AES Standard for Subjective Evaluation of Loudspeakers
Gary Eickmeier
it's pretty good. Written by Dave Clark and Floyd Toole, among others.
http://ftp.aessc.org/pub/aes20-1996.pdf
Gary Eickmeier
Nousaine
Gary; It's not proposed. It's been a Standard since 1996.
Gary Eickmeier
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:29:19 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
> <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >If you're interested, take a look at the proposed standard.
>
> Well, it's *not* a proposed standard, but an existing one since 1996!
The letter I received is clearly a call for comment and suggested
changes. It will be approved by the AES within three months after this
call on 1/31/02.
Gary Eickmeier
Powell
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote
> If you're interested, take a look at the proposed standard.
> I think it's pretty good. Written by Dave Clark and Floyd
> Toole, among others.
>
While this is a good informational paper it is sadly lacking
in the areas of methodology, listener training and data
analysis/interpretation. Audio engineering has always
been the ugly sister of the analytical sciences. One part
science to two parts art.
Arny Krueger
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C8D2F02...@tampabay.rr.com...
> http://ftp.aessc.org/pub/aes20-1996.pdf
Both Floyd Toole and David Clark are strong advocates of DBTs. It
shouldn't be the least bit surprising that DBT advocates are writing
papers about reliable listening, because after all, they actually
have to hear something different in order to make their judgments.
The anti-DBT world, like most of the writers in the high end
ragazines, just have to imagine they hear something and spew some
poetry.
Powell
"Arny Krueger" wrote
> The anti-DBT world, like most of the writers in the high
> end ragazines, just have to imagine they hear something
> and spew some poetry.
>
It is the responsibility of the audio manufacture to do the
engineering portion... not the reviewer/consumer. And yes
there is poetry involved as people choose equipment based
on a whole host of needs... like utility, preference and budget.
One would not purchase an automobile based on engineering
facts... why would audio equipment be any different?
Gary Eickmeier
Powell wrote:
> While this is a good informational paper it is sadly lacking
> in the areas of methodology, listener training and data
> analysis/interpretation. Audio engineering has always
> been the ugly sister of the analytical sciences. One part
> science to two parts art.
Audio engineering is one part science and two parts art? Maybe true,
but what's your point?
The paper has a listener evaluation sheet, categorizing the various
aspects of subjective description of the sound. The terms are
explained in the paper. Blind listening is stated as the preferred
methodology, level matched etc etc, but single product evaluation is
also in the realm of possiblility. An anchor speaker is suggested. The
paper can't go into extensive detail on listener training. That would
be assumed, in any competent organization. Clark specializes in
listener training.
That only leaves data analysis and interpretation. What are you
suggesting - a percentage of 100 system or some such? An absolute
rating scale? Possibly valid question. I would have to look into it in
greater detail to see how they use the standard to come up with some
meaningful rating of a product.
Gary Eickmeier
Arny Krueger
"Powell" <hig...@gtii.com> wrote in message
news:u8s5oue...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
> > The anti-DBT world, like most of the writers in the high
> > end ragazines, just have to imagine they hear something
> > and spew some poetry.
> It is the responsibility of the audio manufacture to do the
> engineering portion... not the reviewer/consumer.
That's not what is being talked about here, Powell. We're talking
about evaluating technical products. Without the technology, audio
is nothing.
> And yes
> there is poetry involved as people choose equipment based
> on a whole host of needs... like utility, preference and budget.
Powell, doesn't performance have something to do with it?
> One would not purchase an automobile based on engineering
> facts... why would audio equipment be any different?
Powell, this is just not true. People do purchase automobiles based
on engineering facts, like: Passenger, fuel and luggage capacity,
fuel economy, handling, crashworthiness, etc.
People buy audio products largely on the basis of sound quality.
Sound is tangible, and thus sound quality is tangible.
George M. Middius
Powell said to Shit-for-Brains:
> It is the responsibility of the audio manufacture to do the
> engineering portion... not the reviewer/consumer. And yes
> there is poetry involved as people choose equipment based
> on a whole host of needs... like utility, preference and budget.
> One would not purchase an automobile based on engineering
> facts... why would audio equipment be any different?
Clearly you lack the requisite implants and prostheses to understand
the needs of our metronic antagonists.
Powell
"Arny Krueger" wrote
> > > The anti-DBT world, like most of the writers in the high
> > > end ragazines, just have to imagine they hear something
> > > and spew some poetry.
>
> > And yes
> > there is poetry involved as people choose equipment based
> > on a whole host of needs... like utility, preference and budget.
>
> Powell, doesn't performance have something to do with it?
>
"Something to do with it"... yes, as long as you're not
equating "performance" with accuracy.
> > One would not purchase an automobile based on engineering
> > facts... why would audio equipment be any different?
>
> Powell, this is just not true. People do purchase automobiles based
> on engineering facts, like: Passenger, fuel and luggage capacity,
> fuel economy, handling, crashworthiness, etc.
>
As I recall, of the automobile purchasing factors, are
statistically influenced (single highest factor) on spouse
approval. And who would purchase a technically superior
car that was perceived as aesthetically unpleasing to the
eye (art).
> People buy audio products largely on the basis of sound quality.
> Sound is tangible, and thus sound quality is tangible.
>
*Sound quality* is NOT necessarily the same as *sound
accuracy*.
Factors Considered Most Important When Purchasing Hi'-Fi
Equipment*:
Sound quality 97.5%
Price 77.0%
Quality of construction 74.2%
Reputation of manufacturer 70.5%
Reviews 59.6%
Design 49.7%
Appearance 33.1%
Reputation of dealer/supplier 30.4%
Brand 29.7%
Warranty 29.3%
Service 25.0%
Dealer recommendations 23.4%
Advice of friends 17.2%
Ease of operation 13.7%
Advertising 6.1%
Ease of installation 5.3%
* Stereophile paid survey.
Arny Krueger
>
> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
> > > > The anti-DBT world, like most of the writers in the high
> > > > end ragazines, just have to imagine they hear something
> > > > and spew some poetry.
> >
> > > And yes
> > > there is poetry involved as people choose equipment based
> > > on a whole host of needs... like utility, preference and
budget.
> >
> > Powell, doesn't performance have something to do with it?
> >
> "Something to do with it"... yes, as long as you're not
> equating "performance" with accuracy.
What's wrong with accuracy, Powell?
> > > One would not purchase an automobile based on engineering
> > > facts... why would audio equipment be any different?
>
> > Powell, this is just not true. People do purchase automobiles
based
> > on engineering facts, like: Passenger, fuel and luggage capacity,
> > fuel economy, handling, crashworthiness, etc.
> As I recall, of the automobile purchasing factors, are
> statistically influenced (single highest factor) on spouse
> approval.
As if spouses aren't interested in many of the same things, Powell?
> And who would purchase a technically superior
> car that was perceived as aesthetically unpleasing to the
> eye (art).
Who said that a well-engineered car has to be ugly, Powell?
> > People buy audio products largely on the basis of sound quality.
> > Sound is tangible, and thus sound quality is tangible.
> *Sound quality* is NOT necessarily the same as *sound
> accuracy*.
What's wrong with accuracy, Powell?
> Factors Considered Most Important When Purchasing Hi'-Fi
> Equipment*:
> Sound quality 97.5%
> Price 77.0%
> Quality of construction 74.2%
> Reputation of manufacturer 70.5%
> Reviews 59.6%
> Design 49.7%
> Appearance 33.1%
> Reputation of dealer/supplier 30.4%
> Brand 29.7%
> Warranty 29.3%
> Service 25.0%
> Dealer recommendations 23.4%
> Advice of friends 17.2%
> Ease of operation 13.7%
> Advertising 6.1%
> Ease of installation 5.3%
> * Stereophile paid survey.
Well, there it is: Sound quality is most important to 97.5%.
What's your point, Powell? That I'm right?
Howard Ferstler
In a way, a superior automobile, be it a performance model or a luxury
job, is an end in itself. That is, the device is more than just a way
to get from point A to point B.
On the other hand, I cannot see how an audio system, no matter how
superior it might be, can be anything but a means to an end.
So, your automobile and audio comparison involves apples and oranges,
and does not hold.
Howard Ferstler
John Klane
If you truly believe what you have written (above), one wonders why
you chose to make a career of writing about audio instead of writing
about automobiles.
