"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

: Jealous ? Nahh, i'd much prefer a Blu ray jukebox over 5 times an hour
: commercial-interrupted broadcasts ;-)
: With a SED display, maybe ?

I've got 4 HD channels that are commercial free and about 10 digital
channels that are... none of these are premiere channels or pay channels
(HBO etc).. they're part of standard digital cable offerings.
One the old analogue side... I can only think of 3 that are commercial
free.. PBS and 2 C-spans. Anyway.. the more channels the more commercial
free content.... and hopefully.. lower cost and HD EOD.

:
: cheers,
: Rudy
:
see he
http://www.canon.com/technology/display/

the possibility of screen printing manufacturing is awesome :-)

Not to be a knit but I think the real advance there is in application of
inkjet.
That gives a big increase in resolution over screen printing. I worked for
a hybrid thick film circuit manufacturer some 20 years ago. All screen
printed stuff though as resolutions improved they went from screens to
stencils.

These guys are also doing some interesting stuff with print manufacturing.
You can get a 12 watt panel for about $20 now.
http://www.iowathinfilm.com/technology/index.html

ScottW

Scottie yapped:

I've got 4 HD channels that are commercial free and about 10 digital
channels that are... none of these are premiere channels or pay channels
(HBO etc).. they're part of standard digital cable offerings.
One the old analogue side... I can only think of 3 that are commercial
free.. PBS and 2 C-spans. Anyway.. the more channels the more commercial
free content.... and hopefully.. lower cost and HD EOD.

Do you like emeralds? Here's an offer for you: You can have 10 carats of
emeralds for $100 or 1 carat for $5000. Which one do you want?

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


Scottie yapped:

I've got 4 HD channels that are commercial free and about 10 digital
channels that are... none of these are premiere channels or pay channels
(HBO etc).. they're part of standard digital cable offerings.
One the old analogue side... I can only think of 3 that are commercial
free.. PBS and 2 C-spans. Anyway.. the more channels the more
commercial
free content.... and hopefully.. lower cost and HD EOD.

Do you like emeralds? Here's an offer for you: You can have 10 carats of
emeralds for $100 or 1 carat for $5000. Which one do you want?

Poor George... clarity eludes him again.... What's the matter George? Is
Liberty Medical late with your meds again?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:jfvAf.43096$0G.304@dukeread10...
:
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
: see he
: http://www.canon.com/technology/display/
:
: the possibility of screen printing manufacturing is awesome :-)
:
: Not to be a knit but I think the real advance there is in application of
: inkjet.
: That gives a big increase in resolution over screen printing. I worked for
: a hybrid thick film circuit manufacturer some 20 years ago. All screen
: printed stuff though as resolutions improved they went from screens to
: stencils.

ok, picking a nitz pick: it doesn't say screenprinting (the printing technology)
but screen printing, as in making a screen by (various) printing technologies.

there is a blurring or fusion, depending on your views ;-), going on,
eg. here you can read that offset-like (hydrophile/hydrophobe) elements
are used together with inkjet (OLED; transistor circuits):
http://www.idtechex.com/printelecrev...s/00000180.asp

so, a 16000*12000 160*100 cm screen is in the wings..
that will need local scaling and interpolation to be practical

printed transistor circuits at the edges of the display with several
times the current SOTA pc graphics chips' performance
- some challenges there :-)
R.


: These guys are also doing some interesting stuff with print manufacturing.
: You can get a 12 watt panel for about $20 now.
: http://www.iowathinfilm.com/technology/index.html
:
: ScottW
:
:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be
tested,
(same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an
audio
forum!)
But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
"test" , the other one has a modification of it.
Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
results only have shown up.

Liar.

It is up to you to show that the test will
reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and
women,
audiophiles and car audio lovers.

It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
people
can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.

Till you have this evidence the
logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear
anything
much.



The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a
guaranteed
outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
hype.

Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
"test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove
that
it does not!

Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.

To please you I looked for components
where
differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good-
"Too
easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly
sidetracks
the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said
they
were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it
WORKS
before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable
null
results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.

Ludovic Mirabel



** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
speakers should sound different. No takers.
Krueger answers:
Too easy. Been there, done that:



You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the
results
of
previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below find the "arguments" that the slight forger NYOB has to offer
in a discussion that seemed serious before the clowns danced in..
Argument #1
Liar.
Argument #2
It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
people
can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
Not a QUOTE, QUOTE, QUOTE to show where and when "it was done" and how
would anyone other than the slight forger " know it"
Argument #3
The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a
guaranteed
outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
hype
The question is for the nth. time. Quote one single published monitored
"test" report in which a resonably-sized listener panel recognised
differences between ANY, ANY, ANY comparable audio components. ANY,
ANY, ANY**

Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
I count 3 positive results he
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
assumptions?

