On Sep 9, 7:04 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

...



"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
roups.com...
Arny:
There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.
Name them, please.

The first is pretty obvious : Arguing with fools.


That is not a fallacy. Just an exercise in futility.

But as Mr. Krueger's recent foray into High-End clearly illustrates,
he is quite *subject* to leaping to conclusions. He is prone to false
premises and to circular reasoning.

In the reference discussion, he suggested that a study referencing 35
- 75 second listening samples and stating that listeners heard little
difference between them is transferrable from sight-impared
individuals using transcription services to general audio listeners in
short and long term auditions. That would be Leaping to Conclusions.

He expects that one must parse all that he writes and respond point-by-
tiresome, repetitive, and typically misrepresentative point. That
falls generally under the False Premises fallacy.

Further, he has no ability to parse the writing of others except in
the same tiresome way, all the while searching for that tangent tp
follow that will divert from the subject at hand and add yet one more
layer of smoke to the discussion. That falls generally under the
Circular Reasoning fallacy.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

On 9 Sep, 15:03, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Sep 8, 6:11 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.

Thank you Peter. I sincerily hope that you will properly inform yourself
on
these topics.

Arny:

What I am writing is that even that bastion of Holy Writ, the Roman
Catholic Church made exceptions for those whom they deemed Invincibly
Ignorant. I make that same exception for you.

There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.

Name them, please.

Sorry Peter, but claiming to read minds is not one of my faults. If you've
got something to say - say it.

George is funnier than you are,
but "at least" you're funnier than Wicked Pete.
That's a very sad commentary.

Clyde Slick said:

but "at least" you're funnier than Wicked Pete.
That's a very sad commentary.

Krooger doesn't know what's funny and what's ****.

Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Of course, when I replaced the new electrolytics with new film caps,
it tightened right up to sound identical to the previously modified
unit. So, it was not 'other causes'. It is remarkable how well those
AR amps can sound when the factory errors and/or deteriorated parts
are replaced and the bias is done properly.

Were the caps directly in the signal path i.e coupling capacitors ? Were the film
caps the same value as the electrolytics (they're going to be considerably
physically larger) ?

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Two words: sighted evaluation.

Sighted evaluations are the largest single stimulus to the fabrication and
justification of audio mythologies that have ever existed.

Inclusion of a "even my wife heard the difference" anecdote always gives me
a chuckle.

On Sep 11, 8:56 am, Eeyore
wrote:

Were the caps directly in the signal path i.e coupling capacitors ? Were the film
caps the same value as the electrolytics (they're going to be considerably
physically larger) ?

Yes, and yes.

Keep in mind that this was a late 60s design executed in the early
70s, so even a 20V @ 1uF cap had a little size on it back then. I used
a modern 250V film cap (screened to measure dead-on with my Fluke)
with the same lead spacing & width but about 2 x taller.

I used modern electrolytics "rated" to be within standard tolerances
(-20/+100% of nameplate) screened to be at least, but not more than
120% of nameplate on my Fluke. Electrolytics simply don't get that
precise, and I am dead-sure that AR bulk-purchased standard stuff.
What came out certainly had no special tolerance markings so anything
I did would be more-than-factory.

This all happened because I did have two identical units on the bench,
and got curious. I then tried it with one of their receivers
(identical amplifier circuit) and got the same (perceived) result.
Then I tried it on the sport tube unit. Same.

If you are curious, I could scan the relevant sections of the
schematic and note which caps were changed.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...



Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Two words: sighted evaluation.

Sighted evaluations are the largest single stimulus to the fabrication and
justification of audio mythologies that have ever existed.

Inclusion of a "even my wife heard the difference" anecdote always gives me
a chuckle.

What utter crap. My wife would have no clue which was which,
furthermore her actual interest in audio other than as a moderate user
is about the functional equivalent of my interest in knitting. So she
would have no brief either way.

Test was at the bench, units side-by-side, using the test-bench
speakers (AR4x) and a chunky DP/DT switch between them, same volume,
same signal (Pre-Amp dual tape-out from a CD player). Sure I
overloaded the output transistors briefly and made a little heat. No
harm done. But I wanted to see if I could really detect a
difference... and whether it was then equally obvious to an unschooled
set of ears.

So, make of it what you will, and denegrate what you will. It is your
wont and you are fully entitled.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...



Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Two words: sighted evaluation.

Sighted evaluations are the largest single stimulus to the fabrication
and
justification of audio mythologies that have ever existed.

Inclusion of a "even my wife heard the difference" anecdote always gives
me
a chuckle.

What utter crap.

Actually, there's plenty of science to back me up, going back to "Clever
Hans" the horse, in the early 19th century.

My wife would have no clue which was which,
furthermore her actual interest in audio other than as a moderate user
is about the functional equivalent of my interest in knitting. So she
would have no brief either way.

With all due respect for your wife, neither did "Clever Hans"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

Test was at the bench, units side-by-side, using the test-bench
speakers (AR4x) and a chunky DP/DT switch between them, same volume,
same signal (Pre-Amp dual tape-out from a CD player). Sure I
overloaded the output transistors briefly and made a little heat. No
harm done. But I wanted to see if I could really detect a
difference... and whether it was then equally obvious to an unschooled
set of ears.

How many holes can I shoot in this crude procedure? I won't even try!

So, make of it what you will, and denegrate what you will. It is your
wont and you are fully entitled.

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you harumph and
posture.

Arny said:

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you
harumph and posture.

*What's* all about science?

Is there anything that is *not* all about science?

Can anything be all about science whilst simultaneously
being all about something else?

When I went to the mosque to join up to this Islam thing
they told me I had to renounce all my other beliefs. When I
tried to argue the principle of interpenetration of
opposites, aka superposition, they said I also had to stop
arguing. If it weren't for this characteristic of exclusive
reductionism, I could have been really religious.

Science is different from religion partly in that it is not,
in itself, exclusive.

Ian

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
. uk...
Arny said:

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you harumph and
posture.

*What's* all about science?

The stuff you deleted. :-(

Is there anything that is *not* all about science?

Sure. Let's start with art...

Can anything be all about science whilst simultaneously being all about
something else?

Sure, but you've got to look at the context.

When I went to the mosque to join up to this Islam thing they told me I
had to renounce all my other beliefs. When I tried to argue the principle
of interpenetration of opposites, aka superposition, they said I also had
to stop arguing. If it weren't for this characteristic of exclusive
reductionism, I could have been really religious.

I think you made a good choice. I'm sorry to say that you can probably get a
similar "treatment" at a lot of Christian churches. It doesn't have to be
that way.

Science is different from religion partly in that it is not, in itself,
exclusive.

Well, there's religion and there's giving his due to the 1 true God.
Regreattably, those are very often two very different things.