Yustabe Slim
Ever wonder why it's two parts art?
It's obvious to me.
It's a good thing that you haven't yet attempted to ruin the enjoyment
of the visual arts.
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
Home Slice
Watch out for the FU2, people!
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C8E09A3...@tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> "François Yves Le Gal" wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:50:31 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
> > <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The letter I received is clearly a call for comment and suggested
> > >changes. It will be approved by the AES within three months after this
> > >call on 1/31/02.
> >
> > Sure. What part of "it's already an AES standard" is too difficult for
> > you to understand?
>
> What part of "it's also a proposed standard" is too difficult for you
> to understand?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Yustabe Slim
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d3d78e0.02031...@posting.google.com...
> "Powell" <hig...@gtii.com> wrote in message
news:<u8s5oue...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Arny Krueger" wrote
> In a way, a superior automobile, be it a performance model or a
luxury
> job, is an end in itself. That is, the device is more than just a
way
> to get from point A to point B.
Yes, you want to feel good during the trip.
>
> On the other hand, I cannot see how an audio system, no matter how
> superior it might be, can be anything but a means to an end.
No, you want to feel good during the trip
>
> So, your automobile and audio comparison involves apples and
oranges,
> and does not hold.
>
Wrong again, my little uncle.
In NYC
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
: If you're interested, take a look at the proposed standard. I think
: it's pretty good. Written by Dave Clark and Floyd Toole, among others.
:
: http://ftp.aessc.org/pub/aes20-1996.pdf
It seems pretty sensible, except for the title, which calls listening
evaluations "Subjective." ("Subjective" means something personal taking
place within a given person's mind [e.g., a preference], not something
which is observable in the real world. In contrast, objective means
observable in a real object, and encompasses both observation by
measurement and being made aware of something directly through the senses.)
What the paper actually does is to provide a structure for controlled
objective sensory observation, including "procedures by which the
subjective influences of certain physical, psychological, and experimental
variables can be identified, isolated, and controlled." I think that
sticking to the actual definitions of, and the distinctions between,
subjective (opinion) and objective (observation) is the best way to develop
intelligent dialogue about this always contentions subject.
Howard Ferstler
My wife would say because I am a lousy driver. Also, I can have audio
gear sent to my small-town residence to review, but if you want to
review cars you have to move to the place where the magazine's offices
are located. Manufacturers do not send cars off to scattered reviewers
to audition.
In any case, I am just more interested in audio gear than in cars.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:d3d78e0.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > "Powell" <hig...@gtii.com> wrote in message
> news:<u8s5oue...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "Arny Krueger" wrote
> > In a way, a superior automobile, be it a performance model or a
> luxury
> > job, is an end in itself. That is, the device is more than just a
> way
> > to get from point A to point B.
> Yes, you want to feel good during the trip.
> > On the other hand, I cannot see how an audio system, no matter how
> > superior it might be, can be anything but a means to an end.
> No, you want to feel good during the trip
That is what the music is supposed to do, and not the system, which is
but a means to an end. An audio system is supposed to deliver an
effect that should appear to exist independently of the system. That
is, a good system should make itself invisible and allow the musical
experience not call attention to the system itself. On the other hand,
with an upscale car (as opposed to one that is only "transportation"),
the visceral impact of the vehicle itself is one of its functions, and
the more a car calls attention to itself (at least positive attention,
as experienced by the driver, and even those who are passengers or
observing the car from the outside), the more successful one would
judge that car. Remember, I am talking about spiffy, upscale cars
(performance or luxury), and not vehicles that are just performing as
transportation.
However, I will cut you some slack and point out that taste does play
a part in what an audio system can do, particularly in this new age of
surround sound, what with subwoofers, processors, sub-sat options, and
speaker-placement options of all kinds. Certainly, one can have more
of a hands-on experience with the new configurations than with the
older, two-channel versions. Because of surround sound, audio systems
can be more like toys (and cars) than ever before. This has to make
happy those who lament the loss of diddling possible with the LP
record after the CD appeared.
However, the bottom line is that an audio system is still supposed to
create an effect that to be successful should appear to be detached
from the system itself, whereas with an upscale car the device to a
great extent is an end in itself, and not just a means to an end; i.e,
way to get somewhere.
> > So, your automobile and audio comparison involves apples and
> oranges,
> > and does not hold.
> Wrong again, my little uncle.
If you think that a car and an audio system are absolutely similar,
you are obviously not about to have your mind changed by anything I
could say.
Howard Ferstler
Powell
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote
> > While this is a good informational paper it is sadly lacking
> > in the areas of methodology, listener training and data
> > analysis/interpretation. Audio engineering has always
> > been the ugly sister of the analytical sciences. One part
> > science to two parts art.
>
> The paper has a listener evaluation sheet...
>
Define what a valid subject is... what qualifications or
screening methodology produces a valid listener/reliable?
Are all subjects/listeners equal? This is only the tip of
the iceberg when it comes to validating a reliable biological
experiment. For most people/consumers accuracy is
internalized. They have no interest in splitting the atom
(wire=wire).
> That only leaves data analysis and interpretation.
>
Assuming first of all you have asked or formulated a
question that can be answered... you then must validate
the experimental data. How would you do this... what
is your methodology? If the ultimate aim is *sounds
good to me* (internalized validation)... then yes, this
paper provides one path through the woods (individual
journey/truth validated).
> I would have to look into it in greater detail to see how
> they use the standard to come up with some meaningful
> rating of a product.
>
Answer that question to the satisfaction of the
n.g... you may then try to snatch the pebble from
my hand, grasshopper :).
Powell
"Arny Krueger" wrote
> > > Powell, doesn't performance have something to do with it?
> > >
> > "Something to do with it"... yes, as long as you're not
> > equating "performance" with accuracy.
>
> What's wrong with accuracy, Powell?
>
"wrong with accuracy"... using "wrong" and then to correlate
it with "accuracy" is didactic (false logic/limiting/simple
minded).
> > And who would purchase a technically superior
> > car that was perceived as aesthetically unpleasing
> > to the eye (art).
>
> Who said that a well-engineered car has to be ugly,
> Powell?
>
"Ugly"... I submit the Cadillac.
Eye candy (art/accuracy)... Audi TT www.audi-tt.com
> > > People buy audio products largely on the basis of sound quality.
> > > Sound is tangible, and thus sound quality is tangible.
>
> > *Sound quality* is NOT necessarily the same as *sound
> > accuracy*.
>
> What's wrong with accuracy, Powell?
>
Generally speaking accuracy... accuracy intended as a
theoretical goal is a admirable objective. Accuracy intended
as truth is limited in it ability to understand nature.
Accuracy intended as a biological best-fit (consumer) can
sometimes be a bad thing. Accuracy with the goal of
preference in mind should always be the highest theoretical
aim... it accounts for the biological systems at play (best fit).
> > Factors Considered Most Important When Purchasing Hi'-Fi
> > Equipment*:
> > Sound quality 97.5%
> > Price 77.0%
> > Quality of construction 74.2%
> > Reputation of manufacturer 70.5%
> > Reviews 59.6%
> > Design 49.7%
> > Appearance 33.1%
> > Reputation of dealer/supplier 30.4%
> > Brand 29.7%
> > Warranty 29.3%
> > Service 25.0%
> > Dealer recommendations 23.4%
> > Advice of friends 17.2%
> > Ease of operation 13.7%
> > Advertising 6.1%
> > Ease of installation 5.3%
>
> > * Stereophile paid survey.
>
> Well, there it is: Sound quality is most important to 97.5%.
>
"Sound quality" in your mind is this the consumer perception
of this term centered on accuracy or personal preference. The
two qualities can exist in nature both separately or
harmonically... limiting what trvth® can be extracted and
reliability reproduced (scientific method).
> What's your point, Powell? That I'm right?
>
I'm only tempering the sword on the anvil you seem to be
hammering on. Using a 2x4 is hardly adequate for the
ultimate tasks you have in mind like amp=amp... given n.g.
politics being what they are, Arny :).
George M. Middius
Howard "O Quacko Mio" Ferstler said:
> > If you truly believe what you have written (above), one wonders why
> > you chose to make a career of writing about audio instead of writing
> > about automobiles.
> My wife would say because I am a lousy driver.
Harold, do you stay up late inventing straight lines?
