Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Following the suggestion of moderator David E. Bath:
__________________________________________________ ____

If we believe that objective measurements are the entire story,
then we might as well pack it in. Most of the mass market electronics
have equal, if not better, objective measurements. Which does beg the
question: what is so high end about high end?


A good subject for a thread IMHO.
__________________________________________________ ____

Now 'high end' as defined here on RAHE is not high end as
thought of by most of the public. The 'high end' commonly
attributed to magazines like Stereophile and TAS. So I am
not speaking about the 'high end' related to those publications.
I am referring to the 'high end' of RAHE. Something I think
would more properly and honestly be called simply high
fidelity. I also think RAHE would more honestly be called
rec.audio.high.fidelity.

What is 'high end', what is not?

Dennis

  #3   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:22:18 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

"Dennis Moore"

wrote

What is 'high end', what is not?


Since Harry Pearson coined the term High End in the early 1970's in TAS (and
has it copyrighted), his definition should apply if it is going to be used it
here. (Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you want.) To
paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured
with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound
of live, unamplified music in a real space.


A useful definition, with which I concur completely. I also like his
definition of 'The Absolute Sound' reference as being that of a live
acoustic performance in a concert hall.

When the term was first
introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar,
Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has nothing
at all to do with specs. Just the sound.


Um, actually, you can't have 'high end' sound as defined above,
without good specs. This is not of course a commutative statement!

Today, the list would be much longer,
but would include those companies who use actual 'listening to music' as part
of the design process and take "music reproduction" seriously. Would a Sony
reciever qualify? Probably not.


Would several other 'mainstream' brands qualify? Definitely. As
defined by Harry, 'high end' qualification has nothing to do with
'designer labels'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #4   Report Post  
Richard D Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

In article ,
Mkuller wrote:
"Dennis Moore"
wrote

What is 'high end', what is not?


Since Harry Pearson coined the term High End in the early 1970's in TAS (and
has it copyrighted), his definition should apply if it is going to be used it
here.


IN a word, b*llsh*t, of which the good Mr. Pearson is one of
the most prolific producers. First, Mr. Pearson, despite his
arrogant claim to the contrary, did not "coin" the term, it was
in common usage around the Boston area before that. Second,
just-because-said-so doesn't mean it is fact. Harry's magazine
is the source of some of the most outrageous, irresponsible,
uninformed pish-posh around.

rec,audio-high-end has existed for quite some time and is
entirely capable of and entitled to define it's own existance.
We don't need the the pontificating, dogma spewing likes of the
Harry Pearsons of the world to define anything.

(Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you
want.) To
paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured
with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound
of live, unamplified music in a real space. When the term was first
introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar,
Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has nothing
at all to do with specs.


Indeed, it often had a lot to do with personal "associations"
that had even LESS to do with actual performance. And given the
likes of Enid Lumely or whomever, it had nothing to do with
reality.

Just the sound.


Nonsense, it had as much to do with snobbery as anything.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
|
|

  #5   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Dick Pierce wrote:
IN a word, b*llsh*t, of which the good Mr. Pearson is one of
the most prolific producers. First, Mr. Pearson, despite his
arrogant claim to the contrary, did not "coin" the term, it was
in common usage around the Boston area before that. Second,
just-because-said-so doesn't mean it is fact. Harry's magazine
is the source of some of the most outrageous, irresponsible,
uninformed pish-posh around.

rec,audio-high-end has existed for quite some time and is
entirely capable of and entitled to define it's own existance.
We don't need the the pontificating, dogma spewing likes of the
Harry Pearsons of the world to define anything.


So does that mean you agree with the definition of High End here or not? The
above definition seems to fit well with the points posted in the
rec.audio.high-end FAQs.

(Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you
want.) To
paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and

manufactured
with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the

sound
of live, unamplified music in a real space. When the term was first
introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar,
Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has

nothing
at all to do with specs.


Indeed, it often had a lot to do with personal "associations"


Perhaps, but that's still High End audio, like it or not.

that had even LESS to do with actual performance. And given the
likes of Enid Lumely or whomever, it had nothing to do with
reality.

Just the sound.


Nonsense, it had as much to do with snobbery as anything.

So High End is about snobbery? I think you could put forth a better definition
than that, Dick. (Your tone makes it sound like you might have been excluded
from the club...)
Regards,
Mike



  #6   Report Post  
Stig Erik Tangen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Mkuller wrote:
To
paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured
with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound
of live, unamplified music in a real space.


My impression of "high-end" is based on experiences with so-called
high-end equipment and the taste of audiophiles in general. "High-end",
as I percive it, is to emulate a "live" music event, regardsless of what
recording techniques have been used on the music that is reproduced, and
make this as pleasant as possible for the listener.

