Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Amplifier comparison at Sunshine Stereo

262 views
Skip to first unread message

Armand

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

In article <322474...@macc.wisc.edu>, Dana Bunner <dbu...@macc.wisc.edu> says:
>
>Steve Maki wrote:
>
>> Steve had stated that he felt the ABX box would veil differences,
>> so we had encouraged him to set up a test he felt comfortable with.
>> He planned to use his PASS Aleph 1.2 monoblocks as the reference amps,
>> and a PS Audio basic amp as the "bad" amp, and to manually swap cables
>> for the test. We quickly determined that he had no way to level
>> match these amps, so we substituted a Yamaha AX700 integrated amp,
>> which we had brought along, for the PS Audio amp.
>
>Steve should have paid more attention to a post by Stewart
>Pinkerton a few weeks ago. SP performed a number of
>comparisons on integrated amps in his home and concluded that
>a Yamaha integrated amp was surprisingly good, ranking it as
>the 2nd best unit in the group. That innocent little "bad"
>amp may have been a ringer!
>
>Certainly a fun report. Even though I believe that it will
>generally take more time to get familiar with the sound of a
>particular amp (usually a few days), I would think that
>if substantial sonic differences were present (as one might
>suspect between the Yamaha & Pass) that it would be more
>immediately detectible. At the least it illustrates that
>differences on the amp level are no where near that of the
>speaker and room acoustics level, which should be quite
>valuable information to many audio equipment potential
>customers.
>
>Dana

Dana, can't seem to find Maki's post. Can you or someone else re-post it?
Thanks,
Armand

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

tshe...@uni.uiuc.edu (Tom Sherman) writes:

>Oh damn damn damn...here comes another objectionist/subjectivist debate,
>but I think I'll throw my limited $.02 in justferthehelluvit. And I felt
>I just *had* to the first the respond to this...


>ste...@w8hd.org (Steve Maki) writes:

>>After we did a frequency response check of both amps using a test CD
>>and digital ac voltmeter at the speaker terminals (the Pass was
>>slightly better than the Yamaha), we level matched them at 1 kHz,
>>using the same method. Steve then did some sighted comparisons of the
>>two amps until he thought he had a "fix" on them. To create a random
>>sequence of "unknowns", I flipped a coin ten times, recorded the
>>results, decided heads would be the Yamaha and tails would be the Pass,
>>and used this list for the ten trials. The switching method throughout
>>this first session was to manually swap the interconnects and speaker
>>cables from one amp to the other. During the ten "blind" trials, Steve
>>would leave the room during the swap. (There were others in the room at
>>all times).

>Steve, I'd have to say that the root of the problem is that you weren't
>able to listen long enough to each setup to absolutely "zero-in" on the
>sound of each amp. You might have felt a little pressed for time, so you
>hurried along your "fix" on the amps... (especially since you had that
>emergency before) Then, you might have tricked yourself into thinking
>things that weren't there were there, and fooled yourself into thinking
>that you were ready for the blind test. Please, take me seriously --
>this is not a flame of you, but why I really think this test didn't show
>up the definitely audible difference in amplifiers.

No Tom, the root of the problem is that the amps sounded sufficiently
alike that nobody could tell the difference! I have designed and built
about fifteen amps, and listened to dozens of commercial ones. I've
heard huge numbers of differences, and about 3/4 of the differences I
heard didn't stand up to a blind test (I've done LOTS of them).

Note that I'm not saying that there are no audible differences between
amps, just that there aren't as many as people think (even me!).
Incidentally, I think one problem may have been that Tom and Steve
slipped in a 'ringer'. I was buying a new amp for my TV sound system a
year or so ago and the most remarkable performance in value terms came
from the Yamaha AX-570, which sounded almost EXACTLY like the Audiolab
8000P I eventually bought, and superior to a fair list of 'entry level
high-end' amps I could get hold of on home demo. I find this test useful
on both these counts since (a) it proves the great Zip will have to pull
his head in about the 'hugely superior' Pass Aleph amps and (b) it's
more confirmation of what great amps Yamaha do at very low prices.

I wonder if Zip will 'discover' some problem with the test? :-)

Max Moulton

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

Mr. Zipser has made some rather bold statements in the past regarding
his ability to recognize audible differences in audio equipment.
Although clearly demonstrating the motivations of a salesman, I do not
doubt his sincerity in beleiving that he indeed can differentiate.

That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his (and
his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!

Steve, I'll leave you with this approach to selling gear in the future.
Feel free to use it,
Simply tell the customer, "I can't hear a difference, but they tell
me it's the best". Sales of your mega gear will surely skyrocket.

I'm afraid, Mr. Zipser, you have been setting yourself up for this for
some time now. It's time to swallow hard I'm afraid.

Thanks, Max

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

ste...@w8hd.org (Steve Maki) writes:

Just for you, Armand :-)


>As some may recall, Steve Zipser, after challenging a number of
>objectivists to come on down to Sunshine Stereo to be shown the
>light on cable and amp "sound", agreed to having Tom Nousaine and
>myself be the first. Strictly as a matter of historical perspective
>it should be noted that he often stated that people who could not
>hear these differences were hard of hearing, and that there was
>Zero chance he would fail in his demonstration.

>Convinced that he was wrong on both counts, we showed up at
>Sunshine Stereo (Steve's house) at the scheduled time (Sunday, August
>25, 10 AM) to find a note pinned to the door stating that he had to
>perform an emergency repair at a customer's house. It was 3PM by the
>time we got started, but we still had time for a ten trial manual
>switched blind test that day, and some ABXing the next morning.

>Steve had stated that he felt the ABX box would veil differences,
>so we had encouraged him to set up a test he felt comfortable with.
>He planned to use his PASS Aleph 1.2 monoblocks as the reference amps,
>and a PS Audio basic amp as the "bad" amp, and to manually swap cables
>for the test. We quickly determined that he had no way to level
>match these amps, so we substituted a Yamaha AX700 integrated amp,

>which we had brought along, for the PS Audio amp. The Yamaha's level
>and balance controls would allow matching of levels quite easily.
>It should be noted that the Yamaha's preamp was always in the
>circuit when the Yamaha was playing.

>Steve's system (a very excellent sounding one, BTW) was an AA DDS Pro
>transport --->AA DTI Pro 32 anti-jitter device--->Audio Logic DAC--->
>Pass Aleph L preamp--->StraightWire interconnects--->Pass Aleph 1.2
>monoblocks (or the CD input of the Yamaha integrated amp)--->big fat
>Straightwire speaker cables (approx. 4' long)--->Duntech Marqui
>speakers.

>After we did a frequency response check of both amps using a test CD
>and digital ac voltmeter at the speaker terminals (the Pass was
>slightly better than the Yamaha), we level matched them at 1 kHz,
>using the same method. Steve then did some sighted comparisons of the
>two amps until he thought he had a "fix" on them. To create a random
>sequence of "unknowns", I flipped a coin ten times, recorded the
>results, decided heads would be the Yamaha and tails would be the Pass,
>and used this list for the ten trials. The switching method throughout
>this first session was to manually swap the interconnects and speaker
>cables from one amp to the other. During the ten "blind" trials, Steve
>would leave the room during the swap. (There were others in the room at
>all times).

>After the first blind trial, he did another sighted comparison, and
>then did blind trials #2-#10 with only a couple of short rest periods.
>During each trial, he played sections of the following tracks:
>1) Ricki-Lee Jones "Hi Lili Hi Lo" from "Pop Pop"
>2) Harry Connick Jr. "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" from "Harry Met
>Sally"
>3) "Rite of Spring", from Reference Recordings.

>Results of this session: 3 out of 10 correct. (trials #2, #3, and
>#7 were correct)

>That evening Steve and Gigi took us to a wonderful little Italian
>restaurant and treated us to an absolutely scrumpous meal.

>The following morning he decided to try the ABX box. It was connected
>with every attempt to give the advantage to the Pass amps. The ABX
>box requires an extra interconnect and an extra speaker cable for
>each channel and each amp. The Pass amps got the shorter of the
>interconnects and very short (18") StraightWire speaker cables.
>The Yamaha had to suffer under longer interconnects and extra 6'
>pieces of zip cord (and of course, the extra built in preamp).
>The amps were again level matched at 1 kHz.

>Steve played a variety of music, switching between the A (Yamaha)
>and B (Pass) amps. After his warmup, he took about an hour to run
>through ten trials, playing segments from a variety of tracks during
>each one.

>Result: 5 out of 10 correct.

>Next up, Steve's wife Gigi. She had commented during Steve's manual
>switched test that she definately could hear the difference between
>amps, but it turned out that what she thought was the Pass (on trial
>#1) was actually the Yamaha. For her ABX session, Gigi focused in
>on one particular segment of one track for all 16 of her trials.

>Result: 9 out of 16 correct.

>And finally, Steve's audiophile friend, Steve D., was on hand to
>give it a try. Steve D. brought his own CD's and used a different
>selection for each of his 10 trials.

>Result: 4 out of 10 correct.

>Conclusion.
>The results indicated that in these sessions at least, the Pass amps
>could not be distinguished from the Yamaha integrated amp.
>In addition, the listeners all commented at the end that the amplifiers
>sounded amazingly alike.

>--
>Steve Maki K8LX
>ste...@w8hd.org

Steve Maki

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

David Kwan

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

Tom Sherman (tshe...@uni.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Oh damn damn damn...here comes another objectionist/subjectivist debate,
: but I think I'll throw my limited $.02 in justferthehelluvit. And I felt
: I just *had* to the first the respond to this...

: Steve, I'd have to say that the root of the problem is that you weren't

: able to listen long enough to each setup to absolutely "zero-in" on the
: sound of each amp. You might have felt a little pressed for time, so you
: hurried along your "fix" on the amps... (especially since you had that
: emergency before) Then, you might have tricked yourself into thinking
: things that weren't there were there, and fooled yourself into thinking
: that you were ready for the blind test. Please, take me seriously --
: this is not a flame of you, but why I really think this test didn't show
: up the definitely audible difference in amplifiers.

: I think this was the problem because of a similar thing that
: happened to me when I compared CD players a few months back. I listened
: to both (when I could see which one was playing) and got _real_ confident
: that I could tell the difference. On the whole, though, I think my dad
: was a little more relaxed about the whole thing and just "heard what he
: heard" instead of trying to listen for difference and everything. The CD
: players, BTW, were a NAD 512 and a knappy $150 Panasonic carousel.

: Well, on the first blind test, I absolutely sucked and kept
: guessing the wrong thing EVERY TIME. No, it wasn't that magical 50%
: figure that would indicate that there was no corolation whatsoever
: between the CD player and sound.

: Ok, to make a long story short, we did some blind tests later in
: the day on MY system (previously had used my dad's). I think I was more
: relaxed and more comfortable, but it had taken time. I had needed to
: listen to each CD player (I wasn't terribly familar with the sound of
: each at the start of the test) to get a grip on each player's sound. I
: progressed to the point where I could identify the correct CD player
: playing about 70% of the time, while my dad was more around 85%.


: I think that the problem with ABX tests like this is that really
: add pressure to the situation and cause people to imagine things more
: than hear things. For example, if you're staked out in the bad guy's
: hideout with your finger on the trigger of an AK-47, waiting for the
: bad guy to come down the hall so you can rescue your girlfriend and live
: happily ever after (ok, so this a little extreme, but all us
: subjectivists are a little extreme, right? ;-) it is MUCH more likely
: that you'll imagine a sound behind you than if you were sitting at come
: reading a book. Basically, if you're REALLY TRYING to hear something,
: it's a lot more likely that you'll hear things that really aren't there.

Why, oh why, is there really any pressure on people who conduct and
participate in ABX testings? Just sit there, relax, and listen. You
shouldn't even be going into such a test with an extreme opinion in your
mind that one of the players HAS to be better than the other. There
should be NO expectations on your part when you partake in an ABX test.
Just listen to what is there, and what isn't. Make a judgment that you
BELIEVE to be true, and the facts will come out. If you can't nail the CD
player 100% of the time (yes, 100%), then the differences are not worth
the trouble of spending so much extra $$ on the better player.

I believe that people who tend to believe that because they can pick out
the better player 50-70% of the time are fooling themselves most of the
time in that that better player actually IS better. In audio, there seems
to be a mentality of the people that they have to stand up for what they
BELIEVE to be better audio from certain components to keep their
credibility. If a $100 Electrobrand CD player sounds the same as an Audio
Alchemy ACDPRO with whatever DAC's connected to it to a person, don't
brand him for having bad hearing, bad judgment, pressure in choosing the
AA setup over the cheapo brand setup.

If you can't pick out the better player 100% of the time, it's time to
try another unit for ABX testing, don't u think?

Dave

--
----------------------------------------------------------
David Kwan | http://aix2.uottawa.ca/~s811580
dk...@emr1.emr.ca | Audio/Movies/Music/Links & more!
s81...@aix2.uottawa.ca | Netscape 2.0 Gold Beta enhanced!

Tom Sherman

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

Oh damn damn damn...here comes another objectionist/subjectivist debate,
but I think I'll throw my limited $.02 in justferthehelluvit. And I felt
I just *had* to the first the respond to this...


ste...@w8hd.org (Steve Maki) writes:

>After we did a frequency response check of both amps using a test CD
>and digital ac voltmeter at the speaker terminals (the Pass was
>slightly better than the Yamaha), we level matched them at 1 kHz,
>using the same method. Steve then did some sighted comparisons of the
>two amps until he thought he had a "fix" on them. To create a random
>sequence of "unknowns", I flipped a coin ten times, recorded the
>results, decided heads would be the Yamaha and tails would be the Pass,
>and used this list for the ten trials. The switching method throughout
>this first session was to manually swap the interconnects and speaker
>cables from one amp to the other. During the ten "blind" trials, Steve
>would leave the room during the swap. (There were others in the room at
>all times).

Steve, I'd have to say that the root of the problem is that you weren't

And, on top of that, Steve was probably really worried that if he
"lost", everyone on r.a.o. would kill him =) Just kidding...

Later,
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-aLL mY wisheS spiN tO fisheS [ToM]
-tshe...@uni.uiuc.edu -lshe...@prairienet.org
-http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/~tsherman [don't expect anything to work]

AB

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

ste...@w8hd.org (Steve Maki) wrote:

Now this was goooood reading. Everyone! Throw out that high end stuff
and head to the mid-fi shop and save -:)

Don

Tom Sherman

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

goj...@ix.netcom.com(Matthew Alt) writes:

>Give me a FUCKING break.

>If there were large sonic differences between the two, SUBSTANTIAL
>differences, he'd have been able to tell. He had every opportunity,
>every chance, and selected the tracks at his own pace. What more could
>you want? An infinte time limit? And what is this insanity about being
>held at gunpoint during the test? Get a grip, and a better analogy!

Ok, the jab about the analogy is taken in good humor; granted, it was
stupid. But I don't really care. To answer your
inteneded-to-be-rhetorical questions, NO, Steve shouldn't have had an
infinite time limit, but I think 2 hours of "warm-up" would not be
outlandish, considering that many people have in-home demos with
equipment for weeks on end.


>And by the way, don't even waste your breath on whining about my choice
>of language. It is deserved in this case. End of discussion. Thank you.

Oh Matthew, you misjudge me good sir. If you'd read my post on RAHE
concerning the assholeness (is that a word? well it is now..) of many
audiophiles, you'd know I cuss and I don't care if other people do. But
hey, since I've been polite this entire post, can't I at least say
one impolite, to-the-point thing to you? Like....CHILL OUT asshole!

Dana Bunner

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

Steve Maki wrote:

> Steve had stated that he felt the ABX box would veil differences,
> so we had encouraged him to set up a test he felt comfortable with.
> He planned to use his PASS Aleph 1.2 monoblocks as the reference amps,
> and a PS Audio basic amp as the "bad" amp, and to manually swap cables
> for the test. We quickly determined that he had no way to level
> match these amps, so we substituted a Yamaha AX700 integrated amp,
> which we had brought along, for the PS Audio amp.

Steve should have paid more attention to a post by Stewart

Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

Max Moulton wrote:
>
> Mr. Zipser has made some rather bold statements in the past regarding
> his ability to recognize audible differences in audio equipment.
> Although clearly demonstrating the motivations of a salesman, I do not
> doubt his sincerity in beleiving that he indeed can differentiate.

I still believe that, sir.

> That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his (and
> his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
> perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!

Why?

> Steve, I'll leave you with this approach to selling gear in the future.

I'l leave you with this suggestion, you have your opinion, I have mine.

> Feel free to use it,

Feel free to shove it.

> I'm afraid, Mr. Zipser, you have been setting yourself up for this for
> some time now. It's time to swallow hard I'm afraid.

I'm not afraid of anything Max. I still believe there are sonically
significant differences in amplifiers - especially with long term
listening - which is something I have ALWAYS maintained.

Matthew Alt

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

In <501np4$m...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> tshe...@uni.uiuc.edu (Tom Sherman)
writes:

>Steve, I'd have to say that the root of the problem is that you
>weren't able to listen long enough to each setup to absolutely
>"zero-in" on the sound of each amp.

Give me a FUCKING break.

If there were large sonic differences between the two, SUBSTANTIAL
differences, he'd have been able to tell. He had every opportunity,
every chance, and selected the tracks at his own pace. What more could
you want? An infinte time limit? And what is this insanity about being
held at gunpoint during the test? Get a grip, and a better analogy!

And by the way, don't even waste your breath on whining about my choice


of language. It is deserved in this case. End of discussion. Thank you.

-Matt

Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to a...@borealis.com

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> I wonder if Zip will 'discover' some problem with the test? :-)

No discovery at all - as posted before, Tom's box was malfunctioning. I
am trying to obtain one that works flawlessly so I can conduct more
tests. For me, the jury is still out untill then.
Cheers
& happy listening
Zip

Bo Williams

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to wrwi...@ingr.com

Kudos to you, Mr. Zipser, for making good on your oft-repeated
challenge. I'm impressed.
--
Bo Williams - wrwi...@ingr.com
Not speaking for Intergraph Corporation.