Powell
"Howard Ferstler" wrote
> > > The anti-DBT world, like most of the writers in the high
> > > end ragazines, just have to imagine they hear something
> > > and spew some poetry.
>
> > It is the responsibility of the audio manufacture to do the
> > engineering portion... not the reviewer/consumer. And yes
> > there is poetry involved as people choose equipment based
> > on a whole host of needs... like utility, preference and budget.
> > One would not purchase an automobile based on engineering
> > facts... why would audio equipment be any different?
>
> <snip quacking>
>
I'm terribly sorry, I didn't put on my gibberish decoder ring
today.
> So, your automobile and audio comparison involves apples
> and oranges, and does not hold.
>
Automobiles involve hundreds of systems which become
manifested in form. An audio system is only a simpler
example of systems integration (art/science)... your "ends."
Powell
"Yustabe Slim" wrote
> > > If you're interested, take a look at the proposed standard.
> > > I think it's pretty good. Written by Dave Clark and Floyd
> > > Toole, among others.
> > >
> > While this is a good informational paper it is sadly lacking
> > in the areas of methodology, listener training and data
> > analysis/interpretation. Audio engineering has always
> > been the ugly sister of the analytical sciences. One part
> > science to two parts art.
> >
> Ever wonder why it's two parts art?
> It's obvious to me.
>
Oh my, that really is D-E-E-P thinking, Buddhist priest
are you :)?
Arny Krueger
>
> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
> > > > Powell, doesn't performance have something to do with it?
> > > >
> > > "Something to do with it"... yes, as long as you're not
> > > equating "performance" with accuracy.
> >
> > What's wrong with accuracy, Powell?
> "wrong with accuracy"... using "wrong" and then to correlate
> it with "accuracy" is didactic (false logic/limiting/simple
> minded).
Powell, you are taking the usual slimey way out - picking at the
words in order to avoid answering the question. You can stand over
there in the corner with George Middius, Dave Weil and John Atkinson.
> > > And who would purchase a technically superior
> > > car that was perceived as aesthetically unpleasing
> > > to the eye (art).
> >
> > Who said that a well-engineered car has to be ugly,
> > Powell?
> "Ugly"... I submit the Cadillac.
Irrelevant answer.
> Eye candy (art/accuracy)... Audi TT www.audi-tt.com
Technically sophistacated as well.
> > > > People buy audio products largely on the basis of sound
quality.
> > > > Sound is tangible, and thus sound quality is tangible.
> > > *Sound quality* is NOT necessarily the same as *sound
> > > accuracy*.
>
> > What's wrong with accuracy, Powell?
>
> Generally speaking accuracy... accuracy intended as a
> theoretical goal is a admirable objective. Accuracy intended
> as truth is limited in it ability to understand nature.
OSAF and anti-scientific.
> Accuracy intended as a biological best-fit (consumer) can
> sometimes be a bad thing.
No support for claim.
> Accuracy with the goal of
> preference in mind should always be the highest theoretical
> aim... it accounts for the biological systems at play (best fit).
Talk about convoluted, self-contradictory writing!
> > > Factors Considered Most Important When Purchasing Hi'-Fi
> > > Equipment*:
> > > Sound quality 97.5%
> > > Price 77.0%
> > > Quality of construction 74.2%
> > > Reputation of manufacturer 70.5%
> > > Reviews 59.6%
> > > Design 49.7%
> > > Appearance 33.1%
> > > Reputation of dealer/supplier 30.4%
> > > Brand 29.7%
> > > Warranty 29.3%
> > > Service 25.0%
> > > Dealer recommendations 23.4%
> > > Advice of friends 17.2%
> > > Ease of operation 13.7%
> > > Advertising 6.1%
> > > Ease of installation 5.3%
> >
> > > * Stereophile paid survey.
> > Well, there it is: Sound quality is most important to 97.5%.
> "Sound quality" in your mind is this the consumer perception
> of this term centered on accuracy or personal preference.
Want to try that again in English?
> The
> two qualities can exist in nature both separately or
> harmonically... limiting what trvth® can be extracted and
> reliability reproduced (scientific method).
Meaning what?
> > What's your point, Powell? That I'm right?
>
> I'm only tempering the sword on the anvil you seem to be
> hammering on. Using a 2x4 is hardly adequate for the
> ultimate tasks you have in mind like amp=amp... given n.g.
> politics being what they are, Arny :).
I have it in mind to prove that amp=amp? You are really way off on
your own, Powell.
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"Powell" <hig...@gtii.com> wrote in message
>news:u8utuvt...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>>
>> > > > Powell, doesn't performance have something to do with it?
>> > > >
>> > > "Something to do with it"... yes, as long as you're not
>> > > equating "performance" with accuracy.
>> >
>> > What's wrong with accuracy, Powell?
>
>> "wrong with accuracy"... using "wrong" and then to correlate
>> it with "accuracy" is didactic (false logic/limiting/simple
>> minded).
>
>Powell, you are taking the usual slimey way out - picking at the
>words in order to avoid answering the question. You can stand over
>there in the corner with George Middius, Dave Weil and John Atkinson.
Coming from the king of nitpickers, this is high praise indeed!
Powell
"Howard Ferstler" wrote
> In any case, I am just more interested in audio
> gear than in cars.
>
"I am not particularly interested in reviewing amps
and CD players, either. They are just appliances."
What a lack-luster interest (audio) it is. Well, at
least you can be a mouth piece/hypocrite for
Sensible Sound, Howard :).
trotsky
Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>
> My wife would say because I am a lousy driver.
Doesn't your wife say you're a "smart ass" too? Is there more you
aren't telling us, like when she says "I wish you had a bigger life
insurance policy"?
George M. Middius
dave weil said:
> >Dave Weil
> Coming from the king of nitpickers, this is high praise indeed!
Krooger capitalized you again, dave. Sounds like casus belli to me.
Howard Ferstler
> "Arny Krueger" wrote
> > Well, there it is: Sound quality is most important to 97.5%.
> "Sound quality" in your mind is this the consumer perception
> of this term centered on accuracy or personal preference.
But of course those who have their heads screwed on properly will opt
for accuracy, first and formost, at least with those components were
accuracy requirements are pretty straightforward. Preference, on the
other hand, should relate to the quality of the recordings played on
the said accurate systems.
Of course, all bets are off with multi-channel audio, surround-sound
processors, sub/sat systems, complex speaker placement requirements
with surround systems, etc. Are you saying that modern, surround-sound
audio is the way to go, Powell, and that it best satisfies you need to
exercise preference above accuracy?
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote
>
> > If you're interested, take a look at the proposed standard.
> > I think it's pretty good. Written by Dave Clark and Floyd
> > Toole, among others.
> While this is a good informational paper it is sadly lacking
> in the areas of methodology, listener training and data
> analysis/interpretation. Audio engineering has always
> been the ugly sister of the analytical sciences. One part
> science to two parts art.
You must feel pretty superior doing a one up on the likes of Dave
Clark and Floyd Toole, Powell. I should point out that a certain
amount of intelligence is required to understand the paper and
implement its methodologies.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote
>
> > > While this is a good informational paper it is sadly lacking
> > > in the areas of methodology, listener training and data
> > > analysis/interpretation. Audio engineering has always
> > > been the ugly sister of the analytical sciences. One part
> > > science to two parts art.
> > The paper has a listener evaluation sheet...
> Define what a valid subject is... what qualifications or
> screening methodology produces a valid listener/reliable?
A listener/reliable what, Powell?
> Are all subjects/listeners equal?
Obviously, not, which is why you use more than one. However, the paper
did outline a protocol for weeding out the hard of hearing.
> This is only the tip of
> the iceberg when it comes to validating a reliable biological
> experiment. For most people/consumers accuracy is
> internalized. They have no interest in splitting the atom
> (wire=wire).
What you say above makes absolutely no sense at all.
Howard Ferstler
Gary Eickmeier
Powell wrote:
> > I would have to look into it in greater detail to see how
> > they use the standard to come up with some meaningful
> > rating of a product.
> >
> Answer that question to the satisfaction of the
> n.g... you may then try to snatch the pebble from
> my hand, grasshopper :).
You've got to also remember that this is only one standard on
listening tests. They have many others, such as papers written by
Toole and Soren Bech on qualifying and selecting listeners, scoring
subjective tests, etc etc. Much of this is well known to the
engineering community. It's bigger than both of us.
