Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system
 

George M. Middius a écrit :

Stewart Pinkerton blithered:


On 22 Sep 2003 17:17:15 -0700, (JBorg) wrote:


... ball is on your court.

You are a tiresome troll, Middius - but I knew that before.


Have a few too many drinkies today, Pukey? You can't even read names
properly now. Sad.


*HE* IS BACK !

--
Lionel J. M. Chapuis
Unemployed Clown

(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger scheduled
to begin on 9/20/03 per Mr. Wheeler - and the need to possibly provide
supportive documentary evidence that Mr. George M. Middius' daily
incitement to hatred, suicide, slandering, insults, murder is the real
guilty of Mr.Wheeler's grievances.)

Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system
 

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

The Krell KSA-50mkII, Hafler XL-600 and Audiolab 8000P were sonically
indistinguishable into Apogee Duetta Signatures, a Yamaha AX-570 was
almost identical aside from a tiny amount of treble brightness, while
other amps from Rega, Musical Fidelity and Arcam were sonically
distinguishable for various reasons.

Could you elaborate?

So, I would assume that these tests indicate that the Yamaha and all
of the others aren't properly designed. Or was there the possibility
of malfunction?

Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system
 

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

The Krell KSA-50mkII, Hafler XL-600 and Audiolab 8000P were sonically
indistinguishable into Apogee Duetta Signatures, a Yamaha AX-570 was
almost identical aside from a tiny amount of treble brightness, while
other amps from Rega, Musical Fidelity and Arcam were sonically
distinguishable for various reasons.

Could you elaborate?

So, I would assume that these tests indicate that the Yamaha and all
of the others aren't properly designed. Or was there the possibility
of malfunction?

Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system
 

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
you supposed to choose one amp or the other?

You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
point in carrying on.

But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here? Certainly you can
test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
differences in the first place. To elaborate, if someone can't tell
the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
expressing an opinion in the first place. If they are being willful
and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
for testing, right? Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
(like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
the audiophile note no difference for weeks). In other words, you
either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.
Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
telling them and see if they pick it up.

Does this make sense?

Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system
 

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
you supposed to choose one amp or the other?

You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
point in carrying on.

But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here? Certainly you can
test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
differences in the first place. To elaborate, if someone can't tell
the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
expressing an opinion in the first place. If they are being willful
and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
for testing, right? Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
(like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
the audiophile note no difference for weeks). In other words, you
either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.
Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
telling them and see if they pick it up.

Does this make sense?

Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system
 

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
you supposed to choose one amp or the other?

You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
point in carrying on.

But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here?

Hence the PCABX Training Room

Certainly you can
test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
differences in the first place.

Another means - testing progressively smaller differences where the larger
differences are multiples of the actual difference. Also done at PCABX.

To elaborate, if someone can't tell
the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
expressing an opinion in the first place.

That would depend on which SET and which Denon and the other details of the
tests.

If they are being willful
and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
for testing, right?

Nicely handled in the case where you start out with an enhanced difference
based on some number of multiples of the final actual difference.

Also nicely handled where you have some true believers in the audibility of
the difference.

Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
(like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
the audiophile note no difference for weeks).

The only apocryphal part being the stated time frame - weeks. If you say
hours, then the story is true and I been there and seen that done.

In other words, you
either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.

Always done in half of an ABX comparison.


Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
telling them and see if they pick it up.

Or you take a true believer, let him hear the difference when its augmented
by a factor of say 20, and then cut it down in stages and watch them work
themselves up into a froth trying to hear a 5x difference that is too small
for them to hear.

Does this make sense?

Only if I want to watch Weil re-invent wheels I've already ridden to Los
Angeles and back.

Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system
 

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
you supposed to choose one amp or the other?

You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
point in carrying on.

But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here?

Hence the PCABX Training Room

Certainly you can
test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
differences in the first place.

Another means - testing progressively smaller differences where the larger
differences are multiples of the actual difference. Also done at PCABX.

To elaborate, if someone can't tell
the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
expressing an opinion in the first place.

