces of gear. I also suspect, however, that given the number
of years that I've engaged in this trek (about 30 years, with about 5
years off for good behavior), I've owned less gear than the average
person on this board. For example, over that 30 years I've owned but 3
power amps, 3 preamps, 1 integrated, 4 turntable/arm combos, 3 CD
players, and 5 pairs of speakers. I've bought gear that looks ugly and
"industrial", plain black boxes, turntables that look "normal" and those
that look like space ships, new and used, tall and short, planar and
cones, tube and SS, well reviewed and poorly reviewed, expensive and
inexpensive. I've spent months and years seeking out and improvement
and many times I've walked away from a store after long auditions and
high sales pressure in spite of wanting the auditioned device to sound
better.

So what is my "bias"? There is no evidence that I am biased towed a
certain look or brand, nor do I seem to be swayed by reviewer's
opinions. If sighted listening supposedly triggers bias concerning what
I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Like all of us (I suspect) my journey to get the best
sound possible in my home (given normal budget
limitations) has led me to the purchase of several pieces
of gear. I also suspect, however, that given the number
of years that I've engaged in this trek (about 30 years,
with about 5 years off for good behavior), I've owned
less gear than the average person on this board. For
example, over that 30 years I've owned but 3 power amps,
3 preamps, 1 integrated, 4 turntable/arm combos, 3 CD
players, and 5 pairs of speakers. I've bought gear that
looks ugly and "industrial", plain black boxes,
turntables that look "normal" and those that look like
space ships, new and used, tall and short, planar and
cones, tube and SS, well reviewed and poorly reviewed,
expensive and inexpensive. I've spent months and years
seeking out and improvement and many times I've walked
away from a store after long auditions and high sales
pressure in spite of wanting the auditioned device to
sound better.

So what is my "bias"?

Being human and an audiophile, there are a number of very predictable
biases:

(1) Bias towards hearing differences among audio components. Usally, audio
gear sounds randomly different because the comparisons usually involve
random influences.

(2) Bias towards perceiving differences in timing and level, particularly
small level variations; as differences in sound quality.

(3) Bias towards believing what you perceive without making a thorough
investigation of possible causes, including inability in some cases, to
properly do the same.

(4) Bias towards taking recommendations from other audiophiles, particularly
people you feel some kind of affinity for, at face value and perceiving what
they suggest when listening to items they recommend or disrecommend.

(5) Bias towards thinking that differences you hear when you listen to a
hifi are due to differences in the audio gear you are listening to.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

So what is my "bias"? There is no evidence that I am biased towed a
certain look or brand, nor do I seem to be swayed by reviewer's
opinions. If sighted listening supposedly triggers bias concerning what
I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

I see your problem. You're trying to pinpoint a bias toward some
category or subset of audio gear. This is a natural mistake, being that
you're Normal and human, etc. However, in the context of 'borg-approved
"tests", the bias they yammer about is not one that favors this or that
kind of kit. Rather, the "bias" is *against* the "known facts" of audio.
These "facts", which the Krooborg and the Bug Eater and the lesser
'borgs are prone to repeating ad nauseum, begin and end with a few
"tests" that happened long ago. You may recall Krooger saying something
along the lines of "nobody has ever been able to reliably-differentiate
power-amps without-seeing them". This is what They believe: That some
half-assed, mickey mouse, entirely amateurish, ersatz "tests" in the
'70s and '80s "proved" that all amps sound the same. Not just for the
individuals who did the "tests", but for everybody. Not just for the
actual equipment used, but for all equipment. Not just in the location
where the imitation "tests" took place, but for all rooms and all
locations. When it's pointed out to Krooger and the other 'borgs that
all of the missing details detract from the supposed value of the
"tests", they go back to the beginning and repeat "nobody has ever been
able to reliably-differentiate..." etc.

In short, the only way to bring your experiences into line with the
Hive's 'borgma is to preface every opinion with "I know all amps sound
the same for all listeners and all speakers and all rooms, but I like
Amplifier X because of its [insert criterion of your choice not based on
audible performance]". Then, and only then, will you have overcome your
"bias" to the satisfaction of the Krooborg.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
Like all of us (I suspect) my journey to get the best sound possible in
my home (given normal budget limitations) has led me to the purchase of
several pieces of gear. I also suspect, however, that given the number
of years that I've engaged in this trek (about 30 years, with about 5
years off for good behavior), I've owned less gear than the average
person on this board. For example, over that 30 years I've owned but 3
power amps, 3 preamps, 1 integrated, 4 turntable/arm combos, 3 CD
players, and 5 pairs of speakers. I've bought gear that looks ugly and
"industrial", plain black boxes, turntables that look "normal" and those
that look like space ships, new and used, tall and short, planar and
cones, tube and SS, well reviewed and poorly reviewed, expensive and
inexpensive. I've spent months and years seeking out and improvement
and many times I've walked away from a store after long auditions and
high sales pressure in spite of wanting the auditioned device to sound
better.