This is probably the opposite of a "monitor" sound, where you can hear
every detail that's actually on the record. A "monitor" sound will
unfortunately reveal that the majority of LP's and CD's sounds really
really bad.....

Stig Erik Tangen
  #7   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:3%g1b.220123$o%2.102734@sccrnsc02

It seems that to many "high end" means endorsing outrageous pricing
and product quackery.


With the focus on retro-technology like vinyl and tubes, and
pseudo-technology like blue lights and badly partitioned CD players, that
does seem to be what a lot of high end audio has become.

We can probably give most of the credit/blame
to HP and TAS for this, but we should not forget to give Stereophile
an honorable mention.


Stereophile differs from the other two in that it does contain some useful
factual content. However mixing true facts with questionable or false
material is an old propaganda technique.

Both have moved the discussion into the realm
of components that are priced in the stratosphere, and they have
generally neglected lower priced products of merit.


My take is that they appear to audio voyeurs.

"High Fidelity" was a much nicer term. It never seemed to imply
worship of the big ticket components.


The audio marketplace is now very fragmented. Video and audio performance
and production hardware are important market segments.

  #8   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:10:41 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:

This is a good example of the tyranny of the objectivist. First
he insists realism is the only goal.


Actually, the 'subjectivists' claim the same goal.

Even though no musical
system I have ever heard can fully or even mostly recreate
the sound of live in music in real space. Yet this person acts
as if they have the only path to true 'high end ' sound while
admitting they don't even have the ability to experience
realization of emotional and music.


That may (or may not) be true for Tom, but it in no way represents the
position of anyone else I've seen posting to r.a.h-e.

Maybe the following descriptions from the RAHE should guide
the newsgroup into three parts. Those who deal with high-end
sound from description a), those who deal with high-end
sound from description b), and those who believe the two
can be melded.

_________________________________________________ _____
a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or


Indeed so, which seems to be the goal of most contributors.

b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;


b) would be virtually anything, including a car radio.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #9   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or


Indeed so, which seems to be the goal of most contributors.

b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;


b) would be virtually anything, including a car radio.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


Again this is the objectivist tyranny. a) is a worthy goal
b) is discussed as if it could be anything.

You also mention Mr. Pinkerton that subjectivists claim the
same goal of realism. And indeed they do. But if you can
only duplicate live music inaccurately, or incompletely the
question is what part is most important to still convey
the emotion of music. And it is far from clear that the part
you can measure and use dbt's on is the most important
part. Or that objectively the most accurate equipment does
a better job of it implicitly.

It is very difficult to make good progress toward something
you cannot easily measure. But that doesn't mean it cannot
be measured or that it isn't worth doing. Seems to me most
of the traffic here is slanted toward the part of a) of the
definition of high end in the faq. And that part would better
be characterized as simply high fidelity. The part b) in
principle is what represents the difference between high
fidelity and high end. The goal to not just do the best
measured performance, but to make it easier to emotionally
connect with the music.

And the difference in a) and b) is what causes the constant
bickering. Those who approach reproduced music from the
definition b) angle come from the original HP approach, to
listen to something and see how it affects you. They may
attribute that to the wrong things or to things that aren't
happening. But talk about it that way here on RAHE an they
will be told how it doesn't fit in with real high end as per the
a) definition.

Dennis

  #10   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:10:41 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:

This is a good example of the tyranny of the objectivist. First
he insists realism is the only goal.


Actually, the 'subjectivists' claim the same goal.


No one suggested that ANY goal is the only way. I only note that music is not
the ONLY program that is deserving and that if any enthusiast looks hard in the
mirror that 'love of music' is more directly and deeply enjoyed in ways other
than reproduction and pretending that 'love of music' is a primary goal for
most audiophiles is simply a conceit.

As if putting a fancy paint job on your race car (new cables) is done in the
'love of speed.'


Even though no musical
system I have ever heard can fully or even mostly recreate
the sound of live in music in real space. Yet this person acts
as if they have the only path to true 'high end ' sound while
admitting they don't even have the ability to experience
realization of emotional and music.


That may (or may not) be true for Tom, but it in no way represents the
position of anyone else I've seen posting to r.a.h-e.


And his statement creates this special strawman who 'cannot' emotionally
respond to music.

But a high-end response to this is that he must never have experienced a system
good enough to deliver a realistic live experience in the home.

Which is basically what this "love of music" put-down usually comes to. In the
high-end when you refuse to acknowledge that a new wire doesn't improve
playback it's often noted that this person must not "love music enough."



  #12   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:10:41 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:


This is a good example of the tyranny of the objectivist. First
he insists realism is the only goal.


Actually, the 'subjectivists' claim the same goal.


Even though no musical
system I have ever heard can fully or even mostly recreate
the sound of live in music in real space. Yet this person acts
as if they have the only path to true 'high end ' sound while
admitting they don't even have the ability to experience
realization of emotional and music.