SNATCH GOTCHA
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> But of course those who have their heads screwed on properly will opt
> for accuracy, first and formost, at least with those components were
> accuracy requirements are pretty straightforward. Preference, on the
> other hand, should relate to the quality of the recordings played on
> the said accurate systems.
Man, it's tempting to call for "accuracy" in our audio systems. Sounds
so precise, so manly, so.. so true. But with field type systems such
as stereo and surround, we are NOT doing accuracy, and this discussion
is a good example to illustrate that. I always listen in surround,
with the rear speakers on a certain amount of time delay, in a
relatively large room. All of these factors detract from the
"accuracy" of the pure two channel signal, don't they? But if accuracy
were really the goal, we would be listening in anechoic rooms to two
speakers a meter away from us. Holy shit.
But no, what we are after is REALISM, not accuracy, and the two
channels are to be considered a starting point, not the end in itself.
We all know this, but we still like to talk about "accuracy" because
we measure frequency response, phase response, distortion, and on and
on, and try to get these numbers the way shown by the accuracy
standard, because, well, it just sounds so right to keep saying that.
The truth is that subjective evaluation is the ONLY way to determine
the correctness, or realism, of the acoustical final result. The sound
waves become a real mish-mash by the time they reach your ears,
seemingly incomprehensible how they could sound like anything, much
less the recording we started with - but they DO sound like it, and
this final result is for the most part not measurable by any
instruments. Yes, we set levels and contour the response and record
reverb time and such, but that is only to try and correlate what our
ears tell us is right to something that is repeatable elsewhere. And
"accuracy" as related to the original audio signal has nothing to do
with it.
> Of course, all bets are off with multi-channel audio, surround-sound
> processors, sub/sat systems, complex speaker placement requirements
> with surround systems, etc.
You are correct sir.
> Are you saying that modern, surround-sound
> audio is the way to go, Powell, and that it best satisfies you need to
> exercise preference above accuracy?
Not preference so much as realism (above accuracy).
Gary Eickmeier
George M. Middius
Howard "screwed on properly" Ferstler said:
> But of course those who have their heads screwed on properly will opt
> for accuracy, first and formost
Or they could be human beings, who listen to music for pleasure.
I wonder which sort of "person" is more common?
Yustabe Slim
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d3d78e0.02031...@posting.google.com...
why
> > you chose to make a career of writing about audio instead of
writing
> > about automobiles.
>
> My wife would say because I am a lousy driver. Also, I can have
audio
> gear sent to my small-town residence to review, but if you want to
> review cars you have to move to the place where the magazine's
offices
> are located. Manufacturers do not send cars off to scattered
reviewers
> to audition.
>
> In any case, I am just more interested in audio gear than in cars.
>
I see. You are mainly interested in acquiring free audio gear.
Whore.
Yustabe Slim
I have had sufficient exposure to your nonsense to have decided that I
will
not allow your megalomania to affect my opinions.
Your means to an end diatribe is utterly fallacious.
Food is the means to the ends of surviving and growing.
However, different foods derive different levels of sensory
satisfaction. I want to enjoy my brief trip
through this world.
Yustabe Slim
As simple as it is, it appears to be beyond the ken of most of the
engineering types. I am glad to see that you might be one of the
exceptions.
Yustabe Slim
It's all about the free samples.
Yustabe Slim
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d3d78e0.02031...@posting.google.com...
> But of course those who have their heads screwed on properly will
opt
> for accuracy, first and formost,
People with their heads screwed on properly would also torture
themselves.
I, not being one with my head screwed on properly, would rather enjoy
myself.
Yustabe Slim
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C8FC1DB...@tampabay.rr.com...
Interesting.
I agree with what you say, yet I do not find that your preferred
speakers,
Bose 901's, provide any sense of realism.
Gary Eickmeier
Yustabe Slim wrote:
> Interesting.
> I agree with what you say, yet I do not find that your preferred
> speakers,
> Bose 901's, provide any sense of realism.
You haven't heard my speakers. Where do you reside?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
In NYC wrote:
>
> In article <3C8D2F02...@tampabay.rr.com>, Gary Eickmeier
> <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : If you're interested, take a look at the proposed standard. I think
> : it's pretty good. Written by Dave Clark and Floyd Toole, among others.
> :
> : http://ftp.aessc.org/pub/aes20-1996.pdf
>
> It seems pretty sensible, except for the title, which calls listening
> evaluations "Subjective." ("Subjective" means something personal taking
> place within a given person's mind [e.g., a preference], not something
> which is observable in the real world. In contrast, objective means
> observable in a real object, and encompasses both observation by
> measurement and being made aware of something directly through the senses.)
> What the paper actually does is to provide a structure for controlled
> objective sensory observation, including "procedures by which the
> subjective influences of certain physical, psychological, and experimental
> variables can be identified, isolated, and controlled." I think that
> sticking to the actual definitions of, and the distinctions between,
> subjective (opinion) and objective (observation) is the best way to develop
> intelligent dialogue about this always contentions subject.
The general take on "subjective" is "listening tests," as opposed to
objective measurement by meters and scopes. Floyd Toole calls double
blind listening tests "subjective measurements." I think you find that
in many fields, the language isn't yet precise enough to separate out
the fine points of meaning. Perhaps what is needed are new terms, or
new definitions of existing terms as applied to listening tests.
My fear is that even if we do come up with better terms to describe a
better class of listening tests, the new term will just be
commandeered by the subjectivists in an attempt to appear scientific,
such as when Harry Pearson dreamed up the term "observational" to
describe their subjective evaluations.
Gary Eickmeier
Yustabe Slim
>
>
.
>
> My fear is that even if we do come up with better terms to describe
a
> better class of listening tests, the new term will just be
> commandeered by the subjectivists in an attempt to appear
scientific,
> such as when Harry Pearson dreamed up the term "observational" to
> describe their subjective evaluations.
>
or vice versa..... subjectivist experiences are being commandeered by
the objectivists in an attempt to appear scientific.
S i g n a l . . . . .
>> But of course those who have their heads screwed on properly will opt
>> for accuracy, first and formost, at least with those components were
>> accuracy requirements are pretty straightforward. Preference, on the
>> other hand, should relate to the quality of the recordings played on
>> the said accurate systems.
>
>Man, it's tempting to call for "accuracy" in our audio systems. Sounds
>so precise, so manly, so.. so true. But with field type systems such
>as stereo and surround, we are NOT doing accuracy, and this discussion
>is a good example to illustrate that. I always listen in surround,
>with the rear speakers on a certain amount of time delay, in a
>relatively large room. All of these factors detract from the
>"accuracy" of the pure two channel signal, don't they? But if accuracy
>were really the goal, we would be listening in anechoic rooms to two
>speakers a meter away from us. Holy shit.
>
>But no, what we are after is REALISM, not accuracy, and the two
>channels are to be considered a starting point, not the end in itself.
Realism is of higher importance than accuracy to normal listeners, and
these two things do not necessarily correspond - no doubt about that.
But but BUT, they are pretty much flipsides of the same coin. The
former is from a perception POV, the latter a scientific, yet
essentially they are both technical endevours and do not encapsulate
the true goal. I do agree with striving for realism to a point, but
ultimately immersion is what it's ALL about. Fuck technicalities - do
you feel good when you hear it? This has as much to do with
association as realism or accuracy. I like blue.. you like brown.. I
like soft.. you like hard etc. Now select a set of speakers ;-) Yep..
when I look at my most treasured recordings I can't help but notice a
fair proportion of them have pretty arbitrary sound quality. Does
anyone differ in this regard? Now if people would just stop THINKING
and analysing what they are listening to maybe they would just go with
the flow..
--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
Yustabe Slim
"S i g n a l . . . . ." <sig...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:og309u8bh8a1r42s1...@4ax.com...
>
> Realism is of higher importance than accuracy to normal listeners,
and
> these two things do not necessarily correspond - no doubt about
that.
> But but BUT, they are pretty much flipsides of the same coin. The
> former is from a perception POV, the latter a scientific, yet
> essentially they are both technical endevours and do not encapsulate
> the true goal. I do agree with striving for realism to a point, but
> ultimately immersion is what it's ALL about. Fuck technicalities -
do
> you feel good when you hear it? This has as much to do with
> association as realism or accuracy. I like blue.. you like brown.. I
> like soft.. you like hard etc. Now select a set of speakers ;-)
Yep..
