"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
CD players.

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?
I listen to them AFTER I buy them, nit picker.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson
wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.

How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different from
what you have?

This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind but
in a different way.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.
Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.
Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst place
and how wide the bandwidth should be.

Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no surprise
that science is applied to what influences how we hear.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way,
then listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.

How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?


Its not relevant to my selection of equipment.
Waht is relevant to my selection is if I like the music that comes out of
it.

What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
non-existent sounds.


Which I will invariably begin hearing again, once the DBT is over.
Fine, let them, that's part of the fun of audio, but if yo don't know what
you have at the point of purchase, it just might show up in your daily
listening when it's too late.

I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get it
home.

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


Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy,
except
CD players.

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.



Come closer, I see one on your forehead.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?


For one thing, tests using other people's ears
does not tell you wht YOU will experience.


The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
comparisons is because I know what I know about aduio equipment.

Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...



Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the
same.


most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
basic faults
in some combination of amounts.

High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
disappointing
ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
different to me
than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.

I have never heard a SET ss amp.

I don't think there is such a thing as a Single Ended Triode Solid State
amp, but I could be wrong. I can't understand why anyone would want to
make such a thing, but then there are tubed Cd players.

I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.

TAC online has a review of a DAC that is very complimentary and that says
it is an improvement over other DACs.


What improvement? For them, price is all that matters.


High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
better than they used to.
Even sighted, I can't tell one CD player from another, nor from a DVD
player playing a CD.

That helps keep yourt costs down.
No sense paying for improvements you are unable to hear.


Those are your unsupported beliefs and you are welcome to them. Is there
any data that you can provide other than anecdotes to back them up.


Its all I need, for my purposes.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson
wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.

How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different
from what you have?

This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind
but in a different way.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.
Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.

The discussion is regarding consumer choices.

Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst place
and how wide the bandwidth should be.

Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no
surprise that science is applied to what influences how we hear.


Not by the consumer, in making purchasing decisions.

wrote in message
nk.net...



I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get
it home.


I think its better to know if you like it, under the conditions you will be
using it.

wrote in message
nk.net...

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

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.



Come closer, I see one on your forehead.


Is that a Rotel, or a Denon?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

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

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.



Come closer, I see one on your forehead.


Is that a Rotel, or a Denon?
Don't own a Denon, the Rotel case is nice and sturdy, George won't feel a
thing.
Wait, that's redundant.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...



I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get
it home.


I think its better to know if you like it, under the conditions you will
be using it.

That's the point, you won't know anything for sure.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson
wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.

How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different
from what you have?

This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind
but in a different way.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.
Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.

The discussion is regarding consumer choices.

Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst
place and how wide the bandwidth should be.

Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no
surprise that science is applied to what influences how we hear.


Not by the consumer, in making purchasing decisions.

Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers knowing
what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus differences as
some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX test down your
throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or whatever.

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX
protocol is the appropriate tool for differentiating
audio components reproducing music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another
thread (see message )
that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even
trained listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of
the time, statistical theory indicates that at least 80
trials are required.

IME Corbett offers a convincing example of how little he
actually understands about the practical aspects of
performing listening tests on audio equipment. His idea
which is obviously based only on theory, of what
constitutes an useful small difference corresponds to an
difference in actual perceived sound quality that nobody
with real-world experience with listening tests would take
seriously.

IME Corbett has a lengthy track record of trying to gain
attention for himself by attacking those who have far more
practical experience than he does. He distracts naive
readers from the obvious serious difficulties involved in
sighted testing. He functions as an apologist for promoters
of audio snake oil.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...



I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get
it home.


I think its better to know if you like it, under the conditions you will
be using it.

That's the point, you won't know anything for sure.


I will surely know whether I like listening to it!!

wrote in message
ink.net...



Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
whatever.

They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for cable

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

IME Corbett offers a convincing example of how little he actually
understands about the practical aspects of performing listening tests on
audio equipment. His idea which is obviously based only on theory, of
what constitutes an useful small difference corresponds to an difference
in actual perceived sound quality that nobody with real-world experience
with listening tests would take seriously.

IME Corbett has a lengthy track record of trying to gain attention for
himself by attacking those who have far more practical experience than he
does. He distracts naive readers from the obvious serious difficulties
involved in sighted testing. He functions as an apologist for promoters of
audio snake oil.


He is the enemy. SMITE HIM!
He makes Arny'd crotch itch.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
His idea which is obviously based only on theory, of what constitutes an
useful small difference corresponds to an difference in actual perceived
sound quality that nobody with real-world experience with listening tests
would take seriously.