That may (or may not) be true for Tom, but it in no way represents the
position of anyone else I've seen posting to r.a.h-e.


If I recall correctly, it's known as 'the absolute sound'.

Or perhaps 'stereophilia'.

No use of the word 'music' in either, I notice.

For that matter, do *any* audiophile publications have the word
'music' in their titles?

  #13   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Dennis Moore wrote:
Well Tom, as is usual. No discussing with you, without you
getting off topic. The thread again was specifically about
high-end as defined on RAHE. You keep talking about it as
defined elsewhere. And it was of course you who talked
about conceit of loving music. And you who didn't seem to
want to look at the 'emotional response to music' mentioned
in the faq.

Oh well, now I have gotten into a ****ing contest of no use
to anyone. I think the moderators need to go with definition
a), be honest and drop b). And change the name to RAHF
(rec.audi.high.fidelity). But of course once created they
cannot change it. Well they can change the faq.

Dennis



If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not
create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or
rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio
Asylum where dbt's are banned?

A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the
debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a
necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or
disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without
mentioning dbt's?
  #14   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as
discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another
idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results.

They have their place, and I don't mind some of them.

But something is amiss. Too many components long term
will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the
same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate
are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the
arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it
again.

Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take
consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise. I
find that hard to believe myself. And this difference of long
term satisfaction is what initially differentiated real 'high-end'
equipment (as defined by all the rest of the world not on this
newsgroup) from everything else. Yes, some commercial
high end stuff is snake oil. Most of the supposedly technical
explanations are bogus or worse made up. Yet some of the
better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways the supposedly
accurate just as good equipment often doesn't.

And currently any meaningful discussion about that is not
possible here.

The way some people prove or disprove things is more of an
emotional feeling they have. Why is this, I don't know, but
it seems certain if there is anything to it, it won't show up in
double blind testing. How do you test for it? Even if it is nothing
more than self delusion, it is real in listening to music. And I
don't for a minute think you can take part in tests blind without
it so utterly destroying your emotional reactions that those tests
would only be expected to return to results but random.

Maybe if you had two things in sealed boxes, let people live with
them, and say they were more or less satisfied than the month
before you could. Do the switching blind, switch no more often
than monthly and see where the results took you. I don't see
that as likely to happen.

Dennis

If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not
create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or
rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio
Asylum where dbt's are banned?

A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the
debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a
necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or
disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without
mentioning dbt's?


  #15   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
"chung" wrote:
If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not
create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or
rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio
Asylum where dbt's are banned?

A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the
debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a
necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or
disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without
mentioning dbt's?


Following this thread as someone who is still a subjectivist and who has
been taken aback by some objectivist posts on RAHE I believe that RAHE
should stay just as it is. The objectivist view is strongly presented and
defended here, and so far as I know this is the only forum in the internet
where that is so. It's a minority point of view that is suppressed
elsewhere. If newcomers are sometimes treated a bit "brusquely" (note:
understatement) that would seem to me to be an inevitable part of having a
vigorous debate which may eventually lead to establishing broader acceptance
of a more rational view of evaluating components. That would benefit all
audiophiles.
After all there is always the entire rest of the internet for someone
seeking the subjectivist viewpoint.

Wylie Williams


Hear, hear! And rest assured, some of us are concerned about the
brusqueness, and are looking for a benign way to address it.

bob



  #16   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Dennis Moore wrote:
Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as
discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another
idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results.

They have their place, and I don't mind some of them.

But something is amiss. Too many components long term
will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the
same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate
are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the
arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it
again.

Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take
consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise.


Please don't erect a strawman, if you really want a genuine discussion.
No one said that the "dbt route is the only rational route to consider".

You can say you like a certain cable or a certain amp for whatever
reason. Accuracy is not the only factor in choosing equipment.

What I really don't understand is that there are many places where
subjectivity is the rule. Why try to make this newsgroup another one?

Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways the
supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't.


Have you heard of "euphonic distortion"?

And currently any meaningful discussion about that is not
possible here.


Another strawman. What is preventing you from having a "meaningful
discussion"? The problem I see is that some people are upset because the
discussions they want to engage in are not technically meaningful, and
they were pointed out by other posters.

  #17   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...
Dennis Moore wrote:
Well Tom, as is usual. No discussing with you, without you
getting off topic. The thread again was specifically about
high-end as defined on RAHE. You keep talking about it as
defined elsewhere. And it was of course you who talked
about conceit of loving music. And you who didn't seem to
want to look at the 'emotional response to music' mentioned
in the faq.

Oh well, now I have gotten into a ****ing contest of no use
to anyone. I think the moderators need to go with definition
a), be honest and drop b). And change the name to RAHF
(rec.audi.high.fidelity). But of course once created they
cannot change it. Well they can change the faq.

Dennis



If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not
create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or
rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio
Asylum where dbt's are banned?