> when I look at my most treasured recordings I can't help but notice
a
> fair proportion of them have pretty arbitrary sound quality. Does
> anyone differ in this regard? Now if people would just stop THINKING
> and analysing what they are listening to maybe they would just go
with
> the flow..
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
Groovy
Gary Eickmeier
"S i g n a l . . . . ." wrote:
> Realism is of higher importance than accuracy to normal listeners, and
> these two things do not necessarily correspond - no doubt about that.
> But but BUT, they are pretty much flipsides of the same coin. The
> former is from a perception POV, the latter a scientific, yet
> essentially they are both technical endevours and do not encapsulate
> the true goal. I do agree with striving for realism to a point, but
> ultimately immersion is what it's ALL about. Fuck technicalities - do
> you feel good when you hear it? This has as much to do with
> association as realism or accuracy. I like blue.. you like brown.. I
> like soft.. you like hard etc. Now select a set of speakers ;-) Yep..
> when I look at my most treasured recordings I can't help but notice a
> fair proportion of them have pretty arbitrary sound quality. Does
> anyone differ in this regard? Now if people would just stop THINKING
> and analysing what they are listening to maybe they would just go with
> the flow..
You'll get your immersion if it sounds real. That is exactly what
happens with live sound, which is what the goal should be. The
accuracy red herring is a dead end that seems worthy to engineer
types, but leads to false assumptions and wrong goals. The accuracy
route is the simplest assumption of how to go about it, and is caused
by not thinking about it and analyzing what we are listening to.
It's a long story.
Gary Eickmeier
Howard Ferstler
< Now if people would just stop THINKING
> and analysing what they are listening to maybe they would just go with
> the flow..
Yeah, we gotta get away from that thinking stuff.
Howard Ferstler
Michael M. Gindi
>Yeah, we gotta get away from that thinking stuff.
Well, no. But when one's thought processes become so detached from one's
ongoing sensory experience that they *precede* such experience rather than
arise from it, we have a state of schizoid alienation at best, and psychosis at
worst. Which is what Professor Signal is trying to explain to you...
mmg
Powell
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote
> > Realism is of higher importance than accuracy to normal
> > listeners, and these two things do not necessarily
> > correspond - no doubt about that. But but BUT, they
> > are pretty much flipsides of the same coin.
> >
This is the duality which normally exists in nature.
> > Now if people would just stop THINKING and analysing
> > what they are listening to maybe they would just go with
> > the flow..
>
Many people have feeling of insecurity and other negative life
experiences... measurement provides reassuring feedback
about the external world.
> You'll get your immersion if it sounds real.
>
But to often that does not happen. Doubts occur... does
my system have a hardware deficiency... is it the CD
technology. The *best fit* sound is based on the users
perception of what constitutes a satisfying emotional
experience. One is always forced to include the
biological mechanism (individual) into any valid scientific
experiment. The base metal for the individual is hearing
acuity. We (the biological mechanism) are all separate
and equal (duality) in our ability to perceive audio
differences.
Knowing what to listen for (hearing acuity) when
evaluating electronic equipment is a learned skill. Those
who are musicians or have other practical live musical
experiences have a better time at discerning the musical
nuances. Equipment evaluations like music and
language is a learned skill.
> That is exactly what happens with live sound, which
> is what the goal should be.
>
That is the view of Harry Pearson... The Absolute Sound.
As of this date in time that notion/theory is still really WAY
out there.
> The accuracy red herring is a dead end that seems worthy
> to engineer types, but leads to false assumptions and wrong
> goals.
>
In addition to accuracy concerns equipment manufactures
must compete in the marketplace. They tailor the sound to
satisfy the needs of their particular market segment. Even
companies like Mark Levinson stride for a unique sound...
and yet the accuracy figures do not readily account for this
(unique sound) at face value (printed product specifications).
> The accuracy route is the simplest assumption of how to
> go about it, and is caused by not thinking about it and
> analyzing what we are listening to.
>
"Simplest assumption"... I disagree. The road to the best
fit sound system requires individual learning experiences.
This paper does that, trial and error does that, too. The
more experiences you have, good or bad, the more you
know. As the Dalai Lama said, Learn the rules so you
know how to break them properly :).
Howard Ferstler
> I, not being one with my head screwed on properly, would rather enjoy
> myself.
You'd make a good pet cat or dog.
Howard Ferstler
Nexus 6
<yusta...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip Howie's stuff>
>I have had sufficient exposure to your nonsense to have decided that I
>will
>not allow your megalomania to affect my opinions.
Bravo!
>
>Your means to an end diatribe is utterly fallacious.
>Food is the means to the ends of surviving and growing.
>However, different foods derive different levels of sensory
>satisfaction. I want to enjoy my brief trip
>through this world.
Hear Hear!
A gourmand!
That explains your current moniker. :)
Nexus 6
================================
"I want to wear your ass like a hat for all eternity."
George M. Middius
Howard Ferstler said:
> > I, not being one with my head screwed on properly, would rather enjoy
> > myself.
> You'd make a good pet cat or dog.
You'd make a good blender. Whip us up a batch of margaritas, there's
a good household appliance clerk.
ScottW
Isn't this a sign alcohol dependency there George? Perhaps you
should attend a meeting.
ScottW
Yustabe Slim
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d3d78e0.02031...@posting.google.com...
>
.......................................when enjoying music.
Yustabe Slim
>
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote
>
> > > Realism is of higher importance than accuracy to normal
> > > listeners, and these two things do not necessarily
> > > correspond - no doubt about that. But but BUT, they
> > > are pretty much flipsides of the same coin.
> > >
> This is the duality which normally exists in nature.
>
> > > Now if people would just stop THINKING and analysing
> > > what they are listening to maybe they would just go with
> > > the flow..
> >
> Many people have feeling of insecurity and other negative life
> experiences... measurement provides reassuring feedback
> about the external world.
>
Exactly...the objectivists are insecure about relying on their senses.
They require measurements as a psychological crutch, even
when partaking in activites of a sensual nature.
That brings up one of my issues with DBT's.
Suppose, under normal listening, I hear a difference,
and I have a preference. Suppose I took a DBT and failed to
hear a difference. Suppose, when I went back to normal
listening, the difference and preference returned.
I would still go with my preference under the normal
conditions. That's how I will listen to music, and that is
what I am going to have to live with. So I will trust my senses.
Objectivists would ignore their preferences, if they had any
and were able to hear differences sighted, and go with the
cheapest alternative.
Yustabe Slim
"George M. Middius" <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
news:otk19u4b8b2mq30c0...@4ax.com...
There's one good thing you can say about Howard,......his thoughts are
puree.
Yustabe Slim
"ScottW" <swi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3c90d60c.171323765@news...
So, you are a teetotaler?
George M. Middius
Yustabe Slim said to the Terrierborg:
> So, you are a teetotaler?
I don't think Scottie has the mental wherewithal to make such
decisions for himself.
ScottW
George is partially correct - he doesn't think.
ScottW
Auditor55
> "Powell" <hig...@gtii.com> wrote in message news:<u8utuuf...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Gary Eickmeier" wrote
> >
> > > > While this is a good informational paper it is sadly lacking
> > > > in the areas of methodology, listener training and data
> > > > analysis/interpretation. Audio engineering has always
> > > > been the ugly sister of the analytical sciences. One part
> > > > science to two parts art.
>
>
> > Define what a valid subject is... what qualifications or
> > screening methodology produces a valid listener/reliable?
>
> A listener/reliable what, Powell?
>
> > Are all subjects/listeners equal?
>
> Obviously, not, which is why you use more than one. However, the paper
> did outline a protocol for weeding out the hard of hearing.
>
> > This is only the tip of
> > the iceberg when it comes to validating a reliable biological
> > experiment. For most people/consumers accuracy is
> > internalized. They have no interest in splitting the atom
> > (wire=wire).
>
> What you say above makes absolutely no sense at all.
>
> Howard Ferstler
I see some fools fight fact.
Auditor55
>
> > If you're interested, take a look at the proposed standard. I think
> > it's pretty good. Written by Dave Clark and Floyd Toole, among
> others.
