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

wrote:

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.

Can you possibly be more specific ?


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.

I agree. I'd hope I'm absent of this effect but I can't be sure.


It doesn't stop with the
illusion of audible differences where there are really none.

Quite so.


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.

And then eat a 'funny' cookie ! That'll explain a thing or two !


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.

Soften up your reviewer !

I reckon I know how to administer a small dose of THC to do the job and no-one would
ever be the wiser !


Graham

wrote in message
ups.com...

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.



Sure, but it depends on the individual - in Arny's case (so aware of his own
bigotry in certain 'audio areas' he is continually trying to unload the
word) he has very fixed views and seems to have developed strange *hostile
feelings* towards certain items of audio kit (SETs being a good example) and
can't stand to hear others make positive comments about them! So his
composure and objectivity usually go out of the window as he sets (oops) off
on one of his rants where it seems he doesn't know whether to attack the
*kit* or its user...

Others are a lot more open-minded and tend to remain a lot less dogmatic in
their views - I like to re-draw the picture from time to time and right now
am listening to a record on an SS amp, using its own phono stage instead of
the the valve setup I normally use. After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and
if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back
to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is
instantaneous and reaffirming.

But who knows, one day this might change - until it does I certainly have no
*hatred* of any audio kit stemming from my own preferences.

(Does this mean I suffer a lot less from 'bias effect'....??? :-)

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
How do you feel about the pseudo-scientific justifications often given
by snake-oil merchants?

How about multinationals?

"In tests 9 out of 10 cats preferred it"
"Reduces the appearance of wrinkles"
"Fights the seven signs of ageing" quote "For more beauty science,
please visit
www.pg.com"

And for those old enough "Aspro - does not affect the heart"

Be my guest and list the most outrageous claims you've heard!


The best one ever was 'Nothing works faster than Anadin'....!! :-)

...so use 'nothing'. ;-


Or at least don't take Anadin and *prolong* the agony...??? ;-)

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:


I can name them if you like by type. Those that insist claims of
audible differences between amps, cables, CD players and the like
must be supported by scienitifically valid evidence. I think you
missed his point by the comment about reading ingredients though. I
think the point is that those same "some people" probably don't do
that at all. Which means they have decided for some reason to pick
on something very specific for scientific validation out of the vast
relm of experiences that are widely evaluated without such evidence.

I'm not clear from that whether it's the case that you think any
audible difference should be scientifically measurable too or not.


Absolutely I believe any real audible difference is scientifically
measuable.

Well, I think people should at least *try* to do this, particularly where
there is some dispute and/or the experiences of different people
contradict. The problem is that they often seem not to want to bother.

For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for
detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what
the
reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in
response
all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but with
little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the
reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up"
and "prove them wrong". My actual aim is to establish in each case
what may or may not be correct.



I would like to observe that I believe it isn't a trivial matter for
ordinary people to make accurate and meaningful 'scientifice measurements'
and that, despite both you and Einstein might perhaps have wished it, not
everything in this life falls into the 'easily explained/easily measured'
category....??

In any case, with 'audio' there is the human factor - where one man's meat
can simply be another man's poisson....

Jim said:
For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for
detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what
the
reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in
response
all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but
with
little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the
reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up"
and "prove them wrong".

He then went on to say:
It would be nice if people who designed/made/sold equipment were
willing to
help. But I appreciate that you can't be bothered.

Now, it should be obvious to anyone with the slightest emotional
intelligence would see that Jim is playing the game "I'm just a good
guy asking for proof" and then turning round and attacking anyone who
doesn't give it to him. This sort of hypocrisy has been going on for
decades. As I said before several times, it won't stop because Jim
doesn't understand it and has no intention of stopping it. Maenwhile it
just annoys people.

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ps.com...
Jim said:
For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for
detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what
the
reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in
response
all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but
with
little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the
reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up"
and "prove them wrong".

He then went on to say:
It would be nice if people who designed/made/sold equipment were
willing to
help. But I appreciate that you can't be bothered.

Now, it should be obvious to anyone with the slightest emotional
intelligence would see that Jim is playing the game "I'm just a good
guy asking for proof" and then turning round and attacking anyone who
doesn't give it to him. This sort of hypocrisy has been going on for
decades. As I said before several times, it won't stop because Jim
doesn't understand it and has no intention of stopping it. Maenwhile it
just annoys people.

I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be
frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue for
using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide something
tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause some level of
frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience, and are use to
working with facts.

On 18 Sep 2006 19:05:06 -0700, wrote:

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.

But if they were eating the same cornflakes, just with different
coloured spoons...?