That would depend on which SET and which Denon and the other details of the
tests.

If they are being willful
and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
for testing, right?

Nicely handled in the case where you start out with an enhanced difference
based on some number of multiples of the final actual difference.

Also nicely handled where you have some true believers in the audibility of
the difference.

Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
(like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
the audiophile note no difference for weeks).

The only apocryphal part being the stated time frame - weeks. If you say
hours, then the story is true and I been there and seen that done.

In other words, you
either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.

Always done in half of an ABX comparison.


Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
telling them and see if they pick it up.

Or you take a true believer, let him hear the difference when its augmented
by a factor of say 20, and then cut it down in stages and watch them work
themselves up into a froth trying to hear a 5x difference that is too small
for them to hear.

Does this make sense?

Only if I want to watch Weil re-invent wheels I've already ridden to Los
Angeles and back.

Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system
 

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:04:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
you supposed to choose one amp or the other?

You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
point in carrying on.

But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here?

Hence the PCABX Training Room

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You one isn't
*willing* to have the acuity, it should be tested for.

Certainly you can
test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
differences in the first place.

Another means - testing progressively smaller differences where the larger
differences are multiples of the actual difference. Also done at PCABX.

You still don't understand my point. I'm talking about the possibility
that someone might not *want* to hear differences, even
subconsciously, because of some bias.

To elaborate, if someone can't tell
the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
expressing an opinion in the first place.

That would depend on which SET and which Denon and the other details of the
tests.

I'm obviously speaking of an amp that measures "differently" and
"sounds" differently.

If they are being willful
and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
for testing, right?

Nicely handled in the case where you start out with an enhanced difference
based on some number of multiples of the final actual difference.

Also nicely handled where you have some true believers in the audibility of
the difference.

Please speak plainly.

Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
(like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
the audiophile note no difference for weeks).

The only apocryphal part being the stated time frame - weeks. If you say
hours, then the story is true and I been there and seen that done.

Tom Nousiane spoke about such a case, and I'm sure that weeks were
involved (it could have been from one wek to the other).

I have to wonder how you would howl (and how you would perform for
that matter) if the shoe were on the other foot.

In other words, you
either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.

Always done in half of an ABX comparison.

Please explain.

Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
telling them and see if they pick it up.

Or you take a true believer, let him hear the difference when its augmented
by a factor of say 20, and then cut it down in stages and watch them work
themselves up into a froth trying to hear a 5x difference that is too small
for them to hear.

We aren't talking about that. Please don't change the subject. That's
a different issue entirely.

Does this make sense?

Only if I want to watch Weil re-invent wheels I've already ridden to Los
Angeles and back.

shrug

Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system
 

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:04:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
you supposed to choose one amp or the other?

You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
point in carrying on.

But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here?

Hence the PCABX Training Room

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You one isn't
*willing* to have the acuity, it should be tested for.

Certainly you can
test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
differences in the first place.

Another means - testing progressively smaller differences where the larger
differences are multiples of the actual difference. Also done at PCABX.

You still don't understand my point. I'm talking about the possibility
that someone might not *want* to hear differences, even
subconsciously, because of some bias.

To elaborate, if someone can't tell
the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
expressing an opinion in the first place.

That would depend on which SET and which Denon and the other details of the
tests.

I'm obviously speaking of an amp that measures "differently" and
"sounds" differently.

If they are being willful
and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
for testing, right?

Nicely handled in the case where you start out with an enhanced difference
based on some number of multiples of the final actual difference.

Also nicely handled where you have some true believers in the audibility of
the difference.

Please speak plainly.

Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
(like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
the audiophile note no difference for weeks).

The only apocryphal part being the stated time frame - weeks. If you say
hours, then the story is true and I been there and seen that done.

Tom Nousiane spoke about such a case, and I'm sure that weeks were
involved (it could have been from one wek to the other).

I have to wonder how you would howl (and how you would perform for
that matter) if the shoe were on the other foot.

In other words, you
either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.

Always done in half of an ABX comparison.

Please explain.

Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
telling them and see if they pick it up.