>
> > http://ftp.aessc.org/pub/aes20-1996.pdf
>
> shouldn't be the least bit surprising that DBT advocates are writing
> papers about reliable listening, because after all, they actually
> have to hear something different in order to make their judgments.
> The anti-DBT world, like most of the writers in the high end
> ragazines, just have to imagine they hear something and spew some
> poetry.
It just amazes me how anyone with a third of a brain can be anti-DBT,
after having explained for years as to need for DBT. How could you
credibly argue against them. I have been reading these post for years
for and against DBT, and I must conclude that the so-called anti-DBT
crowd(It is sad for me to even have to write that)have yet to make any
kind of credible argument against DBT.
I challenge any anti-DBT person to make credible argument why DBT
should not be used in comparion audio components/sources. As I said, I
have heard most of them and none of them are credible so far. Most of
the anti-DBT crowd who post here resort to name calling and trash
talking and that doesn't count as a credible argument against DBT.
George M. Middius
AuditorBorg whined:
> It just amazes me how anyone with a third of a brain can be anti-DBT,
> after having explained for years as to need for DBT.
Your church doesn't have enough branches. Perhaps if you
establish drive-thru ministries at McDoggie's and Radio Shack
franchises, you'll be able to up the level of conversions.
Howard Ferstler
> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:d3d78e0.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > S i g n a l . . . . . <sig...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:<og309u8bh8a1r42s1...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > < Now if people would just stop THINKING
> > > and analysing what they are listening to maybe they would just go
> with
> > > the flow..
> >
> > Yeah, we gotta get away from that thinking stuff...............
> >
> .......................................when enjoying music.
And you need to separate the reverie you might feel when enjoying
music from the rigor that is required to evaluate (and possibly
purchase) the equipment that will allow that enjoyment to happen.
You should not make the audio system and the music into a single
entity, because there is no way this can happen. The audio system is a
conglomeration of hardware that needs to be evaluated intelligently,
and it is most certainly not a musical instrument. Nor is it a
performing musician or composer. Analyzing it is completely different
what is needed to enjoy music.
Incidentally, good musicologists and musicians (performers and
composers) are not at all above thinking quite a bit when they listen
to music, and obviously such people are a cut above the hi-fi nut who
lapses into a trance every time the music plays.
Howard Ferstler
Stephen McElroy
fer...@attglobal.net (Howard Ferstler) wrote:
> Incidentally, good musicologists and musicians (performers and
> composers) are not at all above thinking quite a bit when they listen
> to music, and obviously such people are a cut above the hi-fi nut who
> lapses into a trance every time the music plays.
It's a different mode of listening, just as listening to a song while
reading a score or lyric sheet/libretto changes one's perception.
As for "a cut above," that's your opinion and not necessarily obvious.
Stephen
--
Tom Lehrer: I know there are people in
this world who do not love their fellow man,
and I HATE people like that.
George M. Middius
Howard "Rigor Clerkis" Ferstler said:
> And you need to separate the reverie you might feel when enjoying
> music from the rigor that is required to evaluate (and possibly
> purchase) the equipment that will allow that enjoyment to happen.
So you admit you had a big stick surgically implanted in your butt.
Yustabe Slim
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d3d78e0.02031...@posting.google.com...
> "Yustabe Slim" <yusta...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<3c912...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com>...
> > "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:d3d78e0.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > > S i g n a l . . . . . <sig...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:<og309u8bh8a1r42s1...@4ax.com>...
> > >
> > > < Now if people would just stop THINKING
> > > > and analysing what they are listening to maybe they would just
go
> > with
> > > > the flow..
> > >
> > > Yeah, we gotta get away from that thinking stuff...............
> > >
> > .......................................when enjoying music.
>
> And you need to separate the reverie you might feel when enjoying
> music from the rigor that is required to evaluate (and possibly
> purchase) the equipment that will allow that enjoyment to happen.
You are using your pretensions of intellect as a crutch.
All you need to do is listen.
>
> You should not make the audio system and the music into a single
> entity, because there is no way this can happen. The audio system is
a
> conglomeration of hardware that needs to be evaluated intelligently,
> and it is most certainly not a musical instrument. Nor is it a
> performing musician or composer. Analyzing it is completely
different
> what is needed to enjoy music.
>
That's just flat out wrong. All you need to do to evaluate equipment
is
a little bit of reading and a good amount of listening. Evaluating the
equipment and listening to the music ARE intertwined.
> Incidentally, good musicologists and musicians (performers and
> composers) are not at all above thinking quite a bit when they
listen
> to music, and obviously such people are a cut above the hi-fi nut
who
> lapses into a trance every time the music plays.
>
Sometimes I lapse into a somewhat trancelike state when I
play it or sing it. Or think about the music. Or think about
something unrelated. Or watch a football or basketball game on tv.
All while playing.
S i g n a l . . . . .
>> Realism is of higher importance than accuracy to normal listeners, and
>> these two things do not necessarily correspond - no doubt about that.
>> But but BUT, they are pretty much flipsides of the same coin. The
>> former is from a perception POV, the latter a scientific, yet
>> essentially they are both technical endevours and do not encapsulate
>> the true goal. I do agree with striving for realism to a point, but
>> ultimately immersion is what it's ALL about. Fuck technicalities - do
>> you feel good when you hear it? This has as much to do with
>> association as realism or accuracy. I like blue.. you like brown.. I
>> like soft.. you like hard etc. Now select a set of speakers ;-) Yep..
>> when I look at my most treasured recordings I can't help but notice a
>> fair proportion of them have pretty arbitrary sound quality. Does
>> anyone differ in this regard? Now if people would just stop THINKING
>> and analysing what they are listening to maybe they would just go with
>> the flow..
>
>You'll get your immersion if it sounds real.
Not really, that's only true in a superficial sense. What you are
likely to get with a realistic sounding recording is a sense of awe.
What music lovers yearn for is not simply simulation, but something
connected with the psyche, regardless of colouration.
Marc Phillips
>Incidentally, good musicologists and musicians (performers and
>composers) are not at all above thinking quite a bit when they listen
>to music, and obviously such people are a cut above the hi-fi nut who
>lapses into a trance every time the music plays.
What is wrong with listening to music that is so evocative, so moving, so
inspiring, that it takes you to another plane of existence? Once again you
have revealed how indifferent you are to music, and that you have no business
writing about music, or audio, or anything else for that matter. You are a
clod, and I find it offensive that you constantly inflict your dullness on
others and try to pretend it is the superior way to live one's life.
Go away, dullard.
Boon
S i g n a l . . . . .
>It just amazes me how anyone with a third of a brain can be anti-DBT,
>after having explained for years as to need for DBT. How could you
>credibly argue against them. I have been reading these post for years
>for and against DBT, and I must conclude that the so-called anti-DBT
>crowd(It is sad for me to even have to write that)have yet to make any
>kind of credible argument against DBT.
>
>I challenge any anti-DBT person to make credible argument why DBT
>should not be used in comparion audio components/sources.
It's not analogous to normal listening.
John Atkinson
> Most of the anti-DBT crowd who post here resort to name calling and
> trash talking and that doesn't count as a credible argument against
> DBT.
been decribing the results of an amplifier test that produced
statistically significant identification of amplifiers. (The thread
title is something about breaking in headphones.)Read Arny Krueger's
posting, read Tom Nousaine's postings, read my postings, make your own
mind up on who most talks trash.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Arny Krueger
> audi...@aol.com (Auditor55) wrote:
Neither is any other kind of listening comparison.
trotsky
If those are the only choices then Nousiane and Krooger are far in the lead.
Arny Krueger
"John Atkinson" <stereophi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:9b0b3a02.02031...@posting.google.com...
> audi...@aol.com (Auditor55) wrote in message
news:<294b4d6f.02031...@posting.google.com>...
> > Most of the anti-DBT crowd who post here resort to name calling
and
> > trash talking and that doesn't count as a credible argument
against
> > DBT.
>
> I suggest you check out the thread on rec.audio.tech, in which I
have
> statistically significant identification of amplifiers.
This is not news now, and it wasn't news when Stereophile published
it.
Larry Greenhill, David Carlstrom, and Arny Krueger described, in High
Fidelity News, the results of an amplifier test that that produced
statistically significant identification of amplifiers several years
earlier.
>(The thread
> title is something about breaking in headphones.)Read Arny
Krueger's
> posting, read Tom Nousaine's postings, read my postings, make your
own
> mind up on who most talks trash.