A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the
debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a
necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or
disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without
mentioning dbt's?


But how can you give dbt's as traditionally practice such "power" when they
are not unchallengeable?


Well, I see you, Mirabel, Kuller challenging them every day, so why do
you say they are unchallengeable?

Given that dbt's are banned at a lot of forums, I would say that dbt's
don't get nearly enough recognition.


Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by Oohashi
et al that among other things suggests that a different form of
double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant
differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x
fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt
fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by subjectivists
might have an element of truth to them. Worthy of investigation, at least.


I think a lot of posters have voiced their opinions on that paper.

Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers
were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as
being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised.
This hardly suggests a search for truth.


Has anyone been able to repeat that experiment and arrive at the same
conclusion?

Rather it has the earmarks of a
rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that
is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is
healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting observation
to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the
orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it.


I don't think Mirabel or Kuller feel they have been beaten into
submission at all. In fact, the casual observer may even conclude that
Mirabel had everyone else beat into submission .

On the other hand, why not one person has picked up that cable dbt cash
reward?

  #18   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 01:47:37 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by Oohashi
et al that among other things suggests that a different form of
double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant
differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x
fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt
fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by subjectivists
might have an element of truth to them.


No, because the key is still the double-blind element. In fact ABChr
is more commonly used than simple ABX by professionals in the field.
The 'subjectivists' OTOH don't seem able to hear these 'obvious'
differences unless they *know* what is connected.

Worthy of investigation, at least.
Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers
were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as
being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised.


Did you consider that this *was* in fact sponsored 'research' with an
expected result?

This hardly suggests a search for truth. Rather it has the earmarks of a
rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that
is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is
healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting observation
to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the
orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it.


The attitude has *always* been that we're all more than happy to
welcome new *evidence* of audible differences, but the 'subjectivists'
never seem to be able to find *any* way of providing it.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #19   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Harry Lavo" wrote
Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by

Oohashi
et al that among other things suggests that a different form of
double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant
differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x
fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt
fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by

subjectivists
might have an element of truth to them. Worthy of investigation, at

least.
Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers
were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as
being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised.
This hardly suggests a search for truth. Rather it has the earmarks of a
rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that
is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is
healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting

observation
to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the
orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it.


You would think that adherents of objective testing would welcome
variety in approaches to their goal of evaluating audio objectively rather
than subjectively. But where human personality is a factor there are goals
and then there are goals. At times it seems that the primary goal of some
contributors on RAHE is not the promotion or sharing of knowledge of the
advantages of the objective approach. That may have been the original
inspiration, but sometimes the goal seems to be a quest for dominance: "I'm
smart; you're dumb. Admit it.", with the accompanying lack of civility that
necessarily accompanies any form of browbeating. As it doesn't take much of
this to discourage most people the result is to create a high percentage of
transient participants and lurkers. That's a shame, because the objective
approach should be better served. It's not as though it has a home elsewhere
like the one it has found on RAHE.
Let us hope that the discussion will evolve and improve, and become
more inclusive and tolerant of different approaches, such as the one you
offered.

Wylie Williams
  #20   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

chung wrote in message .net...
Dennis Moore wrote:
Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as
discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another
idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results
They have their place, and I don't mind some of them.
But something is amiss. Too many components long term
will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the
same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate
are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the
arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it
again.
Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take
consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise.


Please don't erect a strawman, if you really want a genuine discussion.
No one said that the "dbt route is the only rational route to consider".
You can say you like a certain cable or a certain amp for whatever
reason. Accuracy is not the only factor in choosing equipment.

What I really don't understand is that there are many places where
subjectivity is the rule. Why try to make this newsgroup another one?
Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways

the
supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't.

Have you heard of "euphonic distortion"?


Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. I just wonder why
giving a somewhat negatively coloured name should affect sensory
perception. Everytime I choose MY favourite seat in a concert hall I
choose MY kind of "euphonic distortion". Everytime I listen to
speakers away from an anechoic chamber I'm subject to "euphonic
distortion". Where do YOU listen? Everytime I prefer Merlot admixture
to undiluted Cabernet Sauvignon I'm subject to tasting distortion.
Everytime I choose my seat in amovie house I'm subject to my kind of
"visual distortion'. And so on.
Giving a name is just giving a name. "Distortion" is a bad name.
Funeral Director is meant to sound better than undertaker and
"hospitality class" better than "tourist". Pure science.

And currently any meaningful discussion about that is not
possible here.


Another strawman. What is preventing you from having a "meaningful
discussion"? The problem I see is that some people are upset because the
discussions they want to engage in are not technically meaningful, and
they were pointed out by other posters.