Tom Sherman

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

dk...@emr1.NRCan.gc.ca (David Kwan) writes:

>Why, oh why, is there really any pressure on people who conduct and
>participate in ABX testings? Just sit there, relax, and listen. You
>shouldn't even be going into such a test with an extreme opinion in your
>mind that one of the players HAS to be better than the other. There
>should be NO expectations on your part when you partake in an ABX test.
>Just listen to what is there, and what isn't. Make a judgment that you
>BELIEVE to be true, and the facts will come out.

It's not quite that simple; any way you look at it, you're TRYING _very_
hard to listen for differences. Whether you're outwardly relaxed or not
is not so much relevant as the effort that you're putting forth in
expectation of hearing something.


>If you can't pick out the better player 100% of the time, it's time to
>try another unit for ABX testing, don't u think?

Naw, cause BAX crap sucks. Heh heh.. Later.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:

>> I wonder if Zip will 'discover' some problem with the test? :-)

>No discovery at all - as posted before, Tom's box was malfunctioning. I
>am trying to obtain one that works flawlessly so I can conduct more
>tests. For me, the jury is still out untill then.


To quote from Steve's original post on these test sessions:

>> The switching method throughout
>> this first session was to manually swap the interconnects and speaker
>> cables from one amp to the other. During the ten "blind" trials, Steve
>> would leave the room during the swap. (There were others in the room at
>> all times).

>> After the first blind trial, he did another sighted comparison, and
>> then did blind trials #2-#10 with only a couple of short rest periods.
>> During each trial, he played sections of the following tracks:
>> 1) Ricki-Lee Jones "Hi Lili Hi Lo" from "Pop Pop"
>> 2) Harry Connick Jr. "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" from "Harry Met
>> Sally"
>> 3) "Rite of Spring", from Reference Recordings.

>> Results of this session: 3 out of 10 correct. (trials #2, #3, and
>> #7 were correct)

Just exactly how did a poorly functioning ABX box affect these trials,
Steve? This sounds like a perfectly conducted blind trial with no
switching at all and you actually scored worse than random chance after
being fully confident and relaxed that you had 'fixed' the sound of each
amplifier. Give it up Steve, be a mensch and get a Yamaha franchise! I
told you they made good amps, now I can tell anyone looking for a good
low-cost amp that the AX-700 sounds just like a Pass Aleph 1.2......


Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:
>>
>>Just for you, Armand :-)

>Thanks Stew-what a pal. I knew you'd have it saved somewhere.

Oh, this one goes in the archive tapes! You think Steve's had a hard
time so far, just wait 'til Gene spots the thread :-) ROTFL!!!!!!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | If you can't measure what you're making,
A S P Consulting | how do you know when you've got it made?
(44) 1509 880112 |


c. whiting

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

>
>>> That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his (and
>>> his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
>>> perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!
>
>>Why?
>

>Because they sound exactly the same as the legendary Pass Aleph, of
>course. Aren't you always telling us how good the Aleph is? Well now we
>know we can get the same sound quality for $200, Yamahas should just
>vanish off the shelves this weekend!


People are failing to take into account that the Pass amps are of much
higher quality in parts and construction than the Yamaha products
regardless if they sound the same or not. Also, you will get a much
higher return on your investment when or if you decide to put your Pass
on the used market. I own a Yamaha A-1000 integrated amplifier that is
now going on twelve years of age and I have noticed a huge decline in
build quality from this amp to Yamaha's current offerings. The A-1000 is
of solid metal construction (no plastic) with large capacitors, copper
shielding, and well thought out circuit board layout. It produces 120
watts per channel that will drive 4 ohm speakers with amazing ease. I
only have to turn my aluminum volume knob about a quarter turn to knock
the walls down. To get the same output from current Yamaha offerings I
need to go at least half way around to perhaps three quarters.

Anyway, my point is that purchasing amps comprises a multitude of factors
including build quality, name, price, warranty, sound quality, longevity,
service, resale value, to just name a few.

Claude


ae...@flight.els

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

>I'm not afraid of anything Max. I still believe there are sonically
>significant differences in amplifiers - especially with long term
>listening - which is something I have ALWAYS maintained.

Steve, Steve, don't ya get it? Unfortunately, your actions speak
louder than your words. I just can't understand why you would
continue to fight this. Are you too high in the clouds to admit
you're not perfect?

It's simple:

1. You claimed to have the ability to detect sonic differences in
audio components.
2. You challenged this group to put your skills to the test.
3. Someone did.
4. You failed.

How much more complex can it get? You're just an average guy who
loves music and equipment, you're not super-audio man.

Swallow your pride and get on with it. The more you fight this, the
more nails you'll have to push out of your coffin. Excuses don't work
anymore, it's finished. Move on and learn from it for cryin out loud!

Tom Albertz

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

ae...@flight.els wrote:
>
> ........................................ My advice to Mr. Zipser
> would be to learn from this, throw out all the excuses, and finally
> admit he's human.

I gotta say that Mr. Zipser is beyond human on this - he's huge.
He has been so forthcoming and honest that I keep expecting a setup.
Like when is the other shoe going to drop?
My compliments!
(i know that means alot to him)

David Kwan

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

Tom Sherman (tshe...@uni.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: dk...@emr1.NRCan.gc.ca (David Kwan) writes:

: >Why, oh why, is there really any pressure on people who conduct and

: >participate in ABX testings? Just sit there, relax, and listen. You
: >shouldn't even be going into such a test with an extreme opinion in your
: >mind that one of the players HAS to be better than the other. There
: >should be NO expectations on your part when you partake in an ABX test.
: >Just listen to what is there, and what isn't. Make a judgment that you
: >BELIEVE to be true, and the facts will come out.

: It's not quite that simple; any way you look at it, you're TRYING _very_

: hard to listen for differences. Whether you're outwardly relaxed or not
: is not so much relevant as the effort that you're putting forth in
: expectation of hearing something.

: >If you can't pick out the better player 100% of the time, it's time to

: >try another unit for ABX testing, don't u think?

: Naw, cause BAX crap sucks. Heh heh.. Later.

I had inadvertently posted about ABX'ing CD players rather than taking
the extra time to digest the material of the post where they were
actually ABX'ing amplifiers. Apologies to all regarding this oversight.

The only differences I could tell between amps was when going from a Sony
receiver to a Sherwood receiver. The Sherwood sounded a LOT better than
the Sony. Now that I've moved on to Adcom & Rotel seperates, there's not
that much of a sonic difference to warrant jumping up and down in joy.
The difference was in the power of the two, the Adcom being able to power
my speakers better than the Sherwood (which strained a number of times).

That said, crap is crap. Quality, in any box, is quality and the
differences in quality are there but not in such a significant way to
warrant thinking long and hard. If I were to choose a Pass Aleph over a
Yamaha int. amp, I'd have to be either stinking rich or my ears would
have to be ultra-sensitive to notice these differences. Otherwise, give
me the Yamaha int. amp and I'llbe happy spending the rest on decent
Totems. =)

Jeff Bernhard

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

I read this thread with interest, and without surprise, either. I think
the idea of removing bias in listening 'tests' is laudable, and desirable.
But I'm not positive that all the differences heard in long-term tests
(the non-blind variety) are specious. Perhaps they are, but it is somewhat
an act of faith to conclude this is the case.

I have (years ago) experienced some frustration trying to compare components
which entailed numerous breaks of concentration, failure sometimes to
hear differences (the forest for the trees?), and a large amount of tedium
or fatigue that ensues during the test. An ABX box (if it doesn't mess up
the test, and I've yet to see real proof that it does) is only part of the
equation (but it should help dramatically in reducing the breaks and reduce
some of the resultant fatigue). The discrimination of differences (when they
may really exist) may intrinsically be difficult and unreliable, and the
test indicates that differences could not be reliably distinguished under
the conditions of the test. It doesn't mean that differences don't (or do)
exist; and if under other conditions you find differences, you can believe
these are real or not, according to how you weigh the results of each and
the rationalizations you have to explain the success or failures of each.

Perhaps we need to better know just what the limits of discrimination are
and what things can influence the results. Did Zip listen to both amps
through the box before beginning the test, and conclude he could hear a
difference, and felt it was enough of a difference that he could reliably
distinguish one from the other? Were the differences initially distinguished
shortly after power on, but the actually test run long afterwards? I don't
know if these are important factors, but am curious if these or other
things might be relevant concerns. Also, I wonder if a long term test (well,
call it an unstructured, non-blind, day-long comparison) in which both amps
are auditioned through the box and the amp used is known to the listener,
would still allow the listener (Zip) to conclude that real differences exist
between the amps? If so, the box presumably could be given a clean bill of
health (but if this result was not obtained, I'm not sure we could say the
box is at fault). One last thing: What if we run one of the tests like this:
Each switch during the test always toggles to the other amp. We are not
interested in whether Zip makes the correct guess on the first trial, in
which case if he knows the amp always toggles, he'll have 100% right, or
makes the wrong guess and has 100% wrong. Rather, this is for the listener
to gain confidence that they can distinguish a difference, and to what
extent that difference really is. (Pehaps this was already done before
the real tests were performed?) This is less 'stressful', because the
subject is not trying to prove his ability to hear a difference, but rather
is trying to determine for himself if he can hear differences within the
test setup. I think this would be an helpful adjunct to the test as a whole.
--
Jeffrey Bernhard Concurrent Computer Corp.
Jeff.B...@mail.hcsc.com Voice: (954) 973-5496 Fax: (954) 977-5580
*** The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of my employer! ***

ae...@flight.els

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) wrote:

Ah yes, another post attempting to dig Mr. Zipser from his grave with
a teaspoon.

ron brusky

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to


This test would seem to confirm that audible differences
between quality amplifiers are subtle at best, and certainly
much less than differences between speakers. I would not
want to state there are no differences (no flames, please!),
as I really don't know, but certainly they are not immediately
obvious. Perhaps this just takes us back to an old rule of
high fidelity - spend 50% of your cash and 90% of your time
auditioning, purchasing, and tinkering with speakers, their
placement, and your room acoustics. Use the rest of your
resources for the rest of the system. Thus, achieve perhaps
98% of what you could do with a lot more money, a lot more
time, and a perfectly patient spouse.

Then, of course, listen to the music.

Ron

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:

>Max Moulton wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Zipser has made some rather bold statements in the past regarding
>> his ability to recognize audible differences in audio equipment.
>> Although clearly demonstrating the motivations of a salesman, I do not
>> doubt his sincerity in beleiving that he indeed can differentiate.

>I still believe that, sir.

It must be a wonderful thing to have such a strong belief system in the
face of all the evidence.


>> That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his (and
>> his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
>> perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!

>Why?

Because they sound exactly the same as the legendary Pass Aleph, of
course. Aren't you always telling us how good the Aleph is? Well now we
know we can get the same sound quality for $200, Yamahas should just
vanish off the shelves this weekend!

>> Steve, I'll leave you with this approach to selling gear in the future.

>I'l leave you with this suggestion, you have your opinion, I have mine.

And we all know the results of the blind testing, organised in response
to your oft-repeated challenge to come on down to Florida. They came,
you listened, they conquered. Grace in defeat is a fine quality.


>> Feel free to use it,

>Feel free to shove it.

Nice to see you're taking this so well.


>> I'm afraid, Mr. Zipser, you have been setting yourself up for this for
>> some time now. It's time to swallow hard I'm afraid.

>I'm not afraid of anything Max. I still believe there are sonically


>significant differences in amplifiers - especially with long term
>listening - which is something I have ALWAYS maintained.

Indeed there are, but not so's you'd notice, apparently..........

ae...@flight.els

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

>No Tom, the root of the problem is that the amps sounded sufficiently
>alike that nobody could tell the difference!

This is an extremely accurate statement!

I have to give Steve Maki substantial credit for taking Mr. Zipser up
on his offer to demonstrate his "abilities." This again goes to show
that the differences in equipment (except speakers of course) are very
often extremely difficult to pinpoint. In this case, even the mighty
Pass amplifiers fell prey to a well designed mid-fi receiver.

Regardless of the Yamaha product being a "ringer," what's the price
differential here? And as mentioned in several posts, if there were
noticable differences, they would have been immediately identifiable.
I think this is solid proof that it is not necessary to spend a
fortune to get excellent results.

Unfortunately, as I would have predicted, a "problem" was discovered
in the setup that seems to have skewed the results, but in my opinion,
the cats out of the bag!!

Another respondent mentioned the need for some "serious damage
control," which most definitely is in order. My advice to Mr. Zipser

Armand

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

In article <502irj$g...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) says:
>
>ste...@w8hd.org (Steve Maki) writes:
>
>Just for you, Armand :-)

Thanks Stew-what a pal. I knew you'd have it saved somewhere.

Peter Oen

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

tshe...@uni.uiuc.edu (Tom Sherman) wrote:

-> dk...@emr1.NRCan.gc.ca (David Kwan) writes:
->
-> >Why, oh why, is there really any pressure on people who conduct and
-> >participate in ABX testings? Just sit there, relax, and listen. You
-> >shouldn't even be going into such a test with an extreme opinion in your
-> >mind that one of the players HAS to be better than the other. There
-> >should be NO expectations on your part when you partake in an ABX test.
-> >Just listen to what is there, and what isn't. Make a judgment that you
-> >BELIEVE to be true, and the facts will come out.
->
-> It's not quite that simple; any way you look at it, you're TRYING _very_
-> hard to listen for differences. Whether you're outwardly relaxed or not
-> is not so much relevant as the effort that you're putting forth in
-> expectation of hearing something.

Tom, I would agree except for one thing, many of the people that do the anti-ABX
rants are the same ones that say "If you can't tell the difference between X and
Y, then there's obviously something wrong with your hearing." It would follow
that if their hearing were truly as good as they think it is, they shouldn't
have to strain too much hear the differences.

ABX testing puts pressure on people that have to defend statements they've made
like the above. People that are asked to do ABX testing for research/clinical
purposes have nothing to defend. They are merely being asked to try and
determine if X is A or B. No value judgement is being made of them based on
their skill in doing so. But when you've made a (bold) statement like the one
above, and are then placed in the position of putting yours ears to the test
(put up or shut up, as it were,) you'd better believe that the pressure would be
on. Because this is your ego/reputation in the Cuisinart, and the whole world
(okay, maybe just the people in RAO,) wants to press the "On" switch.

BTW - None of this is directed at Steve Zipser. I think it was pretty good of
him to do the test. Now I just want a clear recounting of the events from the
various participants, plus some info as to whether a retest has been, or will
be, scheduled to correct for the ABX box problems.

->
->
-> >If you can't pick out the better player 100% of the time, it's time to
-> >try another unit for ABX testing, don't u think?
->
-> Naw, cause BAX crap sucks. Heh heh.. Later.

See above.


--
Peter Oen
po...@pacbell.net

J. Sanders

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

ae...@flight.els wrote:
> (clip)
> Where I have an issue however, is that in the face of hard evidence,
> Mr. Zipser again skirts the issue with excuses. I, as well as most of
> us, would have a hell of a lot more respect for him if he'd step up to
> the plate and admit defeat like a man.

WHAT "hard evidence"? To date, all that has been posted are a
few snippets regarding what happened, and all anyone but Zip, Maki, and
Nousaine know to date is (1) Zip admits he was suffering from a
"severe hangover" at the time the tests were administered, which would
alter/distort anyone's normal perceptual abilities, and which is also
evidence of the severe stress he was under at the time, for whatever
reasons, independently handicapping/voiding the results; (2) Zip thinks
he scored "random", whatever he thinks that means - no evidence posted on
RAO regarding that characterization to date; (3) Zip says he scored
perfectly while listening to a particular track of a particular CD with
which he is familiar, which in itself appears to be the type of positive
result he claimed he was capable of - only not enough data about this
statement has been posted to date to determine its statistical
significance overall; (4) Zip says he scored 5 out of 6 at one point in
the test (an excellent and positive, but possibly not "statistically
significant" result); then (5) after the ABX box failed (with the
resultant distractions voiding the results of any test Zip was
participating in at the time) Zip says he scored 0 for 4; (6) Maki
claims, without any supporting evidence, that it wasn't possible to
level-match the Pass Aleph 1.2 amp with the PS Audio amp, originally
chosen by someone for comparison; so (7) Maki and Nousaine substituted
the Yamaha receiver they just happened to bring with them - very
suspicious, because (8) Stewart Pinkerton recently posted the results of
his own tests demonstrating to his satisfaction that that particular
Yamaha receiver performed exceptionally well in comparison with far more
exotic amps, and therefore (9) combining items (6), (7) and (8) ahove, it
appears Maki and Nousaine were trying to set Zip up for a fall, evidence
of an "agenda" on their part, further contributing to the "stress" noted
in item (1) above, and skewing any interpretation of the test results on
their part. Finally, (10) the full results aren't in yet, as Zip has
mentioned he will attempt this weekend to post a more complete
information about the test or tests.

So all we know to date here on RAO is that it appears for
numerous reasons the test/tests were a complete "bust" - invalidated by
numerous interfering factors rendering any and all results scientifically
meaningless.

From the tone of your post (e.g., "in the face of hard evidence"
(baloney!),"skirted the issue with excuses", "admit defeat like a man"),
it appears you think that Zip has been scientifically proven to be wrong
in his claims to his ability to distinguish sonic differences between
amplifiers. The test results posted to date prove nothing of the kind,
as you should well know.

Zip has not "skirted" ANY issue. He has been 100% forthright,
and has not made any "excuses". The only thing he hasn't been able to do
to date due to time constraints is post a complete description of the
enounter from start to finish. He has promised to attempt such a
description this weekend. Give him a break. He's got a business to run.