So what is my "bias"? There is no evidence that I am biased towed a
certain look or brand, nor do I seem to be swayed by reviewer's
opinions. If sighted listening supposedly triggers bias concerning what
I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

I'd say the answer lies in why you bought stuff that you ultimately
let go
or no longer use. I've bought a lot of stuff in the used or on line
markets
unheard. Most recently my new cart. About the only thing I got to
seriously
audition (and then not in my home) before buying were my quads.
I could have returned them within 30 days...but I have a serious bias
against that. It feels like I've bailed on a commitment.
Anyway...my purchase decisions have most often been biased by
recommendations. My keeper decisions are biased by my preference.

ScottW

[Lionel]

Jenn a écrit :

I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

Bias ? ...doesn't means anything.
Perhaps you should spend more time to learn to *listen* than trying to
find "more" interest in listening.

[George M. Middius]

Robert said to La Salope:

I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

Bias ? ...doesn't means anything.
Perhaps you should spend more time to learn to *listen* than trying to
find "more" interest in listening.

Lionel, Jenn is a professional musician AND symphony CONDUCTOR. She knows
how to listen better than any of us.

Sluttie is only interested in taking the heat off the Krooborg. No point
in trying to reason with him.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Sander deWaal]

Jenn said:


So what is my "bias"? There is no evidence that I am biased towed a
certain look or brand, nor do I seem to be swayed by reviewer's
opinions. If sighted listening supposedly triggers bias concerning what
I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.



I like hot bias, myself.
Class A rules!


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Jenn]

In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Jenn a écrit :

I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

Bias ? ...doesn't means anything.
Perhaps you should spend more time to learn to *listen* than trying to
find "more" interest in listening.

I listen pretty well, but thanks for the suggestion.

[Jenn]

In article .com,
"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

Soundhaspriority wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

om...
Like all of us (I suspect) my journey to get the best sound possible in
my home (given normal budget limitations) has led me to the purchase of
several pieces of gear. I also suspect, however, that given the number
of years that I've engaged in this trek (about 30 years, with about 5
years off for good behavior), I've owned less gear than the average
person on this board. For example, over that 30 years I've owned but 3
power amps, 3 preamps, 1 integrated, 4 turntable/arm combos, 3 CD
players, and 5 pairs of speakers. I've bought gear that looks ugly and
"industrial", plain black boxes, turntables that look "normal" and those
that look like space ships, new and used, tall and short, planar and
cones, tube and SS, well reviewed and poorly reviewed, expensive and
inexpensive. I've spent months and years seeking out and improvement
and many times I've walked away from a store after long auditions and
high sales pressure in spite of wanting the auditioned device to sound
better.

Most generally, females with a serious interest in recorded sound buy
one good one, once, and are thereafter happy with it, at least until it
breaks or until enough time has passed for something really better to
be common. I just bought a solid state McIntosh amp from an estate of a
woman who bought it new from our local "Mac Nazi" in the mid-80s. She
had after divorcing her husband bought an all-McIntosh system with a
Linn Sondek and a Nakamichi Dragon cassette player. It have her over 20
years of good service. Her kids remarked that when it came to cameras
and archery gear she was that way, too. Their father was the opposite:
he was always buying, selling, and dicking with everything he had,
still did. They were both Ph.D psychologists: she retired at 65, he's
still going, well past 80, but isn't in good shape. The kids, my age
more or less, seemed like squared away people without too many issues.
The amp has all its original paperwork and box. I'm going to use it as
a test bench amp.

Interesting, thanks. My interest in recorded sound has always stemmed
from repertoire and performance. I collect recordings for those
purposes, and I therefore need gear to play them with.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Like all of us (I suspect) my journey to get the best
sound possible in my home (given normal budget
limitations) has led me to the purchase of several pieces
of gear. I also suspect, however, that given the number
of years that I've engaged in this trek (about 30 years,
with about 5 years off for good behavior), I've owned
less gear than the average person on this board. For
example, over that 30 years I've owned but 3 power amps,
3 preamps, 1 integrated, 4 turntable/arm combos, 3 CD
players, and 5 pairs of speakers. I've bought gear that
looks ugly and "industrial", plain black boxes,
turntables that look "normal" and those that look like
space ships, new and used, tall and short, planar and
cones, tube and SS, well reviewed and poorly reviewed,
expensive and inexpensive. I've spent months and years
seeking out improvement and many times I've walked
away from a store after long auditions and high sales
pressure in spite of wanting the auditioned device to
sound better.

So what is my "bias"?

Being human and an audiophile, there are a number of very predictable
biases:

(1) Bias towards hearing differences among audio components. Usally, audio
gear sounds randomly different because the comparisons usually involve
random influences.

Which random influences are affecting me?

(2) Bias towards perceiving differences in timing and level, particularly
small level variations; as differences in sound quality.

Agreed. When comparing, one should level match as closely as is
practical in a given circumstance.


(3) Bias towards believing what you perceive without making a thorough
investigation of possible causes, including inability in some cases, to
properly do the same.

Practicality dictates that one believes what one perceives. The goal of
audio is to enjoy the music as one perceives it.