I'll speak for myself. When I give an opinion I say it is an opinion
and what to you constitutes "technical meaningfulness" is the last one
of my concerns..
But I will react to silly challenges to "prove" opinions by an
unproven "test" with results as dependent on the individual doing it
as anything else in life.
Ludovic Mirabel



  #22   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Nousaine" wrote in message
. net...
"Wylie Williams" wrote:


"Harry Lavo" wrote
Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by

Oohashi
et al that among other things suggests that a different form of
double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant
differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or

a-b-x
fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt
fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by

subjectivists
might have an element of truth to them. Worthy of investigation, at

least.
Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the

researchers
were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out

as
being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were

raised.
This hardly suggests a search for truth. Rather it has the earmarks of

a
rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here

that
is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe

is
healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting

observation
to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the
orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it.


You would think that adherents of objective testing would welcome
variety in approaches to their goal of evaluating audio objectively

rather
than subjectively. But where human personality is a factor there are

goals
and then there are goals. At times it seems that the primary goal of

some
contributors on RAHE is not the promotion or sharing of knowledge of the
advantages of the objective approach. That may have been the original
inspiration, but sometimes the goal seems to be a quest for dominance:

"I'm
smart; you're dumb. Admit it.", with the accompanying lack of civility

that
necessarily accompanies any form of browbeating. As it doesn't take much

of
this to discourage most people the result is to create a high percentage

of
transient participants and lurkers. That's a shame, because the

objective
approach should be better served. It's not as though it has a home

elsewhere
like the one it has found on RAHE.
Let us hope that the discussion will evolve and improve, and become
more inclusive and tolerant of different approaches, such as the one you
offered.

Wylie Williams


Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods?

It's
not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant.

"
"It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very
involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the
validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of
the results.
But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.
Wylie Williams
  #23   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

ludovic mirabel wrote:
chung wrote in message .net...
Dennis Moore wrote:
Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as
discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another
idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results
They have their place, and I don't mind some of them.
But something is amiss. Too many components long term
will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the
same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate
are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the
arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it
again.
Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take
consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise.


Please don't erect a strawman, if you really want a genuine discussion.
No one said that the "dbt route is the only rational route to consider".
You can say you like a certain cable or a certain amp for whatever
reason. Accuracy is not the only factor in choosing equipment.

What I really don't understand is that there are many places where
subjectivity is the rule. Why try to make this newsgroup another one?
Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways

the
supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't.

Have you heard of "euphonic distortion"?


Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too.



Interestingly, there's a letter in the new issue of Stereophile from
J. Gordon Holt himself, blasting Stereophile and the audio review industry
generally for abandoning evaluation of and the search for *accuracy*
in favor of touting what he calls *euphonic colorations*.



--
-S.
  #24   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
"Nousaine" wrote in message
. net...


Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods?

It's
not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant.

"
"It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very
involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the
validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of
the results.


Remember, some people here want to make it seem as hard as possible,
because they don't want to deal with its implications.

Indeed, if you want to do publishable research, it is quite a chore
getting everything right. But as this is only a hobby, you don't have
to take it that far, if you don't want to.

But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.


Do you have a way to plug in two amps at once and switch between them?
You also need a way to level-match them. That's done at the speaker
terminals with a voltmeter, and I'll let someone who knows what
they're talking about explain that process.

All you need is an assistant who, without your knowledge, flips a coin
and decides which amp gets plugged into which output. That way, you're
comparing two amps, level-matched, without knowing which is which. You
can switch between them at will (which means you can switch back and
forth fairly constantly, or you can listen for a long time to one,
then to the other).

This isn't perfect. Just knowing that they're two different amps might
be enough to make you think they sound different. (Really! Our brains
aren't as reliable as we think.) But you might find that, listening
blind, it's a lot harder to spot the distinguishing characteristics
that seemed so obvious when you knew which amp was which.

bob
  #25   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Imagine that we make a 3rd category of test: 1. sighted, 2. dbt,
3. you can't see it, but we tell you what it is. Would this affect
the outcome?

IOW, what is it about blind testing that makes it so stressful, and
the results unacceptable?

Norm Strong


Let us just say for example you were taking a test to see
which of two pretty girls you preferred, by seeing them in
different circumstances in different pictures. No problem
picking now is it?

Now imagine picking to see which of two nice girls you prefer.
And both were former girlfriends. You were being tested
for your emotional and other reactions. Would this be different
from the other preference test? Do you see the difference?
Can emotions in general be switched up or down and back
and forth during DBT's?


  #26   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 05:37:50 GMT,
(ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. I just wonder why
giving a somewhat negatively coloured name should affect sensory
perception.


Simple really. It's distortion, which makes it a bad thing if you are
interested in *high fidelity* music reproduction. It's euphonic, which
means that it sounds pleasant. Hence, some people may well prefer the
effect, but it's still inaccurate. It all depends what you want - a
pleasant sound, or 'the closest approach to the original sound'.