If you would kindly turn your "flame" button off and press the
button activating your "thinking cap", if you can locate it, you may be
amazed at how an open mind can alter your otherwise biased perceptions.

Jim S.


ae...@flight.els

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

>Bo Williams <wrwi...@ingr.com> wrote:

>Kudos to you, Mr. Zipser, for making good on your oft-repeated
>challenge. I'm impressed.

I will also give credit to Mr. Zipser for keeping his word and
accepting the challenge. It takes some guts to submit yourself to
this kind of test, knowing in advance that the outcome could be
devastating.

Where I have an issue however, is that in the face of hard evidence,
Mr. Zipser again skirts the issue with excuses. I, as well as most of
us, would have a hell of a lot more respect for him if he'd step up to
the plate and admit defeat like a man.

This whole scenario reminds of pleasurable times with my son. After
watching him touch something he's not supposed to: Did you touch
that? NO. Did you touch that? NO. Are you sure you didn't touch
that? YES. For the last time, did you touch that? YES, but I didn't
mean to.

Craig Siever

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

Has no one here experienced aural defeciencies due to stress?
Has no one here has ever _not_ experienced an aparent lack of
fidelity in their systems after a particularly hectic day?
My opinion, and it is just that, my opinion, is that it took
a great deal of chutzpah for Steve to complete the testing.
"Results" be damned, I can't help but feel that under different
circumstances the results may or may not have been different.
Stress is an added variable in the test reports mentioned, IMHO
a very _big_ variable. How 'bout the best two out of three _long_
term tests? Bravo Zipmeister, you had everything to lose and little
to gain (other than bragging rights :^).

Craig

Erwin Claus

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

Some time ago i had a Rotel 980BX power-amplier (with and AA DLC). I
had the opportunity to bring home two second-hand mono power
amplifiers of B&W which costed twice the price of my Rotel. When i
first compared these to my Rotel amplifier (after breaking in the
B&W), i was glad because i could not hear differences between the
Rotel and B&W amplifiers. I did a lot af comparisons during the first
week and i heard only very, very small differences. Because i could
keep the B&W amplifiers for one month, i kept using them during the
next three weeks. At the end of these three weeks i was really glad
that i could save money by not buying the B&W amplifiers (as was my
original intention). They were 'only' as good as my Rotel. So i
brought the B&W's back and hooked up my Rotel, but what a
dissapointment. The sound was certainly not as good as the B&W mono
power amplifiers. Even after two,three weeks i was still dissapointed
and so i bought a Pass Aleph 3, but that is a different story. What i
want to say is that short-term comparisons are not always a good way
to compare two components.

B.T.W I never heard of a Yamaha AX700. Where can i find information
about it?

Regards,
Erwin

Firth of Fifth

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>
> Craig Siever <cn4...@coastalnet.com> writes:
>
> >Has no one here experienced aural defeciencies due to stress?
> >Has no one here has ever _not_ experienced an aparent lack of
> >fidelity in their systems after a particularly hectic day?
>
> Has no subjectivist got the guts to admit maybe the test showed accurate
> results and there really was very little difference between these amps?
> Is this thread going to degenerate to a whole string of lame excuses?
>
> We're not talking subtle here, we're talking about a pair of Steves
> favourite $12,000 monoblocs versus a $300 integrated amp with remote
> control and a loudness button, fer krissakes!
>

I can't save face! ROTFL!!!

Brian

Peter Oen

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

"c. whiting" <cwhi...@melpar.esys.com> wrote:

-> pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
->
-> >
-> >>> That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his (and
-> >>> his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
-> >>> perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!
-> >
-> >>Why?
-> >
-> >Because they sound exactly the same as the legendary Pass Aleph, of
-> >course. Aren't you always telling us how good the Aleph is? Well now we
-> >know we can get the same sound quality for $200, Yamahas should just
-> >vanish off the shelves this weekend!
->
->
-> People are failing to take into account that the Pass amps are of much
-> higher quality in parts and construction than the Yamaha products
-> regardless if they sound the same or not. Also, you will get a much
-> higher return on your investment when or if you decide to put your Pass
-> on the used market.

For the (purchase) price differential, you had better get more money back! But
in all honesty, do you buy audio equipment with an eye towards resale? If it
were about getting money back, you'd be better off buying the Yamaha, and
investing the rest in some CD's or treasury bonds.

-> I own a Yamaha A-1000 integrated amplifier that is
-> now going on twelve years of age and I have noticed a huge decline in
-> build quality from this amp to Yamaha's current offerings. The A-1000 is
-> of solid metal construction (no plastic) with large capacitors, copper
-> shielding, and well thought out circuit board layout. It produces 120
-> watts per channel that will drive 4 ohm speakers with amazing ease. I
-> only have to turn my aluminum volume knob about a quarter turn to knock
-> the walls down. To get the same output from current Yamaha offerings I
-> need to go at least half way around to perhaps three quarters.

Could this have something to do with differences in the gain of the two
amplifiers?

->
-> Anyway, my point is that purchasing amps comprises a multitude of factors
-> including build quality, name, price, warranty, sound quality, longevity,
-> service, resale value, to just name a few.
->
-> Claude
->


--
Peter Oen
po...@pacbell.net

Armand

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

In article <50466c$m...@fcserv1.div.melpar.esys.com>, "c. whiting" <cwhi...@melpar.esys.com> says:
I
>only have to turn my aluminum volume knob about a quarter turn to knock
>the walls down. To get the same output from current Yamaha offerings I
>need to go at least half way around to perhaps three quarters.
>Claude

A potentiometer's "tracking", as they call it, is proportional to rotation. Best performance
actually occurs when the pot is turned fully clockwise,(least resistance).
It is claimed that high sound levels achieved with low rotation does not take
advantage of the pre-amps "headroom".

Armand

Armand

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

In article <503og6$q...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) says:

>
>Max Moulton wrote:
> That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his (and
>>> his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
>>> perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!
>
>>Why?

>
>Because they sound exactly the same as the legendary Pass Aleph, of
>course. Aren't you always telling us how good the Aleph is? Well now we
>know we can get the same sound quality for $200, Yamahas should just
>vanish off the shelves this weekend!

Just think Stew, you won't have to put up with class A type heat generation,
a noisy fan and the $2600 price tag of your Krell! Just sell the Krell, buy the Yamy,
and use the x-tra bread to buy either more text books or ear plugs to block
the aluminum foil colorations of your Apogees.

Armand

Armand

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

In article <503og5$q...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) says:
>
>"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>
>>> I wonder if Zip will 'discover' some problem with the test? :-)
>
>>No discovery at all - as posted before, Tom's box was malfunctioning. I
>>am trying to obtain one that works flawlessly so I can conduct more
>>tests. For me, the jury is still out untill then.
>
>
>To quote from Steve's original post on these test sessions:
>
>>> The switching method throughout
>>> this first session was to manually swap the interconnects and speaker
>>> cables from one amp to the other. During the ten "blind" trials, Steve
>>> would leave the room during the swap. (There were others in the room at
>>> all times).
>
>>> After the first blind trial, he did another sighted comparison, and
>>> then did blind trials #2-#10 with only a couple of short rest periods.
>>> During each trial, he played sections of the following tracks:
>>> 1) Ricki-Lee Jones "Hi Lili Hi Lo" from "Pop Pop"
>>> 2) Harry Connick Jr. "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" from "Harry Met
>>> Sally"
>>> 3) "Rite of Spring", from Reference Recordings.
>
>>> Results of this session: 3 out of 10 correct. (trials #2, #3, and
>>> #7 were correct)
>
>Just exactly how did a poorly functioning ABX box affect these trials,
>Steve? This sounds like a perfectly conducted blind trial with no
>switching at all and you actually scored worse than random chance after
>being fully confident and relaxed that you had 'fixed' the sound of each
>amplifier. Give it up Steve, be a mensch and get a Yamaha franchise! I
>told you they made good amps, now I can tell anyone looking for a good
>low-cost amp that the AX-700 sounds just like a Pass Aleph 1.2......

Pinky, in Britan they call people like you a twit. Is that the correct term?
Certainly, it is not accurately descriptive enough.
Here, we call people like you a fuckin' jerk-off.

Armand

Armand

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to
>Erwin

Right here on your local RAO station. Did you know that you could have
saved a bundle by reading here that the Yami is = to the Pass? Pisses
you off, don't it? No need to compare at home! All the definitive answers
are right here!

Armand

J. Sanders

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

c. whiting wrote:

>
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >>> That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his (and
> >>> his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
> >>> perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!
> >
> >>Why?
> >
> >Because they sound exactly the same as the legendary Pass Aleph, of
> >course. Aren't you always telling us how good the Aleph is? Well now we
> >know we can get the same sound quality for $200, Yamahas should just
> >vanish off the shelves this weekend!
>
> People are failing to take into account that the Pass amps are of much
> higher quality in parts and construction than the Yamaha products
> regardless if they sound the same or not....

Anyone concluding that the snippets posted by Zip and others in
these threads, regarding his experience with Maki and Nousaine and the
defective ABX box, that the particular Yamaha receiver utilized in Zip's
aborted tests indicates the Yamaha "sound(s) exactly the same as the
legendary Pass Aleph" and that "now we know that we can get the same
sound quality for $200", has not just violated basic tenets of common
sense, has not just completely ignored all of the invalidating factors
contributing to the (incompletely posted) test results, but has also
violated the laws of statistics inherent in such tests by impermissibly
accepting the null hypothesis (that if the tests don't produce results
showing a statistically significant difference between the DUTs, then
therefore there is no sonic difference between the DUTs). Dead wrong
anti-science.

And anyone rushing out to buy a $200 Yamaha receiver (or, for
that matter, putting his or her Pass Aleph amps for sale) based on the
above is a damned fool and is truly purchasing "blind", and deserves
every disappointment to follow.

Stewart, are you a Yamaha salesman on the sly, or what?
Normally, I have a high regard for what you say in these boards, but
really, this is just plain ridiculous. Did you also happen to stay up
late last night cruising the night clubs in Florida, or what? Perhaps I
should just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume everything you
just said above was all tongue-in-cheek. Pretty funny, actually.

Jim S.


Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:

Interesting and well-reasoned argument, Armand. I'll bow to your clearly
superior knowledge of onanism, but Steve still can't tell a Yamaha from
a Pass in a fair test, and to be fair to Steve, neither could anyone
else at the trials. Remember, Steve was the guy who said the Aleph
series was head and shoulders above Krells etc, never mind some cheap
Jap crap, and the game was played with his bat and ball.

If you spend months telling people that if they can't hear these
differences they must be deaf or have a rotten system, then you have to
put up or shut up when someone accepts your challenge. Steve put up,
kudos for that, and failed his own test on his own system. End of story.

Around here, we call people like you sadly lacking in intelligence and
education - often known as subjectivists.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:

>> That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his (and
>>>> his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
>>>> perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!
>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Because they sound exactly the same as the legendary Pass Aleph, of
>>course. Aren't you always telling us how good the Aleph is? Well now we
>>know we can get the same sound quality for $200, Yamahas should just
>>vanish off the shelves this weekend!

>Just think Stew, you won't have to put up with class A type heat generation,


>a noisy fan and the $2600 price tag of your Krell! Just sell the Krell, buy the Yamy,
>and use the x-tra bread to buy either more text books or ear plugs to block
>the aluminum foil colorations of your Apogees.

But the Krell keeps me warm through these nasty British winters and the
fan drowns out the tinfoil colourations! Nuthin's perfect dude, but
those big bits o' cooking foil have a lot less colouration than most
things that come in a box.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

"J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com> writes:

>ae...@flight.els wrote:
>> (clip)


>> Where I have an issue however, is that in the face of hard evidence,
>> Mr. Zipser again skirts the issue with excuses. I, as well as most of
>> us, would have a hell of a lot more respect for him if he'd step up to
>> the plate and admit defeat like a man.

> WHAT "hard evidence"? To date, all that has been posted are a

>few snippets regarding what happened, and all anyone but Zip, Maki, and
>Nousaine know to date is (1) Zip admits he was suffering from a
>"severe hangover" at the time the tests were administered, which would
>alter/distort anyone's normal perceptual abilities, and which is also
>evidence of the severe stress he was under at the time, for whatever
>reasons, independently handicapping/voiding the results; (2) Zip thinks
>he scored "random", whatever he thinks that means - no evidence posted on
>RAO regarding that characterization to date; (3) Zip says he scored
>perfectly while listening to a particular track of a particular CD with
>which he is familiar, which in itself appears to be the type of positive
>result he claimed he was capable of - only not enough data about this
>statement has been posted to date to determine its statistical
>significance overall; (4) Zip says he scored 5 out of 6 at one point in
>the test (an excellent and positive, but possibly not "statistically
>significant" result); then (5) after the ABX box failed (with the
>resultant distractions voiding the results of any test Zip was
>participating in at the time) Zip says he scored 0 for 4;

Putting the best possible interpretation on this (and remembering Zip
used high-end equipment of his own choosing in his own home system and
with his own CDs), even Zip himself claims successful identification
only with one particular track! Remember what's being compared here, a
pair of Zips favourite $12,000 monoblocs and a $300 mass-market
integrated amp. If Zip had a 'severe hangover', whose fault is that? The
trials may not be scientifically rigorous, but they seem to have been as
fair as reasonably possible, especially the initial 'cable-swapping'
trial. Incidentally, the other 'less stressed' parties don't seem to
have been able to tell the amps apart either.


>(6) Maki
>claims, without any supporting evidence, that it wasn't possible to
>level-match the Pass Aleph 1.2 amp with the PS Audio amp, originally
>chosen by someone for comparison;

Chosen by Zip, wasn't it? If it was a power amp then of course it
couldn't be level-matched.

>so (7) Maki and Nousaine substituted
>the Yamaha receiver they just happened to bring with them - very
>suspicious, because (8) Stewart Pinkerton recently posted the results of
>his own tests demonstrating to his satisfaction that that particular
>Yamaha receiver performed exceptionally well in comparison with far more
>exotic amps, and therefore (9) combining items (6), (7) and (8) ahove, it
>appears Maki and Nousaine were trying to set Zip up for a fall, evidence
>of an "agenda" on their part, further contributing to the "stress" noted
>in item (1) above, and skewing any interpretation of the test results on
>their part.

Oh wow! What a nasty lowdown trick, slipping that exotic Yamaha amp in
against the poor old Pass Aleph 1.2s. No fair!

Of course Maki and Nousaine had an agenda, so did Zip, he was the one
who issued the challenge and the trials were held in his home, on his
system and with a pair of the most expensive and best-sounding power
amps on the market. You're suggesting Maki and Nousaine played a sneaky
trick by putting up a Yamaha AX-700 against that setup. Do you realise
how PATHETIC that sounds?

The amp I tried (not a receiver) was in fact the AX-570, but I'd not
expect it to stand much chance against exotica like the big Alephs, I
was astounded by how close in sound it was to the Audiolab.


>Finally, (10) the full results aren't in yet, as Zip has
>mentioned he will attempt this weekend to post a more complete
>information about the test or tests.

Yep, fair's fair, I for one will be fascinated to see Zips
interpretation of events. Never forget, Zip issued the challenge and the
trials were held on his turf with his choice of extremely expensive
high-end gear. On the face of it, the AX-700 shouldn't have been in the
same class as the PS Audio, never mind the ultra-exotic Aleph 1.2.

> So all we know to date here on RAO is that it appears for
>numerous reasons the test/tests were a complete "bust" - invalidated by
>numerous interfering factors rendering any and all results scientifically
>meaningless.

Hmmm, would you have said the same if Zip had got it right every time?
Not only does this dog not hunt, it is extremely lame!

> Zip has not "skirted" ANY issue. He has been 100% forthright,
>and has not made any "excuses". The only thing he hasn't been able to do
>to date due to time constraints is post a complete description of the
>enounter from start to finish. He has promised to attempt such a
>description this weekend. Give him a break. He's got a business to run.

I'm not sure how you'd categorise "I had a hangover and the ABX box was
broken", but fair 'nuff, let's wait for the gospel according to Zip.

> If you would kindly turn your "flame" button off and press the
>button activating your "thinking cap", if you can locate it, you may be
>amazed at how an open mind can alter your otherwise biased perceptions.

Click. Oh rats, I just flamed my thinking cap! As someone else said,
when keeping an open mind one must be careful not to let one's brain
fall out!

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

"J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com> writes:

> Anyone concluding that the snippets posted by Zip and others in
>these threads, regarding his experience with Maki and Nousaine and the
>defective ABX box, that the particular Yamaha receiver utilized in Zip's
>aborted tests indicates the Yamaha "sound(s) exactly the same as the
>legendary Pass Aleph" and that "now we know that we can get the same
>sound quality for $200", has not just violated basic tenets of common
>sense, has not just completely ignored all of the invalidating factors
>contributing to the (incompletely posted) test results, but has also
>violated the laws of statistics inherent in such tests by impermissibly
>accepting the null hypothesis (that if the tests don't produce results
>showing a statistically significant difference between the DUTs, then
>therefore there is no sonic difference between the DUTs). Dead wrong
>anti-science.

OTOH, there doesn't seem to be much evidence FOR Zips oft-repeated
assertion that the Alephs are superior to Krells etc, never mind a cheap
mass-market integrated amp! Remember all these 'night and day' and
'blows everything else away' posts, and how if you couldn't hear the
difference you must be deaf or have a 'low resolution system'? Should
there have been ANY doubt about his (or anyone else's) ability to pick
out the difference between a pair of $12,000 monoblocs and a mass-market
integrated amp, EVERY time, no question? Get real!


> And anyone rushing out to buy a $200 Yamaha receiver (or, for
>that matter, putting his or her Pass Aleph amps for sale) based on the
>above is a damned fool and is truly purchasing "blind", and deserves
>every disappointment to follow.