Sounds like you are referring to yourself as the "nobody" with real-world
experience with listening tests. This of course is meaningless since you've
*never* been able to offer *any* proof that you've had access to any audio
equipment of sufficiently high quality. And from your own published
inventory of your equipment, one can conclude that it is at best mediocre
enough to mask almost anything. You might as well take your minivan to the
24 hours of Le Mans. :-)

All you have ever produced here, or elsewhere, are baseless claims and
unsupported factoids mixed with conspiracy theories and failed attempts to
mix in with a crowd that at least appears to be sane. Instead you continue
to dwell among a peer group that clearly consists of the mentally ill, the
perverse, the uneducable and the pitiful as evidenced by McCarty, McKelvy,
Ferstler and the used bicycle salesman. The problem is, Mr. Krueger, that
sensible people simply don't buy your act. That is why you have never
progressed out of your basement and you never will. The only exceptions have
been afforded to you by people with exceptionally big hearts, like John
Atkinson, who paid to fly you to NYC to give you an opportunity to state
your case and salvage something of your life's "work". John probably knew
that you would once again fail but at least he'd unburden your family for a
couple of days.

I hate to break the news to you, Mr. Krueger, but your statement of not
taking something seriously would be more consequential if it originated from
the star of The Tijuana Donkey Show. The donkey, that is.


Margaret

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?


For one thing, tests using other people's ears
does not tell you what YOU will experience.

Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, a bias controlled
comparison would give me a much better idea about a piece of equipment than
a sighted non-bias controlled comprison.


The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
comparisons is because I know what I know about audio equipment.

Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.

None needed since I don't worry about sameness. I'm looking for sameness
insofar as the sound of the equipment should not have any sonic signature.
I want it to be transparent and not add anything in the way of audible
distortion or noise. I want it to be able to drive a normal speaker load,
and do so at volume levels that I enjoy. If I don't like the sound of a
particular recording, then can feel free to use other means to distort it
into something I do like the sound of. I'm not looking to distort
everything, since my goal is accurate playback of the recordings so I can
tell what was intended by the artist and engineering people who hopefully
treated it as a labor of love. I have no problem with people fine tuning
things so they get what they consider to be a "musical" sound, I just want
to start from a point of as accurate as possible before I add or subtract
anything from what was recorded. To that end I learn as much about what is
audible and what is not so I don't end up with anything less than the best,
most accurate presentation possible.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


The Bug Eater explains why he's terrified of submitting to aBxism torture
rituals.

... I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get.

By your own admission, that "information" includes neither aBxism "tests"
nor an
actual audition.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you have no idea what a good stereo
sounds
like.

Thanks George for admitting you have no purpose on RAO other than to distort
the words of people with whom you don't agree.

Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively involved
in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of manufacturers,
probably several times more than most people, I have a very godd idea what
good stereo sounds like and how to get one.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
people
aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation
from
flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

That's unfortunate, since you are saying you actually have to hear crap to
know it's crap, you must waste an awful lot of time.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



dave weil said:

... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by not
being
able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's
why he
has to resort to specs.

More distortions George? Sheesh, I have never said I don't audition
equipment other than CD players. Everything else I hear before I buy.

I find a place that has stuff I'm interested in, I listen to it, sometimes
through my own speakers if it's a place where I've built up a good rapport
with management. Then I get the full set of real world performance facts
about whatever it is I'm considering and when I find something that can
perform to my standards, accuracy with no sonic signature of its own, then I
buy it.


This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is reinforced
by
their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They
react to
Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their
level of
deafness. Sad, really.



The only pattern is that you and those like you who are afraid of people
finding out how much similarity there is in audio equipment, make a point ot
lie and distort the facts.

There is no class envy, there is only a desire for reasonableness. If
people want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get great sound,
I'm all for it, I just hope that they're spending the bulk of that money
where it actually will do the most good, on speakers.

An expensive hi-fi with **** speakers is a **** hi-fi. A moderately priced
system with great speakers being driven by equipment that provides accurate
playback is a great sounding system. Personally I won't settle for less
than the most accurate playback I can get.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
whatever.

They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for cable

Since there are no differnces in the sound of cables, they would be doing
the world a service in demonstrating that fact.

"Margaret von B." said:

You might as well take your minivan to the
24 hours of Le Mans. :-)

He was the
http://www.frontier-leisure.co.uk/ma...2004%20009.jpg
We all know Arny's love for "camping", don't we? ;-)


But what were *you* doing there, Margaret?
http://www.cc-rider.net/photos/book/...ans%202005.jpg

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:22:21 GMT, wrote:

Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively involved
in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of manufacturers,
probably several times more than most people, I have a very _godd_ idea what
good stereo sounds like and how to get one

Freudian Slip alert!

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:22:21 GMT, wrote:

Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively
involved
in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of manufacturers,
probably several times more than most people, I have a very _godd_ idea
what
good stereo sounds like and how to get one

Freudian Slip alert!

Grasping at straws alert.

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?


For one thing, tests using other people's ears
does not tell you what YOU will experience.

Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, a bias controlled
comparison would give me a much better idea about a piece of equipment
than a sighted non-bias controlled comprison.


We are not talking sighted vs controlled, we are talking about you
taking the test vs relying upon the results of other people
taking the tests. What you are telling everybody here
is that the ears of a conglomoration of strangers
is more reliable than your own ears.




The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
comparisons is because I know what I know about audio equipment.

Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.

None needed since I don't worry about sameness. I'm looking for sameness
insofar as the sound of the equipment should not have any sonic signature.
I want it to be transparent and not add anything in the way of audible
distortion or noise. I want it to be able to drive a normal speaker load,
and do so at volume levels that I enjoy. If I don't like the sound of a
particular recording, then can feel free to use other means to distort it
into something I do like the sound of. I'm not looking to distort
everything, since my goal is accurate playback of the recordings so I can
tell what was intended by the artist and engineering people who hopefully
treated it as a labor of love. I have no problem with people fine tuning
things so they get what they consider to be a "musical" sound, I just want
to start from a point of as accurate as possible before I add or subtract
anything from what was recorded. To that end I learn as much about what
is audible and what is not so I don't end up with anything less than the
best, most accurate presentation possible.


To me, the best is not necessarily the most 'signal' accurate.
And the measurements you use are too elementary to account
for a lot of differences one might here. For example, you don't even
acknowledge that the signal contains information
relevant to imaging, much less do you have
anything to measure that with.

wrote in message
link.net...

Thanks George for admitting you have no purpose on RAO other than to
distort the words of people with whom you don't agree.

Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively
involved in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of
manufacturers, probably several times more than most people, I have a very
godd idea what good stereo sounds like and how to get one.

you mean, you know what sounds good to you.

wrote in message
news

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



dave weil said:

... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by
not being
able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's
why he
has to resort to specs.

More distortions George? Sheesh, I have never said I don't audition
equipment other than CD players. Everything else I hear before I buy.

I find a place that has stuff I'm interested in, I listen to it, sometimes
through my own speakers if it's a place where I've built up a good rapport
with management. Then I get the full set of real world performance facts
about whatever it is I'm considering and when I find something that can
perform to my standards, accuracy with no sonic signature of its own, then
I buy it.


This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is
reinforced by
their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They
react to
Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their
level of
deafness. Sad, really.



The only pattern is that you and those like you who are afraid of people
finding out how much similarity there is in audio equipment, make a point
ot lie and distort the facts.

There is no class envy, there is only a desire for reasonableness. If
people want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get great sound,
I'm all for it, I just hope that they're spending the bulk of that money
where it actually will do the most good, on speakers.

An expensive hi-fi with **** speakers is a **** hi-fi. A moderately
priced system with great speakers being driven by equipment that provides
accurate playback is a great sounding system. Personally I won't settle
for less than the most accurate playback I can get.

According to your tin can measurement tools.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
whatever.

They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for
cable

Since there are no differnces in the sound of cables, they would be doing
the world a service in demonstrating that fact.

That is not a fact, its an opinion. My belief is that lots of cable sound
more or less the same, but some may not, and the differences are not
substantial enough to worry about them, especially considering the price,.
But it depends on your bank account, and how much your spending on the rest
of
your system. Cable upgrades are fine, but super expensive (+$1,000)
upgrades are a waste that
can be better spent on better sounding equipment.

"Clyde Slick" said:

To me, the best is not necessarily the most 'signal' accurate.
And the measurements you use are too elementary to account
for a lot of differences one might here. For example, you don't even
acknowledge that the signal contains information
relevant to imaging, much less do you have
anything to measure that with.


Some of that can be traced back to the ability of an amplifier circuit
to handle small signals while at the same time processing huge
signals.
Also, the generation of some kinds of distortion may appear to create
a huge sound stage, one of the simplest forms of which is the second
harmonics distortion as can be found in some SET amplifiers.
I hasten to say that this is a highly simplified explanation, because
the way a signal is processed by an amplifier is dependent on many
variables, like the stiffness of the power supply, the PSRR (power
supply rejection ratio, a means of saying how much a given circuit is
affected by its power supply voltage, or changes thereof), feedback in
all its forms (local, loop around the amp, via the power supply, via
ground paths, etc).

Also, it is not widely known that (huge amounts of) loop feedback may
introduce certain kinds of distortion, depending on (the composition
and amplitude of) the drive signal, the load, and the power supply.
The generated distortions in turn are fed back to the amplifier's
inverting input, creating new forms of distortions that may or may not
have any correlation with the original signal.

Those things can be measured in some instances, in others it is kind
of hard to say what and how to measure, especially when a complex
signal like music is processed.
Also, we're talking about sometimes very small amplitudes that are
hardly measureable, and perhaps not even noticeable for our ears.