There are 2 more positive results he
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements, no?

There's another one he http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm


Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm

And here's 7 mo http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm

Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX
rests
of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby proving
your
dishonesty.

So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX
listening
tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to bitch
about.
------------------------------------------------------------

Clown-Prince has a question:
"Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
the identical pcavtech. dance routine.

What has the age of the website to do with anything? Some of the tests
cited are far younger than that.

Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
fresh.
So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
bored as is the writer.
The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
1) 10 watt tubes amps
They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
not bad but less than flat:
They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.

As long as neither amp was clipping, what's the problem?

2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
"The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.

Proving that clipping amps is a bad thing when doing blind comaprisons.


They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
or not.
Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
-repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
"different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
and one wrong.
First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"

And that proves what? CD players are supposed to produce perfect
reproduction.
Obviously this comparison showed otherwise.


The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
they?

Because some tape players sound different that others, at least according to
many people.

If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
comment:
"The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "

Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.


Sometimes music is not the most revealing way to discern difference.
Thanks for admitting that you didn't know that.

Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
menu in the lock-up.
See above. Sometimes signals other than music are more revealing.


The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
against wire"
I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
positive ABX results.

It shows that differences can be heard in an ABX test, something you seem to
think is not possible.

For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference.

The standard for levcel matching is.1dB since more than that is aduible.

But then I'm not ABXing.
The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
were not rather sad.
This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
offer a few years ago.

Ludovic Mirabel
Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
up again I'll just copy the text above


Because that's the best you can do. You have no real way to invalidate any
of the results.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
I count 3 positive results he
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
assumptions?

There are 2 more positive results he
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements, no?

There's another one he http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm


Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm

And here's 7 mo http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm

Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX
rests
of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby proving
your
dishonesty.

So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX
listening
tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to bitch
about.
------------------------------------------------------------

Clown-Prince has a question:
"Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
the identical pcavtech. dance routine.
Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
fresh.
So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
bored as is the writer.
The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
1) 10 watt tubes amps
They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
not bad but less than flat:
They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.
2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
"The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.

They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
or not.
Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
-repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
"different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
and one wrong.
First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"

The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
they?
If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
comment:
"The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "

Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.

Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
menu in the lock-up.

The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
against wire"
I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
positive ABX results.
For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference. But then I'm not ABXing.
The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
were not rather sad.
This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
offer a few years ago.

Ludovic Mirabel
Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
up again I'll just copy the text above

In keeping I'll requote what I wrote before"
"Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
randomised,
double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
media in children"
You know how many subjects? 512
Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
placebo".
Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not
like its ABX caricature."

Believe it or not, I've actually run and--participated in--a double blind
test of mono v. bi-wiring. This was not an ABX test, it was an AB test.
Could the participants tell whether they were listening to a bi-wired
Vandersteen speaker or a mono-wired one? This test used 33' of wire having
sizes of 12, 18 or 24 AWG. For each wire size, the question was: can you
tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs. mono-wired. It
proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There was a very slight
difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24 wire, and the
comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least louder.) All of
these results were what I would have guessed ahead of time based on
electrical theory. IOW, no surprises.

Norm Strong

wrote in message
...

Believe it or not, I've actually run and--participated in--a double blind
test of mono v. bi-wiring. This was not an ABX test, it was an AB test.
Could the participants tell whether they were listening to a bi-wired
Vandersteen speaker or a mono-wired one? This test used 33' of wire
having sizes of 12, 18 or 24 AWG. For each wire size, the question was:
can you tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs.
mono-wired. It proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There
was a very slight difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24
wire, and the comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least
louder.) All of these results were what I would have guessed ahead of
time based on electrical theory. IOW, no surprises.

Norm Strong


Which Vandersteen speakers?




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
I count 3 positive results he
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
assumptions?

There are 2 more positive results he
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements, no?

There's another one he http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm


Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm

And here's 7 mo http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm

Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX
rests
of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby proving
your
dishonesty.

So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX
listening
tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to bitch
about.
------------------------------------------------------------

Clown-Prince has a question:
"Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
the identical pcavtech. dance routine.
Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
fresh.
So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
bored as is the writer.
The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
1) 10 watt tubes amps
They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
not bad but less than flat:
They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.
2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
"The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.

They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
or not.
Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
-repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
"different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
and one wrong.
First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"

The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
they?
If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
comment:
"The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "

Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.

Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
menu in the lock-up.

The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
against wire"
I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
positive ABX results.
For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference. But then I'm not ABXing.
The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
were not rather sad.
This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
offer a few years ago.