Oh sure, it's an extreme example, incidentally the AX-700 is an
integrated amp, Yamaha use RX for receivers. However, if you haven't
actually bought an Aleph yet, it should make you think about whether you
ought to trade up your speakers and keep whatever amp you have.


> Stewart, are you a Yamaha salesman on the sly, or what?
>Normally, I have a high regard for what you say in these boards, but
>really, this is just plain ridiculous.

No, but I happen to know from my own trials that Yamaha do a pretty keen
amp, the AX-570 in my case. What's ridiculous, my statements or the
results of these trials? I was comparing amps of roughly similar price,
with the Yamaha at one end and the Audiolab at the other. Zip chose to
put a pair of the latest and most expensive Alephs into the ring, should
have been no contest. Life's a bitch.


>Did you also happen to stay up
>late last night cruising the night clubs in Florida, or what?

Sure didn't, nor would any sane person who knew his reputation was going
on the line in the morning!


>Perhaps I
>should just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume everything you
>just said above was all tongue-in-cheek. Pretty funny, actually.

Partly, but the whole things a bit of a shock to an old amp designer
like me, I'm a bit stunned really.

Jeff Bernhard

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

Peter Oen (po...@pacbell.net) wrote:

: tshe...@uni.uiuc.edu (Tom Sherman) wrote:
:
: -> dk...@emr1.NRCan.gc.ca (David Kwan) writes:
: ->
: -> >Why, oh why, is there really any pressure on people who conduct and
: -> >participate in ABX testings? Just sit there, relax, and listen. You
: -> [DELETIA]
: -> It's not quite that simple; any way you look at it, you're TRYING _very_
: -> hard to listen for differences. Whether you're outwardly relaxed or not
: -> is not so much relevant as the effort that you're putting forth in
: -> expectation of hearing something.
:
: Tom, I would agree except for one thing, many of the people that do the
: anti-ABX rants are the same ones that say "If you can't tell the difference
: between X and Y, then there's obviously something wrong with your hearing."
Relevance? Some folks might rant, others might not. Please don't generalize.
In any case, it is irrelevant whether some folks rant: What counts is how they
perform on the test, regardless of their personal views.
:
: ABX testing puts pressure on people that have to defend statements they've

: made like the above. People that are asked to do ABX testing for research/
: clinical purposes have nothing to defend. They are merely being asked to try

: and determine if X is A or B. No value judgement is being made of them based
: on their skill in doing so. But when you've made a (bold) statement like
: the one above, and are then placed in the position of putting yours ears to
: the test (put up or shut up, as it were,) you'd better believe that the
: pressure would be on. Because this is your ego/reputation in the Cuisinart,
: and the whole world (okay, maybe just the people in RAO,) wants to press the
: "On" switch.
If I were asked to try to discriminate a difference, I'd try to do so, even
if there were none. You might relax while attempting this task, and I might
not. Now that's one point. Another: If I believe I can hear a difference,
and found this difficult to do under the conditions of the test, I might
indeed become more tense and perhaps less able to perform at my best. What
is all boils down to is: If the test proves that a difference could be heard
reliably, then that's that. If the test fails to prove that a difference
could be reliably distinguished, that proves that the test failed to show
a difference, which can either mean there were no differences to be heard,
or that they simply could not be distinguished under conditions of the test.
I don't know if there really are differences or not. But the test does not
prove there are none. If you believe that the test is well run, and that
all factors that might adversely affect the test have been well controlled,
you can say that the test had its best chance of showing differences, and
you might conclude that no differences exist, but the test can't prove this.
The sensitivity of the test may be able to show small differences in loudness
between A & B, but what is its sensitivity in other areas of perception?

Dana Bunner

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com> writes:
>

> >so (7) Maki and Nousaine substituted
> >the Yamaha receiver they just happened to bring with them - very
> >suspicious, because (8) Stewart Pinkerton recently posted the results of
> >his own tests demonstrating to his satisfaction that that particular
> >Yamaha receiver performed exceptionally well in comparison with far more
> >exotic amps, and therefore (9) combining items (6), (7) and (8) ahove, it
> >appears Maki and Nousaine were trying to set Zip up for a fall, evidence
> >of an "agenda" on their part, further contributing to the "stress" noted
> >in item (1) above, and skewing any interpretation of the test results on
> >their part.
>
> Oh wow! What a nasty lowdown trick, slipping that exotic Yamaha amp in
> against the poor old Pass Aleph 1.2s. No fair!
>
> Of course Maki and Nousaine had an agenda, so did Zip, he was the one
> who issued the challenge and the trials were held in his home, on his
> system and with a pair of the most expensive and best-sounding power
> amps on the market. You're suggesting Maki and Nousaine played a sneaky
> trick by putting up a Yamaha AX-700 against that setup. Do you realise
> how PATHETIC that sounds?

I agree with Stewart. Even if this particular Yamaha is exceptional
for its price range, there is no way it should be able to compete
against $12,000 amps which were said to be exceptional in their
price range. For if it is true that even a fraction of the $500'ish
amps are indistinguishable from $10,000+ systems, then there is no
need for a $10,000 amp.

We need to keep in mind that it was not only the frequency response
or the tightness of the low end that was being evaluated. Steve &
friends had the opportunity to distinguish between the two amps
using anyway they could. This includes imaging, depth or width
of soundstage, air, naturalness of vocals, mid-bass bloom, etc.,
etc., etc.. Using a system that Steve was initimately familiar
with, ie., his own speakers, cables, interconnects, preamp,
CD player/DAC/jitterbox, and even his own CDs, a low-end Yamaha amp
was substituted for his $12K Pass amps and Steve could not tell
the difference.

This is made even more notable by the fact that the Yamaha's preamp
section was not bypassed. So it wasn't just the mid-fi Yamaha's
amp section being substituted, it came along with whatever preamp
circuitry was also tossed in by Yamaha. Whereas the Pass's were
given the advantage of only having Steve's high-end preamp in the
soundpath. One would have thought that the simple inclusion of
the preamp alone would have been significant enough to detect a
difference, even on the Pass amps. Apparently we must conclude
that not only was the Yamaha's amp of excellent quality, but the
preamp is also incredibly transparent.


All of that said, I still contend that it does take more time
to "tune in" to the sound of an amp. I recently conducted a
series of in-home amplifier tests and I did not conduct any
comparisons until I'd listened to the new amp for several
hours over a couple of days. As a base comparison unit I was
using an older Yamaha receiver, the top-of-the-line model from
the mid-1980s. Its construction is much like that of an
integrated amp (amp section is separated and shielded from
other internal circuitry, preamp/main-in jacks, tone & loudness
bypass switches, etc.). At one time I had 2 other amps at
home and conducted a simple ABX test (although I admit it
was not nearly as well setup as the one above).

I had all three amps warmed up and sitting side-by-side.
Then I had my wife connect my CD's interconnects and speaker's
banana plugs (my eyes were closed) to whichever she wanted
to connect. Then she would reset the volume in sort of a
random sense before playing the CD. In 9 trials the Yamaha
was used three times, I picked it out within 60 seconds
each time. It has a slight harshness and leanness to it
that I felt made it easy to detect. Of course I had been
listening to it for over 10 years.

After returning the other two amps to the store. And after
auditioning three other amps over a one month period, I found
that I could no longer even enjoy listening to music
through the Yamaha and so my system sat unused until I
finally upgraded. But it did take about a month of listening
to other amps before I got to that point.

However, even without the long acclimation period with the
Yamaha, I must admit that I would have expected dramatic
differences between the Yamaha & the Pass. Dramatic enough
to immediately detect when the Yamaha amp/preamp was in the
circuit vis a vis the Pass. So I was quite surprised by the
results of the ABX test. And even more so given that three
people participated.

The test results are certainly strong enough to give one
pause when they believe they perceive differences.

Dana

Tom Albertz

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

J. Sanders wrote:

> ... WHAT "hard evidence"? To date, all that has been posted are a


> few snippets regarding what happened, and all anyone but Zip, Maki, and

> Nousaine know to date is ...

Pretty much the whole, entire, complete event has been described.

>................(1) Zip admits he was suffering from a


> "severe hangover" at the time the tests were administered,

> .......independently handicapping/voiding the results;

The test was administered at 3 PM in the afternoon. Most people are
capable of recovering from a hangover by 3PM. That must have been some
party, eh?

> ................(2) Zip thinks


> he scored "random", whatever he thinks that means - no evidence posted on
> RAO regarding that characterization to date;

3 of 10 on Saturday. 5 of 10 on Sunday. Gigi - 9 of 16. Steve D. - 4 of 10.
There you go. You must have missed it.

>.........................., you may be


> amazed at how an open mind can alter your otherwise biased perceptions.
>

> Jim S.

Ye of open mind...

The whole point is that your guys (you know who you are.) talk about obvious
differences in sound. If the differences are so obvious, why couldn't he
hear them with a hangover and a few distractions. Did Gigi and Steve D.
have hangovers also?

Tom.

ae...@flight.els

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

> WHAT "hard evidence"?

Read the test results, they're compelling enough. How much more
evidence do you want?

> Zip has not "skirted" ANY issue. He has been 100% forthright,
>and has not made any "excuses".

>(1) Zip admits he was suffering from a "severe hangover" at the time the tests were

>administered, which would alter/distort anyone's normal perceptual abilities, and which is also
>evidence of the severe stress he was under at the time, for whatever
>reasons, independently handicapping/voiding the results;

Unbelievable! If you don't call this an excuse, what do you call it?

> (5) after the ABX box failed (with the
>resultant distractions voiding the results of any test Zip was
>participating in at the time) Zip says he scored 0 for 4;

He also scored poorly during the simple cable swapping test, so what
do you say to that? Further, his wife Gigi, whom he's always touting
"she picked 10 out of 10," failed miserably also. So did everyone
else involved in the test. What more do you want?

>(6) Maki claims, without any supporting evidence, that it wasn't possible to
>level-match the Pass Aleph 1.2 amp with the PS Audio amp, originally

>chosen by someone for comparison; so (7) Maki and Nousaine substituted

>the Yamaha receiver they just happened to bring with them - very
>suspicious, because (8) Stewart Pinkerton recently posted the results of
>his own tests demonstrating to his satisfaction that that particular
>Yamaha receiver performed exceptionally well in comparison with far more

>exotic amps.

So? Do you think it's an unfair comparison? This is the equivalent
of comparing a Cessna 152 with a Lear Jet. We're talking a $300
integrated amp versus the $12,000 Pass mono-blocks here. From a
fairness standpoint, this is as gross a mis-match as you can get!

>"stress" noted in item (1) above, and skewing any interpretation of the test results on
>their part.

For the last time, you want hard evidence?

1. Mr. Zipser was already intimately familiar with the PASS
electronics. It's not as if the 2 amplifiers tested were totally
unknown. With his intimate familiarity, he would, and should be
expected to discern the differences using ANY test, under ANY
conditions, IF to his ears they existed.
2. The test was supervised by Mr. Zipser himself, and he had ample
time to "lock" the sound of the amps in his head.
3. The test was conducted in his own familiar surroundings, not in an
off site location that would contribute stress.
4. The test was conducted using Mr. Zipser's own system, which he is
also very intimate with, not a system of components unknown to him.
5. The test was conducted using music that Mr. Zipser chose himself,
which indicates to me that he is very familiar with these cuts and how
they sound on the PASS equipment, and his personal system.
6. Mr. Zipser has been in this business a long time, and therefore
has the advantage of owning somewhat "trained" ears, which would give
him a distinct advantage over the laymen.

As I've said before, from a purely technical point of view, the test
was actually stacked in Mr. Zipser's favor from the onset.

I'm terribly sorry, but this one's an open and shut case! As a matter
of fact, I'm quite surprised we've seen no indication of a plea
bargain.

Miguel Barrio

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

Hi ya all!,

It's UNBELIEVEABLE that we are still discussing these
matters!. Evidently, whatever the reason for the failure (and I am sure
the Mr Zipser wouldn't subject himself to this test if he had such a
hangover unless he is suicidal), it just happened, he failed to
tell one from the other.

That's the way it is.

I wonder if we could, instead, drift our attention to the issue of
'which low priced amps sound as good as the PASS?'.

Miguel


Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

Craig Siever <cn4...@coastalnet.com> writes:

>My opinion, and it is just that, my opinion, is that it took


>a great deal of chutzpah for Steve to complete the testing.

Agreed - or serious overconfidence.

>"Results" be damned, I can't help but feel that under different
>circumstances the results may or may not have been different.

Uh huh, and are there fairies at the bottom of your garden? And would
you be nearly so concerned about the 'stressful' conditions if Steve had
got it right every time? What about the stress everyone has when they're
going to put out real money on new gear, like $12,000 for Aleph 1.2s?

>Stress is an added variable in the test reports mentioned, IMHO
>a very _big_ variable. How 'bout the best two out of three _long_
>term tests? Bravo Zipmeister, you had everything to lose and little
>to gain (other than bragging rights :^).

But remember it was Steve who issued the challenge.

Best out of five, seven, nine, gee the sun went behind a cloud!

David Westenkirchner

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

.......

> I find this test useful
>on both these counts since (a) it proves the great Zip will have to pull
>his head in about the 'hugely superior' Pass Aleph amps and (b) it's
>more confirmation of what great amps Yamaha do at very low prices.

>I wonder if Zip will 'discover' some problem with the test? :-)

I believe he has laid the groundwork for that 'problem' with this
statement from one of his previous posts: "I will be posting more
about this whole episode this weekend, when I get a chance to relax."

Armand

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

>>Pinky, in Britan they call people like you a twit. Is that the correct term?
>>Certainly, it is not accurately descriptive enough.
>>Here, we call people like you a fuckin' jerk-off.
>
>Interesting and well-reasoned argument, Armand. I'll bow to your clearly
>superior knowledge of onanism, but Steve still can't tell a Yamaha from
>a Pass in a fair test, and to be fair to Steve, neither could anyone
>else at the trials. Remember, Steve was the guy who said the Aleph
>series was head and shoulders above Krells etc, never mind some cheap
>Jap crap, and the game was played with his bat and ball.
>If you spend months telling people that if they can't hear these
>differences they must be deaf or have a rotten system, then you have to
>put up or shut up when someone accepts your challenge. Steve put up,
>kudos for that, and failed his own test on his own system. End of story.
>Around here, we call people like you sadly lacking in intelligence and
>education - often known as subjectivists.

No, Stewart. That off the cuff MESSAGE was in response to your repeated attacks
on someone, who at least had the guts to pose and follow through on a challenge.
Your posts were not in any way related to an opinion on the subject.( We know where
you stand. Over and over and over again.)
Your attacks have been relentless. You clearly are "rubbing salt in the wounds"
and loving it! I've never used foul language on an electronic medium before.
But somehow you've found a way to change that. Just lighten up a little, dude.

Armand

J. Sanders

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

Stewart:

You've been a busy boy today. I just got back from the office
(dropped by the house quickly on way back from court to the office for a
quick bite to eat this afternoon and got one post out to aero [sorry, I'm
not familiar with his real name] below) and noted you somehow managed to
get out 10 posts today, 7 in this thread alone (!). Did you have the day
off from work? It's labor day weekend out here in sunny California (on
the other side of the globe - we don't need Krell amps to stay warm) but
a harried attorney's work is never over. I'm jealous.

Seems that what recently happened in Florida is of more
importance to you than others on RAO. Your two posts responding to my
posts raise some interesting (and some not so interesting) issues, and
all are deserving of a reply. I promise to get back soon, but my wife
should be arriving any minute from her job and perhaps later this evening
I'll be able to get back on the 'net.

To set the record straight, at the time of my prior posts on the
subject of the recent events in Florida, I had not had the opportunity to
view Steve Maki's post on the subject. I don't understand how I missed
it, but have suspected for some time that my local server or Netscape, or
whatever, has been defective in the sense that not all posts on this
board have appeared on my screen. I often see replies to posts which
have never appeared on my screen. I saw someone's partial quote of
Maki's post the other day, and remarked about it to a friend through
e-mail, and he was kind enough to e-mail me a complete copy of Maki's
post this morning, but unfortunately, it still leaves me with a lot of
unanswered questions which I will address in my replies to you when I get
back on board here before long.

Jim S.


Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

Armand wrote:

> No, Stewart. That off the cuff MESSAGE was in response to your repeated attacks
> on someone, who at least had the guts to pose and follow through on a challenge.
> Your posts were not in any way related to an opinion on the subject.( We know where
> you stand. Over and over and over again.)
> Your attacks have been relentless. You clearly are "rubbing salt in the wounds"
> and loving it! I've never used foul language on an electronic medium before.
> But somehow you've found a way to change that. Just lighten up a little, dude.
>
> Armand

Armand:
I'll have to agree with you on this one. Stewart is normally pretty
fair & rational, exhibiting a very English sense of fairplay and class.
However, now he is acting out of character - since he & I normally have
great friendly exchanges (even tho we sometimes disagree) I am very
non-plussed to the reasons for his obnoxious behavior :) Perhaps he has
PMS?
Cheers & happy listening
Zip

China Cat Sunflower > I Know You Rider, for all you heads out there!

M Halpern

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

Here is the A/B/X-related material from an inquiry I've posted separately
about the Yamaha integrated amps, which are starting to look interesting:

A nice side-effect of the A/B/X debate is getting audiophiles to listen to
budget equipment without prejudice (or more precisely, without knowing
where to apply prejudice), so as to inform their less affluent brethren
about near approximations to high-end sound at lower price.

. . .