You can't be serious. You do not really believe that what
arrives at my preamp. is "the original sound".
You know better than I do that it is what the particular
configuration of particular microphones that the particular
audio-enginner happens to believe in hears in a particular
concert-hall. Then our engineer closeted in his little room listens to
whatever is coming at him from his litlle monitor speaker and proceeds
to mix, equalise and shape according to his idea of what the "average
guy with the average set" wants to hear.
And the end-result is the D.G idea of what a symphony orchestra
sounds like.
I then listen to it in my room with my standing waves, my room
reflexions and my better or worse components.
Whereupon I fall on my face and say: "Good Lord, this violin
sounds like someone scratching white chalk on the blackboard. But I
must not touch it- this is what DG wanted me to hear and so be it."
Just kidding: I interpose my Behringer digital equaliser and
fiddle with my JVC X1000P Digital Sound Processor and thank my lucky
stars that I got one when it was still available. They don't make them
any longer. "Original sound" rules.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #27   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
Simple really. It's distortion, which makes it a bad thing if you are
interested in *high fidelity* music reproduction. It's euphonic, which
means that it sounds pleasant. Hence, some people may well prefer the
effect, but it's still inaccurate. It all depends what you want - a
pleasant sound, or 'the closest approach to the original sound'.

There is an argument to be made for "a pleasant sound". I have heard
systems described as "accurate" that were not at all pleasant. I imagine
that a perfect system would so closely approach the original sound that it
would satisfy both the soul of the listener and whatever is satisfied by
accuracy. My hope of attaining that perfect system is ZERO, so I have to
compromise. I have to compromise on the components that I use (because of
cost), the room that I use (because of cost) and the software that I use
(because the music I like may or may not be available well recorded) so if I
could be certain it would be a sufficiently pleasant system I would happily
compromise in that direction.
I could justify this by saying that I want the sound not for itself
but for the effect, and tI'd accept an inaccurate effect that is as much
enjoyment as the original sound. If the desired effect were to create a
measurably closer approach to the original sound for whatever end that would
serve I might prefer a "better" system that was not so enjoyable. I wish I
did not have to consider compromise, but I do and if I have to err let it be
on the side of enjoyment. For example, we all know that x dollars spent on
a system that would satisfy a listener of chamber music would purchase a
system that a rock and roll kid would incinerate in a matter of minutes.
And that the system that would satisfy the kid would not please the chamber
musiocc listener. So almost any system most of us can afford is a
compromise. The problem is figuring out how to go about making the best
compromise.

Wylie Williams

  #28   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message But if
there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.
Wylie Williams


Which method of testing makes more sense Wylie? Doing DBT's
or SBT's which you may never use any of these amps for again.
Or hooking them up for a few days. Seeing how you feel about
them at the end of it. And picking the one you feel good about
to keep listening to long term. Which method of selection comes
closest to matching the long term use of the product?

Dennis

  #29   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

Nousaine" wrote in message
news:O6C2b.199030$It4.95614@rwcrns
Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods?

It's
not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant.

"
"It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very
involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the
validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of
the results.


I thought you said you'd been in the business for 22 years? Does this mean
you've never had the 'wrong box' or 'wrong switch position' and still "heard"
the claimed improvements? You certainly must have.

But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.
Wylie Williams


Think about it. What do you need to restrict decisons to sound alone? First you
need to match levels at the speaker terminals. Test cd and Voltmeter.

Next you need a 2nd party; how about your wife? If you will review (or read "To
Tweak or Not to Tweak" in Sound & Vision you'll get a good idea of a reasonable
protocol. E-mail me if you want a copy.

You'll need a coin to flip; a way to indpendently record your answers and
shield them from change, a blanket (s) or cloth to cover the devices ot
terminals and a person to change devices when you're out of the room.

Alternatively QSC sells a good ABX comparitor for $600.


  #30   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:%P33b.274985$Ho3.35716@sccrnsc03...
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
news0X2b.273368$uu5.62103@sccrnsc04

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message


But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
substituted and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with
my wife as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled
listening. Wylie Williams


Which method of testing makes more sense Wylie? Doing DBT's
or SBT's which you may never use any of these amps for again.


Or hooking them up for a few days. Seeing how you feel about
them at the end of it. And picking the one you feel good about
to keep listening to long term.


..and then never using any of these amps again but the one selected.

Of course, there is nothing that keeps one from "hooking them up for a few
days" under DBT conditions.

Which method of selection comes
closest to matching the long term use of the product?


Since there need not be any difference in the timetable or listening
circumstances for the evaluations, they are equally close to matching the
long term use of the product.

However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has been
thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be very
insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible

differences.