Also notice who ducks critical questions and drags in the most straw
men.
Anybody who wants to do blind tests that produce statistically
significant identification of amplifiers need only visit
http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm and download some
files and listen to them.
dave weil
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:46:11 -0500, George M. Middius
><Glan...@ipo.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Howard Ferstler said:
>>
>>> > I, not being one with my head screwed on properly, would rather enjoy
>>> > myself.
>>
>>> You'd make a good pet cat or dog.
>>
>>You'd make a good blender. Whip us up a batch of margaritas, there's
>>a good household appliance clerk.
>
> Isn't this a sign alcohol dependency there George?
Actually it's not.
Gary Eickmeier
John Atkinson wrote:
> I suggest you check out the thread on rec.audio.tech, in which I have
> been decribing the results of an amplifier test that produced
> statistically significant identification of amplifiers. (The thread
> title is something about breaking in headphones.)Read Arny Krueger's
> posting, read Tom Nousaine's postings, read my postings, make your own
> mind up on who most talks trash.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
Fair enough - but if you really can hear differences in amps with
DBTs, then why don't you do more of them? The ABX box makes it easy to
do, and it would help to weed out the fantastic claims from the truth.
It would certainly be a service to the readers.
Gary Eickmeier
Arny Krueger
> Fair enough - but if you really can hear differences in amps with
> DBTs, then why don't you do more of them?
Hearing differences between amps is just a matter of finding crappy
enough amps, speakers that will load them down enough so they
misbehave audibly, and doing listening tests that are sensitive and
reliable enough. Unfortunately that's real work, and it takes
technical expertise that is not exactly commonplace. It's also a
scientific process, which means that the results might not turn out
to be exactly comfortable for a ragazine's largest sources of
support.
>The ABX box makes it easy to
> do, and it would help to weed out the fantastic claims from the
truth.
Yes, but it takes work and it's risky. The current scheme produces
results that are more predictably complementary to let us say,
commercial needs. Reviewer skill levels are vastly reduced - let us
say "dumbed down" to something that the staff that is available can
manage.
> It would certainly be a service to the readers.
Most specialty audio ragazines rely on so much support and revenue
from advertisers that the readers come second or third.
George M. Middius
Gary Bosemeier is still looking to earn his Enjuhnear's Wings:
> Fair enough - but if you really can hear differences in amps with
> DBTs, then why don't you do more of them? The ABX box makes it easy to
> do, and it would help to weed out the fantastic claims from the truth.
This garbage has all been refuted before, Bosey. Why do we keep
hearing echoes of defunct borgma over and over and over?
> It would certainly be a service to the readers.
You mean the "readers" who don't subscribe, don't read the
magazine, and don't understand subjective reviews?
Yustabe Slim
Normal listening is analagous to normal listening.
S i g n a l . . . . .
>> > >It just amazes me how anyone with a third of a brain can be
>> anti-DBT,
>> > >after having explained for years as to need for DBT. How could
>you
>> > >credibly argue against them. I have been reading these post for
>> years
>> > >for and against DBT, and I must conclude that the so-called
>> anti-DBT
>> > >crowd(It is sad for me to even have to write that)have yet to
>make
>> any
>> > >kind of credible argument against DBT.
>>
>> > >I challenge any anti-DBT person to make credible argument why DBT
>> > >should not be used in comparion audio components/sources.
>>
>> > It's not analogous to normal listening.
>>
>> Neither is any other kind of listening comparison.
>
>Normal listening is analagous to normal listening.
Eggsactly.
Gary Eickmeier
Arny Krueger wrote:
> Most specialty audio ragazines rely on so much support and revenue
> from advertisers that the readers come second or third.
I'm just attempting to point out that Stereophile claims DBTs are
worthless, but does perform them and report on them. It would be a far
greater service to the readers to incorporate them at the end of all
reviews, to examine whether the writer's reported effects or
improvements can be actually heard when not staring at the nameplate
or price tag.
Gary Eickmeier
Yustabe Slim
You're them one with the obsession about nameplates and price tags.
Howard Ferstler
> Sometimes I lapse into a somewhat trancelike state...
Like right now.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard said:
>
> >Incidentally, good musicologists and musicians (performers and
> >composers) are not at all above thinking quite a bit when they listen
> >to music, and obviously such people are a cut above the hi-fi nut who
> >lapses into a trance every time the music plays.
> What is wrong with listening to music that is so evocative, so moving, so
> inspiring, that it takes you to another plane of existence?
What baloney. Give me a break.
> Once again you
> have revealed how indifferent you are to music, and that you have no business
> writing about music, or audio, or anything else for that matter.
More baloney. Unfortunately for you, pal, I do write about
music, audio, and a number of other things, too.
> You are a
> clod, and I find it offensive that you constantly inflict your dullness on
> others and try to pretend it is the superior way to live one's life.
>
> Go away, dullard.
What? And make you happy? Give me a break.
Howard Ferstler
Yustabe Slim
> Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> > What is wrong with listening to music that is so evocative, so
moving, so
> > inspiring, that it takes you to another plane of existence?
>
> What baloney. Give me a break.
Baloney!?!?
What the fuck do you think music has been about, ever since
Beethoven wrote his Third Symphony.
It is an emotional release, for the composer and for the listenener.
>
> > Once again you
> > have revealed how indifferent you are to music, and that you have
no business
> > writing about music, or audio, or anything else for that matter.
>
> More baloney. Unfortunately for you, pal, I do write about
> music, audio, and a number of other things, too.
>
As far as music, It is quite evident that you are writing about
something you really don't like at all.
Car and Driver might as well hire Ralph Nader to write their
automotive reviews.
Marc Phillips
>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Howard said:
>>
>> >Incidentally, good musicologists and musicians (performers and
>> >composers) are not at all above thinking quite a bit when they listen
>> >to music, and obviously such people are a cut above the hi-fi nut who
>> >lapses into a trance every time the music plays.
>
>> What is wrong with listening to music that is so evocative, so moving, so
>> inspiring, that it takes you to another plane of existence?
>
>What baloney. Give me a break.
So music doesn't move you? Then quit wasting everyone's time.
>
>> Once again you
>> have revealed how indifferent you are to music, and that you have no
>business
>> writing about music, or audio, or anything else for that matter.
>
>More baloney. Unfortunately for you, pal, I do write about
>music, audio, and a number of other things, too.
Yeah. We all noted your fabulous writings on the subject of uncorking wine
bottles. Unfortunately for you, pal, I also write about music, audio, and a
number of other things, too, including screenplays. And people don't rush into
line to tell me how boring and pedantic my work is. You should go away, and
stop overstating the importance of your negligible scribblings.
>
>> You are a
>> clod, and I find it offensive that you constantly inflict your dullness on
>> others and try to pretend it is the superior way to live one's life.
>>
>> Go away, dullard.
>
>What? And make you happy? Give me a break.
Why don't you give everyone else a break a stop writing altogether? That
includes wasting bandwidth on Usenet.
Boon
George M. Middius
Yustabe Slim said to Clerkenstein:
> Car and Driver might as well hire Ralph Nader to write their
> automotive reviews.
Actually, Nader is something of an authority on consumer goods in
general. For sheer effeteness, how about Miss Daisy?
Howard Ferstler
>
> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3C955861...@attglobal.net...
> > Marc Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > What is wrong with listening to music that is so evocative, so
> moving, so
> > > inspiring, that it takes you to another plane of existence?
> >
> > What baloney. Give me a break.
>
> Baloney!?!?
> What the fuck do you think music has been about, ever since
> Beethoven wrote his Third Symphony.
> It is an emotional release, for the composer and for the listenener.
You use your "supposed" love of music as an intellectual
crutch to fantasize about audio equipment. Audio equipment
and music are not the same thing. Not even close.
Howard Ferstler
Yustabe Slim
I agree. The kind audio equipment that you like has nothing at all
to do with music.
Howard Ferstler
> >> What is wrong with listening to music that is so evocative, so moving, so
> >> inspiring, that it takes you to another plane of existence?
> >What baloney. Give me a break.
> So music doesn't move you? Then quit wasting everyone's time.
Oh, but it does move me. However, I do not play the phony
and claim that audio equipment is some form of musical
instrument, or that audio equipment performs feats of magic
that makes music achieve a mystical level, etc., etc.