I'd like to end by making my "philosohical" position on A/B/X testing
clear, so as not to incite needless polemics. I think it is a provocative
heuristic technique that may lead to useful reflection or discovery, not a
form of proof or disproof. As I said at the beginning, it's particularly
useful in placing prejudices in suspension so as to hear equipment
freshly, free from the illusions spun by marketers. But it is a very
artificial situation that forces listening into a focussed, analytical
short-term discrimination mode that is not representative of normal
practices for most people. It may not be good at predicting which
equipment won't feel fatiguing in the long run, which would drift into and
out of one's attention most agreeably, or which model would be playing the
soundtrack to one's dream. Having said that, it may be a method suited to
amp testing, where we perhaps expect more neutrality than in sources or
speakers.

Michael Halpern

Sanghoon Lee

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) wrote:
>Dana, can't seem to find Maki's post. Can you or someone else re-post it?
>Thanks,
>Armand

Here you are. As far as there is no other post from Zip on this, I think the
story is well-written.

ste...@w8hd.org (Steve Maki) wrote:

>
>As some may recall, Steve Zipser, after challenging a number of
>objectivists to come on down to Sunshine Stereo to be shown the
>light on cable and amp "sound", agreed to having Tom Nousaine and
>myself be the first. Strictly as a matter of historical perspective
>it should be noted that he often stated that people who could not
>hear these differences were hard of hearing, and that there was
>Zero chance he would fail in his demonstration.
>
>Convinced that he was wrong on both counts, we showed up at
>Sunshine Stereo (Steve's house) at the scheduled time (Sunday, August
>25, 10 AM) to find a note pinned to the door stating that he had to
>perform an emergency repair at a customer's house. It was 3PM by the
>time we got started, but we still had time for a ten trial manual
>switched blind test that day, and some ABXing the next morning.
>
>Steve had stated that he felt the ABX box would veil differences,
>so we had encouraged him to set up a test he felt comfortable with.
>He planned to use his PASS Aleph 1.2 monoblocks as the reference amps,
>and a PS Audio basic amp as the "bad" amp, and to manually swap cables
>for the test. We quickly determined that he had no way to level
>match these amps, so we substituted a Yamaha AX700 integrated amp,
>which we had brought along, for the PS Audio amp. The Yamaha's level
>and balance controls would allow matching of levels quite easily.
>It should be noted that the Yamaha's preamp was always in the
>circuit when the Yamaha was playing.
>
>Steve's system (a very excellent sounding one, BTW) was an AA DDS Pro
>transport --->AA DTI Pro 32 anti-jitter device--->Audio Logic DAC--->
>Pass Aleph L preamp--->StraightWire interconnects--->Pass Aleph 1.2
>monoblocks (or the CD input of the Yamaha integrated amp)--->big fat
>Straightwire speaker cables (approx. 4' long)--->Duntech Marqui
>speakers.
>
>After we did a frequency response check of both amps using a test CD
>and digital ac voltmeter at the speaker terminals (the Pass was
>slightly better than the Yamaha), we level matched them at 1 kHz,
>using the same method. Steve then did some sighted comparisons of the
>two amps until he thought he had a "fix" on them. To create a random
>sequence of "unknowns", I flipped a coin ten times, recorded the
>results, decided heads would be the Yamaha and tails would be the Pass,
>and used this list for the ten trials. The switching method throughout


>this first session was to manually swap the interconnects and speaker
>cables from one amp to the other. During the ten "blind" trials, Steve
>would leave the room during the swap. (There were others in the room at
>all times).
>
>After the first blind trial, he did another sighted comparison, and
>then did blind trials #2-#10 with only a couple of short rest periods.
>During each trial, he played sections of the following tracks:
>1) Ricki-Lee Jones "Hi Lili Hi Lo" from "Pop Pop"
>2) Harry Connick Jr. "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" from "Harry Met
>Sally"
>3) "Rite of Spring", from Reference Recordings.
>
>Results of this session: 3 out of 10 correct. (trials #2, #3, and
>#7 were correct)
>

>That evening Steve and Gigi took us to a wonderful little Italian
>restaurant and treated us to an absolutely scrumpous meal.
>
>The following morning he decided to try the ABX box. It was connected
>with every attempt to give the advantage to the Pass amps. The ABX
>box requires an extra interconnect and an extra speaker cable for
>each channel and each amp. The Pass amps got the shorter of the
>interconnects and very short (18") StraightWire speaker cables.
>The Yamaha had to suffer under longer interconnects and extra 6'
>pieces of zip cord (and of course, the extra built in preamp).
>The amps were again level matched at 1 kHz.
>
>Steve played a variety of music, switching between the A (Yamaha)
>and B (Pass) amps. After his warmup, he took about an hour to run
>through ten trials, playing segments from a variety of tracks during
>each one.
>
>Result: 5 out of 10 correct.
>
>Next up, Steve's wife Gigi. She had commented during Steve's manual
>switched test that she definately could hear the difference between
>amps, but it turned out that what she thought was the Pass (on trial
>#1) was actually the Yamaha. For her ABX session, Gigi focused in
>on one particular segment of one track for all 16 of her trials.
>
>Result: 9 out of 16 correct.
>
>And finally, Steve's audiophile friend, Steve D., was on hand to
>give it a try. Steve D. brought his own CD's and used a different
>selection for each of his 10 trials.
>
>Result: 4 out of 10 correct.
>
>Conclusion.
>The results indicated that in these sessions at least, the Pass amps
>could not be distinguished from the Yamaha integrated amp.
>In addition, the listeners all commented at the end that the amplifiers
>sounded amazingly alike.
>
>--
>Steve Maki K8LX
>ste...@w8hd.org
>

--

Sanghoon Lee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Polymer Science E-mail: ho...@polymer.uakron.edu
The University of Akron Phone : 330-972-8614 (office)
Akron, OH 44325-3909 330-972-5396 ( FAX )
---------------------------------------------------------------


Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:

>No, Stewart. That off the cuff MESSAGE was in response to your repeated attacks
>on someone, who at least had the guts to pose and follow through on a challenge.
>Your posts were not in any way related to an opinion on the subject.( We know where
>you stand. Over and over and over again.)

They're not personal attacks except in the sense that Zip has for many
months extolled the virtues of the Aleph series, often in very personal
ways, like 'if you can't hear the difference you must be deaf or have a
low resolution system'. He then took part in a trial which was very
heavily weighted in his favour and the results clearly indicate that at
the very best, there is not very much difference between his favourite
$12,000 monoblocs and a $300 integrated amp.

While it does have its funny side after all Steves noisy posturing, this
is actually very disturbing when you come down to it, particularly given
that all present agreed that the amps sounded extremely alike (according
to Steve Makis post at least, which is the only 'eye-witness' report so
far available). None of us really want to believe that a Yamaha AX-700
is indistinguishable from a pair of Pass Aleph 1.2s, that would be VERY
embarrassing for most high-enders, never mind Steve and Nelson!

>Your attacks have been relentless. You clearly are "rubbing salt in the wounds"
>and loving it! I've never used foul language on an electronic medium before.
>But somehow you've found a way to change that. Just lighten up a little, dude.

I think you'll find what actually happened was that I posted a lot of
very similar replies because the thread took off at a tremendous rate
and then the 'subjectivist' camp starting throwing in all kinds of
pathetic excuses to explain why the trials were all invalid and sneaky
tricks had been played and the sun went behind a cloud etc etc., which
got me firing on all cylinders. Apart from an initial giggle at the
irony of the situation, it wasn't my intention to have a go at Zip
personally, I actually find the results most disturbing.

I certainly wouldn't have put money on them coming out that way, in fact
if Zip had scored 100%, I'd have shrugged and said yeah fine, you can
tell a $300 integrated amp from a pair of $12,000 monoblocs, big deal.
The fact that this appears at best to have been difficult, has
horrifying ramifications for the whole high-end ethos. It's kinda like
Tom Nousaines previous excursions armed with a roll of 12AWG zipcord,
same nasty unexpected results with instant excuses from the arty-crafty
faction. And next week, TADAAAH, the Sony XA3ES vs the Mark Levinson
31.5/30.5 - now I'd buy a ticket for that heavyweight bout!

Gene Steinberg

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

J. Sanders wrote:
> To set the record straight, at the time of my prior posts on the
> subject of the recent events in Florida, I had not had the opportunity to
> view Steve Maki's post on the subject. I don't understand how I missed
> it, but have suspected for some time that my local server or Netscape, or
> whatever, has been defective in the sense that not all posts on this
> board have appeared on my screen.

You know, Sanders, it's very strange that whenever a post that disputes
something you say or reports something you don't want to hear appears,
it mysteriously doesn't turn up on your news reader.

Very strange indeed.

But you do have the summaries. Zipser did the ABX test on his own turf,
with his own equipment. Pitting a high-buck amp against a cheap Japanese
import. Whether the test was single blind or double blind, he couldn't
hear a difference. Nor could his wife, nor a friend.

I am not about to rub any wounds into this. Zipser has done a little
spin control, but let's not delve into that. He put himself on the line
here, and no he has a lot of thinking to do about his subjective audio
philosophy now that he's had a hard dose of reality.

I'm gonna leave it at that, although I know this topic will be aired to
death, and subjective people will try to find excuses.

As for your Sanders, I don't buy yours, sorry.

--
Peace
Gene

Armand

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

In article <322697...@inreach.com>, "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com> says:
>
>c. whiting wrote:
>>
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >
>> >>> That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his (and
>> >>> his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
>> >>> perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!
>> >
> Stewart, are you a Yamaha salesman on the sly, or what?
>Normally, I have a high regard for what you say in these boards, but
>really, this is just plain ridiculous. Did you also happen to stay up
>late last night cruising the night clubs in Florida, or what? Perhaps I
>should just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume everything you
>just said above was all tongue-in-cheek. Pretty funny, actually.
>
> Jim S.

Stewart has indeed helped educate me on the finer aspects of amp and
digital electronics design. But his stance is hard to pin down. On the one
hand he owns Krells and specialty cable. On the other, he claims that
blind testing's results are absolute and irrefutable.

His subsequent comments trancends mere ribbing and border on the unusually
cruel. (How dare you try to steal "my thunder"?)

Armand

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:

>Stewart has indeed helped educate me on the finer aspects of amp and
>digital electronics design. But his stance is hard to pin down. On the one
>hand he owns Krells and specialty cable. On the other, he claims that
>blind testing's results are absolute and irrefutable.

You all's joshin' me, sah! I've actually posted all this before, but I
chose the Krell after an exhaustive test session with an Audiolab 8000P,
a Hafler XL-600 and a pair of Denon POA-6600 monoblocs. Plus of course
'everybody knows' you need a Krell to drive Apogees :-)

The cables I use are not expensive but are made from good materials, the
Naim NACA5 I use for the bass is hardly excessive and the 0.6mm
solid-core twisted pair I use for the treble was chosen to 'voice' the
speakers in my room. It sounds fancy, being OFHC copper, silver-clad and
Teflon insulated, but it's just standard MIL-spec hookup wire, which
fits with my background in military testgear. I've never said my cables
sound better than Radio Shack stock although I believe they might, but
they do make me feel more secure about the quality of my rig, and that's
half the battle. If I were considering replacing the amp or cables, I'd
certainly run blind tests, I always have done.

>His subsequent comments trancends mere ribbing and border on the unusually
>cruel. (How dare you try to steal "my thunder"?)

Maybe down to differing styles and ferocity in banter on our side of the
pond, you guys take yourselves MUCH too seriously at times! You surely
must admit the ol' Zipster really set himself up for this one.

Happy listening!

John Butler

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

Below are some excerpts from a recent Stewart Pinkerton post:

> While it does have its funny side after all Steves noisy posturing, this
> is actually very disturbing when you come down to it, particularly given
> that all present agreed that the amps sounded extremely alike (according
> to Steve Makis post at least, which is the only 'eye-witness' report so
> far available). None of us really want to believe that a Yamaha AX-700
> is indistinguishable from a pair of Pass Aleph 1.2s, that would be VERY
> embarrassing for most high-enders, never mind Steve and Nelson!

<snip>


> Apart from an initial giggle at the
> irony of the situation, it wasn't my intention to have a go at Zip
> personally, I actually find the results most disturbing.
>
> I certainly wouldn't have put money on them coming out that way, in fact
> if Zip had scored 100%, I'd have shrugged and said yeah fine, you can
> tell a $300 integrated amp from a pair of $12,000 monoblocs, big deal.
> The fact that this appears at best to have been difficult, has
> horrifying ramifications for the whole high-end ethos. It's kinda like
> Tom Nousaines previous excursions armed with a roll of 12AWG zipcord,
> same nasty unexpected results with instant excuses from the arty-crafty
> faction. And next week, TADAAAH, the Sony XA3ES vs the Mark Levinson
> 31.5/30.5 - now I'd buy a ticket for that heavyweight bout!

I have a couple of comments:

First of all, FWIW the AX-700 is not a $300 amp. It's probably more
like $700, which would make a significant difference in parts quality.
It's also very new, so we don't know anything about it (except, perhaps
that it sounds really good). I have called two local
Yamaha dealers to find out more about it. It's so new neither of
them have heard of it. The AX-570 is $500. The 700 would be a model
above. Granted, this is probably splitting hairs vis a vis the
Pass monoblocks, but it seems like the retail price of the Yamaha
drops every time someone makes a post.

Second, in other scientific comparison tests, for the test to have
any validity, a baseline of resolution is established, and statistically,
a variable for certainty is established. My question is, have the
proponents of ABX testing ever established its baseline?

For example, I think almost anyone on this forum would agree that
having your speakers wired in phase or out of phase is certainly
audible. But are you sure you could pick the right one 19 out of
20 times in a level-matched ABX test? If I were playing a continuous,
wide variety of musical information, I'm not sure I could.

Assuming your hearing extends to 18KHz, would you be
able to discern a -2dB rolloff at 16KHz 19 out of 20 tries in a double-
blind level-matched test? I'm not sure I could. Does that mean the
effect is insignificant or inaudible? No.

What is the baseline for listener fatigue? What if, for example,
listener fatigue set in after 6 or 8 comparisons. What if
people were consistently correctly identifying 7 out of the first 8,
and then "blowing" the last 12. That would be enough to return the
results to random. Winetasting is another bastion of subjective
blind comparisons. It involves rigorous training to know what to
taste for. And in between tastes, they "clear the palate". They
don't immediately taste another wine of the same vintage and acidity.
And they take frequent breaks.

We know the brain tries to compensate for all sorts of imbalances in
input. We don't notice the green color shift too much when we work
under fluorescent light. But photographic film does. The lossy
compression schemes for DCC and mini-disk are based on psychoacoustic
studies as to what musical information loss the brain notices least.
Does that mean they sound as good as CD? I don't think so.
So, when switching between two audio sources that are at identical
SPLs, does the brain try to make them sound identical?

Don't get me wrong: Even if ABX turned out to be a low-resolution test,
it's still impressive that the Yamaha did that well. And Bennett Leeds,
these are not new (or old) anti-ABX arguments; they are questions.

BUT, any other scientific comparison test starts by establishing a
baseline of what it CAN discern. What have audio ABX tests established
that they can discern? Without an established baseline, all results
are suspect.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

BlackM...@msn.com (John Butler) writes:

>> I certainly wouldn't have put money on them coming out that way, in fact
>> if Zip had scored 100%, I'd have shrugged and said yeah fine, you can
>> tell a $300 integrated amp from a pair of $12,000 monoblocs, big deal.
>> The fact that this appears at best to have been difficult, has
>> horrifying ramifications for the whole high-end ethos. It's kinda like
>> Tom Nousaines previous excursions armed with a roll of 12AWG zipcord,
>> same nasty unexpected results with instant excuses from the arty-crafty
>> faction. And next week, TADAAAH, the Sony XA3ES vs the Mark Levinson
>> 31.5/30.5 - now I'd buy a ticket for that heavyweight bout!

>I have a couple of comments:

>First of all, FWIW the AX-700 is not a $300 amp. It's probably more
>like $700, which would make a significant difference in parts quality.
>It's also very new, so we don't know anything about it (except, perhaps
>that it sounds really good). I have called two local
>Yamaha dealers to find out more about it. It's so new neither of
>them have heard of it.

That explains why nobody in the UK has ever heard of it either! Can we
split the difference and call it $600?

That gives us a neat 20:1 price ratio :-)

>Second, in other scientific comparison tests, for the test to have
>any validity, a baseline of resolution is established, and statistically,
>a variable for certainty is established. My question is, have the
>proponents of ABX testing ever established its baseline?

There is a question over the proper functioning of the ABX box. This
would not explain the 3 out of 10 correct result when the cables were
swapped in the first set of trials.

>For example, I think almost anyone on this forum would agree that
>having your speakers wired in phase or out of phase is certainly
>audible. But are you sure you could pick the right one 19 out of
>20 times in a level-matched ABX test? If I were playing a continuous,
>wide variety of musical information, I'm not sure I could.

I'm pretty sure I could if I were playing my own choice of music, hence
I could just play one section which I felt showed the effect most
markedly (like Gigi did).

>We know the brain tries to compensate for all sorts of imbalances in
>input. We don't notice the green color shift too much when we work
>under fluorescent light. But photographic film does. The lossy
>compression schemes for DCC and mini-disk are based on psychoacoustic
>studies as to what musical information loss the brain notices least.
>Does that mean they sound as good as CD? I don't think so.
>So, when switching between two audio sources that are at identical
>SPLs, does the brain try to make them sound identical?

I have seen no evidence to suggest this is the case, ABX testing is used
in product development and is recognised as a useful tool for spotting
and eliminating small differences.

>Don't get me wrong: Even if ABX turned out to be a low-resolution test,
>it's still impressive that the Yamaha did that well. And Bennett Leeds,
>these are not new (or old) anti-ABX arguments; they are questions.

>BUT, any other scientific comparison test starts by establishing a
>baseline of what it CAN discern. What have audio ABX tests established
>that they can discern? Without an established baseline, all results
>are suspect.