The consequences of said effects may be audible however, in the form
of internal blocking of an amplifier stage, at which moment the loop
feedback can;t correct for it anymore.
Such "spikes" can be observed with an oscilloscope of sufficient speed
and, preferably, with a memory.

In short, it is my opinion that an amplifier may well be responsible
for (subtle) changes in "imaging", "sound staging", and more of those
vague subjective terms, in spite of what most technicians want us to
believe.


Flame away guys, there's plenty of white space below :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

I have a very godd[sic] idea what good stereo sounds like

you mean, you know what sounds good to you.

I don't believe that's what poor Mickey meant. I believe he meant what he
said. As we all know, he gets his "ideas" from spec sheets, not from
listening. Furthermore, everything sounds the same to him. Also by his own
admission.

Mikey may get promoted to Major 'Borg if he keeps carrying on like this.

wrote in message
link.net...
..
:
: Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, ...:

excuse me ? for *that*, you may post some links, Michael !

Rudy

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Margaret von B." said:
:
: You might as well take your minivan to the
: 24 hours of Le Mans. :-)
:
: He was the
: http://www.frontier-leisure.co.uk/ma...2004%20009.jpg
: We all know Arny's love for "camping", don't we? ;-)
:
:
: But what were *you* doing there, Margaret?
: http://www.cc-rider.net/photos/book/...ans%202005.jpg
:
: --
:
: "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
: - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
find such facts
so fast,
Sander

the other wanadoo s.puppet

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?


For one thing, tests using other people's ears
does not tell you what YOU will experience.

Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, a bias controlled
comparison would give me a much better idea about a piece of equipment
than a sighted non-bias controlled comprison.


We are not talking sighted vs controlled, we are talking about you
taking the test vs relying upon the results of other people
taking the tests. What you are telling everybody here
is that the ears of a conglomoration of strangers
is more reliable than your own ears.

No I'm not, why do say such a thing?


The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
comparisons is because I know what I know about audio equipment.

Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.

Yet I still manage to put together a system that never fails to get praise
from the people I know who appreciate such things.


None needed since I don't worry about sameness. I'm looking for sameness
insofar as the sound of the equipment should not have any sonic
signature. I want it to be transparent and not add anything in the way of
audible distortion or noise. I want it to be able to drive a normal
speaker load, and do so at volume levels that I enjoy. If I don't like
the sound of a particular recording, then can feel free to use other
means to distort it into something I do like the sound of. I'm not
looking to distort everything, since my goal is accurate playback of the
recordings so I can tell what was intended by the artist and engineering
people who hopefully treated it as a labor of love. I have no problem
with people fine tuning things so they get what they consider to be a
"musical" sound, I just want to start from a point of as accurate as
possible before I add or subtract anything from what was recorded. To
that end I learn as much about what is audible and what is not so I don't
end up with anything less than the best, most accurate presentation
possible.


To me, the best is not necessarily the most 'signal' accurate.
And the measurements you use are too elementary to account
for a lot of differences one might here. For example, you don't even
acknowledge that the signal contains information
relevant to imaging, much less do you have
anything to measure that with.


Imaging comes from the recording and is produced by the speakers.
But then you knew that, since we've discussed it before.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...
.
:
: Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, ...:

excuse me ? for *that*, you may post some links, Michael !

I'd ahve to check for some, but my memory is that there are something like 6
pretty regular human hearing responses. Ears pretty much function the same
mechanically.

Even if there are many varieties of hearing they still react the same way
essentially. By that I mean that if 100 people hear a live concert and use
that as a reference, then when they hear it played back, they'd still react
to the most accurate one as such.

I don't think I'm explaining this very well so I'll get back to you on it.

"Ruud Broens" said:

hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
find such facts
so fast,
Sander


I have a world wide networl of correspondents.

Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...



Imaging comes from the recording and is produced by the speakers.
But then you knew that, since we've discussed it before.


Same recording
Same speakers
But different cd player or different amps, and there are often changes in
imaging

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...
.
:
: Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, ...:

excuse me ? for *that*, you may post some links, Michael !

I'd ahve to check for some, but my memory is that there are something like
6 pretty regular human hearing responses. Ears pretty much function the
same mechanically.

Even if there are many varieties of hearing they still react the same way
essentially. By that I mean that if 100 people hear a live concert and
use that as a reference, then when they hear it played back, they'd still
react to the most accurate one as such.


Not necessarily, hardly at all.
Not even if the speakers and room acoustics were optimal.

I don't think I'm explaining this very well so I'll get back to you on it.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" said:

hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
find such facts
so fast,
Sander


I have a world wide networl of correspondents.

Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)


What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?

"Clyde Slick" said:

hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
find such facts
so fast,
Sander


I have a world wide networl of correspondents.

Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)


What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?


Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)

Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
Even when you're 20.000 kms away!

I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
them on E-bay.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005