"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
Probably no more than one could describe the sound of a
Bosendorfer concert grand piano to someone who has never
heard one. You need to hear it, Graham.

Lots of people told me that about SETs. So I went to HE2005 and heard a
bunch of them. I really didn't need to hear that crap. But now that I
have, I have a more accurate evaluation of tube bigots.


That's what I like about you, Army. Your use of the word
cr*p and the term "tube bigot", prove to all your open
mindedness and impartiality in evaluation:-)

Iain

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
Probably no more than one could describe the sound of a
Bosendorfer concert grand piano to someone who has never
heard one. You need to hear it, Graham.

Lots of people told me that about SETs. So I went to HE2005 and heard a
bunch of them. I really didn't need to hear that crap. But now that I
have, I have a more accurate evaluation of tube bigots.


That's what I like about you, Army. Your use of the word
cr*p and the term "tube bigot", prove to all your open
mindedness and impartiality in evaluation:-)


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.


Scott

wrote in message
ups.com...

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
Probably no more than one could describe the sound of a
Bosendorfer concert grand piano to someone who has never
heard one. You need to hear it, Graham.

Lots of people told me that about SETs. So I went to HE2005 and heard a
bunch of them. I really didn't need to hear that crap. But now that I
have, I have a more accurate evaluation of tube bigots.


That's what I like about you, Army. Your use of the word
cr*p and the term "tube bigot", prove to all your open
mindedness and impartiality in evaluation:-)


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.


:-)

wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com...

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.....

Keith G wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com...

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.....

Do elaborate.

Graham

Some SETs have worse midrange frequency response than some speakers.

Amazing.....

Irish SETs can wade through water and fetch sticks.

Keith G wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com...

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



Scott

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 ?


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

Do tell more.

Graham

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