Or you take a true believer, let him hear the difference when its augmented
by a factor of say 20, and then cut it down in stages and watch them work
themselves up into a froth trying to hear a 5x difference that is too small
for them to hear.

We aren't talking about that. Please don't change the subject. That's
a different issue entirely.

Does this make sense?

Only if I want to watch Weil re-invent wheels I've already ridden to Los
Angeles and back.

shrug

Advice needed on new Hi-Fi system
 

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:04:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:32:28 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

I'm having trouble seeing how you'd score a "no difference". Aren't
you supposed to choose one amp or the other?

You just state that you can't tell any difference, and abandon the
test. After all, if you really can't hear any difference, there's no
point in carrying on.

But wouldn't you have to test your own acuity here?

Hence the PCABX Training Room

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You one isn't
*willing* to have the acuity, it should be tested for.

Next time try posting in English, Weil.

Certainly you can
test to see if you have the "right" as it were, to be testing for
differences in the first place.

Another means - testing progressively smaller differences where the
larger
differences are multiples of the actual difference. Also done at PCABX.

You still don't understand my point. I'm talking about the possibility
that someone might not *want* to hear differences, even
subconsciously, because of some bias.

Only in Weil land do audiophiles say to themselves: "Goody-goody gumdrops,
I'm going to fail a listening test".

To elaborate, if someone can't tell
the difference between, say, an SET and a Denon, they shouldn't be
expressing an opinion in the first place.

That would depend on which SET and which Denon and the other details of
the
tests.

I'm obviously speaking of an amp that measures "differently" and
"sounds" differently.

If you had only said what you meant the first time, Weil. Presuming of
course that is what you knew, the first time.


If they are being willful
and REFUSING to hear a difference (as I think is the case with guys
like Howard Ferstler, who are too invested in their religious belief
that everything sounds the same), shouldn't they be independently
tested using a TRUE blind setup where they don't even know the amps
being tested (I assume that you knew at least the amps you had on hand
for testing, right?

Nicely handled in the case where you start out with an enhanced
difference
based on some number of multiples of the final actual difference.

Also nicely handled where you have some true believers in the audibility
of
the difference.

Please speak plainly.

Communication is composed of transmitting information and receiving it.
Sorry to hear that your receiver is broken, Weil.

Alternately, a little misdirection could be used
(like those old apocryphal stories of people coming into wealthy
audiophiles' homes and secretly substitution cheap gear and watching
the audiophile note no difference for weeks).

The only apocryphal part being the stated time frame - weeks. If you say
hours, then the story is true and I been there and seen that done.

Tom Nousiane spoke about such a case, and I'm sure that weeks were
involved (it could have been from one week to the other).

The story was told clearly, and clearly said otherwise.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=JM...news.flash.net

I have to wonder how you would howl (and how you would perform for
that matter) if the shoe were on the other foot.

Weil you wonder only due to your inability to understand plain English.

In other words, you
either a.: tell some mid-fi snob that they are comparing an SET with a
Denon receiver when, in fact, they are listening to the same amp.

Always done in half of an ABX comparison.

Please explain.

Half of an ABX test (either AX or BX) is a comparison in which the unknown
and the reference are the same. Half is a comparison in which the unknown
and the reference are different (BX or AX, respectively).

Then, you would see if they suddenly thought that they could hear
differences. Or, b. you could insert an SET into the mix without
telling them and see if they pick it up.

Or you take a true believer, let him hear the difference when its
augmented
by a factor of say 20, and then cut it down in stages and watch them work
themselves up into a froth trying to hear a 5x difference that is too
small
for them to hear.

We aren't talking about that.

We usually describes more than one person. Since at least one of us is
talking about exactly that, you are exactly wrong, Weil.

Please don't change the subject. That's
a different issue entirely.

Only in your narrow mind, Weil.


Does this make sense?

Only if I want to watch Weil re-invent wheels I've already ridden to Los
Angeles and back.

shrug

Horse taken to water, horse refused to drink for the jillionth time. Not
news!