(4) Bias towards taking recommendations from other audiophiles, particularly
people you feel some kind of affinity for, at face value and perceiving what
they suggest when listening to items they recommend or disrecommend.

I generally don't do that.


(5) Bias towards thinking that differences you hear when you listen to a
hifi are due to differences in the audio gear you are listening to.

Actually if anything I have a bias toward no difference. I'd rather not
spend the money ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

So what is my "bias"?

Being human and an audiophile, there are a number of
very predictable biases:

(1) Bias towards hearing differences among audio
components. Usally, audio gear sounds randomly different
because the comparisons usually involve random
influences.

Which random influences are affecting me?

All of those things that people don't intentionally hold constant when they
purportedly compare two piece of gear, or compare sound from audio gear to
live sound.

(2) Bias towards perceiving differences in timing and
level, particularly small level variations; as
differences in sound quality.

Agreed. When comparing, one should level match as
closely as is practical in a given circumstance.

But, it doesn't happen very often in the real world.

(3) Bias towards believing what you perceive without
making a thorough investigation of possible causes,
including inability in some cases, to properly do the
same.

Practicality dictates that one believes what one
perceives. The goal of audio is to enjoy the music as
one perceives it.

What people think is practical in cases like these has a lot to do with
their ability to do more detailed investigations.

(4) Bias towards taking recommendations from other
audiophiles, particularly people you feel some kind of
affinity for, at face value and perceiving what they
suggest when listening to items they recommend or
disrecommend.

I generally don't do that.

Actually, you just said you did, and justified it on the grounds of
practicality.

(5) Bias towards thinking that differences you hear when
you listen to a hifi are due to differences in the audio
gear you are listening to.

Actually if anything I have a bias toward no difference.

I'd rather not spend the money ;-)

Most people say that. It's just their naivate and lack of introspection
speaking.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

(1) Bias towards hearing differences among audio components. Usally, audio
gear sounds randomly different because the comparisons usually involve
random influences.

Which random influences are affecting me?

The voices in your head, silly. Doesn't everybody get distracted by
their extra voices?

(3) Bias towards believing what you perceive without making a thorough
investigation of possible causes, including inability in some cases, to
properly do the same.

Practicality dictates that one believes what one perceives. The goal of
audio is to enjoy the music as one perceives it.

If "believing what one perceives" were feasible, Arnii would have no
more need of his Cloak Of Insanity.

(4) Bias towards taking recommendations from other audiophiles, particularly
people you feel some kind of affinity for, at face value and perceiving what
they suggest when listening to items they recommend or disrecommend.

I generally don't do that.

Time for Dr. Not to give you some "social justice". Not a pretty
picture.™

(5) Bias towards thinking that differences you hear when you listen to a
hifi are due to differences in the audio gear you are listening to.

Actually if anything I have a bias toward no difference. I'd rather not
spend the money ;-)

Not possible. All women prefer jewelry to mere tools. It says so in the
Krooble.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

Like all of us (I suspect) my journey to get the best sound possible in
my home (given normal budget limitations) has led me to the purchase of
several pieces of gear. I also suspect, however, that given the number
of years that I've engaged in this trek (about 30 years, with about 5
years off for good behavior), I've owned less gear than the average
person on this board. For example, over that 30 years I've owned but 3
power amps, 3 preamps, 1 integrated, 4 turntable/arm combos, 3 CD
players, and 5 pairs of speakers. I've bought gear that looks ugly and
"industrial", plain black boxes, turntables that look "normal" and those
that look like space ships, new and used, tall and short, planar and
cones, tube and SS, well reviewed and poorly reviewed, expensive and
inexpensive. I've spent months and years seeking out and improvement
and many times I've walked away from a store after long auditions and
high sales pressure in spite of wanting the auditioned device to sound
better.

You might be surprised. I've owned a similar amount of gear. I
really waited too long, about 10 years, for my last comprehensive
stereo upgrade, which I did a couple years ago. Other things in life
took precedence, I guess...

So what is my "bias"? There is no evidence that I am biased towed a
certain look or brand, nor do I seem to be swayed by reviewer's
opinions. If sighted listening supposedly triggers bias concerning what
I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

That's all good, although few among us are truly resistant to
reviewer's opinions...

As for brands, I take some pride in the fact that my main A/V system
is made up of about 10 different brands.

[Lionel]

Soundhaspriority a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Jenn a écrit :

I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.
Bias ? ...doesn't means anything.
Perhaps you should spend more time to learn to *listen* than trying to
find "more" interest in listening.

Lionel, Jenn is a professional musician AND symphony CONDUCTOR. She knows
how to listen better than any of us.

So this ingenuous question has to be considered as the expression of
coquettry. :-)

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius a écrit :


George why are you wasting your time on Usenet ?
You'd better prepare *seriously* the next Monsters Pride Parade with
your gang. :-D

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Have you already read Middius' ravings about wine ? That perfectly fits
the above definition. ;-)

[Lionel]

Jenn a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Jenn a écrit :

I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.
Bias ? ...doesn't means anything.
Perhaps you should spend more time to learn to *listen* than trying to
find "more" interest in listening.