How about the baseline of exactly the same system, simply swapping the
cables from one amp to the other, like in the first ten trials?

Dana Bunner

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> No, but I happen to know from my own trials that Yamaha do a pretty keen
> amp, the AX-570 in my case. What's ridiculous, my statements or the
> results of these trials? I was comparing amps of roughly similar price,
> with the Yamaha at one end and the Audiolab at the other. Zip chose to
> put a pair of the latest and most expensive Alephs into the ring, should
> have been no contest. Life's a bitch.

It is also interesting to note it is Stewart's assertation that he was
able to detect audible differences between the 10 or so mid-priced
integrated amps that he auditioned in his home.

So I guess Stewart would still be in the camp of believing that he
could identify his Krell vs the Yamaha AX-570 probably 100% of the
time.

Is this is a correct assessment of your opinion, Stewart?

Be careful when someone knocks at your door. You never know when
the ABX Inquisition will arrive. If you peep through the keyhole
and see two guys holding a beatup amp and a little black box, my
advise is to bolt out the backdoor.

Dana

Dana Bunner

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> BlackM...@msn.com (John Butler) writes:
>

> >First of all, FWIW the AX-700 is not a $300 amp. It's probably more
> >like $700, which would make a significant difference in parts quality.
> >It's also very new, so we don't know anything about it (except, perhaps
> >that it sounds really good). I have called two local
> >Yamaha dealers to find out more about it. It's so new neither of
> >them have heard of it.
>

> That explains why nobody in the UK has ever heard of it either! Can we
> split the difference and call it $600?

Hmmm ... I thought it was an older amp. I saw a fairly well-used store
demo model at our local appliance/TV/furniture/Stereo store the other
day selling for $425. I believe their normal selling price was over
$500.

It looked like your typical run-of-the-mill mid-range Yamaha amp. I
would be shocked if it were much different than my older $800 (list)
Yamaha receiver. There wasn't any thing particularly special or
unique in the specs or Yamaha's writeup that would lead one to believe
this was their killer amp. Although I believe it was or is their
top-of-the-line stereo amp. They do sell a $2000 amp that has all
kinds of DSP/Home Theater stuff on it.

Dana

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

Dana Bunner <dbu...@macc.wisc.edu> writes:

>It is also interesting to note it is Stewart's assertation that he was
>able to detect audible differences between the 10 or so mid-priced
>integrated amps that he auditioned in his home.

>So I guess Stewart would still be in the camp of believing that he
>could identify his Krell vs the Yamaha AX-570 probably 100% of the
>time.

>Is this is a correct assessment of your opinion, Stewart?

That's a perfectly fair question :-)

What happened when I did this (I think it was 7 amps) was that three or
four contenders were kicked into touch right away, either for obvious
harshness or excessive warmth (the MF E100), leaving the Audiolabs and
the Yamaha. It's important to remember that this may not apply
generally, I was specifically looking for an amp to go between a Sony TV
and VCR, and a pair of Tannoy 633s. I felt that the Yamaha was losing a
little dialogue detail, important in this application, but that it was
better than the Audiolab 8000A. The 8000P however, hooked directly to
the VCR, was extremely impressive, so I ended up buying this and putting
a passive bass booster and volume control on the front end.

I did actually try the Yamaha in the main system just for fun, driving
the Duettas and it sounded just fine, but I did not directly A/B it
against the Krell (it wouldn't even have occurred at that time!) so I
don't honestly know what would happen in a 'Sunshine Trial'. I'm not
sure if I dare try it! I have A/B checked the Audiolab 8000P against the
Krell and I can't really split them reliably, I just like having the
rock-solid power delivery of the Krell in reserve. The AX-570 measured
out at 190 watts into 4 ohms, the Audiolab and Krell both just about 200
watts. (Krell are REALLY conservative - it's a KSA-50!), but all three
amps are evenly matched for power delivery into the mostly resistive 3.5
ohm load of the Duettas (don't believe the horror stories about Apogee
ribbons, only the original Apogee and Scintilla were real amp-killers).

>Be careful when someone knocks at your door. You never know when
>the ABX Inquisition will arrive. If you peep through the keyhole
>and see two guys holding a beatup amp and a little black box, my
>advise is to bolt out the backdoor.

Nah, I'll just make sure I have a hangover :-)

Actually, I do believe that if there is a REAL difference I should score
at least 9 out of 10, I had no problems with most of these mid-price
amps. The Yamaha and the 8000P were VERY close, I'm not entirely sure my
decision was based totally on the Audiolabs slightly superior sound.

Just to put the financial side of things into a little better
perspective, I paid a grand for the Krell s/hand and 700 quid for the
8000P brand new, so the Krell wasn't outrageously expensive and it does
suit the Apogees very well. The AX-570 would have been only 300 however,
so maybe the Audiolab was partly a status purchase, but it did sound
slightly more natural on Jurassic Park and T2 - honest guv!

Bo Williams

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to wrwi...@ingr.com

ae...@flight.els wrote:
>
> >Bo Williams <wrwi...@ingr.com> wrote:
>
> >Kudos to you, Mr. Zipser, for making good on your oft-repeated
> >challenge. I'm impressed.
>
> I will also give credit to Mr. Zipser for keeping his word and
> accepting the challenge. It takes some guts to submit yourself to
> this kind of test, knowing in advance that the outcome could be
> devastating.

>
> Where I have an issue however, is that in the face of hard evidence,
> Mr. Zipser again skirts the issue with excuses.

Well, it's painful to see something in which you believe very strongly
take such a hit--and it is a hit. Zipser admitted he was on the fence
about the whole issue initially, then that became "I heard a difference
until the box started misfiring," and now there's stuff like "well, he
had a hangover" and "well, it's just the PRESSURE!" from other
subjectivists. It'll always be something, because to admit an inability
to distinguish between Pass and Yamaha hardware is to shatter the
paradigm.


> I, as well as most of
> us, would have a hell of a lot more respect for him if he'd step up to
> the plate and admit defeat like a man.

Even just keeping his jury out would be enough at this point. Except
for the malfunctioning ABX box, Zipser seems comfortable with the way
the tests were conducted. He ought to really think about what happened
on that weekend.
--
Bo Williams - wrwi...@ingr.com
Not speaking for Intergraph Corporation.

Information Services

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to c. whiting

c. whiting wrote:
>
> I
> only have to turn my aluminum volume knob about a quarter turn to knock
> the walls down.

That's an old marketing trick - still used these days, unfortunately.
Here the volume control circuit is designed so that the amplifier
reaches its maximum output long before the volume control has reached
its maximum position.

> To get the same output from current Yamaha offerings I
> need to go at least half way around to perhaps three quarters.

That's better design, I think.

Regards,
Brian

Hiroyuki Teramae

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
>
> That explains why nobody in the UK has ever heard of it either! Can we
> split the difference and call it $600?

The lineup of Yamaha pre-main amplifier of last year in Japan is as
follows;
AX-490 39,800 yen = $400
AX-590 49,800 yen = $500
AX-890 89,800 yen = $900

Yamaha currently may not have 700 series of the amplifier.

Hiroyuki

Todd Jenkins

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:
>>>Don't get me wrong: Even if ABX turned out to be a low-resolution test,
>>>it's still impressive that the Yamaha did that well. And Bennett Leeds,
>>>these are not new (or old) anti-ABX arguments; they are questions.

Actually, they are very old questions/arguments, all of which we have been
over in these newsgroups to death in the past six months alone, much less the
couple of years before.

>>>BUT, any other scientific comparison test starts by establishing a
>>>baseline of what it CAN discern. What have audio ABX tests established
>>>that they can discern? Without an established baseline, all results
>>>are suspect.
>>How about the baseline of exactly the same system, simply swapping the
>>cables from one amp to the other, like in the first ten trials?

>Don't think you properly answered the question. Two tries for a six-pence.

Ok. I promised myself I would stay out of the dispute, but the question has
been raised whether the ABX paradigm is capable of 1) resolution and 2) a
baseline. For 1) please refer to the cautious positive correlation (not high
enough to be 95% certain statistically) of the audibility of acoustic polarity
in "R. A. Greiner and Douglas E. Melton, 'Observations on the Audibility of
Acoustic Polarity,' JAES vol. 42 no. 4, 1994 April." Given that most
audiophiles consider that acoustic polarity is one of the most difficult
parameters to distinguish, this pretty well proves that ABX *can* be a very
sensitive testing system.
On 2) for a baseline for the current system, I can offer no suggestions (not
having been there) but for the fact that it was his system, unchanged except
for the addition of an amplifier sitting to the side of his normal system,
attached or not attached as the test went. How much closer to the original,
most comfortable and high-resolution system do you want? I think that's a
pretty darn good answer, Armand. No, it does not show that there was a
reference that is indisputable and publishable in the AES, but given the
circumstances and claims of the testees, it is *clearly* sufficient to
demonstrate that there were no significant audible differences between the
amplifiers under test *in this situation*. It is equally clear that this is
not necessarily a 100% portable result, but well agrees with established
results of testing...so what conclusion do we come to? When level-matched
with no other changes to the system, in a comfortable location with familiar
music, it was very close to impossible to tell the difference. (I came to the
conclusion a year or so ago that those arguing that they could "easily tell
the difference" had never even attempted a level-matched comparison.) It also
makes me feel a bit justified in not bothering to upgrade any of my
electronics in 10 years, and concentrating on tweaking my speaker system...

Cheers!
Todd Jenkins
Project Engineer - EV/Altec Lansing
The opinions expressed herein do not represent those of EV/Altec Lansing


Tim Brown

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

In article <3224BC...@netrunner.net>,
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>Max Moulton wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Zipser has made some rather bold statements in the past regarding
>> his ability to recognize audible differences in audio equipment.
>> Although clearly demonstrating the motivations of a salesman, I do not
>> doubt his sincerity in beleiving that he indeed can differentiate.
>
>I still believe that, sir.

>
>> That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his (and
>> his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
>> perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!
>
>Why?
>
>> Steve, I'll leave you with this approach to selling gear in the future.
>
>I'l leave you with this suggestion, you have your opinion, I have mine.
>
>> Feel free to use it,
>
>Feel free to shove it.
>
>> I'm afraid, Mr. Zipser, you have been setting yourself up for this for
>> some time now. It's time to swallow hard I'm afraid.
>
>I'm not afraid of anything Max. I still believe there are sonically
>significant differences in amplifiers - especially with long term
>listening - which is something I have ALWAYS maintained.

No one is denying that amplifiers sound different, but it appears that you
can't tell a Yamaha connected with zip cord from a "high end" system.
Too many hangovers?

Tim

Tim Brown

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

In article <501np4$m...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
tshe...@uni.uiuc.edu (Tom Sherman) wrote:
>Oh damn damn damn...here comes another objectionist/subjectivist debate,
>but I think I'll throw my limited $.02 in justferthehelluvit. And I felt
>I just *had* to the first the respond to this...

>
>
>ste...@w8hd.org (Steve Maki) writes:
>
>>After we did a frequency response check of both amps using a test CD
>>and digital ac voltmeter at the speaker terminals (the Pass was
>>slightly better than the Yamaha), we level matched them at 1 kHz,
>>using the same method.
[snip]
>Steve, I'd have to say that the root of the problem is that you weren't
>able to listen long enough to each setup to absolutely "zero-in" on the
>sound of each amp. You might have felt a little pressed for time, so you
>hurried along your "fix" on the amps... (especially since you had that
>emergency before) Then, you might have tricked yourself into thinking
>things that weren't there were there, and fooled yourself into thinking
>that you were ready for the blind test. Please, take me seriously --
>this is not a flame of you, but why I really think this test didn't show
>up the definitely audible difference in amplifiers.
>
> I think this was the problem because of a similar thing that
>happened to me when I compared CD players a few months back. I listened
>to both (when I could see which one was playing) and got _real_ confident
>that I could tell the difference. On the whole, though, I think my dad
>was a little more relaxed about the whole thing and just "heard what he
>heard" instead of trying to listen for difference and everything. The CD
>players, BTW, were a NAD 512 and a knappy $150 Panasonic carousel.
>
> Well, on the first blind test, I absolutely sucked and kept
>guessing the wrong thing EVERY TIME. No, it wasn't that magical 50%
>figure that would indicate that there was no corolation whatsoever
>between the CD player and sound.
>
> Ok, to make a long story short, we did some blind tests later in
>the day on MY system (previously had used my dad's). I think I was more
>relaxed and more comfortable, but it had taken time. I had needed to
>listen to each CD player (I wasn't terribly familar with the sound of
>each at the start of the test) to get a grip on each player's sound. I
>progressed to the point where I could identify the correct CD player
>playing about 70% of the time, while my dad was more around 85%.

Did you do level setting, etc.?

> I think that the problem with ABX tests like this is that really
>add pressure to the situation and cause people to imagine things more
>than hear things.

Another problem related to ABX testing is that most of the people making the
assertion don't know how to do the test properly.

Tim

Armand

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <50a1cm$s...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) says:

>
>BlackM...@msn.com (John Butler) writes:
t of all, FWIW the AX-700 is not a $300 amp. It's probably more
>>like $700, which would make a significant difference in parts quality.
>>It's also very new, so we don't know anything about it (except, perhaps
>>that it sounds really good). I have called two local
>>Yamaha dealers to find out more about it. It's so new neither of
>>them have heard of it.
>
>That explains why nobody in the UK has ever heard of it either! Can we
>split the difference and call it $600?
>
>That gives us a neat 20:1 price ratio :-)
>
>>Second, in other scientific comparison tests, for the test to have
>>any validity, a baseline of resolution is established, and statistically,
>>a variable for certainty is established. My question is, have the
>>proponents of ABX testing ever established its baseline?
>
>There is a question over the proper functioning of the ABX box. This
>would not explain the 3 out of 10 correct result when the cables were
>swapped in the first set of trials.
>
>>For example, I think almost anyone on this forum would agree that
>>having your speakers wired in phase or out of phase is certainly
>>audible. But are you sure you could pick the right one 19 out of
>>20 times in a level-matched ABX test? If I were playing a continuous,
>>wide variety of musical information, I'm not sure I could.
>
>I'm pretty sure I could if I were playing my own choice of music, hence
>I could just play one section which I felt showed the effect most
>markedly (like Gigi did).

Let's assume hypothetically, you failed. Would you then declare that
relative phase is not important? And why would you need "my own
choice of music"? Why should it matter?


>
>>We know the brain tries to compensate for all sorts of imbalances in
>>input. We don't notice the green color shift too much when we work
>>under fluorescent light. But photographic film does. The lossy
>>compression schemes for DCC and mini-disk are based on psychoacoustic
>>studies as to what musical information loss the brain notices least.
>>Does that mean they sound as good as CD? I don't think so.
>>So, when switching between two audio sources that are at identical
>>SPLs, does the brain try to make them sound identical?

>I have seen no evidence to suggest this is the case, ABX testing is used
>in product development and is recognised as a useful tool for spotting
>and eliminating small differences.

Why not?! If "we" are fooling ourselves because of "fancy face plates"
then it would seem the skies the limit as far as our hoodwinking ourselves
is concerned. Is this gentleman's statement inconceivable?

>>Don't get me wrong: Even if ABX turned out to be a low-resolution test,
>>it's still impressive that the Yamaha did that well. And Bennett Leeds,
>>these are not new (or old) anti-ABX arguments; they are questions.
>

>>BUT, any other scientific comparison test starts by establishing a
>>baseline of what it CAN discern. What have audio ABX tests established
>>that they can discern? Without an established baseline, all results
>>are suspect.
>
>How about the baseline of exactly the same system, simply swapping the
>cables from one amp to the other, like in the first ten trials?

Don't think you properly answered the question. Two tries for a six-pence.

Armand

J. Sanders

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Ginocchio wrote:

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Sorry Sanders, but BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH I don't buy
your excuses, Sanders BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ABX proves all amplifiers sound
the same BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Zip doesn't make excuses BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
he just exercises spin control BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH but let's not delve
into that BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH he's had a hard dose of reality BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH I'm always right BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and the rest of you are
always wrong BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH especially you, Sanders BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH no matter how many false assumptions I make BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and
no matter how many times I contradict myself BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and then
whine that I'm always being misquoted BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and no matter
how many lies I get publicly busted for on RAO BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
because subjectivists like you, Sanders BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH simply aren't
capable of rational discussion BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH or my version of
netiquette BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH all you can do is issue personal attacks
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH on scientific people like me BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH I've
got all the answers BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH all the studies have been done
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH so why bother actually listening to music BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH it all sounds the same BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH but I've never
actually said that BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH what I actually said was BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH and you'd know this if you took the time to actually read my
posts of fourteen weeks ago BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH instead of misquoting me
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH that where differences in music have been detected
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH under double-blind conditions, of course BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH with levels matched BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH they're all explained
with simple measurements BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH but the differences are
insignificant BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH which means they're slight BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH or inaudible BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH or extremely subtle BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH or unimportant BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH or they're undetectable
under blind conditions BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH or they disappear when the
blindfolds come out BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH figuratively speaking, of course
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH which means it all sounds the same BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH and no differences exist BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH or differences do exist
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH but they're not significant BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
depending on how much of a weasel I feel like being on any particular day
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and I dare you to prove me wrong BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
which you never have and never will BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH because I can
change what I say like a chameleon BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH because I know it
all BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and I'm always right BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and the
rest of you are always wrong BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH especially you, Sanders
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and I never ever repeat myself BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH I
just always sound the same BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH just like amplifiers BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH and music BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH so buy The Audio Critic BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH if you think *I* repeat myself BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH and you
really want to know where I got all this stuff BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH because I'm
Aczel's paid shill BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH but I've never received a
plugged nickle from him BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH even when I worked for him
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH which is why I quit BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH in order to
plug his rag on the internet for free BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH 24 hours a day
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Jim ("Who gives a shit, Gino?") S.