Ludovic Mirabel
Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
up again I'll just copy the text above

In keeping I'll requote what I wrote before"
"Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
randomised,
double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
media in children"
You know how many subjects? 512
Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
placebo".
Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not
like its ABX caricature."

Believe it or not, I've actually run and--participated in--a double blind
test of mono v. bi-wiring. This was not an ABX test, it was an AB test.
Could the participants tell whether they were listening to a bi-wired
Vandersteen speaker or a mono-wired one? This test used 33' of wire having
sizes of 12, 18 or 24 AWG. For each wire size, the question was: can you
tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs. mono-wired. It
proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There was a very slight
difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24 wire, and the
comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least louder.) All of
these results were what I would have guessed ahead of time based on
electrical theory. IOW, no surprises.

Norm Strong

Norm I'm genuinely puzzled. You start by saying "believe me or not".
Why should anyone disbelieve that ABX sessions are feasible?
I could but hardly think it necessary to ask: how many participated,
how representative a group was it, what were your statistical criteria
etc.etc.
I accept your result. It is another negative result in the negative
null file of ABX results. For all I know it may be that no one would
hear anything else comparing biamping with single-amping.or else that
someone, somewhere might. Hardly a proof that otherl components sound
the same.to everyone on earth. Remember you were not satisfied with an
82% positive result of Greenhill's "golden ear" distinguishing cables.
You're happy that theory supports you but all scientific theory is
based on the experiments as availavle on 22 Jan 2006
Have you had any positive results? With anything in audio
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
I count 3 positive results he
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
assumptions?

There are 2 more positive results he
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements,
no?

There's another one he http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm


Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm

And here's 7 mo http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm

Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX
rests
of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby
proving
your
dishonesty.

So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX
listening
tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to
bitch
about.
------------------------------------------------------------

Clown-Prince has a question:
"Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
the identical pcavtech. dance routine.
Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
fresh.
So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
bored as is the writer.
The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
1) 10 watt tubes amps
They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
not bad but less than flat:
They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.
2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
"The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.

They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
or not.
Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
-repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
"different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
and one wrong.
First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"

The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
they?
If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
comment:
"The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "

Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.

Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
menu in the lock-up.

The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
against wire"
I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
positive ABX results.
For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference. But then I'm not ABXing.
The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
were not rather sad.
This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
offer a few years ago.

Ludovic Mirabel
Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
up again I'll just copy the text above

In keeping I'll requote what I wrote before"
"Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
randomised,
double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
media in children"
You know how many subjects? 512
Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
placebo".
Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not
like its ABX caricature."

Believe it or not, I've actually run and--participated in--a double blind
test of mono v. bi-wiring. This was not an ABX test, it was an AB test.
Could the participants tell whether they were listening to a bi-wired
Vandersteen speaker or a mono-wired one? This test used 33' of wire
having
sizes of 12, 18 or 24 AWG. For each wire size, the question was: can
you
tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs. mono-wired. It
proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There was a very
slight
difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24 wire, and the
comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least louder.) All
of
these results were what I would have guessed ahead of time based on
electrical theory. IOW, no surprises.

Norm Strong

Norm I'm genuinely puzzled. You start by saying "believe me or not".
Why should anyone disbelieve that ABX sessions are feasible?
I could but hardly think it necessary to ask: how many participated,
how representative a group was it, what were your statistical criteria
etc.etc.
I accept your result. It is another negative result in the negative
null file of ABX results. For all I know it may be that no one would
hear anything else comparing biamping with single-amping.or else that
someone, somewhere might. Hardly a proof that otherl components sound
the same.to everyone on earth. Remember you were not satisfied with an
82% positive result of Greenhill's "golden ear" distinguishing cables.
You're happy that theory supports you but all scientific theory is
based on the experiments as availavle on 22 Jan 2006
Have you had any positive results? With anything in audio
Ludovic Mirabel

The AWG24 results were positive, were they not. This WAS a double blind
test. There WERE 3 people listening (and one to run the test.) The
bi-wired speakers sounded different than the mono-wired ones. My guess is
that the same results would have been obtained for AWG18 wires if I had run
the test backwards. Yes, it's true that I did not pursue the test further,
or with more subjects, largely because the results were what I would have
expected. If they had run counter to my expectations, I probably would
have run additional tests. I leave that task for others.

Norm

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


said:

Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
audible differences do not "really" exist.



They certainly prove that the non-existent ones don't exist, which covers a
lot of gear and virtually all wire and interconnects.

I see no profit or pleasure in discussions with a document
forger whose main argument is "You're a liar
Ludovic Mirabel