How about in perceiving less direct but more important "gestalt" difference?
EG, depth of soundstage, focus of instruments, accuracy of timbre over a
range from ppp to fff, etc. These are the kinds of things audiophiles can
hear in a relaxed, monadic state that they have trouble believing are
imagainary when they are put into the typical blind a-b or especially a-b-x
test which uses much more of a left -brain approach and based on your own
comments here seem mostly sensitive to frequency response and loudness.


  #33   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote:

Delete discussion between Chung and others and save the only sentence
of my own quoted by Mr. Sullivan under the heading "L.M. writes"
L. Mirabel:
Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too.


S. Sullivan:
Interestingly, there's a letter in the new issue of Stereophile from
J. Gordon Holt himself, blasting Stereophile and the audio review industry
generally for abandoning evaluation of and the search for *accuracy*
in favor of touting what he calls *euphonic colorations*.


I haven't seen this issue as yet. But my guess, based on his
well-known views, is that Mr. Holt was blasting the "euphonic
coloration" added in by the audio engineer using his roomful of
mixers, processors and equalisers.
My high-fidelity faith is not to what a record company chooses
to put in my hands. It is to the original sound of unamplified
instruments. And if I have to use my own processing to try to rescue
the violin, the cello and the clarinet from the "euphonic colouration"
garbage in which some record companies (Philips the least, D.G. most)
choose to drown it so be it.
It is my taste against theirs. Subjectivity rules.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #35   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

ludovic mirabel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote:

Delete discussion between Chung and others and save the only sentence
of my own quoted by Mr. Sullivan under the heading "L.M. writes"
L. Mirabel:
Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too.


S. Sullivan:
Interestingly, there's a letter in the new issue of Stereophile from
J. Gordon Holt himself, blasting Stereophile and the audio review industry
generally for abandoning evaluation of and the search for *accuracy*
in favor of touting what he calls *euphonic colorations*.


I haven't seen this issue as yet. But my guess, based on his
well-known views, is that Mr. Holt was blasting the "euphonic
coloration" added in by the audio engineer using his roomful of
mixers, processors and equalisers.


My recollection is that it was a blast at the reviewers who
reviewed *equipment*. But someone who actually has the issue
at hand can perhaps clarify.



--
-S.


  #36   Report Post  
All Ears
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

Wylie,

I often use a good set of head phones as reference, when evaluating
components. It seems clearly to point out if there are problems with the set
up or acoustics. It is not an universal solution, but to me it seems to
work.

KE

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:3rd3b.276870$o%2.127182@sccrnsc02...
"Arny Krueger" wrote
However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has been
thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be very
insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible

differences.

I am not looking for small differences; as I certainly can't reliably
perceive them. I want to discover if there are any obvious differences,
and to identify them so I can, as someone once phrased it to me, "specify

my
colorations". And I may have an Audio Authority amplifier switcher in my
treasure trove of unsold store leftovers in the chaos of my basement
storage. Fresh question - Does a switcher in the signal path degrade the
sound? I always assumed that a switcher would not be as good as hard
wired, but I can't quite figure how anyone would test escept by subjective
listening..

Wylie Williams


  #38   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:nsd3b.276882$o%2.127236@sccrnsc02...
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
"Nousaine" wrote in message
. net...
"Wylie Williams"
wrote:

See previous discussion below:

Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods?

It's
not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant.

"
"It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very
involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the
validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of
the results.
But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.
Wylie Williams


At a risk of stirring up a hornets' nest here is a protocol I
use because I find that the task of remembering A, then remembering B,
and finally comparing X with my memories of A and B results in
complete confusion and random guessing,
I want a synchronous, simultaneous comparison with no
memorisation required.
This is me and I guess some others too. I will not repeat the
evidence from the past records that there could be many others like
myself accounting for the uniformly negative results of the recorded
and published ABX component tests audiophile panels.
I want to emphasize that I have nothing against anyone using
the ABX approach if they feel comfortable with it, have the required
ABX switch, a voltmeter for exact levelling etc.

My approach centers frankly on preference. Insisting on
"difference and difference only" may be a prerequisite in research. An
audiophile wants help to exercise his consumer choice.
Secondly, while roughly level volumes between the left and
right side are desirable. Very exact levelling is not necessary.
Other common sense precautions a compare like with like:
testing a 400watt amp against a 5watt SET is waste of time.
You can not compare signal source against signal source this
way ie. a cdplayer against a cdplayer, turntable against a turntable.
You cannot compare speakers because that requires special
facilities for moving them fast to an exact position . Same of course
applies to ABX testing.
You can compare interconnects, power cables and power
controllers, interconnects, preamps, amps, dacs.
An obliging partner is a necessity.

1) Get a monophonic or near monophonic (eg. centred soprano) signal
source. MUSICAL, not an artefact.
2) On the left insert one component, on the right the OTHER ONE- (in
the case of interconnects using two of one kind together i.e.source to
preamp and preamp to amp on each side will give better contrast.)
3) Listen -write down your preference, get blinded.
4) An assistant now changes AT RANDOM (coin throw) both components
from one side to the other or (of course) leaves them where they are
keeping the records.
5) This is repeated minimum 15 times- for any length of time and with
interval for lunch if you like. EVERY TIME you note your
preference
The repetition and change are the CRUX.