Craig Siever

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> J. Sanders wrote:
> > To set the record straight, at the time of my prior posts on the
> > subject of the recent events in Florida, I had not had the opportunity to
> > view Steve Maki's post on the subject. I don't understand how I missed
> > it, but have suspected for some time that my local server or Netscape, or
> > whatever, has been defective in the sense that not all posts on this
> > board have appeared on my screen.
>
> You know, Sanders, it's very strange that whenever a post that disputes
> something you say or reports something you don't want to hear appears,
> it mysteriously doesn't turn up on your news reader.
>
> Very strange indeed.
>

[SNIP]

> Peace
> Gene

Just this morning I experienced a similar problem in receiving all posts
on my news provider. I had to answer Mr. Pinkerton's reply to a previous
post by replying to yet another post. Go figger.

Craig

Craig Siever

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Craig Siever <cn4...@coastalnet.com> writes:
>
> >Has no one here experienced aural defeciencies due to stress?
> >Has no one here has ever _not_ experienced an aparent lack of
> >fidelity in their systems after a particularly hectic day?


> Has no subjectivist got the guts to admit maybe the test showed accurate
> results and there really was very little difference between these amps?
> Is this thread going to degenerate to a whole string of lame excuses?

> We're not talking subtle here, we're talking about a pair of Steves
> favourite $12,000 monoblocs versus a $300 integrated amp with remote
> control and a loudness button, fer krissakes!
>

I'm relating my experiences here. They are not meant to be used as an
excuse by anyone. You've not answered my questions though. Have you
or have you not experienced this phenomenon? Yes or no? Or is this more
a "don't confuse me with the facts" posture? Subjectivist? You deem me
a subjectivist? How, pray tell, did you arrive at this conclusion? Was it
based on one post in which it was suggested that one's mental state in regards
to the effect of stress _does_ have an influence in aural accuracy? This
statement was quick of wit but short of reasoning. _I_ may not be able to
discern differences between audio amplifiers but it doesn't mean that _I_
believe that no one can. I sir, am neutral in this debate. I can only relate
_my_ experiences. If you've _never_ experienced the conditions described in
my original post then bully for you. OTOH you've not answered my questions
therefore I have yet to form an opinion. While _you_ may try to factor out
all variables you deem unimportant, you will not convince me that stress
does not influence _my_ hearing capabilities.

You're not still pissed about that revolution thing are you?


Jumping to conclusions is the only exercise I get.
Craig

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Dana Bunner <dbu...@macc.wisc.edu> writes:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> BlackM...@msn.com (John Butler) writes:
>>

>> >First of all, FWIW the AX-700 is not a $300 amp. It's probably more
>> >like $700, which would make a significant difference in parts quality.
>> >It's also very new, so we don't know anything about it (except, perhaps
>> >that it sounds really good). I have called two local
>> >Yamaha dealers to find out more about it. It's so new neither of
>> >them have heard of it.
>>

>> That explains why nobody in the UK has ever heard of it either! Can we
>> split the difference and call it $600?

>Hmmm ... I thought it was an older amp. I saw a fairly well-used store


>demo model at our local appliance/TV/furniture/Stereo store the other
>day selling for $425. I believe their normal selling price was over
>$500.

>It looked like your typical run-of-the-mill mid-range Yamaha amp. I
>would be shocked if it were much different than my older $800 (list)
>Yamaha receiver. There wasn't any thing particularly special or
>unique in the specs or Yamaha's writeup that would lead one to believe
>this was their killer amp. Although I believe it was or is their
>top-of-the-line stereo amp. They do sell a $2000 amp that has all
>kinds of DSP/Home Theater stuff on it.

That's the DSP-A2070, was top of the range until the new 3090 with AC-3
came out. I have been a bit puzzled about this number, AX-700 is an odd
designation for Yamaha, their top integrated used to be the AX-570, then
it became the AX-590 and there are 490 and 390 below it. 700 doesn't
seem to fit their pattern, but since you've seen one ex-demo it's
obviously not totally new. Anyway, if it was on sale at a mass-fi store
it's obviously not some super 'audiophile' special.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:
>>
>>>Second, in other scientific comparison tests, for the test to have
>>>any validity, a baseline of resolution is established, and statistically,
>>>a variable for certainty is established. My question is, have the
>>>proponents of ABX testing ever established its baseline?
>>
>>There is a question over the proper functioning of the ABX box. This
>>would not explain the 3 out of 10 correct result when the cables were
>>swapped in the first set of trials.
>>
>>>For example, I think almost anyone on this forum would agree that
>>>having your speakers wired in phase or out of phase is certainly
>>>audible. But are you sure you could pick the right one 19 out of
>>>20 times in a level-matched ABX test? If I were playing a continuous,
>>>wide variety of musical information, I'm not sure I could.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure I could if I were playing my own choice of music, hence
>>I could just play one section which I felt showed the effect most
>>markedly (like Gigi did).

>Let's assume hypothetically, you failed. Would you then declare that
>relative phase is not important? And why would you need "my own
>choice of music"? Why should it matter?

I'd certainly want to try it again with other speakers, other placements
etc to find out WHY I couldn't tell the difference (hypothetically!).
I'd want my own choice of music because that's normal in any A/B
testing, I might not actually need it. Why would YOU want to choose it
for me? That's an old salesmans trick, picking music that demos the
effect you're selling and hides the flaws.

>>
>>>So, when switching between two audio sources that are at identical
>>>SPLs, does the brain try to make them sound identical?

>>I have seen no evidence to suggest this is the case, ABX testing is used
>>in product development and is recognised as a useful tool for spotting
>>and eliminating small differences.

>Why not?! If "we" are fooling ourselves because of "fancy face plates"
>then it would seem the skies the limit as far as our hoodwinking ourselves
>is concerned. Is this gentleman's statement inconceivable?

It's pretty unlikely, since ABX testing IS used and level matching IS a
requirement. The basic point is that in this application, ABX testing
DOES reveal small differences, whether or not the brain is 'trying to
compensate'.

>>>Don't get me wrong: Even if ABX turned out to be a low-resolution test,
>>>it's still impressive that the Yamaha did that well. And Bennett Leeds,
>>>these are not new (or old) anti-ABX arguments; they are questions.
>>
>>>BUT, any other scientific comparison test starts by establishing a
>>>baseline of what it CAN discern. What have audio ABX tests established
>>>that they can discern? Without an established baseline, all results
>>>are suspect.
>>
>>How about the baseline of exactly the same system, simply swapping the
>>cables from one amp to the other, like in the first ten trials?

>Don't think you properly answered the question. Two tries for a six-pence.

I don't have strong personal opinions about ABX testing, but in this
case I would still point to the fact that Steve did even worse when
there was no ABX box in circuit. Hence, I think I answered the relevant
question Steve, oops I mean Armand. I can also tackle two Steves for a
sixpence.................

Cheers and happy listening!

Stewie the Lip

J. Sanders

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Stewart:

I think you've gotten completely "wigged out" (is that the
expression, chap?) about all this. Rather than respond to each of your
numerous posts over the past 24 hours or so on the subject, please see my
post to Steve Zipser himself below, erected Sun, 01 Sep 1996 03:15:43
-0700. It should be self-explanatory. As I said earlier, all the
results just aren't in yet.

Jim S.


Armand

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <3227E7...@macc.wisc.edu>, Dana Bunner <dbu...@macc.wisc.edu> says:
>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> No, but I happen to know from my own trials that Yamaha do a pretty keen
>> amp, the AX-570 in my case. What's ridiculous, my statements or the
>> results of these trials? I was comparing amps of roughly similar price,
>> with the Yamaha at one end and the Audiolab at the other. Zip chose to
>> put a pair of the latest and most expensive Alephs into the ring, should
>> have been no contest. Life's a bitch.
>
>It is also interesting to note it is Stewart's assertation that he was
>able to detect audible differences between the 10 or so mid-priced
>integrated amps that he auditioned in his home.
>So I guess Stewart would still be in the camp of believing that he
>could identify his Krell vs the Yamaha AX-570 probably 100% of the
>time.
>Is this is a correct assessment of your opinion, Stewart?
Be careful when someone knocks at your door. You never know when
>the ABX Inquisition will arrive. If you peep through the keyhole
>and see two guys holding a beatup amp and a little black box, my
>advise is to bolt out the backdoor.
>Dana

Yeah. "Doobie-doobie-do"--Beware of the penguins.

Armand

Armand

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <tjenkins.6...@michiana.org>, tjen...@michiana.org (Todd Jenkins) says:

>
>mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:
>>>>Don't get me wrong: Even if ABX turned out to be a low-resolution test,
>>>>it's still impressive that the Yamaha did that well. And Bennett Leeds,
>>>>these are not new (or old) anti-ABX arguments; they are questions.
>
>Actually, they are very old questions/arguments, all of which we have been
>over in these newsgroups to death in the past six months alone, much less the
>couple of years before.
>
>>>>BUT, any other scientific comparison test starts by establishing a
>>>>baseline of what it CAN discern. What have audio ABX tests established
>>>>that they can discern? Without an established baseline, all results
>>>>are suspect.
>>>How about the baseline of exactly the same system, simply swapping the
>>>cables from one amp to the other, like in the first ten trials?
>>Don't think you properly answered the question. Two tries for a six-pence.
>

Sorry Todd, I did not post this and don't necessarily agree with the content
of the original post.

Armand

Michael Wong

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <5091mj$4...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
says...

>I certainly wouldn't have put money on them coming out that way, in fact
>if Zip had scored 100%, I'd have shrugged and said yeah fine, you can
>tell a $300 integrated amp from a pair of $12,000 monoblocs, big deal.
>The fact that this appears at best to have been difficult, has
>horrifying ramifications for the whole high-end ethos. It's kinda like
>Tom Nousaines previous excursions armed with a roll of 12AWG zipcord,
>same nasty unexpected results with instant excuses from the arty-crafty
>faction. And next week, TADAAAH, the Sony XA3ES vs the Mark Levinson
>31.5/30.5 - now I'd buy a ticket for that heavyweight bout!

You know, there are two kinds of high-end electronics; those that are
measurably better and those that are measurably equal or even inferior, but
which claim some kind of mystical unmeasurable superiority. I personally tend
to believe in measurably better stuff.

This infamous amp comparison doesn't prove that all mass-market amps are equal
to all high-end amps (sorry Gene), it only proves that Zip's beloved PASS amps
are barely distinguishable (if at all) from a cheap Yamaha integrated amp. I
personally would never have bought amps like those PASS units even if I won the
lottery because I have never personally believed in small super-quality amps.
This is not an indictment of all "high end audio"- it is an indictment of PASS.

The same comparison between a Bryston 4B ST (or any of the big but ridiculously
expensive Krells) and a $300 integrated amp would be almost irrelevant, since
the little integrated amp couldn't possibly hope to equal the 4B's massive
power output and low impedance stability, so it is premature to say that the
entire high end community is shaking because of this little test. Nelson
maybe, but not the entire high end community.


Anthony Genovese

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <00001ec4...@msn.com>, BlackM...@msn.com (John
Butler) wrote:

<snip>

> Second, in other scientific comparison tests, for the test to have
> any validity, a baseline of resolution is established, and statistically,
> a variable for certainty is established. My question is, have the
> proponents of ABX testing ever established its baseline?

<snip>

> For example, I think almost anyone on this forum would agree that
> having your speakers wired in phase or out of phase is certainly
> audible. But are you sure you could pick the right one 19 out of
> 20 times in a level-matched ABX test? If I were playing a continuous,
> wide variety of musical information, I'm not sure I could.

This was an excellent post and the questions you pose are ones that have
been on my mind for some time. Whenever I try to conduct these types of
tests I get so engrossed in the music after about 10 seconds, that I lose
my critical faculties.

What I have found distinguishes component differences is long term musical
satisfaction (a bullsh*t term I agree, but the only one I can think of at
present), which is quite difficult to quantify.

Going back to the far reaches of my mind, I seem to recall distortion
tests that showed that distortion was not audible until 3% or so. Does
that mean I want to buy an amp with 3% distortion (single ended triode
lovers needn't apply), of course not. If I can't pick out the lower
distortion reliably on 10, 100, or 1000 trials does not mean that over the
long term the low distortion will prove to be superior (or inferior(?),
you get my point). Which is why component testing of the type Steve
performed is so daunting.

His only sin (excuse my choice of words) was to be so cocky in his ability
to distinguish differences. Reminds me of a test Stereophile ran a while
back with Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn in which he declared he could tell when
a digital watch was in the room and a Linn Stereo was playing. They did a
few tests, he couldn't (surprise, surprise) and they moved on. Of course,
Steve has hundreds of folks ready, willing and able to attack, and giving
his somewhat vitriolic statements regarding amp differences, I guess he
should expect it.

Regards,

Tony

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

"J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com> writes:

>Stewart:


Looks that way, doesn't it? It was just bad luck really, I got into this
thread on Friday evening (GMT) and every time I posted a reply there was
another post on the thread so I ended up banging out a ludicrous number
of posts on this VERY simple subject. Ol' Zip stuck his neck waaay out
and it got neatly snipped. End of story.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Craig Siever <cn4...@coastalnet.com> writes:

>Gene Steinberg wrote:
>>
>> J. Sanders wrote:
>> > To set the record straight, at the time of my prior posts on the
>> > subject of the recent events in Florida, I had not had the opportunity to
>> > view Steve Maki's post on the subject. I don't understand how I missed
>> > it, but have suspected for some time that my local server or Netscape, or
>> > whatever, has been defective in the sense that not all posts on this
>> > board have appeared on my screen.
>>
>> You know, Sanders, it's very strange that whenever a post that disputes
>> something you say or reports something you don't want to hear appears,
>> it mysteriously doesn't turn up on your news reader.
>>
>> Very strange indeed.
>>

>Just this morning I experienced a similar problem in receiving all posts


>on my news provider. I had to answer Mr. Pinkerton's reply to a previous
>post by replying to yet another post. Go figger.

Have to agree with that. Sometimes they do get out of sequence and you
look a real pratt because you're referring to an obsolete post.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Craig Siever <cn4...@coastalnet.com> writes:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> Craig Siever <cn4...@coastalnet.com> writes:
>>
>> >Has no one here experienced aural defeciencies due to stress?
>> >Has no one here has ever _not_ experienced an aparent lack of
>> >fidelity in their systems after a particularly hectic day?


>> Has no subjectivist got the guts to admit maybe the test showed accurate
>> results and there really was very little difference between these amps?
>> Is this thread going to degenerate to a whole string of lame excuses?

>> We're not talking subtle here, we're talking about a pair of Steves
>> favourite $12,000 monoblocs versus a $300 integrated amp with remote
>> control and a loudness button, fer krissakes!
>>

>I'm relating my experiences here. They are not meant to be used as an
>excuse by anyone. You've not answered my questions though. Have you
>or have you not experienced this phenomenon? Yes or no?

Yes of course, everyone has. OTOH, Not too many of us have stayed out
drinking till 4 a.m. when our professional reputation was going on the
line the next day! Remember, Steve issued the challenge.

>Or is this more a "don't confuse me with the facts" posture?

No, that's you.

>Subjectivist? You deem me
>a subjectivist? How, pray tell, did you arrive at this conclusion?

Er, possibly because you 'know' a Pass Aleph 1.2 must sound better than
a Yamaha AX-700, even if nobody present at the 'Sunshine Trials' could
actually tell the difference (not just Steve)?

>Was it
>based on one post in which it was suggested that one's mental state in regards
>to the effect of stress _does_ have an influence in aural accuracy? This
>statement was quick of wit but short of reasoning. _I_ may not be able to
>discern differences between audio amplifiers but it doesn't mean that _I_
>believe that no one can. I sir, am neutral in this debate. I can only relate
>_my_ experiences. If you've _never_ experienced the conditions described in
>my original post then bully for you. OTOH you've not answered my questions
>therefore I have yet to form an opinion. While _you_ may try to factor out
>all variables you deem unimportant, you will not convince me that stress
>does not influence _my_ hearing capabilities.

Never said it doesn't, but I'm not sure how stress PREVENTS you hearing
things. In my experience, when you're heavily stressed you hear VERY
sharply indeed - it's called evolution!

>You're not still pissed about that revolution thing are you?

What revolution thing? 1776 or 1745?

Peter Oen

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) wrote:

-> Peter Oen (po...@pacbell.net) wrote:
-> : tshe...@uni.uiuc.edu (Tom Sherman) wrote:
-> :
-> : -> dk...@emr1.NRCan.gc.ca (David Kwan) writes:
-> : ->
-> : -> >Why, oh why, is there really any pressure on people who conduct and
-> : -> >participate in ABX testings? Just sit there, relax, and listen. You
-> : -> [DELETIA]
-> : -> It's not quite that simple; any way you look at it, you're TRYING _very_

-> : -> hard to listen for differences. Whether you're outwardly relaxed or not

-> : -> is not so much relevant as the effort that you're putting forth in
-> : -> expectation of hearing something.
-> :
-> : Tom, I would agree except for one thing, many of the people that do the
-> : anti-ABX rants are the same ones that say "If you can't tell the difference
-> : between X and Y, then there's obviously something wrong with your hearing."
-> Relevance? Some folks might rant, others might not. Please don't generalize.
-> In any case, it is irrelevant whether some folks rant: What counts is how
they
-> perform on the test, regardless of their personal views.

Okay Jeff, I'm sure you've read the postings in this newsgroup often enough to
know that there are some rather prolific writers around here that have indeed
stated, in so many words, that ABX tests are useless to them, and therefore,
useless to the rest of the world. From my recollection, there's a healthy amount
of overlapping membership between this group, and the "you can't hear, neehner,
neehner, neehner,"-group. Now I could name them individually, but that would
just start a useless (though possibly very entertaining) flame war; so that
leaves us with generalizations such as "many of the same people..." Now OTOH, if
I had omitted the "many of" qualifier...