> >> Once again you
> >> have revealed how indifferent you are to music, and that you have no
> >business
> >> writing about music, or audio, or anything else for that matter.
> >More baloney. Unfortunately for you, pal, I do write about
> >music, audio, and a number of other things, too.
> Yeah. We all noted your fabulous writings on the subject of uncorking wine
> bottles.
Gee whiz, you air heads really got wrapped up in that series
about corks, didn't you? Says a lot about your intellect.
> Unfortunately for you, pal, I also write about music, audio, and a
> number of other things, too, including screenplays.
Wow. We are impressed. However, soft-porn movies are not
something I would care to be proud of.
> And people don't rush into
> line to tell me how boring and pedantic my work is.
They just roll their eyes and leave the theater.
> You should go away, and
> stop overstating the importance of your negligible scribblings.
And you need to grow up and think a bit more about what
audio is all about. You need to stop behaving like a true
believer, and screw your head on a bit tighter.
> >> You are a
> >> clod, and I find it offensive that you constantly inflict your dullness on
> >> others and try to pretend it is the superior way to live one's life.
> >> Go away, dullard.
> >What? And make you happy? Give me a break.
> Why don't you give everyone else a break a stop writing altogether? That
> includes wasting bandwidth on Usenet.
I do believe you perceive me to be a threat to your little
world of religious audio. Why should I leave. You leave,
instead. Go listen to your stereo.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> really enjoying the music. Too bad, you lose (not in the
> argumentative sense, you truly lose out on not being
> the kind of person who can enjoy music rather than
> view it as an intellectual adn analytical exercise).
You simply are unable to understand that music and audio are
not the same thing. For you, your hi-fi set "is" music. For
me, it is not music at all. It is a hi-fi set.
You want to apply the same kind of trance-like attitude you
have when you enjoy music to the evaluation of audio gear.
I say that is nonsense - and baloney.
Howard Ferstler
Yustabe Slim
> Marc Phillips wrote:
>
>
> > So music doesn't move you? Then quit wasting everyone's time.
>
> Oh, but it does move me. However, I do not play the phony
> and claim that audio equipment is some form of musical
> instrument, or that audio equipment performs feats of magic
> that makes music achieve a mystical level, etc., etc.
You still don't get it.
The only "magic" performed by good audio equipment
is reproducing the "magic" of a live performance.
However, with too many studio recordings, everything else
in the production phase seems to be "magic" anyway.
>
>
> Gee whiz, you air heads really got wrapped up in that series
> about corks, didn't you? Says a lot about your intellect.
Yes, I remember that.
You were merely an innocent bystander, weren't you?
Yes, that's right, you had nothing to contribute at all.
>
> > Unfortunately for you, pal, I also write about music, audio, and a
> > number of other things, too, including screenplays.
>
> Wow. We are impressed. However, soft-porn movies are not
> something I would care to be proud of.
>
I don't think anyone else would think much of
your porn movies either. Was that you who starred in
"The Sexual Exploits of a Bald Library Clerk"?
Or was it "Stacked and Bald"?
> > And people don't rush into
> > line to tell me how boring and pedantic my work is.
>
> They just roll their eyes and leave the theater.
>
Probably 'cause the theater owner followed your reviews in TSS, when
putting together the sound system.
> > You should go away, and
> > stop overstating the importance of your negligible scribblings.
>
> And you need to grow up and think a bit more about what
> audio is all about. You need to stop behaving like a true
> believer, and screw your head on a bit tighter.
>
Audio is a bout reproducing music, which can also
be put as: Audio is about reproducing something that
you don't even like in the first place.
>
> > Why don't you give everyone else a break a stop writing
altogether? That
> > includes wasting bandwidth on Usenet.
>
> I do believe you perceive me to be a threat to your little
> world of religious audio. Why should I leave. You leave,
> instead. Go listen to your stereo.
>
No Howard, you're no threat. At least not till the day
that you advocate that the government confiscate my tube gear.
Not that I don't think you would ever stoop so low.
Yustabe Slim
> Yustabe Slim wrote:
> >
> > "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C9557DA...@attglobal.net...
> > > Yustabe Slim wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sometimes I lapse into a somewhat trancelike state...
> > >
> > > Like right now.
> > >
> > > Howard Ferstler
> >
> > Yes, I know, you have no idea of what its like, getting into and
> > really enjoying the music. Too bad, you lose (not in the
> > argumentative sense, you truly lose out on not being
> > the kind of person who can enjoy music rather than
> > view it as an intellectual adn analytical exercise).
>
> You simply are unable to understand that music and audio are
> not the same thing. For you, your hi-fi set "is" music. For
> me, it is not music at all. It is a hi-fi set.
Really!!
I guess I don't even have to power it up to be enraptured by it.
>
> You want to apply the same kind of trance-like attitude you
> have when you enjoy music to the evaluation of audio gear.
>
> I say that is nonsense - and baloney.
>
Well, if the gear causes a masking of those attributes of the music
that I find so enjoyable, what good is the gear.
Howard Ferstler
> > You use your "supposed" love of music as an intellectual
> > crutch to fantasize about audio equipment. Audio equipment
> > and music are not the same thing. Not even close.
> I agree. The kind audio equipment that you like has nothing at all
> to do with music.
Neither should the stuff you use. Of course, maybe your amps
are guitar amps.
Incidentally, I may not be a music lover in your eyes, but
that does not stop a number of disc manufacturers from
sending me software to review.
Eat your heart out, music lover.
Howard Ferstler
Yustabe Slim
That's right.
I forgot. You're a whore, you write nice reviews for the freebies.
I use guitar/bass amps for playing bass.
I use audio amps for playing recorded music.
Howard Ferstler
> > Incidentally, I may not be a music lover in your eyes, but
> > that does not stop a number of disc manufacturers from
> > sending me software to review.
> >
> > Eat your heart out, music lover.
> That's right.
> I forgot. You're a whore, you write nice reviews for the freebies.
Be realistic, fatso. Record reviewers do not as a matter of policy go
out and purchase the recordings they review. However, just to unsettle
you a bit, my wife often purchases material that I would not
ordinarily get from manufacturers to review, and I occasionally review
that stuff, too. When I used to work for the library music facility,
they purchased a LOT of recordings, and I often checked them out to
review, as well. Indeed, the bulk of the recordings reviewed in my
High Definition Compact Disc book (McFarland, 1994) and my The Digital
Audio Music List book (A-R Editions, 1999) were books that were
obtained for school use. I never kept that material, by the way, and
the stuff continues to reside in the university collection. I also
borrowed a lot of recordings from friends, many of whom had large
collections of pop music.
However, now I am a bona fide record reviewer for a magazine, and so
manufacturers and suppliers send me stuff to audition. What is your
problem with this, other than the fact that I am getting the material
and you, the so-called music lover, are not?
Howard Ferstler
George M. Middius
Howard "Boned Fido" Ferstler said:
> However, now I am a bona fide record reviewer for a magazine, and so
"a magazine" -- must be the Thenthible Thound. God knows it's
not a specialty music 'zine.
> manufacturers and suppliers send me stuff to audition. What is your
> problem with this, other than the fact that I am getting the material
> and you, the so-called music lover, are not?
What would you say is your hourly wage for your Professionally
Measured & Authored "reviews", Clerkie? I'd guess about $6 an
hour, based on selling the freebies for $3 a pop.
Yustabe Slim
OK baldy. The problem is that you are a poor retiree and do not have
the
financial wherewithal to support your hobby. You like fancy toys
and can't pay for them. So you write your reviews, for
which the publishers pay you very little money, and you collect free
merchandise from the manufacturers. That is how you support
your hobby.
Marc Phillips
I get so much free stuff from the labels, it's not even funny. In fact, most
of them attached themselves to me within days after I had my first music review
published.
Trust me, Howard, it's no big deal, and it's not worth bragging about, unless
you like being labelled as a whore.
Boon
Marc Phillips
>However, now I am a bona fide record reviewer for a magazine, and so
>manufacturers and suppliers send me stuff to audition. What is your
>problem with this, other than the fact that I am getting the material
>and you, the so-called music lover, are not?
Only someone living in poverty would make this erroneous statement. Others
have access to the same "material" you receive for free...they just don't have
to whore themselves out to do it.
Boon