At this point INVARIABLY someone says: No good, room sides differ,
levels differ subtly etc.
Answer;If there are differences between room sides, speaker volumes
etc. and yet you still prefer and locate one of the two component as
it moves from side to side surely, that REINFORCES the results- yes?
no?
Eg. The bass is distorted on one side of your room but you still
have a statistically significant positive results: "I prefer the sound
of this preamp on EITHER side."
The other theoretical objections from the people who never tried it
are of little interest. The inferences from other fields (eg.
research)
are even less so. Apples and oranges. Even if they assure you that the
Goddess of their kind of "science" is fighting on their side.
The comparison is not just supposedly "instantaneous"- it is
SIMULTANEOUS.
While comparing turn your head from side to side as much as you like.
If you have no preference give the component back to the shop. If
there is any difference it is not one that matters to you
=(Proviso)- at this stage of your musical experience and preference.
Exactly like is the case with an ABX result
NB. This is not a universally applicable "test". It is a method
that suits me because it involves no memory feats that are beyond me
and many others. I have no universal "scientific" pretensions. I only
use it to reassure myself that I'm not a victim of delusionary bias.
Those who are comfortable with ABX are of course welcome to it.
Ludovic Mirabel

If I were a con artist, and wanted to "prove" how acute my hearing
was, this is exactly the method I would use. It's really quite clever
for that purpose. Because the two sides aren't level-matched, it would
be easy to tell when the two sides had been switched. (The image
appears in a different place!) All one has to do is declare a
"preference" on the first trial. After that, since you'll always be
able to tell when the switch has been made, it's hardly a challenge to
declare the same "preference" repeatedly. No wonder you've impressed
your friends with this trick.

Now, why don't you try it level-matched, and double-blind, and then
submit an article to JAES (or even S&V!), so we can see what the
results really are?

bob

  #39   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:3rd3b.276870$o%2.127182@sccrnsc02
"Arny Krueger" wrote


However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has
been thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be
very insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible

differences.


I am not looking for small differences; as I certainly can't reliably
perceive them.


I wouldn't give up that easily.

I want to discover if there are any obvious
differences, and to identify them so I can, as someone once phrased
it to me, "specify my colorations".


That's generally pretty easy to do, if the differences in coloration
actually exist in large enough amounts to be heard.

And I may have an Audio
Authority amplifier switcher in my treasure trove of unsold store
leftovers in the chaos of my basement storage. Fresh question - Does
a switcher in the signal path degrade the sound?


It may or it may not. It's not just the switcher that matters, it's the
whole comparison system, cables, switcher, level matching, equipment
providing the signal, speakers, etc. We spent years developing this
switching hardware http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_hdwr.htm to deal with
these issues.

I can find no online documentation about audio authority
loudspeaker/amplifier switchers, so they are unknown to me.

I always assumed
that a switcher would not be as good as hard wired, but I can't quite
figure how anyone would test except by subjective listening..


Switching well-done can be totally sonically transparent. However, setup and
verification can be challenging. The comparisons aren't valid unless there
is excellent level matching.

I eliminated switchers from audio equipment listening tests by means of the
procedures demonstrated at my PCABX web site.

  #40   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is so high end about high end?

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
news:Wud3b.277945$Ho3.37329@sccrnsc03
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:%P33b.274985$Ho3.35716@


However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has
been thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be
very insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible
differences.


And it precisely this difference that keeps people wondering
about DBT's.


Why? Is there valid, reliable a-priori evidence that DBTs fail to detect
audible differences?

Equipment that supposedly sounds identical
under conditions of DBT's gives different levels of satisfaction
long term.


Isn't there more to audio equipment than just sound quality?

And you must admit, while possible to do so, it
is unusual for DBT's to be done with switching done on a scale
of days.


Once one finds that something is futile, one is not encouraged to spend a
tremendous amount of time with it.

So should we be so surprised that a method developed and
found most telling under short term comparisons gives
different than expected results when used for long term
comparison.


There's no reliable evidence that this is the case. Indeed, there is
reliable evidence that this is NOT the case.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help -- connecting an amplifier using a high input Luk Car Audio 1 July 8th 04 03:09 AM
High Pass Filtering - How Audible? Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 36 April 22nd 04 08:10 PM
Direct Connect Hub With Only High Quality MP3s? Uber Audio Opinions 0 January 19th 04 10:10 PM
"High Power" Head Unit to Power Separates? Davey V Car Audio 15 August 30th 03 03:10 AM
High End Hyperbole Robert Morein Audio Opinions 10 August 2nd 03 05:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"