I listen pretty well,


Ooops sorry Madam.
IMHO you should have put your question on an other Usenet group, why not
"alt.cooking.chefs" or "alt.art.post-modern" ? I'm sure you would have
found more interest in the pertinency of the answers

but thanks for the suggestion.

I'm your servant.

[George M. Middius]

La Salope unsheathes her claws.

George why are you wasting your time on Usenet ?
You'd better prepare *seriously* the next Monsters Pride Parade with
your gang. :-D

I think you screwed up another translation, slut. Next time you're on the
inside, try asking the warden for supplemental English lessons.

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Have you already read Middius' ravings about wine ? That perfectly fits
the above definition. ;-)

What's the $8 plonk of the month chez Salope, then? I thought you already
settled on your pinnacle of blue-collar swill. BTW, if you ever come to
visit the States, ask dave about American wines. I'm sure he'll be glad to
instruct you.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
Jenn a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Jenn a écrit :

I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.
Bias ? ...doesn't means anything.
Perhaps you should spend more time to learn to *listen* than trying to
find "more" interest in listening.

I listen pretty well,


Ooops sorry Madam.
IMHO you should have put your question on an other Usenet group, why not
"alt.cooking.chefs" or "alt.art.post-modern" ? I'm sure you would have
found more interest in the pertinency of the answers

but thanks for the suggestion.

I'm your servant.
==========================

Your fatuous discussion smarts:; suggesting "coquetry", teaching Jenn
condescengly how to listen (you of all people teaching her- a jole in
poor taste!), apologising to "Madam" shows that you're completely
unable to see the world beyond your little banlieu.

In America women long ago ceased to be little girls waiting for
guidance from the superior intellectual giants like you.

Va a la maison et montre a ta femme qui est maitre..
Ludovic Mirabel.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Which random influences are affecting me?

All of those things that people don't intentionally hold constant when they
purportedly compare two piece of gear, or compare sound from audio gear to
live sound.

(2) Bias towards perceiving differences in timing and
level, particularly small level variations; as
differences in sound quality.

Agreed. When comparing, one should level match as
closely as is practical in a given circumstance.

But, it doesn't happen very often in the real world.

Of course not. The vast majority of people aren't going to take the
needed gear to their local store, or even have it in their homes. Once
can match as closely as possible by ear. Certainly not exact, but
practical.


(3) Bias towards believing what you perceive without
making a thorough investigation of possible causes,
including inability in some cases, to properly do the
same.

Practicality dictates that one believes what one
perceives. The goal of audio is to enjoy the music as
one perceives it.

What people think is practical in cases like these has a lot to do with
their ability to do more detailed investigations.

Somewhat, sure. But it's more than that.


(4) Bias towards taking recommendations from other
audiophiles, particularly people you feel some kind of
affinity for, at face value and perceiving what they
suggest when listening to items they recommend or
disrecommend.

I generally don't do that.

Actually, you just said you did, and justified it on the grounds of
practicality.

No I didn't. I said that I've purchased gear that is both well and
poorly reviewed. This has nothing to do with practicality, nor did I
indicate that I knew how the gear was reviewed prior to purchase.]


(5) Bias towards thinking that differences you hear when
you listen to a hifi are due to differences in the audio
gear you are listening to.

Actually if anything I have a bias toward no difference.

I'd rather not spend the money ;-)

Most people say that.

"Most" do?

It's just their naivate and lack of introspection
speaking.

Or it's the truth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Which random influences are affecting me?

All of those things that people don't intentionally hold
constant when they purportedly compare two piece of
gear, or compare sound from audio gear to live sound.

(2) Bias towards perceiving differences in timing and
level, particularly small level variations; as
differences in sound quality.

Agreed. When comparing, one should level match as
closely as is practical in a given circumstance.

But, it doesn't happen very often in the real world.

Of course not. The vast majority of people aren't going
to take the needed gear to their local store, or even
have it in their homes. Once can match as closely as
possible by ear. Certainly not exact, but practical.

Also practically useless.

(3) Bias towards believing what you perceive without
making a thorough investigation of possible causes,
including inability in some cases, to properly do the
same.

Practicality dictates that one believes what one
perceives. The goal of audio is to enjoy the music as
one perceives it.

What people think is practical in cases like these has a
lot to do with their ability to do more detailed
investigations.

Somewhat, sure. But it's more than that.

It's not a free choice until you can do more detailed investigations
whenever you want to.

(4) Bias towards taking recommendations from other
audiophiles, particularly people you feel some kind of
affinity for, at face value and perceiving what they
suggest when listening to items they recommend or
disrecommend.

I generally don't do that.

Actually, you just said you did, and justified it on the
grounds of practicality.

No I didn't. I said that I've purchased gear that is
both well and poorly reviewed.

But reviews aren't the only source of information about gear.


(5) Bias towards thinking that differences you hear
when you listen to a hifi are due to differences in
the audio gear you are listening to.

Actually if anything I have a bias toward no difference.

I'd rather not spend the money ;-)

Most people say that.

"Most" do?

It's just their naivate and lack of introspection
speaking.

Or it's the truth.

If you really grow your mind Jenn, you'll realize that it is often both.

[Lionel]

a écrit :
Lionel wrote:
Jenn a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Jenn a écrit :

I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.
Bias ? ...doesn't means anything.
Perhaps you should spend more time to learn to *listen* than trying to
find "more" interest in listening.
I listen pretty well,

Ooops sorry Madam.
IMHO you should have put your question on an other Usenet group, why not
"alt.cooking.chefs" or "alt.art.post-modern" ? I'm sure you would have
found more interest in the pertinency of the answers

but thanks for the suggestion.
I'm your servant.
==========================

Your fatuous discussion smarts:; suggesting "coquetry", teaching Jenn
condescengly

What means "condescengly" ?
Is it the contraction of "ugly condescendency"

how to listen

Did I propose to teach her to listen ?
No. But I can propose you to learn to read Ludo.

(you of all people teaching her- a jole in
poor taste!), apologising to "Madam"

Quick definitions (madam)
# noun: a woman of refinement

I also can teach you how to use the dictionary

shows that you're completely
unable to see the world beyond your little banlieu.

In my little banlieu we think that if you *really* want to get a correct
definition of bias it would be better to ask to people from
specialities, activities, professions, hobbies... different from yours.
At least to avoid as much as possible bias effects (lol) in your
interpretation of their answers.

In America women long ago ceased to be little girls

Your incredibly stupid or badly informed Ludo. At least 50% of the US
population belongs to a Christian sect and you try to make me believe
that all US women are emancipated ?
Seems to me that you are unable to see your country beyond your little
banlieu. :-)

waiting for
guidance from the superior intellectual giants like you.

LOL !!! Intellectual giants like me usually finish in very little
coffins ! :-D

Va a la maison et montre a ta femme qui est maitre..

Il n'y a pas de maitre dans notre maison. Et dans la tienne Ludo ?

Ludovic Mirabel.

Sacré Ludo !

[Jenn]

In article ,
Lionel wrote:


Your incredibly stupid

See, there it is again, Dizzy! ;-)

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius a écrit :

La Salope unsheathes her claws.

George why are you wasting your time on Usenet ?
You'd better prepare *seriously* the next Monsters Pride Parade with
your gang. :-D

I think you screwed up another translation, slut. Next time you're on the
inside, try asking the warden for supplemental English lessons.


My English is still really better than your French, George.


Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Have you already read Middius' ravings about wine ? That perfectly fits
the above definition. ;-)

What's the $8 plonk of the month chez Salope, then? I thought you already
settled on your pinnacle of blue-collar swill. BTW, if you ever come to
visit the States, ask dave about American wines.

A "dave" without cap ? Where is your english george ?

I'm sure he'll be glad to
instruct you.

George's interpretation of "With a little help from my friend"...
Pathetic! :-D


Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

With the efforts that you and your gang have done to help the reelection
of G.W. Bush you'd better be more "cautious" when using words like
"excellence"... ;-)

[Lionel]

Jenn a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:


Your incredibly stupid

See, there it is again, Dizzy! ;-)

Private joke ?

[Jenn]

In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Jenn a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:


Your incredibly stupid

See, there it is again, Dizzy! ;-)

Private joke ?

Yeah, I guess so.

[Lionel]

Jenn a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Jenn a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:


Your incredibly stupid
See, there it is again, Dizzy! ;-)
Private joke ?

Yeah, I guess so.

rec.audio.private_joke :-)

[George M. Middius]

La Salope said:

Il n'y a pas de maitre dans notre maison.

Mme. Slut threw you out? So sorry to hear that.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

La Salope gibbered:

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

With the efforts that you and your gang have done[sic] to help[sic] the reelection
of G.W. Bush[sic] you'd better be more "cautious" when using words like
"excellence"... ;-)

Arnii doesn't even know you're alive, slut. All your efforts are wasted.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[dizzy]

Lionel wrote:

Jenn a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:


Your incredibly stupid

See, there it is again, Dizzy! ;-)

Private joke ?

She wants me.

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
a écrit :
Lionel wrote:
Jenn a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Jenn a écrit :

I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.
Bias ? ...doesn't means anything.
Perhaps you should spend more time to learn to *listen* than trying to
find "more" interest in listening.
I listen pretty well,

Ooops sorry Madam.
IMHO you should have put your question on an other Usenet group, why not
"alt.cooking.chefs" or "alt.art.post-modern" ? I'm sure you would have
found more interest in the pertinency of the answers

but thanks for the suggestion.
I'm your servant.
==========================

Your fatuous discussion smarts:; suggesting "coquetry", teaching Jenn
condescengly

What means "condescengly" ?
Is it the contraction of "ugly condescendency"

how to listen

Did I propose to teach her to listen ?
No. But I can propose you to learn to read Ludo.

(you of all people teaching her- a jole in
poor taste!), apologising to "Madam"

Quick definitions (madam)
# noun: a woman of refinement

I also can teach you how to use the dictionary

shows that you're completely
unable to see the world beyond your little banlieu.

In my little banlieu we think that if you *really* want to get a correct
definition of bias it would be better to ask to people from
specialities, activities, professions, hobbies... different from yours.
At least to avoid as much as possible bias effects (lol) in your
interpretation of their answers.

In America women long ago ceased to be little girls

Your incredibly stupid or badly informed Ludo. At least 50% of the US
population belongs to a Christian sect and you try to make me believe
that all US women are emancipated ?
Seems to me that you are unable to see your country beyond your little
banlieu. :-)

waiting for
guidance from the superior intellectual giants like you.

LOL !!! Intellectual giants like me usually finish in very little
coffins ! :-D

Va a la maison et montre a ta femme qui est maitre..

Il n'y a pas de maitre dans notre maison. Et dans la tienne Ludo ?

Ludovic Mirabel.

Sacré Ludo !
++++++++++++++++++++

Camarade Lionel says:
Sacré Ludo !

As far as my knowledge of colloquial French goes "Sacre" in this
context can be either an insult oor a sign of unwilling admiration.

I'll take it to be the last and stop this multililingual
misapprehension exchange..
Regards Ludovic M
P.S. In case you still didn't notice Jenn is a professional musician
and an orchestra conductor.
As she is one of the very few professionals to take interest in audio
reproduction I treat her with care.and consideration.

[George M. Middius]

said to La Salope:

As she is one of the very few professionals to take interest in audio
reproduction I treat her with care.and consideration.

Anybody who is Krooger's enemy is automatically Lionella's enemy as well.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
Like all of us (I suspect) my journey to get the best sound possible in
my home (given normal budget limitations) has led me to the purchase of
several pieces of gear. I also suspect, however, that given the number
of years that I've engaged in this trek (about 30 years, with about 5
years off for good behavior), I've owned less gear than the average
person on this board. For example, over that 30 years I've owned but 3
power amps, 3 preamps, 1 integrated, 4 turntable/arm combos, 3 CD
players, and 5 pairs of speakers. I've bought gear that looks ugly and
"industrial", plain black boxes, turntables that look "normal" and those
that look like space ships, new and used, tall and short, planar and
cones, tube and SS, well reviewed and poorly reviewed, expensive and
inexpensive. I've spent months and years seeking out and improvement
and many times I've walked away from a store after long auditions and
high sales pressure in spite of wanting the auditioned device to sound
better.

So what is my "bias"? There is no evidence that I am biased towed a
certain look or brand, nor do I seem to be swayed by reviewer's
opinions. If sighted listening supposedly triggers bias concerning what
I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

================================

Krueger listed ably all the technical paramaters that can create bias
when performing a formal listening session of comparing components..

Let's assume that one can follow his advice in home conditions. Let's
assumeme that Tom , Dick and Harry got it all in place. You do a blind
test. (Not a homogenising, brain scrambling ABX. Please, have mercy)

At the end of the day Tom will perceive some components to be
different, but Dick and Harry will say: "They all sound the same".

And they will all be right: for their respective, genetic endowment,
musical experience and preferences. But majority does not erase Tom.

You are your own majority and your own bias Jenn. Certainly no worse
than those of Dick and Harry. Stick with it , you can hardly do
otherwise.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com

Krueger listed ably all the technical paramaters that
can create bias when performing a formal listening
session of comparing components..

Let's assume that one can follow his advice in home
conditions. Let's assumeme that Tom , Dick and Harry got
it all in place. You do a blind test. (Not a
homogenising, brain scrambling ABX. Please, have mercy)

Bias against ABX noted.

At the end of the day Tom will perceive some components
to be different, but Dick and Harry will say: "They all
sound the same".

Pure speculation.

And they will all be right: for their respective, genetic
endowment, musical experience and preferences. But
majority does not erase Tom.

More speculation.

[Jenn]

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Lionel wrote:

Jenn a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:


Your incredibly stupid

See, there it is again, Dizzy! ;-)

Private joke ?

She wants me.

Like I want the flu.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

Krueger listed ably all the technical paramaters that
can create bias when performing a formal listening
session of comparing components..

Let's assume that one can follow his advice in home
conditions. Let's assumeme that Tom , Dick and Harry got
it all in place. You do a blind test. (Not a
homogenising, brain scrambling ABX. Please, have mercy)

Bias against ABX noted.

At the end of the day Tom will perceive some components
to be different, but Dick and Harry will say: "They all
sound the same".

Pure speculation.

And they will all be right: for their respective, genetic
endowment, musical experience and preferences. But
majority does not erase Tom.

More speculation.
=====================================
Krueger:
More speculation

I foresaw that trying to have a sensible (and polite) discussion with a
fair-market barker would be love's labours lost.

So I give up on today's Krueger and try to record some basics about
what is research and what iis "speculation".

For the hundreth time: You propose a method (you call it "a test") for
listening sessions to differentiate audio componewnts AS MUSIC
REPRODUCERS.from each other. (COMPARABLE audio components not 400 watt
transistor amp against a 7 watt DIY Heathkit.).

Next step: You present research to show that it WORKS. Research good
enough to meet the standards of a professional audio journal.(*See PS.)

You don't? Well, you notified the world of a pure SPECULATION on a par
with the mysteries of Sargasso Sea, the fate of Atlantis, the Loch Ness
Monster and the Unicorn. If on the basis of that huckster-fantasist
claim you market a gadget for sale, well....!!!

In the absence of valid research the door is wide open for
speculation.Mine is backed up by the results of all the ABX tests of
audio that appeared in the pop audio mags in the 80s. There were always
a few whose results were in keeping with their having heard differences
outweighed by the majority of null 50/50 guessers. Who was "right" ,
who was "wrong"? Door wide open to speculation because no decent,
statistically valid research was ever performed.

If my English isn't good enough to meet your elevated RAO debater's
standards I hope it will be good enough for a few others.
Ludovic Mirabel

P.S. Just in case you're thinking of asking me again for $ 50:00 to do
your research for you I'll remind you. Univ. of Toronto librarian
found one aticle by AB Krueger NOT in JAES but in "Sound Eng. Mag." Not
about auditioning components but about:
:
"Amplifier-loudspeaker interfacing
Krueger, A. B.
Published in "DB, The Sound Engineering Magazine", Vol. 18, No. 7, Aug.

Sept. 1984.
Abstract: Examines ways of matching a loudspeaker and an amplifier.
Loudspeakers present a reactive load and amplifiers vary in their
ability to drive such loads. `Load lines' of resistive, purely reactive

and complex loads are shown. This chart shows the current that must be
delivered to the loads to achieve a given voltage drop. Power
dissipation control and reactive loading are also considered."
A great contribution to the subject. May I have $50:00 please.

The librarian added::

"Please let me know whether this is the author you are looking for. I
cannot
find any articles by author krueger, A. or krueger, Arnold on the
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. If you tell me more
information about this author (subject field of his research, his
middle
name, etc.) I may find more articles".

You still have some time huckster-master
Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article .com,
" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Like all of us (I suspect) my journey to get the best sound possible in
my home (given normal budget limitations) has led me to the purchase of
several pieces of gear. I also suspect, however, that given the number
of years that I've engaged in this trek (about 30 years, with about 5
years off for good behavior), I've owned less gear than the average
person on this board. For example, over that 30 years I've owned but 3
power amps, 3 preamps, 1 integrated, 4 turntable/arm combos, 3 CD
players, and 5 pairs of speakers. I've bought gear that looks ugly and
"industrial", plain black boxes, turntables that look "normal" and those
that look like space ships, new and used, tall and short, planar and
cones, tube and SS, well reviewed and poorly reviewed, expensive and
inexpensive. I've spent months and years seeking out and improvement
and many times I've walked away from a store after long auditions and
high sales pressure in spite of wanting the auditioned device to sound
better.

So what is my "bias"? There is no evidence that I am biased towed a
certain look or brand, nor do I seem to be swayed by reviewer's
opinions. If sighted listening supposedly triggers bias concerning what
I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

================================

Krueger listed ably all the technical paramaters that can create bias
when performing a formal listening session of comparing components..

Let's assume that one can follow his advice in home conditions. Let's
assumeme that Tom , Dick and Harry got it all in place. You do a blind
test. (Not a homogenising, brain scrambling ABX. Please, have mercy)

At the end of the day Tom will perceive some components to be
different, but Dick and Harry will say: "They all sound the same".

And they will all be right: for their respective, genetic endowment,
musical experience and preferences. But majority does not erase Tom.

You are your own majority and your own bias Jenn. Certainly no worse
than those of Dick and Harry. Stick with it , you can hardly do
otherwise.
Ludovic Mirabel

Good post, thanks.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Which random influences are affecting me?

All of those things that people don't intentionally hold
constant when they purportedly compare two piece of
gear, or compare sound from audio gear to live sound.

(2) Bias towards perceiving differences in timing and
level, particularly small level variations; as
differences in sound quality.

Agreed. When comparing, one should level match as
closely as is practical in a given circumstance.

But, it doesn't happen very often in the real world.

Of course not. The vast majority of people aren't going
to take the needed gear to their local store, or even
have it in their homes. Once can match as closely as
possible by ear. Certainly not exact, but practical.

Also practically useless.

Depends.


(3) Bias towards believing what you perceive without
making a thorough investigation of possible causes,
including inability in some cases, to properly do the
same.

Practicality dictates that one believes what one
perceives. The goal of audio is to enjoy the music as
one perceives it.

What people think is practical in cases like these has a
lot to do with their ability to do more detailed
investigations.

Somewhat, sure. But it's more than that.

It's not a free choice until you can do more detailed investigations
whenever you want to.

Granted, but there isn't totally free choice in every matter in life.


(4) Bias towards taking recommendations from other
audiophiles, particularly people you feel some kind of
affinity for, at face value and perceiving what they
suggest when listening to items they recommend or
disrecommend.

I generally don't do that.

Actually, you just said you did, and justified it on the
grounds of practicality.

No I didn't. I said that I've purchased gear that is
both well and poorly reviewed.

But reviews aren't the only source of information about gear.

Well, I don't have anyone in real life that I discuss audio matters
with, nor do I discuss online other than here and RAHE. I discussed an
upcoming TT purchase here when I first arrived, and I bought something
not discussed here.



(5) Bias towards thinking that differences you hear
when you listen to a hifi are due to differences in
the audio gear you are listening to.

Actually if anything I have a bias toward no difference.

I'd rather not spend the money ;-)

Most people say that.

"Most" do?

It's just their naivate and lack of introspection
speaking.

Or it's the truth.

If you really grow your mind Jenn,

Requisite snot noted.

you'll realize that it is often both.

Or it isn't.

[ScottW]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Like all of us (I suspect) my journey to get the best sound possible in
my home (given normal budget limitations) has led me to the purchase of
several pieces of gear. I also suspect, however, that given the number
of years that I've engaged in this trek (about 30 years, with about 5
years off for good behavior), I've owned less gear than the average
person on this board. For example, over that 30 years I've owned but 3
power amps, 3 preamps, 1 integrated, 4 turntable/arm combos, 3 CD
players, and 5 pairs of speakers. I've bought gear that looks ugly and
"industrial", plain black boxes, turntables that look "normal" and those
that look like space ships, new and used, tall and short, planar and
cones, tube and SS, well reviewed and poorly reviewed, expensive and
inexpensive. I've spent months and years seeking out and improvement
and many times I've walked away from a store after long auditions and
high sales pressure in spite of wanting the auditioned device to sound
better.

So what is my "bias"? There is no evidence that I am biased towed a
certain look or brand, nor do I seem to be swayed by reviewer's
opinions. If sighted listening supposedly triggers bias concerning what
I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

================================

Krueger listed ably all the technical paramaters that can create bias
when performing a formal listening session of comparing components..

Let's assume that one can follow his advice in home conditions. Let's
assumeme that Tom , Dick and Harry got it all in place. You do a blind
test. (Not a homogenising, brain scrambling ABX. Please, have mercy)

At the end of the day Tom will perceive some components to be
different, but Dick and Harry will say: "They all sound the same".

And they will all be right: for their respective, genetic endowment,
musical experience and preferences. But majority does not erase Tom.

You are your own majority and your own bias Jenn. Certainly no worse
than those of Dick and Harry. Stick with it , you can hardly do
otherwise.
Ludovic Mirabel

Good post, thanks.

What was good about it? A clear recommendation of your personal need
for blind testing to avoid bias doesn't seem all that good to me.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article .com,
" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Like all of us (I suspect) my journey to get the best sound possible in
my home (given normal budget limitations) has led me to the purchase of
several pieces of gear. I also suspect, however, that given the number
of years that I've engaged in this trek (about 30 years, with about 5
years off for good behavior), I've owned less gear than the average
person on this board. For example, over that 30 years I've owned but 3
power amps, 3 preamps, 1 integrated, 4 turntable/arm combos, 3 CD
players, and 5 pairs of speakers. I've bought gear that looks ugly and
"industrial", plain black boxes, turntables that look "normal" and those
that look like space ships, new and used, tall and short, planar and
cones, tube and SS, well reviewed and poorly reviewed, expensive and
inexpensive. I've spent months and years seeking out and improvement
and many times I've walked away from a store after long auditions and
high sales pressure in spite of wanting the auditioned device to sound
better.

So what is my "bias"? There is no evidence that I am biased towed a
certain look or brand, nor do I seem to be swayed by reviewer's
opinions. If sighted listening supposedly triggers bias concerning what
I hear, it seems like someone could tell me what that bias is.

================================

Krueger listed ably all the technical paramaters that can create bias
when performing a formal listening session of comparing components..

Let's assume that one can follow his advice in home conditions. Let's
assumeme that Tom , Dick and Harry got it all in place. You do a blind
test. (Not a homogenising, brain scrambling ABX. Please, have mercy)

At the end of the day Tom will perceive some components to be
different, but Dick and Harry will say: "They all sound the same".

And they will all be right: for their respective, genetic endowment,
musical experience and preferences. But majority does not erase Tom.

You are your own majority and your own bias Jenn. Certainly no worse
than those of Dick and Harry. Stick with it , you can hardly do
otherwise.
Ludovic Mirabel

Good post, thanks.

What was good about it? A clear recommendation of your personal need
for blind testing to avoid bias doesn't seem all that good to me.

ScottW

I liked it.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Good post, thanks.

What was good about it? A clear recommendation of your personal need
for blind testing to avoid bias doesn't seem all that good to me.

I liked it.

Bear in mind that ScottW has never participated in any "blind tests" of
audio equipments. Not twice, not once, not ever. I don't think he's even
observed one either.

Just more hot air from the wannaborg contingent. :-)




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.