Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

Keith G wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote
wrote in message

It's really funny that a guy who insists so many differences heard in
careful evaluations of equipment are imagined because of bias effects
would think he could make any kind of meaningful evaluation of SETs
under show conditions with completely unfamiliar systems despite his
obvious biases.

The measured frequency response aberrations and nonlinear distortion in
SETs are sufficient that claims to hear a difference are not exceptional.
Some SETs have worse midrange frequency response than some speakers.

Amazing.....

What I find particularly amazing is that Arny would both paint SETs
with such a broad brush and fail to understand that bias effects are
still in play even with components that are widely agreed to have
audible colorations.

What components would these be ?

*Any* component believed to be involved in playback.





You'd think someone who has made such a big deal
about bias effects would better understand them.

Do tell more.

Bias effects affect perception always. It doesn't stop with the
illusion of audible differences where there are really none. it is in
play even with components that are widely agreed to have gross
differences such as speakers. Bias effects affect all of our aesthetic
perceptions. meals taste better when they look better, people look
better when they smell better. etc etc. The funny thing is when someone
says the food at such and such is great no one demands proof via DBTs.
That seems to be a unique demand placed on people who express
preferences for amps, wires, CD players and the like.



Scott