But now we'll address the question of why some people may feel that they're
under a good deal of pressure when asked to participate in an ABX test; to which
I surmised that:

-> :
-> : ABX testing puts pressure on people that have to defend statements they've
-> : made like the above. People that are asked to do ABX testing for research/
-> : clinical purposes have nothing to defend. They are merely being asked to
try
-> : and determine if X is A or B. No value judgement is being made of them
based
-> : on their skill in doing so. But when you've made a (bold) statement like
-> : the one above, and are then placed in the position of putting yours ears to
-> : the test (put up or shut up, as it were,) you'd better believe that the
-> : pressure would be on. Because this is your ego/reputation in the Cuisinart,
-> : and the whole world (okay, maybe just the people in RAO,) wants to press
the
-> : "On" switch.

or to summarize:
People that have nothing to prove, won't feel pressured, they'll perform to the
best of their ability. Those who've made the most boisterous claims have the
most (face) to lose. The pressure felt by these individuals during testing is a
self-induced performance anxiety. The performance anxiety is a result of those
same people now having to ponder whether their ears are truly golden, or merely
stained that color from having had their heads up their asses for too long (and
the rest of the world finding out about it.)

It boils down to extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof. (Yes, it's
become somewhat of a cliche, but there's still truth to it.)

-> If I were asked to try to discriminate a difference, I'd try to do so, even
-> if there were none.

In which case you'd be guessing as to the identity of the current DUT. This is
what would be expected in cases where the performances of the devices under test
are similar enough that the differences are beyond the limits of the listener's
perceptive abilities.

-> You might relax while attempting this task, and I might
-> not. Now that's one point. Another: If I believe I can hear a difference,
-> and found this difficult to do under the conditions of the test, I might
-> indeed become more tense and perhaps less able to perform at my best.

Or you may believe that you can hear a difference, when in reality you can't,
and the "difficulties" caused by the test conditions are really just a way of
explaining a random score. But we're digressing now aren't we?

-> What
-> is all boils down to is: If the test proves that a difference could be heard
-> reliably, then that's that. If the test fails to prove that a difference
-> could be reliably distinguished, that proves that the test failed to show
-> a difference, which can either mean there were no differences to be heard,
-> or that they simply could not be distinguished under conditions of the test.
-> I don't know if there really are differences or not. But the test does not
-> prove there are none. If you believe that the test is well run, and that
-> all factors that might adversely affect the test have been well controlled,
-> you can say that the test had its best chance of showing differences, and
-> you might conclude that no differences exist, but the test can't prove this.

Actually, it doesn't boil down to what the test does or doesn't prove, unless
you can explain the relevance of the above WRT why some people might feel like
they're under pressure when participating in an ABX test. That particular train
of though, in all probability, belongs in a discussion of the null hypothesis
and the statistical significance of the responses. Please don't digress.

It would seem that you feel the test environment may not be conducive to optimal
performance by the listeners involved due to the fact that it's a "test
environment," or as one person put it, "it's not his listening room with his
system." To accommodate people of this persuasion, may I suggest ABX test done
using their system, with point to point wiring with their own interconnects in
lieu of the ABX comparator; the only requirements being that levels are matched,
and the identity of the component in use be hidden. They could even use both
pieces for several week prior to the test, to get a feel for how each one sound.
I should think that this would address their major objections to double-blind
testing.

--
Peter Oen
po...@pacbell.net

idk...@smart.net

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

anybody want to sell a pair of Pass Aleph 1.2 monoblocks?
I'll offer $600, twice the cost of the equal sounding Yamaha Ax700.

Curtis J. Simon

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Armand wrote:
>
> In article <tjenkins.6...@michiana.org>, tjen...@michiana.org (Todd Jenkins) says:
> >
> >mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:
> >>>>Don't get me wrong: Even if ABX turned out to be a low-resolution test,
> >>>>it's still impressive that the Yamaha did that well.

I have a couple of questions about this test.

Did Z have the right to listen to each piece of music as long as he
wanted? How long did he actually listen to each piece of music? And
finally, how long did the test take?

The reason I ask is that one does not spend $12,000 on an amp because it
sounds better at matched levels in sound bites, but because one likes
how it performs in long-term listening at home. I have found that the
closer one listens, the LESS one hears.

I once auditioned a new MONSTER interconnect at home. Listening to
Here's to My Lady, the excellent Phil Woods CD on Chesky, the saxophone
would hurt my ears even at moderate volume levels using the new cable.
The more closely I listened, the less painful the sax became and the
fewer differences I heard. When I relaxed, it was EASY to hear the
difference between cables. I returned the new cable -- despite WANTING
to like it better than the Audioquest Turquoise I had at the time.

The ideal test would seem to be one in which the listener could listen
to two components over a period of a week or two -- blind, of course,
and at matched levels -- and decide which one she liked better. Of
course, monitoring such an exercise would appear to be problematic. Any
ideas out there?

Curt Simon

J. Sanders

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com> writes:
>
> > (clip).

>
> Looks that way, doesn't it? It was just bad luck really, I got into this
> thread on Friday evening (GMT) and every time I posted a reply there was
> another post on the thread so I ended up banging out a ludicrous number
> of posts on this VERY simple subject. Ol' Zip stuck his neck waaay out
> and it got neatly snipped. End of story.

Interesting. I can't believe the number of responses in this
thread to those events from all sides, all perspectives, all biases, all
insights. I've been as guilty as anyone of perhaps "overposting" on the
issue. I also find it's totally impossible to keep up with them all. As
soon as a new batch of posts appears they start disappearing from the
newsreader again. For instance, by the time I got back on board late
last night, all of the posts you had erected Friday, which I referenced
as the 7 posts in this thread alone, had pissadeared. I downloaded
hardcopies of the two which responded to two of my prior posts, and could
respond to them, but it would be a hell of a chore because I'd have to
type in all of the things you said prior to responding to each point,
rather than the usual way, while the post is still on the newsreader.
And again, note my earlier post of about noon today re seeing your post
responding to Craig's post about my earlier post. Saw yours, but Craig's
has never appeared on my newsreader. Didn't see it last night either.
Perhaps he wrote it late Friday night or early Saturday morning, and it
had disappeared by the time I got online late Saturday (last) night.
Maybe if we all took a long deep breath and slowed down for awhile and
just let Steve Zipser get back to us things would sort themselves out.


J. Sanders

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Craig Siever writes:
> (clip)

> >Just this morning I experienced a similar problem in receiving all posts
> >on my news provider. I had to answer Mr. Pinkerton's reply to a previous
> >post by replying to yet another post. Go figger.
>
> Have to agree with that. Sometimes they do get out of sequence and you
> look a real pratt because you're referring to an obsolete post.
Thanks, Pinky, thanks Craig. I've been wondering about this for
some time and have e-mailed a friend about it who said he experienced a
similar problem with his server, then when he changed servers the problem
disappeared. It may be something fairly common. But to give you both
another example, I was up late last night toying around these boards and
here it is only noon today and I see Pinky's post responding to Craig's
post, but can't find Craig's post. Didn't see Craig's post late last
night, either. Go figure.

Guess Gene's the only one who's never had that problem, but then
again I may be the only guy he'd challenge about it. I guess he just has
it in for me. Wonder why?

Jim S.


Tim Brown

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <505og5$9...@gnews2.voicenet.com>,
mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) wrote:

>Pinky, in Britan they call people like you a twit. Is that the correct term?
>Certainly, it is not accurately descriptive enough.
>Here, we call people like you a fuckin' jerk-off.
>
>Armand

Armand has been getting ettiquite lessons from Zip. Igive him an A-.

Tim

Tim Brown

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <505h3t$9...@gnews2.voicenet.com>,
mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) wrote:
>In article <50466c$m...@fcserv1.div.melpar.esys.com>, "c. whiting"
<cwhi...@melpar.esys.com> says:
> I
>>only have to turn my aluminum volume knob about a quarter turn to knock
>>the walls down. To get the same output from current Yamaha offerings I
>>need to go at least half way around to perhaps three quarters.
>>Claude
>
>A potentiometer's "tracking", as they call it, is proportional to rotation.
Best performance
>actually occurs when the pot is turned fully clockwise,(least resistance).
>It is claimed that high sound levels achieved with low rotation does not take
>advantage of the pre-amps "headroom".
>
>Armand

Makes it difficult to make small adjustments in volume too.

Tim

Tim Brown

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <322697...@inreach.com>,
"J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com> wrote:
>c. whiting wrote:

>>
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >
>> >>> That said, it is either time for some serious damage control on his
(and
>> >>> his disciples' :-)) part, or a more humble approach in the future-
>> >>> perhaps as a Yamaha salesman!!
>> >
>> >>Why?
>> >
>> >Because they sound exactly the same as the legendary Pass Aleph, of
>> >course. Aren't you always telling us how good the Aleph is? Well now we
>> >know we can get the same sound quality for $200, Yamahas should just
>> >vanish off the shelves this weekend!
>>
>> People are failing to take into account that the Pass amps are of much
>> higher quality in parts and construction than the Yamaha products
>> regardless if they sound the same or not....
>
> Anyone concluding that the snippets posted by Zip and others in
>these threads, regarding his experience with Maki and Nousaine and the
>defective ABX box, that the particular Yamaha receiver utilized in Zip's
>aborted tests indicates the Yamaha "sound(s) exactly the same as the
>legendary Pass Aleph" and that "now we know that we can get the same
>sound quality for $200", has not just violated basic tenets of common
>sense,
[snip]

My common sense says:
1)If I can't hear the difference between two amps without going into some
special trance or other procedure besides my normal listening situation, it's
not worth it to spend way more on something I can't appreciate. Some folks are
satisfied with gear worse than the Yamaha, and thats fine with me.

2)A gold plated volume control knob or an over sized power transformer may be
better aestetically but I don't want to buy more than what does the job. Doews
making the chassis of way heavier gauge aluminum make it sound better or last
longer? More is not necessarily better.

Tim

Richard M. Anderson

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

>No Tom, the root of the problem is that the amps sounded
>sufficiently alike that nobody could tell the difference!

It's up to everyone who can detect slight variations in the sound
of two amps to justify paying the price for the slight advantage
in sound offered by the more expensive amp(if that's the better
one). However, I compared two Mark Levinson worth $16,000 to
to Arcam amps using the same system and there's no way anyone with
a brain could justify spending $13,000 more for the Levinsons.
sinc;
Rich

Firth of Fifth

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>
> Craig Siever <cn4...@coastalnet.com> writes:
>
> >You're not still pissed about that revolution thing are you?
>
> What revolution thing? 1776 or 1745?
>

Actually, he's talking about 1996. The world's just a little different
now...

Brian

Firth of Fifth

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> That's the DSP-A2070, was top of the range until the new 3090 with AC-3
> came out. I have been a bit puzzled about this number, AX-700 is an odd
> designation for Yamaha, their top integrated used to be the AX-570, then
> it became the AX-590 and there are 490 and 390 below it. 700 doesn't
> seem to fit their pattern, but since you've seen one ex-demo it's
> obviously not totally new. Anyway, if it was on sale at a mass-fi store
> it's obviously not some super 'audiophile' special.

A place around here is going out of business and they've got an AX-470
for $344. I probably should have gotten that instead of my NAD. More
power at least. And yes...lots of knobs, remote control, loudness
button...

Brian

Armand

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <50cd6u$l...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) says:
>
Chuck:

>>You're not still pissed about that revolution thing are you?
>
>What revolution thing? 1776 or 1745?
>Stewart Pinkerton

1996.

Armand

Armand

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <322954...@coastalnet.com>, Craig Siever <cn4...@coastalnet.com> says:
>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> Craig Siever <cn4...@coastalnet.com> writes:
>>
>> >Has no one here experienced aural defeciencies due to stress?
>> >Has no one here has ever _not_ experienced an aparent lack of
>> >fidelity in their systems after a particularly hectic day?
>
>
>> Has no subjectivist got the guts to admit maybe the test showed accurate
>> results and there really was very little difference between these amps?
>> Is this thread going to degenerate to a whole string of lame excuses?
>
>> We're not talking subtle here, we're talking about a pair of Steves
>> favourite $12,000 monoblocs versus a $300 integrated amp with remote
>> control and a loudness button, fer krissakes!
>>
>
>I'm relating my experiences here. They are not meant to be used as an
>excuse by anyone. You've not answered my questions though. Have you
>or have you not experienced this phenomenon? Yes or no? Or is this more
>a "don't confuse me with the facts" posture? Subjectivist? You deem me
>a subjectivist? How, pray tell, did you arrive at this conclusion? Was it

>based on one post in which it was suggested that one's mental state in regards
>to the effect of stress _does_ have an influence in aural accuracy? This
>statement was quick of wit but short of reasoning. _I_ may not be able to
>discern differences between audio amplifiers but it doesn't mean that _I_
>believe that no one can. I sir, am neutral in this debate. I can only relate
>_my_ experiences. If you've _never_ experienced the conditions described in
>my original post then bully for you. OTOH you've not answered my questions
>therefore I have yet to form an opinion. While _you_ may try to factor out
>all variables you deem unimportant, you will not convince me that stress
>does not influence _my_ hearing capabilities.
>You're not still pissed about that revolution thing are you?
>Jumping to conclusions is the only exercise I get.
>Craig

See my attachment to a post about how people could no longer tell if
a light became brighter or dimmer as the test progressed. Sounds like
stress to me. Humans are very lazy and don't even know it!
Armand

Armand

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

I usually am much more restrained then that. I even surprised myself, Brown-eye.
Armand

Armand

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <50bnr2$5...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) says:

>
>mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:
>>>
>>>>Second, in other scientific comparison tests, for the test to have
>>>>any validity, a baseline of resolution is established, and statistically,
>>>>a variable for certainty is established. My question is, have the
>>>>proponents of ABX testing ever established its baseline?
>>>
>>>There is a question over the proper functioning of the ABX box. This
>>>would not explain the 3 out of 10 correct result when the cables were
>>>swapped in the first set of trials.
>>>
>>>>For example, I think almost anyone on this forum would agree that
>>>>having your speakers wired in phase or out of phase is certainly
>>>>audible. But are you sure you could pick the right one 19 out of
>>>>20 times in a level-matched ABX test? If I were playing a continuous,
>>>>wide variety of musical information, I'm not sure I could.
>>>
>>>I'm pretty sure I could if I were playing my own choice of music, hence
>>>I could just play one section which I felt showed the effect most
>>>markedly (like Gigi did).
>
>>Let's assume hypothetically, you failed. Would you then declare that
>>relative phase is not important? And why would you need "my own
>>choice of music"? Why should it matter?
>
>I'd certainly want to try it again with other speakers, other placements
>etc to find out WHY I couldn't tell the difference (hypothetically!).

Hypothetically, my ass. Either you'd have to come to the conclusion
that relative phase is inaudible or be branded a hypocrite.

>I'd want my own choice of music because that's normal in any A/B
>testing, I might not actually need it. Why would YOU want to choose it
>for me? That's an old salesmans trick, picking music that demos the
>effect you're selling and hides the flaws.

Because, according to you, familiarity has nothing to do with it.
You either hear it or you don't-your words. And your right about salesman
tactics.

>>>>So, when switching between two audio sources that are at identical
>>>>SPLs, does the brain try to make them sound identical?
>
>>>I have seen no evidence to suggest this is the case, ABX testing is used
>>>in product development and is recognised as a useful tool for spotting
>>>and eliminating small differences.
>
>>Why not?! If "we" are fooling ourselves because of "fancy face plates"
>>then it would seem the skies the limit as far as our hoodwinking ourselves
>>is concerned. Is this gentleman's statement inconceivable?
>
>It's pretty unlikely, since ABX testing IS used and level matching IS a
>requirement. The basic point is that in this application, ABX testing
>DOES reveal small differences, whether or not the brain is 'trying to
>compensate'.

Pretty unlikely is not the same as definite. Can you assure me that the Yamaha
would be acceptable in long term listening and the Pass, not, based on an ABX
test? Can you assure me of that-money back guarentee?

>>>>Don't get me wrong: Even if ABX turned out to be a low-resolution test,
>>>>it's still impressive that the Yamaha did that well.

No it's not! Blind test anything short term and you can't tell the difference!
Just a little problem dealing with the human psyche.

And Bennett Leeds,
>>>>these are not new (or old) anti-ABX arguments; they are questions.
>>>

>>>>BUT, any other scientific comparison test starts by establishing a
>>>>baseline of what it CAN discern. What have audio ABX tests established
>>>>that they can discern? Without an established baseline, all results
>>>>are suspect.
>>>
>>>How about the baseline of exactly the same system, simply swapping the
>>>cables from one amp to the other, like in the first ten trials?
>
>>Don't think you properly answered the question. Two tries for a six-pence.
>

>I don't have strong personal opinions about ABX testing,

Whoa! Excuse me while I get up off the floor!!

but in this
>case I would still point to the fact that Steve did even worse when
>there was no ABX box in circuit. Hence, I think I answered the relevant
>question Steve, oops I mean Armand. I can also tackle two Steves for a
>sixpence.................
>
>Cheers and happy listening!
>
>Stewie the Lip

At last! A sense of humor emerges! I am indeed impressed!
Now if we could only get you to agree to advise based on listening
in the long term when making buying decisions, we'd be making progress.
purchasing decisions.

Armand

Armand

unread,
Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96
to

In article <50clji$r...@news.smart.net>, idk...@smart.net says:
>
>anybody want to sell a pair of Pass Aleph 1.2 monoblocks?
>I'll offer $600, twice the cost of the equal sounding Yamaha Ax700.

I'll give you one for nothing! Now close your eyes.........

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages