Audio Critic The truth revealed!
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc>)
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc>) wrote:
> > Since we haven't quoted the Audio Critic in a long time, the newbies
> > here should be aware of the following:
> > (1)Peter Aczel is the owner, founder, and editor of the audio critic.
> > (2)Aczel has no formal scientific training or background. He was an
> > advertising copywriter by trade.
> > (3)Aczel gave warm glowing reviews of Ohm F loudspeakers while hwe owned
> > aubstantial stock in the company!
> > (4)Aczel have reve reviews to several Carver products, when Aczel owned
> > substantial amount of Carver stock, was friends with Bob Carver, and
> > wrote ads for Carver. (Can you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST boys & girls?)
Gene retorted:
> OK, Zip, let's stop this right here. You've made this claim before,
> about the stock Aczel allegedly owns, but have failed to back any of
> it with facts.
OK, Gene, since you asked. Peter Aczel told me this himself - many years ago. You know, Gene,
when Peter was a subjective reviewer we were rather friendly. He was also my customer - I sold
him a pair of Levinson ML-6A's. I had dinner over his house a couple of times (his wife, Bodil,
is a wonderful person & cook!). We tried to listen to music through his Beveridge Three
loudspeakers (NOTE: Harold Beveredge died yesterday. My condolences to his family - Harold
was a wonderful, kind man, and a genius in audio design) but Peter's Bull Mastiffs tree'd a
racoon, and were howling up a storm at least one of the times I was there (BTW, it was in Bronxville, NY
- I believe on Gramattan Avenue). Peter told me about buying stock in Carver - in fact, he told
me & Mike K (of Lyric) that we ought to buy stock in Carver also. Mike, in fact, did. Peter's
part ownership in Ohm Acoustics was common knowlege in the industry, Gene. Just ask Peter -
he's your buddy!
> If we are to hold Aczel accountable for allegedly owning stock in an
> audio company (a claim so far that is not confirmed), should we not
> hold other magazine editors and publishers to the same standards?
Absolutely! I agree that reviewers & editors should all be accountable 100%
By the way, Gene, the claim is only unconfirmed by you because you are either:
(1) Too damn lazy to pick up the phone
(2) Too damn cheap to make the call
(3) Too damn dumb or blind to recognize the truth. You know I'm right!
(4) You just don't want to look any more the silly fool you already are :)
> And if we do, what of John Atkinson and Larry Archibald of
> Stereophile? Do they own stock in any audio-related companies? Do
> they write ads for those companies or otherwise function as
> consultants? Do they review products favorably because they want to
> keep them on those "extended loans"?
Why don't you call them up and ask them? I'm not a reviewer for these magazines. I do not know
their policies. And I don't care at the moment. They aren't the issue here. And why, Gene, are you
trying to deflect the issue here?
> And to take it further, what about Michael Riggs, Ivan Berger,
> Anthony H. Cordesman and the others who work with Audio? What are
> their private interests that we need to know about?
Gene? Hello? Are you there? We are not talking about these other folks. We are talking about
Peter Aczel - the self proclaimed Audio Critic, because YOU QUOTED HIM! You are trying to
deflect everyone here from the truth, which is that Peter Aczel's credibility is seriously
compromised. You just want to change the topic.
> And if you argued that, you'd be right. We need to judge these
> people by the value of what they write, and the factual content of
> their presentation, because they are under no obligation whatever to
> disclose their stock portfolios.
Oh? You mean having a large financial stake in a company would not affect what the reviwer
writes? Are you nuts? Are you that (double) blinded (pun) that you don't see the truth? Would
it change the perception of the reader re: the reviewer? You bet your ass it would!
> Yet, despite that realization, you attack Aczel over and over again,
You quote him as gospel over & over again!
> but provide not a single piece of evidence that the information in
> his magazine is not correct. Not one.
Oh no? How about Fourier which he wrote about? Just pick up the phone and ask him, Gene.
> > (5)Aczel folded his Audio Critic once before, screwing thousands of
> > people out of their subscription money. His magazine was demolished in
> > the market place by The Absolute Sound.
>
> This implies the magazine has folded again, which it has not.
It will, just hang on!
> For whatever reason, the magazine stopped publication years ago and
> later returned. When the magazine was reactivated, Aczel offered to
> fill the unexpired subscriptions of all his former subscribers. And
> as far as I know, he has never failed to honor a legitimate request
> to send the issues due any person.
Yeah, right! Wonder how many screwed subscribers re-subscribed. I wonder how many even took
advantage of his magnanimous (joke) offer! Did he write to each & every one of them? Did he
track them all down after ten years?
> > (6)Aczel used to be a subjective reviewer. He used to actually listen
> > to music playing through his hifi system! His magazine went down the
> > tubes, so this time round he is an ABX guru, chanting the mantra of
> > everythingsoundsthesame/similar/nodiscernabledifferences - just like you.
> You are saying that Aczel's change of viewpoint is something for
> which he should be criticized?
No, I think we should examine the reasons for the switch in light of his failure to
disclose the truth about his financial conflict of interests and his questionable business practices.
> Maybe he should be praised for
> finally seeing the light? I think so.
Of course you do. We know you do, Gene. You tell us about 10 times a day!
> > (7)Acxel at his worst? Easy! He designed a rather ordinary performing
> > box speaker called the Fourrier One. He started a company to produce
> > it. Oh you figured this one out! In case you didn't, he then reviewed
> > the speaker & gave it a rave review (duh) and used it as his reference
> > speaker - even though he had MUCH BETTER speakers in house, like
> > Beveridge Model 3's and Quad ESL's.
> Again you misstate the facts. The Fourier loudspeaker was originally
> designed as a reference speaker to use in evaluating other products
> for the magazine. The company was not formed till AFTER The Audio
> Critic folded,
THIS IS AN UTTER, OUTRIGHT LIE!!!! This is the biggest load of bullshit you have ever laid on
us, Gene! Lyric bought some Fourier One's (I was managing the White Plains store) while Aczel
was still publishing the Audio Critic. Who made up the lie that it had already folded, Gene -
you or Aczel? By the way, if it had folded, then this gutter snipe Audio Critic took his
subscriber's money and started a speaker company with their dough!!!!!!!!!
> and the money used to start that venture was raised
> privately. No way was there money left from the failed original
> incarnation of The Audio Critic to finance it.
Oh yeah! Right!!!!!! If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... It must be
a SNAKE
> > (8) After Aczel folded, amazingly, Carver started distributing a review
> > Aczel wrote on one of his amplifiers - but the review was from an issue
> > of the Audio Critic that NEVER MADE IT TO THE PRINTER!!! Hmmmmmmm!
> In fact, when the preprint was used in Carver ads, Aczel had every
> intention of publishing the issue that contained it.
Yeah right! Hey buddy, wanna' buy a bridge? From Brooklyn?
>And, in fact,
Something you know nothing about in this matter - facts!
> when publication of The Audio Critic resumed, the first issue new
> issue did contain that review.
Big deal. The guy's a con-man and you are his carny-barker!
The Audio Critic has ZERO CREDIBILITY which in fact may be higher than yours!.
> And I notice that you still avoid the issue of that A/B/X test of
> cables in Stereo Review back in the mid 1980s. If you really
> participated in that test, tell us which of the people identified by
> a letter in that report was Steve Zipser so we can see what you
> truly heard? We're still waiting for your answer....
Again, Gene changes the topic since he is getting killed in this little debate :)
Call Aczel, Gene. Or maybe you are really Peter Aczel in disguise.
Cheers & enjoy some music for a change (if you know how)
Zip
Gene Steinberg
>
>
> What conflicts of interest does Peter Aczel/Audio Critic presently have?
> My impression is that the speaker incident happened some years ago. Can
> either Gene or Steve estimate the year?
>
The speaker incident, which has been widely misinterpreted, happened
in the mid 1980s. Neither Peter Aczel nor the editor and/or
publisher of any audio magazine is compelled to tell us about
personal financial interests. So while it may be a ripe area for
speculation if the content of the magazine seems to unreasonably
favor a certain product line without logic or reason, we have to be
realistic about this.
These publications are private businesses. They have every right to
tell us if we ask such questions that it's none of our business.
My biggest quibble with Zipser is that he makes claims, but when you
ask him to prove his facts are genuine, he says, no you prove it.
Since he makes the claims, it's up to him to back them up.
More important, whatever the truth of the situation, he fails to
produce a single item in The Audio Critic that is factually
incorrect, either because the publisher made a mistake or because of
this alleged conflict.
> I subscribe to Audio Critic (along with a spectrum of other magazines,
> including Stereophile and The Absolute Sound, so my response is not
> biased), and I think it is an entertaining, informative magazine. I am
> surprised that manufacturers continue to provide equipment for review if
> there are factual misstatements in the reviews.
>
Actually, some manufacturers are very, very concerned with the sort
of reviews they get in Stereophile. But if they don't provide the
units, Stereophile can just borrow one from a dealer or a private
owner or buy it for themselves and review it anyway.
--
Peace
Gene
Gene Steinberg
>
>
> We aren't talking about any other magazines here bud, YOU quoted Audio Critic,
> not me, so I just let people know some unpleasant truths about Peter Aczel's
> serious conflict of interest, his screwing his previous subscribers, and so on.
>
The problem I have with your messages is that you make a lot of
claims, but when someone asks you to prove their veracity, you ask
that someone to prove it for themselves.
So when push comes to shove, it's you who make the claims and you
who should be backing them up.
More importantly, whatever the truth of the situation (and a lot of
it doesn't appear to be as you describe), we are dealing with
something that happened a decade or more ago.
You have not provided a single piece of information from the current
incarnation of The Audio Critic that is factually incorrect. Not
one. And since we have no greater right to ask about Peter Aczel's
personal financial interests than we have the financial interests of
any other audio magazine editor or publisher, we should try
evaluating the merit of what they say by the words that appear in
the magazines themselves.
So let's look at that: Can you provide a single piece of information
from a recent issue of The Audio Critic that is not factually
correct.
If you cannot do that, all this ranting and raving about prior
problems accounts for nothing.
For everyone else's benefit: Some people in audio have never
forgiven Peter Aczel because of his switch from the subjective to
the objective camp (and Zipser appears to be an example).
But none of that has anything to do with the words that appear in
the magazine.
--
Peace
Gene
c. whiting
>Actually, some manufacturers are very, very concerned with the sort
>of reviews they get in Stereophile. But if they don't provide the
>units, Stereophile can just borrow one from a dealer or a private
>owner or buy it for themselves and review it anyway.
Most manufacturers are very concerned about reviews in ANY magazine. Let's
not just single out Stereophile here. A less than stellar review can cause
a product's sales to drop dramatically, whether the review is correct or not.
Small manufacturers with start up products are the hardest hit by poor
reviews. An example would be Ayre Acoustics and the Ayre V-3 amplifier. Ayre
was very controlling when it came to who and when their amplifier was to
be reviewed. Audio magazine did a review that raised some measurement related
questions even though the reviewer said that in all fairness he could not
hear these anomalies. I wonder how many V-3s were NOT sold because of this
review. Stereophile is scheduled to review the V-3 in an upcoming issue by
the way.
Claude
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc>)
> Small manufacturers with start up products are the hardest hit by poor
> reviews. An example would be Ayre Acoustics and the Ayre V-3 amplifier. Ayre
> was very controlling when it came to who and when their amplifier was to
> be reviewed. Audio magazine did a review that raised some measurement related
> questions even though the reviewer said that in all fairness he could not
> hear these anomalies. I wonder how many V-3s were NOT sold because of this
> review. Stereophile is scheduled to review the V-3 in an upcoming issue by
> the way.
>
> Claude
Claude:
I read that Ayre review and I thought it was extremely favorable. Based on that
review, I actually considered calling them for the line. I ended up calling Nelson
Pass instead, because I knew him for years.
Cheers
Zip
Todd Samost
>My biggest quibble with Zipser is that he makes claims, but when you
>ask him to prove his facts are genuine, he says, no you prove it.
>Since he makes the claims, it's up to him to back them up.
I'm not sure I fully understand this one. Zip said he was at dinner w/Peter,
and Peter told him about the Carver stock purchase. This is HIS proof. Then
you go and ask which dinner, what night, or a similar question (sorry, I
didn't save the posting to get the exact quote). I think his words are valid
until you, or really PETER, say otherwise ! Ask Peter to write you or post
here that he DIDN'T say this to Zip, and DIDN'T have him for dinner, or better
yet, DIDN'T have stock in Carver when he reviewed their product(s). I think
YOU are getting a little nitpicky on this one.
BTW, I agree with your questioning of ANYONE in the press having potential
biases via some kind of financial interest in a company whose products they
review. Zip was addressing the one example of TAC, but the issue is relevent
evrywhere. I remember HP of TAS removing Steven Stone from the staff;
alledgedly, Steven had some non-audio related business with a vendor whose
product he reviewed. It may have been completely open and honest, but it
raised a potential question of bias. And thus, the action followed [note: I
have not seen SS's version of the story, so I only write about HP's side]
>More important, whatever the truth of the situation, he fails to
>produce a single item in The Audio Critic that is factually
>incorrect, either because the publisher made a mistake or because of
>this alleged conflict.
He questions the facts (in the manner of editorials or reviews) as TAC
reported them, due to potential personal biases. He lays out what he sees as
those biases, and then questions the validity of what's reported. If it is
possible that the biases can distort in any way what is put in print, then
that is relevent, at least to me. Not to dredge up an old topic (but I will !
:), this is similar to the recommendations you generally make, Gene, but
refuse to divulge the equipment in your system. How do we know you practice
what you preach ? To ME, what you do vs. what you say is important if I'm
going to heed your advice....
Just my thoughts. I wouldn't go around raising issues at any rumor if
impropriety, but Zip raises several concerns, many/all of which seem valid.
This wouldn't preclude me from reading TAC, but I'd want to know if they, or
ANY magazine, had potential conflicts of interest. [just thought of another
example: the whole Streophile High End show, and the AAHEA - or whatever the
acronym is - that Larry Archibald was involved with. He stepped down from
the board when questions of conflict of interest arose. That may not be the
only solution to the issue, but it was a recognized action resulting from
potential conflicts of interest]
Todd.
Jim Saxon
Aczel's transgressions and was amazed at their accuracy.
I had thought all that creepiness had been swept under
the rug. Whether it's worthwhile to dredge it up or not,
the truth, as we in New York hifi in the '80s knew it, has
been served.
To me a great irony is that Peter Aczel could probably have
made a lot of money developing the Audio Critic to
Stereophile proportions rather than messing about with
loudspeakers and other would-be tie-ins.
Another irony is that in personal, Peter seemed like a
decent guy.
Jim Saxon
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc>)
>
> Just to horn in, I read Steve's laundry list of Peter
> Aczel's transgressions and was amazed at their accuracy.
> I had thought all that creepiness had been swept under
> the rug. Whether it's worthwhile to dredge it up or not,
> the truth, as we in New York hifi in the '80s knew it, has
> been served.
Look, my opinion is that this guy is being quoted as the paragon of
accuracy & truth in audio. The reality is that he pulled some of the
sleaziest scams & was less than honest with his subscribers, and
participated in gross conflicts of interest. It is important that his
present disciples understand he has serious dirty laundry.
> To me a great irony is that Peter Aczel could probably have
> made a lot of money developing the Audio Critic to
> Stereophile proportions rather than messing about with
> loudspeakers and other would-be tie-ins.
>
> Another irony is that in personal, Peter seemed like a
> decent guy.
In person, he could be decent - but never in print! He was stunningly
obnoxious, arrogant, rude. I remember at the grand (re) opening of Mike
Kay's newer & bigger Lyric Hifi (around 1982 or 83), Peter Aczel & Harry
Pearson had an unforgettable run-in. I won't quote what they said to
each other, but everytime I think of it, tears of laughter role down my
face!!!!!!!
> Jim Saxon
Thanks Jim! Seems I'm not the only one who remembers the truth around
here! Gene Steinberg just wants to sweep it under the table, pretend it
never happened, and try and make me the bad guy.
Shame on you Gene Steinberg!
Cheers
Zip
Gene Steinberg
>
>
> He questions the facts (in the manner of editorials or reviews) as TAC
> reported them, due to potential personal biases. He lays out what he sees as
> those biases, and then questions the validity of what's reported. If it is
> possible that the biases can distort in any way what is put in print, then
> that is relevent, at least to me. Not to dredge up an old topic (but I will !
> :), this is similar to the recommendations you generally make, Gene, but
> refuse to divulge the equipment in your system. How do we know you practice
> what you preach ? To ME, what you do vs. what you say is important if I'm
> going to heed your advice....
Let's deal with the last part first. The equipment I own has nothing
to do with the published reports of A/B/X testing, the audibility of
distortion and other issues in commercial magazines and in Audio
Engineering Society publications that have been cited here. Nothing.
Therefore, the truth or falsity of what I say doesn't depend on what
I own, since I do not use that as an indicator of the accuracy of
what I report. Therefore it's not relevant to this issue. If I
didn't exist, the facts would remain as they are.
As to Steve Zipser's problem with The Audio Critic, in the past
where he has asked us to check out a source for alleged information,
that source has failed to back him up. The author of the Stereo
Review article on A/B/X tests of cables in the mid-1980s is one such
example.
Most of the claims Zipser makes about The Audio Critic are
contradicted by what the magazine did and by their published
accounts of the magazine's history. He supplies nothing to back up
what he says except alleged recollections of a dinner or two he had
10-15 years ago.
Aside from that, about the only remaining issue he raises is whether
or not the publisher of The Audio Critic owns stock in an audio
company and whether that fact would color his perceptions of that
company's products and other products. Problem is that his evidence
consists (again) of a recollection of a conversation that allegedly
happened 10-15 years ago (and it's so easy to forget subtle details,
such as whether Aczel may have actually just recommended the stock
as something to consider rather than admitting he truly owned it)
and it doesn't demonstrate whether Peter Aczel owned stock in an
audio company from the late 1980s to the present, which is when the
current version of the Audio Critic has been published.
And Zipser doesn't provide a single factual instance in the magazine
itself where Aczel's alleged bias has colored his published
statements. For example, not all of Aczel's reviews of Carver
products have been 100% positive (this is a company that Aczel
allegedly has purchased stock in). Even the most favorable reviews
have had criticisms, and the reviews do not stand alone in terms of
how these products are rated. Other magazines have provided similar
reactions to these products--should we inquire of their financial
interests as well?
More importantly, Zipser asks us to try to prove something that
cannot be proven, unless Peter Aczel chooses to show us his
financial statements and stock portfolios, something that he doesn't
have to do, nor should we expect him to.
Again, Zipser doesn't provide a single example of an item in the
pages of The Audio Critic that one should suspect because of either
the issue of factual accuracy or possible conflict of interest. Not
one.
And his perceptions of the way the magazine treated subscribers when
it folded the first time and other issues (including the Stereo
Review cable report) have been shown to be inaccurate, which does
seriously reflect on Zipser's credibility. In fact, it reflects more
on his credibility than on Aczel's because it puts the former into
serious question.
--
Peace
Gene
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc>)
> Since we haven't quoted the Audio Critic in a long time, the newbies
> here should be aware of the following:
> (1)Peter Aczel is the owner, founder, and editor of the audio critic.
> (2)Aczel has no formal scientific training or background. He was an
> advertising copywriter by trade.
> (3)Aczel gave warm glowing reviews of Ohm F loudspeakers while hwe owned
> aubstantial stock in the company!
> (4)Aczel have reve reviews to several Carver products, when Aczel owned
> substantial amount of Carver stock, was friends with Bob Carver, and
> wrote ads for Carver. (Can you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST boys & girls?)
Folks: all the above is true. This is why Aczel, Steinberg's Guru on the topic of audio, has not refuted
it. He cannot refute the truth. He can only get schills like Steinberg to stand in for him & try &
deflect the issues!
> Gene retorted:
> > OK, Zip, let's stop this right here. You've made this claim before,
> > about the stock Aczel allegedly owns, but have failed to back any of
> > it with facts.
Not true as you'll see below. My facts came right from Aczel, himself! Gene refuses to question Aczel
about the matter, because he has probably be instructed by Aczel to avoid the truth. Just go ask Aczel if
the above is true Gene.
> OK, Gene, since you asked. Peter Aczel told me this himself - many years ago. You know, Gene,
> when Peter was a subjective reviewer we were rather friendly. He was also my customer - I sold
> him a pair of Levinson ML-6A's. I had dinner over his house a couple of times (his wife, Bodil,
> is a wonderful person & cook!). We tried to listen to music through his Beveridge Three
> loudspeakers (NOTE: Harold Beveredge died yesterday. My condolences to his family - Harold
> was a wonderful, kind man, and a genius in audio design) but Peter's Bull Mastiffs tree'd a
> racoon, and were howling up a storm at least one of the times I was there (BTW, it was in Bronxville, NY
> - I believe on Gramattan Avenue). Peter told me about buying stock in Carver - in fact, he told
> me & Mike K (of Lyric) that we ought to buy stock in Carver also. Mike, in fact, did. Peter's
> part ownership in Ohm Acoustics was common knowlege in the industry, Gene. Just ask Peter -
> he's your buddy!
If I'm lying, how did I know where his house was, Gene, how did I know he raised Bull Mastiffs - barking
right outside his listening room? How come I knew his wife, Bodil? (PS- she's a lot taller than Peter,
she was blond, and she was , I believe, from Hungary). Ask Mike K if he and I ever had lunch at Peter's.
Ask him about Carver stock!
> > If we are to hold Aczel accountable for allegedly owning stock in an
> > audio company (a claim so far that is not confirmed), should we not
> > hold other magazine editors and publishers to the same standards?
> Absolutely! I agree that reviewers & editors should all be accountable 100%
> By the way, Gene, the claim is only unconfirmed by you because you are either:
> (1) Too damn lazy to pick up the phone
> (2) Too damn cheap to make the call
> (3) Too damn dumb or blind to recognize the truth. You know I'm right!
> (4) You just don't want to look any more the silly fool you already are :)
Steinberg REFUSES TO ASK ACZEL!!!! He doesn't want you to know the truth!
Ande he keeps trying to deflect the issues away from the Audio Critic's Conflict of interests&
indiscretions! These are famous in the industry - but Gene Steinberg was never in our industry. He is a
Johnny-come-lately bullshit artist, who wants everyone to see/hear the same shade of gray that he does.
> > And if we do, what of John Atkinson and Larry Archibald of
> > Stereophile? Do they own stock in any audio-related companies? Do
> > they write ads for those companies or otherwise function as
> > consultants? Do they review products favorably because they want to
> > keep them on those "extended loans"?
> Why don't you call them up and ask them? I'm not a reviewer for these magazines. I do not know
> their policies. And I don't care at the moment. They aren't the issue here. And why, Gene, are you
> trying to deflect the issue here?
> > And to take it further, what about Michael Riggs, Ivan Berger,
> > Anthony H. Cordesman and the others who work with Audio? What are
> > their private interests that we need to know about?
Notice - not once does Gene ask Aczel! Not once!
> Gene? Hello? Are you there? We are not talking about these other folks. We are talking about
> Peter Aczel - the self proclaimed Audio Critic, because YOU QUOTED HIM! You are trying to
> deflect everyone here from the truth, which is that Peter Aczel's credibility is seriously
> compromised. You just want to change the topic.
> > And if you argued that, you'd be right. We need to judge these
> > people by the value of what they write, and the factual content of
> > their presentation, because they are under no obligation whatever to
> > disclose their stock portfolios.
> Oh? You mean having a large financial stake in a company would not affect what the reviwer
> writes? Are you nuts? Are you that (double) blinded (pun) that you don't see the truth? Would
> it change the perception of the reader re: the reviewer? You bet your ass it would!
Can you believe this folks! A guy who ran a magazine & ripped off thousands of subscribers would not be
affected by his financial stake in the equipment he reviews?
> > Yet, despite that realization, you attack Aczel over and over again,
>
> You quote him as gospel over & over again!
>
> > but provide not a single piece of evidence that the information in
> > his magazine is not correct. Not one.
>
> Oh no? How about Fourier which he wrote about? Just pick up the phone and ask him, Gene.
>
>. (5)Aczel folded his Audio Critic once before, screwing thousands of
>. people out of their subscription money. His magazine was demolished in
>. the market place by The Absolute Sound.
>
> This implies the magazine has folded again, which it has not.
>
> It will, just hang on!
>
> > For whatever reason, the magazine stopped publication years ago
You mean the reason isn't important!!!!!
Something you know nothing about in this matter, Gene - facts!
>
> > when publication of The Audio Critic resumed, the first issue new
> > issue did contain that review.
Big deal. The guy's a con-man and you are his carny-barker!
The Audio Critic has ZERO CREDIBILITY which in fact may be higher than yours!.
Again, Gene changes the topic since he is getting killed in this little debate :)
Call Aczel, Gene. Or maybe you are really Peter Aczel in disguise.
Cheers & enjoy some music for a change (if you know how)
Zip
.
.
.
.
.
.
........................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
Gene Steinberg
>
>
> If I'm lying, how did I know where his house was, Gene, how did I know he raised Bull Mastiffs - barking
> right outside his listening room? How come I knew his wife, Bodil? (PS- she's a lot taller than Peter,
> she was blond, and she was , I believe, from Hungary). Ask Mike K if he and I ever had lunch at Peter's.
> Ask him about Carver stock!
>
Zipser, you need some reading lessons. I never denied you had dinner
with Aczel (he admitted that to me himself long ago, at the same
time wondering why you had come to hate him so). I also pointed out
that this issue about the investment in Carver Corp. was something
you allegedly heard 10-15 years ago, and, unless you can demonstrate
otherwise (that he actually did own the stock and still owns the
stock), it is not relevant to the current incarnation of The Audio
Critic.
>
> Can you believe this folks! A guy who ran a magazine & ripped off thousands of subscribers would not be
> affected by his financial stake in the equipment he reviews?
>
Once again, Zipser, you cannot produce the name of a single
individual who wasn't able to get the issues due them when the
magazine resumed publication.
> > You quote him as gospel over & over again!
> >
Again, Zipser you need reading lessons. I simply mention it as just
one source of useful audio information, and surely not the only
source.
>
> No, I think we should examine the reasons for the switch in light of his failure to
> disclose the truth about his financial conflict of interests and his questionable business practices.
>
Since you haven't proven to anyone that anything you claim is
accurate, one is best advised simply to read Aczel's reasons for
coming over to the objective audio camp in the magazine itself. He
is not shy about telling you the reasons for the change (it has
something to do with accepting the compelling evidence for the
objective audio viewpoint, something you should think about
sometime). Why not read the passages yourself and tell us what you
don't understand?
>
> Again, Gene changes the topic since he is getting killed in this little debate :)
> Call Aczel, Gene. Or maybe you are really Peter Aczel in disguise.
>
This debate is very one-sided, Zipser, because you refuse to provide
any evidence that anything you say is true, except for an alleged
recollection of something you overhead on the dinner table 10-15
years ago. And since your recollection of the Stereo Review cable
article is quite faulty (and you still refuse to own up to that gaff
of yours), how can anyone take anything you say about Aczel
seriously either?
Before we pursue this further, please stop dodging the issue about
the Stereo Review cable article. You keep refusing to tell us which
of of the participants named in the article was Steve Zipser.
What are YOU hiding from?
--
Gene
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc>)
>
> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc>) wrote:
> > If I'm lying, how did I know where his house was, Gene, how did I know he raised Bull Mastiffs - barking
> > right outside his listening room? How come I knew his wife, Bodil? (PS- she's a lot taller than Peter,
> > she was blond, and she was , I believe, from Hungary). Ask Mike K if he and I ever had lunch at Peter's.
> > Ask him about Carver stock!
Here, Gene admits that he knew I had been to Aczel's house for dinner
Gene says:
>> Zipser, you need some reading lessons. I never denied you had dinner
>> with Aczel (he admitted that to me himself long ago, at the same
>> time wondering why you had come to hate him so).
Yet yesterday Gene posted that I was a liar!
Gene states:
>>Can you tell us when this alleged dinner occurred, what year, and
whether you know for a fact that Aczel..........?
Trying to imtimate that I was lying, Gene? When you knew all along that I
had been to Peter Aczel's many times. Gene you are totally full of baloney!
No need to reply to you any more!
Bye bye
Zip
PS: I do not hate Peter. I really think he is presently misguided, and I
believe his audio opinions are, shall we say, tainted. You, on the other
hand, disgust me.
idk...@smart.net
>
> Let's deal with the last part first. The equipment I own has nothing
> to do with the published reports of A/B/X testing, the audibility of
> distortion and other issues in commercial magazines and in Audio
> Engineering Society publications that have been cited here. Nothing.
> Therefore, the truth or falsity of what I say doesn't depend on what
> I own, since I do not use that as an indicator of the accuracy of
> what I report. Therefore it's not relevant to this issue. If I
> didn't exist, the facts would remain as they are.
>
Have you noticed that Gene never talks about music.
I know, this group is about audio, not music; but serious discussion
of audio would involve at least SOME discussion about the
reproduction of music.
Louie the lip
>> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> Let's deal with the last part first. The equipment I own has nothing
>> to do with the published reports of A/B/X testing, the audibility of
>> distortion and other issues in commercial magazines and in Audio
>> Engineering Society publications that have been cited here. Nothing.
>> Therefore, the truth or falsity of what I say doesn't depend on what
>> I own, since I do not use that as an indicator of the accuracy of
>> what I report. Therefore it's not relevant to this issue. If I
>> didn't exist, the facts would remain as they are.
Gene, do you really think anyone here gives a hoot or a hollar what you have to
say anymore? The only issue is that you obviously don't like audio, so what in
the lord's name are you doing here?
>Have you noticed that Gene never talks about music.
>I know, this group is about audio, not music; but serious discussion
>of audio would involve at least SOME discussion about the
>reproduction of music.
I just notice that Gene and Lon & Ben & Zip and Andy Paul never shut the hell
up. Give us all a break already.
Louie
Gene Steinberg
>
>
> Have you noticed that Gene never talks about music.
> I know, this group is about audio, not music; but serious discussion
> of audio would involve at least SOME discussion about the
> reproduction of music.
The topic is rec.audio.opinion, which implies an emphasis on equipment
rather than music. Besides, you and others talk of alleged sonic
differences among components, and the tests to confirm or disprove that
claim involve listening to music (under controlled conditions). So, yes,
music is involved in my discussion, since it what one listens to on
one's equipment (other than radio talk shows, of course).
--
Peace
Gene
Ben Cannon
>idk...@smart.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> Have you noticed that Gene never talks about music.
>> I know, this group is about audio, not music; but serious discussion
>> of audio would involve at least SOME discussion about the
>> reproduction of music.
>
>The topic is rec.audio.opinion, which implies an emphasis on equipment
>rather than music.
Um... what?
rec=recreational
audio=sound waves
opinion=whatever I or you personally feel
Not only do I not see the word "equipment" anywhere up there, I also do not see where
cold hard proof is even relivant.
If, in MY opinion, an AA-om150 amp is better than a Carver 55x, then I am right.
Gene, please take your facts and unshakable scientific blanther to rec.audio.tech
I'll "shut the hell up" now.
It's my opinion and I'll cry if I want to ;0)
--
Ben Cannon. art...@a.crl.com
"If you think it more, you will know it." -Joly
________________________________________________________
HTTP://168.75.111.2/ben.htm Finally with a 24-hour,
28.8Kbps connection!
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> idk...@smart.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > Have you noticed that Gene never talks about music.
> > I know, this group is about audio, not music; but serious discussion
> > of audio would involve at least SOME discussion about the
> > reproduction of music.
>
> The topic is rec.audio.opinion, which implies an emphasis on equipment
> rather than music.
The purpose of the equipment is to listen to music.
To talk about the equipment without discussion of the
equipmen'ts efficacy in conveying the music is missing the point.
Besides, you and others talk of alleged sonic
> differences among components,
Sonic differences as heard
in the music being played. It is not so much sonic differences, as
the effect these have upon the music.
and the tests to confirm or disprove that
> claim involve listening to music (under controlled conditions). So, yes,
> music is involved in my discussion, since it what one listens to on
> one's equipment (other than radio talk shows, of course).
>
Again, the CON "TROLL"ED (sorry for the pun, I couldn't resist)
tests can tell nothing more than what happens
under the CON"TROLL"ED circumstances, one of them being
that someone elses ears are being used, otherwise, they are
irrelevant.
I think your idea of using radio talk shows as source material for abx
tests is a good one.
Gene Steinberg
idk...@smart.net wrote:
>
>
> The purpose of the equipment is to listen to music.
> To talk about the equipment without discussion of the
>
If two pieces of equipment have no audible difference, discussing how
they "convey" the music ceases to be relevant, since they would both
convey it in the same fashion.
> Sonic differences as heard in the music being played.
> It is not so much sonic differences, as the effect these
> have upon the music.
>
If there is no audible difference, the music you hear isn't changed from
what you hear in another product.
>
> Again, the CON "TROLL"ED (sorry for the pun, I couldn't resist)
> tests can tell nothing more than what happens
> under the CON"TROLL"ED circumstances, one of them being
> that someone elses ears are being used, otherwise, they
> are irrelevant.
>
The controls are hiding the product's labels and matching volume levels.
Don't you understand the significance? If the difference you hear is
caused by the level mismatch and knowledge of the product's identity,
controlling those factors eliminates them as the cause of what you hear.
If results are consistent regardless of the number of "ears" being used
or the number of trials, as they are, it is something you had better
take seriously if you wish to discuss what you hear as something real
(something that exists outside yourself).
--
Peace
Gene
EnglishJW
I know I may be jumping into something here but...
I was an early subscriber to The Audio Critic and I truly enjoyed it
(especially the amplifier designer free-for-all). But, I didn't get all of
the issues from my last subscription nor did some of my friends.
On the issue of timing, didn't TAC REVIEW the Fourier speakers? If it did,
the speaker company was obviously in business BEFORE the magazine went
under. I can't confirm this because I didn't say my old issues but someone
here should be able to verify this point factually.
I also cannot speak for anyone but myself and the policies at Stereophile
from my vantage point. To illustrate, I presently work for a French bank.
My bank does business with Harmon Kardon. I will not review any of their
products. I am sure that no one at Harmon Kardon knows where I work nor do
I associate any of the products in any way with my work relationship. It
would just look bad.
One other factual issue that can be checked... I believe I received a rave
pre-publication review of a Carver piece from TAC. But I never received
any actual issue that ran that review.
Jack English, Stereophile
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc)
Jack:
Nice to see you 'round here. Welcome!
Your memory, is of course, quite accurate, and re-affirms what many others have alreaady
stated here re: Audio Cynic. No doubt, you will now be attacked by others, who will
dance around the truth, twisting to and fro to try & make you look bad. Problem is, the
harder they tries to make you look bad, the better you look :)
Cheers, happy listening & happy reviewing!
Steve Zipser
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> idk...@smart.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > The purpose of the equipment is to listen to music.
> > To talk about the equipment without discussion of the
> > equipments efficacy in conveying the music is missing the point.
> >
>
> If two pieces of equipment have no audible difference, discussing how
> they "convey" the music ceases to be relevant, since they would both
> convey it in the same fashion.
That the conveyance of the music is irrelevant to you comes as no surprise.
You have never expressed an interest in music.
The above response displays a complete disregard fo the intended
purpose of audio equipment, which is to convey music.
The above response exhibits misleading tautatological reasoning, verging on
semantic games. First of all, the assumption
that there are no audible differences ia wrong.
Using your tautological style of argument, conversely, one would assert that
that if the conveyance of music is different, then there is an audible difference.
And so there are such differences between many different components.
>
> > Sonic differences as heard in the music being played.
> > It is not so much sonic differences, as the effect these
> > have upon the music.
> >
>
> If there is no audible difference, the music you hear isn't changed from
> what you hear in another product.
There IS an audible difference.
>
> >
> > Again, the CON "TROLL"ED (sorry for the pun, I couldn't resist)
> > tests can tell nothing more than what happens
> > under the CON"TROLL"ED circumstances, one of them being
> > that someone elses ears are being used, otherwise, they
> > are irrelevant.
> >
>
> The controls are hiding the product's labels and matching volume levels.
> Don't you understand the significance? If the difference you hear is
> caused by the level mismatch and knowledge of the product's identity,
> controlling those factors eliminates them as the cause of what you hear.
Not true. Level mismatch is irrelevant. The better one always sounds better, no matter
what the volume difference. And the memory red herring is irrelevant.
It won't necessarily be the one that was loudest first that is judged the best.
>
> If results are consistent regardless of the number of "ears" being used
> or the number of trials, as they are, it is something you had better
> take seriously if you wish to discuss what you hear as something real
> (something that exists outside yourself).
No such results exist.
The concept of "regardless of number of ears...or....trials" is ludicrous.
All you can possibly demonstrate is that a consistently
high number of people do not hear the differences that I hear.
>
> --
> Peace
> Gene
>
>>>>
Matt Kennel
idk...@smart.net wrote:
: Have you noticed that Gene never talks about music.
: I know, this group is about audio, not music; but serious discussion
: of audio would involve at least SOME discussion about the
: reproduction of music.
OK. How about what recording companies give good sound on what
sort of setups?
Personally I've heard good things about Delos, but I recently put
back on their recording of the Rite of Spring with Seattle Symphony.
Sure, it was 'clear' but it was as dry as the Mojave during a Santa Ana.
No bass or body whatsoever. The bass drum was there for all 4 solo
notes, but where did the cellos go? It would be dry on a Cerwin Vega
I thought. ;-)
When I turned to the local NPR FM radio station (!) I thought the sound was
much better on whatever random thing they were playing.
Other ramblings: If you don't like DG's sound, give the new '4-D'
recordings a shot. Nothing like their old ones. In general, very very
nice, in my opinion. Besides, who wants to hear the worlds best
recording of lesser-known early baroque nose-flute pieces played by the
upper East Lancaster veterans pan-flute band (what you might get on a
teeny tiny recording which can't pay for artists) instead of something good
with the CSO?
--
Matthew B. Kennel/m...@caffeine.engr.utk.edu/I do not speak for ORNL, DOE or UT
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/
*NO MASS EMAIL SPAM* It's an abuse of Federal Government computer resources
and an affront to common civility. On account of egregiously vile spamation,
my software terminates all email from "interramp.com" and "cris.com" without
human intervention.
Gene Steinberg
EnglishJW wrote:
>
> I know I may be jumping into something here but...
>
Nope, Jack, come on in; the water's fine. I always welcome some
intelligent dialog (it's a refreshing change :).
> I was an early subscriber to The Audio Critic and I truly enjoyed it
> (especially the amplifier designer free-for-all). But, I didn't get all of
> the issues from my last subscription nor did some of my friends.
>
Just write to The Audio Critic and request the issues due you. I've
never heard of an instance when a subscriber due issues from the
original incarnation of The Audio Critic didn't get them.
> On the issue of timing, didn't TAC REVIEW the Fourier speakers? If it did,
> the speaker company was obviously in business BEFORE the magazine went
> under. I can't confirm this because I didn't say my old issues but someone
> here should be able to verify this point factually.
>
No, not quite. The Fourier speaker was originally developed as an
in-house reference system by The Audio Critic and was never described as
anything else in the pages of that magazine. Only after the magazine
went under was a company established to make the product (something
Aczel probably regrets, since the business didn't succeed).
> I also cannot speak for anyone but myself and the policies at Stereophile
> from my vantage point. To illustrate, I presently work for a French bank.
> My bank does business with Harmon Kardon. I will not review any of their
> products. I am sure that no one at Harmon Kardon knows where I work nor do
> I associate any of the products in any way with my work relationship. It
> would just look bad.
>
The only situation in which there was ever any sort of conflict dates
back to The Audio Critic's review of an Ohm Acoustics product in 1977.
Peter Aczel was a founding partner in that company, but shed that
affiliation long before the magazine was established. However, he still
brought his prior affiliation to light in the pages of the magazine, so
the readers would evaluate his review with that understanding (the
review itself, by the way, wasn't favorable). One could perhaps argue
that Aczel could have selected another person to review that product,
but since the issue is 19 years old, that's hardly worth discussing.
Point is Aczel was totally honest about the matter.
> One other factual issue that can be checked... I believe I received a rave
> pre-publication review of a Carver piece from TAC. But I never received
> any actual issue that ran that review.
>
The issue was set in type when permission was granted to Carver to
reproduce it. But the magazine folded before the issue was published.
However, when The Audio Critic resumed publication, the review was
definitely published in the first new issue.
--
Peace
Gene
Gene Steinberg
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc) wrote:
>
> Jack:
> Nice to see you 'round here. Welcome!
> Your memory, is of course, quite accurate, and re-affirms what many others have alreaady
> stated here re: Audio Cynic. No doubt, you will now be attacked by others, who will
> dance around the truth, twisting to and fro to try & make you look bad. Problem is, the
> harder they tries to make you look bad, the better you look :)
> Cheers, happy listening & happy reviewing!
I'm sorry that you've made a fool of yourself again Zipser. As I pointed
out in my note to this newsgroup, Jack's recollection of the sequence of
events about The Audio Critic was not correct (and once corrected, I
doubt he would deny anything I've written, as he's fully aware of it).
And once again, you try to dance around the issue of the false claims
you made about The Audio Critic (and previously, about Stereo Review's
cable article).
Come on, Zipser, be a man and own up to the fact that you were proven
wrong, over and over and over again. Start July 4th on a positive note,
OK?
--
Peace
Gene
Gene Steinberg
idk...@smart.net wrote:
>
> That the conveyance of the music is irrelevant to you comes as no surprise.
> You have never expressed an interest in music.
> The above response displays a complete disregard fo the intended
> purpose of audio equipment, which is to convey music.
Nope, the purpose of audio equipment is to transmit signals with as
little alteration as possible. It doesn't become "music" or
"conversation" or whatever till the loudspeakers get ahold of it. You
confuse the wine with the wine glass.
> The above response exhibits misleading tautatological reasoning, verging on
> semantic games. First of all, the assumption
> that there are no audible differences ia wrong.
There is no such assumption.
The actual assumption is that if audible differences exist, they will
still be there when you can no longer identify product you're listening
to by sight or level mismatch.
>
> There IS an audible difference.
> >
Not unless you can hear it with your eyes closed :)
> > >
> > > Again, the CON "TROLL"ED (sorry for the pun, I couldn't resist)
> > > tests can tell nothing more than what happens
> > > under the CON"TROLL"ED circumstances, one of them being
> > > that someone elses ears are being used, otherwise, they
> > > are irrelevant.
> > >
However, the more ears you put into the equation, the more compelling
the evidence, since the results are always consistent. If a difference
is heard, a measurable factor is responsible. You should also try to
take some time to understand the reason for the controls (sight and
volume level), which is done to bring out the reality not hide it.
> Not true. Level mismatch is irrelevant. The better one always sounds better, no matter
> what the volume difference. And the memory red herring is irrelevant.
> It won't necessarily be the one that was loudest first that is judged the best.
>
True indeed, and demonstrated through thousands of hours of testing. It
is a fact, however, that in a sighted test when your mind fixes on what
you think is a difference, volume levels can change and you'll still
believe what you hear. The power of one's mind to fool oneself is,
itself, quite predictable in these circumstances. Just read some of the
research, and you'll see what I mean. Problem I have with this is that
you get it wrong over and over again because you have never actually
bothered to read anything on the subject to see how it's really done.
That's so clear from your messages.
--
Peace
Gene
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc)
Gene:
Here is my reply to you;
You are a lying asshole, and the absolute number one newsgroup bore of
all time. You are paid by Peter Aczel without any doubt, who is a crook
& ripped off thopusands of people. He has few scruple & you have
none. Audio Critic is a worthless rag, and the owner/editor just loves
to conduct viscious diatribes against people who disagree with himself.
Gene - what qualifies you as an expert on Aczel? What qualifies you as
an expert on audio? NOTHING! Were you around when Acxel was lying &
ripping people off the first time round?
No doubt It'll happen again - the Audio Critic will go down the tubes -
as his publishing schedule is already getting more & more erratic.
Peter needs hip boots to wade through his own writing!
Gene - you are just a paid schill by Peter AXEjob to create controversy
& drum up interst in the audio cynic.
The best use of the audio critic is to put it on rolls in public
bathrooms. The best use of Gene is to clean the paper after use
Have a nice day Gene.
Gene Steinberg
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc) wrote:
>
> Here is my reply to you;
>
> You are a lying asshole, and the absolute number one newsgroup bore of
> all time. You are paid by Peter Aczel without any doubt
OK, Zip, let's stop it right here. You've failed to prove anything I
said is a lie, and your accusation that I receive any income from Peter
Aczel, The Audio Critic or anyone associated with that magazine is
totally uncalled for.
And absolutely untrue. I do not derive a single penny of income from the
audio industry or any audio magazine. Not a penny.
And you know that too, deep in your heart, which is why your conduct is
totally incomprehensible.
This is an example of the sort of nonsense you continue to spread in
this newsgroup.
For heaven sakes, Zipser, you're an audio dealer. You should be spending
your time helping people use their audio components and giving advice on
how to choose new stuff.
When you continue to make bogus charges against people, you demean
yourself. You destroy your credibility, and, as a dealer, that's the one
thing you need to be successful.
>
> Have a nice day Gene.
You too.
--
Peace
Gene
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc)
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc) wrote:
> >
> > Gene:
> > Here is my reply to you;
> >
> > You are a lying asshole, and the absolute number one newsgroup bore of
> > all time. You are paid by Peter Aczel without any doubt
>
> OK, Zip, let's stop it right here. You've failed to prove anything I
> said is a lie, and your accusation that I receive any income from Peter
> Aczel, The Audio Critic or anyone associated with that magazine is
> totally uncalled for.
It's the truth! You are a schill for Peter Aczel. His mouthpiece.
> And absolutely untrue. I do not derive a single penny of income from the
> audio industry or any audio magazine. Not a penny.
Sure you don't Gene. We believe you. Yeah right, we believe you!
> And you know that too, deep in your heart, which is why your conduct is
> totally incomprehensible.
Yeah right!. I know in my heart that Aczel screwed thousands of people out of their
subscription money & at the same time started a speaker compnay. Thats a crook in my
book. And only a paid schill would support acxel for that.
> This is an example of the sort of nonsense you continue to spread in
> this newsgroup.
It happened. It is reality. Just like the review carver published from the issue that
never was. Just like the ownership of companies he reviewed! Oh - he also wrote ad
copy for companies he reviewed. Can you say CONDLICT OF INTEREST boys & girls!
> For heaven sakes, Zipser, you're an audio dealer. You should be spending
> your time helping people use their audio components and giving advice on
> how to choose new stuff.
I so - all the time. And then jerks like you come along and try and challenge the truth
with utter cacca.
> When you continue to make true charges against people, you demean
> them. You destroy Aczel's credibility, and, as a dealer, that's the one
> thing you need to be successful.
I'm successful in Audio. Peter's not.
I am honest. Peter's not. You are full of crap, Gene.
> > Have a nice day Gene.
>
> You too.Gene:
One last thing - Quit mentioning my name, period. Quit attacking me, and do not answer
this post & it will be my last post on the subject. Come back at me like you have & I
will continue to expose more of Aczels & your conflicts of interest.
Oh - and kill the courtesy copies of the email. I and countless other have told you
time & time again to stop. I think your comprehension skills are adequate to understand
this: send no more email to me.
Gene Steinberg
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc) wrote:
>
>
>
> It happened. It is reality. Just like the review carver published from the issue that
> never was.
Zipser, give it up. The facts have long ago passed you by. The review
did appear in print, in the first issue that Aczel published when the
magazine was resurrected. Everyone who bought that magazine (well
several thousand copies went out, I take it) know this is true.
Why you don't get the message, I don't know.
> One last thing - Quit mentioning my name, period. Quit attacking me, and do not answer
> this post & it will be my last post on the subject. Come back at me like you have & I
> will continue to expose more of Aczels & your conflicts of interest.
I don't take kindly to threats. You want me to stop mentioning your name
(and these are not attacks, just corrections of your misstatements),
then grow up and give up your vendetta against Aczel, me and others.
The only thing you have exposed so far is yourself--for having no facts
to present, just bitterness and more bitterness. Why you act this way, I
don't know, and I won't try to speculate.
You know what I tell you is true. Give it up, man, and you won't be
mentioned in this context. Deal?
---
Gene
Louie the lip
>True indeed, and demonstrated through thousands of hours of testing.
Sir, where are the thousands of hours. I am certain that this is a strtch of
the truth, not seen since the days of Huey Long.
Louie
Gene Steinberg
You add up all the published A/B/X tests of audio equipment, and that's
what you come up with.
Maybe if you read up on the subject, you'd be able to argue the point
with some advance knowledge, OK?
--
Peace
Gene
Louie the lip
In article <31DBA1...@netrunner.net>, z...@netrunner.net says...
\
>Gene:
>Here is my reply to you;
time.
Steve:
While Gene may be the all time bore, and he is certainly showing a propensity
to annoy everyone from Oregon to Olando, let's tone down the language. Now I
know you have been showing remarkable restraint, and Gene, acting like the
little pissant coward that he is, continued to take pot shots at you all week
long without you retorting. Let him look bad, he does a great imitation of a
homeless dog howlin at the moon.
> You are paid by Peter Aczel without any doubt, who is a crook
>& ripped off thopusands of people. He has few scruple & you have
>none. Audio Critic is a worthless rag, and the owner/editor just loves
>to conduct viscious diatribes against people who disagree with himself.
>Gene - what qualifies you as an expert on Aczel? What qualifies you as
>an expert on audio? NOTHING! Were you around when Acxel was lying &
>ripping people off the first time round?
Now you've taken the words right outta most of the good folks on this
newsgroup. Everything here is true.
Louie
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> idk...@smart.net wrote:
> >
> > That the conveyance of the music is irrelevant to you comes as no surprise.
> > You have never expressed an interest in music.
> > The above response displays a complete disregard fo the intended
> > purpose of audio equipment, which is to convey music.
>
> Nope, the purpose of audio equipment is to transmit signals with as
> little alteration as possible. It doesn't become "music" or
> "conversation" or whatever till the loudspeakers get ahold of it. You
> confuse the wine with the wine glass.
Wine does not travel trough the glass.
An audio signal travels thhrough the audio equipment
The glass does not affect the wine.
Audio equipment effects the the reproduction oif the sound.
Wine, from the bottle to the lips, is not altered or deconstructed/reconstructed.
Music, from the cd or lp to the ear, is altered or deconstructed/reconstructed
And, the signal was originally music or conversation and returns to such at the speaker.
What happens in between makes an important difference.
>
>
> > The above response exhibits misleading tautatological reasoning, verging on
> > semantic games. First of all, the assumption
> > that there are no audible differences ia wrong.
>
> There is no such assumption.
>
> The actual assumption is that if audible differences exist, they will
> still be there when you can no longer identify product you're listening
> to by sight or level mismatch.
>
>
> >
> > There IS an audible difference.
> > >
>
> Not unless you can hear it with your eyes closed :)
I sure can!!!
Just cause I can and you can't, does not mean it does not exist!!!!
>
> > > >
> > > > Again, the CON "TROLL"ED (sorry for the pun, I couldn't resist)
> > > > tests can tell nothing more than what happens
> > > > under the CON"TROLL"ED circumstances, one of them being
> > > > that someone elses ears are being used, otherwise, they
> > > > are irrelevant.
> > > >
>
> However, the more ears you put into the equation, the more compelling
> the evidence, since the results are always consistent. If a difference
> is heard, a measurable factor is responsible. You should also try to
> take some time to understand the reason for the controls (sight and
> volume level), which is done to bring out the reality not hide it.
If 99 out of 100 people cannot read the bottom line of an eye chart, that does
not mean the one person who can is hallucinating!!!!!!!!
>
> > Not true. Level mismatch is irrelevant. The better one always sounds better, no matter
> > what the volume difference. And the memory red herring is irrelevant.
> > It won't necessarily be the one that was loudest first that is judged the best.
> >
>
> True indeed, and demonstrated through thousands of hours of testing. It
> is a fact, however, that in a sighted test when your mind fixes on what
> you think is a difference, volume levels can change and you'll still
> believe what you hear. The power of one's mind to fool oneself is,
> itself, quite predictable in these circumstances. Just read some of the
> research, and you'll see what I mean. Problem I have with this is that
> you get it wrong over and over again because you have never actually
> bothered to read anything on the subject to see how it's really done.
> That's so clear from your messages.
You are too thick to grasp the point, or too slick to address it.
The first time the two components are heard, I can tell
the better piece, even if it is lower in volume.
That means your VARIABLE, relative volume level, is eliminated.
If you cannot understanfd this concept, then you really have no concept of a/b/x testing.
You just regurgiatae the mantra without understanding anything.
Level mismatch has been eliminated as a variable . It is irelevant.
Gene Steinberg
idk...@smart.net wrote:
>
> Wine does not travel trough the glass.
> An audio signal travels thhrough the audio equipment
> The glass does not affect the wine.
> Audio equipment effects the the reproduction oif the sound.
> Wine, from the bottle to the lips, is not altered or deconstructed/reconstructed.
> Music, from the cd or lp to the ear, is altered or deconstructed/reconstructed
idkwid, how about reading some high school level texts on
electronics, and then come back to us with some dialog, OK? Or just
look at the published studies indicating how much distortion is
required before it is audible.
> > Not unless you can hear it with your eyes closed :)
>
> I sure can!!!
> Just cause I can and you can't, does not mean it does not exist!!!!
If you wish to take an A/B/X test to show you can hear audible
differences among like measuring components, I'm sure there are
people in this newsgroup who would be happy to put your alleged
claims to the test. Care to try?
--
Peace
Gene
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
.
>
> You know what I tell you is true. Give it up, man, and you won't be
> mentioned in this context. Deal?
>
> ---
> Gene
>
>>>>
that he will quit attacking if the oither side would and he continued his
attacking, shoot em in the back as they walk away, potshots and gloating.
Do not believe Gene.
He has been assimilated by the Borg. He is a relentless attack machine
that cannot be stopped. His mission is to assimilate you tino the
mantra of a/b/x or destroy you. Beware of the Borg!!!!!
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Louie the lip wrote:
> >
> > >True indeed, and demonstrated through thousands of hours of testing.
> >
> > the truth, not seen since the days of Huey Long.
> > Louie
>
> You add up all the published A/B/X tests of audio equipment, and that's
> what you come up with.
Another of Gene's misinterpretations; part of his big lie. He knows better.
Here he is slippin and sliding away from the truth.
Any idiot knows that each test is discrete. You cannot add them up and say
thousands of hours of abx tests show such and such. Each test is a disecrete entity
unto itsself. Each test was conducteed uhder at least slightly different circumstances.
Gene the ad copy writer, I should say liar, has surfaced again.
Many of these tests Gene talks about never happened, or were conducted quite
differently than Gene claims.. Post them verbatem
on this group, or cease and desist.
Remember, Gene has been demonstrated to have lied on numerous occasions.
In his last email to me he denied that he was claiming
to prove a null hypothesis, when that is exactly what he is doing
by claiming thousands of hours of abx tests prove there are no sonic
differences between cd players, amps and wires.
Gene lives in his own little world of denial.
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> If you wish to take an A/B/X test to show you can hear audible
> differences among like measuring components, I'm sure there are
> people in this newsgroup who would be happy to put your alleged
> claims to the test. Care to try?
Yes, in my home.
We can test dacs.
Amps wouldn't work for testing purposes, as I prefer to use tube amps.
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> idk...@smart.net wrote:
> >
> > Wine does not travel trough the glass.
> > An audio signal travels thhrough the audio equipment
> > The glass does not affect the wine.
> > Audio equipment effects the the reproduction oif the sound.
> > Wine, from the bottle to the lips, is not altered or deconstructed/reconstructed.
> > Music, from the cd or lp to the ear, is altered or deconstructed/reconstructed
>
> idkwid, how about reading some high school level texts on
> electronics, and then come back to us with some dialog, OK? Or just
> look at the published studies indicating how much distortion is
> required before it is audible.
>
that digitizing deconstructs the music.
Digitization IS THE DECONSTRUCTION
AND RECONSRUCTION of an analogue signal, get it?
And you will not admit that equipment affects the
reproduction of the music.
By the way, the more serious of the
objectivists would laugh at your misuse of objective testing
and data derived therefrom,
and your slick
sidestepping and misinterpretation of their science.
Gene Steinberg
idk...@smart.net wrote:
>
>
> Another of Gene's misinterpretations; part of his big lie. He knows better.
> Here he is slippin and sliding away from the truth.
> Any idiot knows that each test is discrete. You cannot add them up and say
> thousands of hours of abx tests show such and such. Each test is a disecrete entity
> unto itsself. Each test was conducteed uhder at least slightly different circumstances.
Well, first you deny there were thousands of hours of tests, then
you admit there were, but you fail to understand the significance.
It is this: The results are consistent from test to test. More
pieces of the puzzle put together to give you a whole picture of
what has been learned about the causes or lack thereof of audible
differences in audio equipment.
> Gene the ad copy writer, I should say liar, has surfaced again.
I do not work as a copy writer. You think I've lied, go ahead and
prove it.
> Many of these tests Gene talks about never happened, or were conducted quite
> differently than Gene claims.. Post them verbatem
> on this group, or cease and desist.
So far neither you nor anyone else has ever demonstrated I have
misrepresented or misquoted any of the published A/B/X tests I've
cited. As to quoting them verbatum, no can do. They are in
copyrighted publications. If the copyright holders wish to do so,
that's their prerogative; anyone can summarize them, however, or
quote brief passes (that's what "fair use" is all about). And that
has been done in previous messages from me and others.
As to your cease and desist demand: If we all prevented people from
making misstatements and misquoting people, where would you fit into
the equation? Nowhere. You wouldn't be allowed to post messages
here. Since this is a public newsgroup, however, you have the right
to continue to misrepresent what people say and reach incorrect
conclusions about them.
> Remember, Gene has been demonstrated to have lied on numerous occasions.
Not by you, not by anyone else. But we have demonstrated time and
time again that your grasp of the facts leaves something to be
desired, without a doubt.
--
Gene
Mark Davenport
Can we please drop this abx crap. It is obviouos that after months of
arguing about it that their will never be a final solution or outcome
of this disscusion.
No one will ever win and their will not be any truth at last like every
thread proclaims. It is time to drop the subject all together because
no one is winning and we are all losing because of the inane arguing
going on here. It is time to just say we agree to disagree and move on
with our lives.
If you are the type that thrives over bitching back and fourth please
reconsider that attitude and just drop it. This use to be an enjoyable
place to discuss your OPINIONS about audio. But now you can't type a
sentance without getting into an abx argument.
It is time for both sides to just say fuck it and move on to better
things. Their is nothing wrong with arguing but this has just gone to
far and it needs to end. Both sides need to swallow their pride and
just agree to disagree then maybe we can have our old newsgroup back
that delt with OPINIONS on audio equipment and not the constant abx
crap.
joe peterson
In article <4rjf7f$8...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
gig...@ix.netcom.com(Mark Davenport) wrote:
AMEN!!
jp
Gene Steinberg
Mark Davenport wrote:
>
> Can we please drop this abx crap. It is obviouos that after months of
> arguing about it that their will never be a final solution or outcome
> of this disscusion.
>
If we're going to direct the outcome of the discussion (which, of
course, cannot be done), how about we drop all discussions about audible
differences among components and cables unless there is scientific
evidence that that such differences exist? OK?
I mean if we're going to control the tenor of the discussion, why stop
there? Let's keep it within the framework of scientific knowledge too.
--
Peace
Gene
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> idk...@smart.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > Another of Gene's misinterpretations; part of his big lie. He knows better.
> > Here he is slippin and sliding away from the truth.
> > Any idiot knows that each test is discrete. You cannot add them up and say
> > thousands of hours of abx tests show such and such. Each test is a disecrete entity
> > unto itsself. Each test was conducteed uhder at least slightly different circumstances.
>
> Well, first you deny there were thousands of hours of tests, then
> you admit there were,
Another big lie, I admitted no such thing. You made that up, nowhere did I
say or even infer that.
but you fail to understand the significance.
> It is this: The results are consistent from test to test. More
> pieces of the puzzle put together to give you a whole picture of
> what has been learned about the causes or lack thereof of audible
> differences in audio equipment.
You fail to understand that each test is discrete.
Each test is intended to measure sonic differences
between two (or more) scompoonents. One test is
between A and B, the other is between C and D.
Besides, ypour reorting of test results is not to be believed
anyway. You have been caugh in too many previous lies and
miststatements.
>
> > Gene the ad copy writer, I should say liar, has surfaced again.
>
> I do not work as a copy writer. You think I've lied, go ahead and
> prove it.
>
> > Many of these tests Gene talks about never happened, or were conducted quite
> > differently than Gene claims.. Post them verbatem
> > on this group, or cease and desist.
>
> So far neither you nor anyone else has ever demonstrated I have
> misrepresented or misquoted any of the published A/B/X tests
Oh yes we have!!! You just continue to deny it.
I've
> cited. As to quoting them verbatum, no can do
I do not believe you, but you can send one of your detractors copies.
They are in
> copyrighted publications. If the copyright holders wish to do so,
> that's their prerogative; anyone can summarize them, however, or
> quote brief passes (that's what "fair use" is all about). And that
> has been done in previous messages from me and others.
>
> As to your cease and desist demand: If we all prevented people from
> making misstatements and misquoting people, where would you fit into
> the equation? Nowhere. You wouldn't be allowed to post messages
> here. Since this is a public newsgroup, however, you have the right
> to continue to misrepresent what people say and reach incorrect
> conclusions about them.
You are the one misrepresenting the data
>
> > Remember, Gene has been demonstrated to have lied on numerous occasions.
>
> Not by you, not by anyone else. But we have demonstrated time and
> time again that your grasp of the facts leaves something to be
> desired, without a doubt.
The facts you assert are only your erroneous opinions annd misrepresentations of data.
You do not know the first thing about music, nor do you care to.
This is not your hobby.
Being a contentiouus troublemaker on the internet is your hobby.
>
Mark Davenport
In <31DCED...@worldnet.att.net> Gene Steinberg
<Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>Mark Davenport wrote:
>>
>> Can we please drop this abx crap. It is obviouos that after months
of
>> arguing about it that their will never be a final solution or
outcome
>> of this disscusion.
>>
>
>If we're going to direct the outcome of the discussion (which, of
>course, cannot be done), how about we drop all discussions about
audible
>differences among components and cables unless there is scientific
>evidence that that such differences exist? OK?
Nope this is an OPINION newsgroup and opinions do not have to be based
on scientific fact here. Go to the audio tech group if you insist
everything should be based on scientific fact. Science can't yet
explain why I would like something and someone one might hate it.
Thats what this newsgroup is for to discuss differences in audio
perceived by the individual i.e. OPINIONS.
>
>I mean if we're going to control the tenor of the discussion, why stop
>there? Let's keep it within the framework of scientific knowledge too.
>
Like I said read the newsgroup name. rec.audio.opinion not
rec.audio.scientific fact. This is a place to express ones own personal
opinion and experiences on audio or audio equipment. This is not
rec.audio.tech.
Chuck Ross
> Mark Davenport wrote:
> >
> > Can we please drop this abx crap. It is obviouos that after months of
> > arguing about it that their will never be a final solution or outcome
> > of this disscusion.
> >
>
> If we're going to direct the outcome of the discussion (which, of
> course, cannot be done), how about we drop all discussions about audible
> differences among components and cables unless there is scientific
> evidence that that such differences exist? OK?
>
> I mean if we're going to control the tenor of the discussion, why stop
> there? Let's keep it within the framework of scientific knowledge too.
>
> --
> Peace
> Gene
That would be wonderful if this were a scientific newsgroup. It's not.
Even it's name indicates it's not. It's an opinion newsgroup, and
anyone can have any opinion he likes without havving to prove it
to a vocal, but stubborn minority who insist that unless one can
prove one's opinion, there can be no opinions.
If I think Cd Player "A" sounds better than Cd Player "B", then
that's my opinion, and I -DON'T- have to justify my opinion to
anyone. You insist on scientific evidence? Well....tough-0.
--
Chuck Ross KC9FL South Holland, IL ckr...@ais.net
idk...@smart.net
He hates music, audio, and audiophiles.
His vocation in life is to irritatae us to no end, and that is literally,
TO NO END.
Gene enjoys harassing us, it is part of his basic personality deficiency.
He knows full well that what he says are lies, misinterpretations,
misattributions and misinformation.
He does this on purpose to force us to scurry around
to refute each of his ridiculous allegations, which brings him pleassure to no end.
When cornered he evades and avoids the issues addressed of him.
He is a slick and slippery liar, definitely not to be trusted
regarding his pseudo scintific claims and protestations that he
would stop his sick behavior if others would syop attacking him.
Try to walk away and he will take pot shots at your back.
He is a sick little spoiled 3 year old in an adult body.
Gene Steinberg
idk...@smart.net wrote:
>
> Another big lie, I admitted no such thing. You made that up, nowhere did I
> say or even infer that.
>
Don't you ever read your own messages?
> You fail to understand that each test is discrete.
> Each test is intended to measure sonic differences
> between two (or more) scompoonents. One test is
> between A and B, the other is between C and D.
The test isn't measuring, unless you describe the situation of
listeners using their ears as measuring something. It's set up to
allow the listeners to see if they can hear differences in the
components under test under conditions where listener bias is
controlled. The results are cumulative. The more tests you run, the
more data you have on what causes an audible difference and what
doesn't. You have to view the total extent of the data to understand
the significance.
> Besides, ypour reorting of test results is not to be believed
> anyway. You have been caugh in too many previous lies and
> miststatements.
>
I assume "caugh" means "caught," and I've never been caught in a
lie, not by you nor anyone else here. That's because I try to
accurately describe this stuff to the best of my ability. I may make
a mistake, but I do not lie. You may not like the news I bring, but
I cannot help that. Go ahead and read the sources I cite and show me
where I have not quoted them correctly. Just one will do for
starters.
> > So far neither you nor anyone else has ever demonstrated I have
> > misrepresented or misquoted any of the published A/B/X tests
>
> Oh yes we have!!! You just continue to deny it.
>
One example, for starters, just one. You want to make a claim, back
it up. But when push comes to shove, it's much more likely you have
never read any of those published A/B/X studies. If you did, one
hopes you'd at least understand the contents, and your messages
don't show that.
--
Gene
Gene Steinberg
Gene Steinberg
Mark Davenport wrote:
>
> Nope this is an OPINION newsgroup and opinions do not have to be based
> on scientific fact here. Go to the audio tech group if you insist
> everything should be based on scientific fact. Science can't yet
> explain why I would like something and someone one might hate it.
> Thats what this newsgroup is for to discuss differences in audio
> perceived by the individual i.e. OPINIONS.
> >
Your own statement above completely contradicts your original
message.
You are right, this is an opinion newsgroup. Any any opinion about
audio should be welcomed, whether you agree with it or not. And
since A/B/X testing is a valid part of the audio industry, you have
no more right to suggest that comments about it not be made than I
have to tell you that you don't have the right to like something.
Now do you understand the significance of what you're saying?
--
Peace
Gene
Mike Wilson
Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>If we're going to direct the outcome of the discussion (which, of
>course, cannot be done), how about we drop all discussions about audible
>differences among components and cables unless there is scientific
>evidence that that such differences exist? OK?
>
>I mean if we're going to control the tenor of the discussion, why stop
>there? Let's keep it within the framework of scientific knowledge too.
>
Gene, pick up a dictionary. This is rec.audio.opinion
opinion n. 1. A belief held often without positive knowledge or proof. [< Lat. opinio.]
I agree that a/b/x testing makes sense. Apparently Zipser disagrees. Let us all just pick up
the pieces of our life and move on.
Mike Wilson,
L. Tittaferrante
anonsensical, repetitive and boring as well as obnoxious and I am tired
of seeing you asshole comments on my screen. So F--- Off!
Stong words to follow.
LAT
Mark Davenport
In <31DE4B...@worldnet.att.net> Gene Steinberg
<Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>Mark Davenport wrote:
>>
>> Nope this is an OPINION newsgroup and opinions do not have to be
based
>> on scientific fact here. Go to the audio tech group if you insist
>> everything should be based on scientific fact. Science can't yet
>> explain why I would like something and someone one might hate it.
>> Thats what this newsgroup is for to discuss differences in audio
>> perceived by the individual i.e. OPINIONS.
>> >
>
>Your own statement above completely contradicts your original
>message.
>
>You are right, this is an opinion newsgroup. Any any opinion about
>audio should be welcomed, whether you agree with it or not. And
>since A/B/X testing is a valid part of the audio industry, you have
>no more right to suggest that comments about it not be made than I
>have to tell you that you don't have the right to like something.
>
>Now do you understand the significance of what you're saying?
>
>--
>Peace
>Gene
expresses their personal opinion on audio. ABX opinions are fine just
like all opinions but when expressing a personal opinion on audio it
does not have to be backed up by any science like you claim seeing this
is an opinion newsgroup.
Gene Steinberg
Mark Davenport wrote:
>
> What you do not understand is that an abx test is not needed when one
> expresses their personal opinion on audio. ABX opinions are fine just
> like all opinions but when expressing a personal opinion on audio it
> does not have to be backed up by any science like you claim seeing this
> is an opinion newsgroup.
It comes down to the nature of the claim. If you say you "felt" that
amplifier B imaged better than amplifier A, no problem. If you state
it as a fact, then one has a right to say, hey wait a minute, you
are making an extraordinary claim here, and we'd like to see some
proof of that. Do you see the distinction?
And, remember, you are the one who first started this thread saying
we should all dispense with this "ABX crap." Sorry, Mark, you can't
have it both ways. If you feel you have the right to express an
opinion about what you think you hear, others have a right to
express theirs about ABX or anything else germain to audio.
If you want to start a newsgroup called
"rec.audio.opinion.except.abx" or some such, that is your privilege
(if you wish to undertake the process). Better yet, start your own
mailing list. As "Editor" you'd have the right to control the
direction of the messages and accept or reject them as you wish.
Then you wouldn't have to worry if someone takes something you write
and rips it apart with logic and reason.
--
Peace
Gene
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc)
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> If you want to start a newsgroup called
> "rec.audio.opinion.except.abx" or some such, that is your privilege
> (if you wish to undertake the process). Better yet, start your own
> mailing list. As "Editor" you'd have the right to control the
> direction of the messages and accept or reject them as you wish.
> Then you wouldn't have to worry if someone takes something you write
> and rips it apart with logic and reason.
> Gene
What we need is rec.audio.except.gene :)
idk...@smart.net
> The test isn't measuring, unless you describe the situation of
> listeners using their ears as measuring something. It's set up to
> allow the listeners to see if they can hear differences in the
> components under test under conditions where listener bias is
> controlled. The results are cumulative. The more tests you run, the
> more data you have on what causes an audible difference and what
> doesn't. You have to view the total extent of the data to understand
> the significance.
Purposeful obfuscation by Gene, he knows what I mean.
The test is supposed to be measuring how many test subjects hear a difference.
He still ignores the fact that one test might be between an
Adcom and a Pioneer, and the other between a
Rotel and a Sony. You can'yt take "supposed" results that neither
group could tell the difference between th particular two amps under each test and then say
that all amps sound the same. Gene keeps saying find a problem with my methodology.
Well here it is. ONE of the problems is falsly ascribing test results by making claims
taht are totally unwarranted by those results, that is Gene takes a very limited set of results
and makes universal pronouncements that go far beyond that warranted by the results.
It is deliberate. It is dishonest and it is LYING.
Gene Steinberg
idk...@smart.net wrote:
>
>
> Purposeful obfuscation by Gene, he knows what I mean.
> The test is supposed to be measuring how many test subjects hear a difference.
> He still ignores the fact that one test might be between an
> Adcom and a Pioneer, and the other between a
> Rotel and a Sony. You can'yt take "supposed" results that neither
> group could tell the difference between th particular two amps under each test and then say
> that all amps sound the same.
Let me ask you, have you ever read a single, published A/B/X test? Even
one? You don't seem to understand a thing about what has been tested,
how it has been tested and what the results mean.
Gene keeps saying find a problem with my methodology.
> Well here it is. ONE of the problems is falsly ascribing test results by making claims
> taht are totally unwarranted by those results, that is Gene takes a very limited set of results
> and makes universal pronouncements that go far beyond that warranted by the results.
> It is deliberate. It is dishonest and it is LYING.
I'm not talking about your methodology, because you haven't shown us
any. I'm talking of your knowledge of the published reports and what
they mean. It's clear from what you say that you haven't read a single
test, not one, or if you did, you never tried to spend more than a few
seconds trying to understand what it was you were reading.
What I have said is that published A/B/X tests have failed to verify
most claims of audible differences among audio electronics and cables
and that where differences were heard in the tests, they were shown to
be due to easily measured factors.
That is the "universal pronouncement" you argue with. Now show me where
it is wrong--show me a single, valid publsihed test (correct
methodology) that differs from the above. One will do for starters.
So far you've made baseless claims and haven't backed up anything.
--
Gene
Chuck Ross
> > > So far neither you nor anyone else has ever demonstrated I have
> > > misrepresented or misquoted any of the published A/B/X tests
> >
> > Oh yes we have!!! You just continue to deny it.
> >
>
> One example, for starters, just one. You want to make a claim, back
> it up. But when push comes to shove, it's much more likely you have
> never read any of those published A/B/X studies. If you did, one
> hopes you'd at least understand the contents, and your messages
> don't show that.
>
>
> --
> Gene
I have to refer to the Noussaine "study"? in "Sound and Vision".
Good grief! GREAT study! The magazine's editor begins with a derisive
commentary about people's belief in their choice of equipment, and
compares this to belief in God, then it ends even more derisively.
There is -no way- this can be seen as a definitive study. It's biased
before one even gets to read the "study" of a test group of three!
I'm of the feeling that this "study" is most unconvincing. We have
-no- idea of the test subject's listening experience except their
own choice of equipment. One of the subjects even "gave up" before
the actual tests were done while trying to hear "a" and "b"'s
differences while SIGHTED using the abx box. I have to infer from
this that it never occured to this particular subject that the
abx box had problems of it's own.
Chuck Ross
I don't know that "a/b/x testing makes sense" is quite true. What is the
actual purpose of a/b/x testing? Of course, the answer from the a/b/x ilk
will say "to demonstrate that "high-priced" "esoteric" products sound
exactly the same in controlled listening tests as the stuff found at
Circuit City".
To whom? To audiophile newbies?
I would venture to guess that, should an experienced audiophile subject
himself to an a/b/x test for, say, cables and fail the test miserably,
he would not discard all of his high-end cables anyways. So, what's the
use of a/b/x testing?
I think it's a matter of the a/b/x guys with their newly-discovered
toy that can actually PROVE that everything sounds the same within
the confines of the a/b/x mantra gloating that they have found the
way to show high-end equipment devotees that they're all wet.
Well...so what. Would this discourage anyone who hears differences
between components from still buying equipment that satisfies him?
I don't think so.
It's almost like demonstrating to a BMW owner that a Honda can go
exactly the same places in pretty much the same time with considerably
less cost.
Great.
Mark Davenport
In <31DE6B...@worldnet.att.net> Gene Steinberg
<Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>Mark Davenport wrote:
>>
>
>> What you do not understand is that an abx test is not needed when
one
>> expresses their personal opinion on audio. ABX opinions are fine
just
>> like all opinions but when expressing a personal opinion on audio it
>> does not have to be backed up by any science like you claim seeing
this
>> is an opinion newsgroup.
>
>It comes down to the nature of the claim. If you say you "felt" that
>amplifier B imaged better than amplifier A, no problem. If you state
>it as a fact, then one has a right to say, hey wait a minute, you
>are making an extraordinary claim here, and we'd like to see some
>proof of that. Do you see the distinction?
>
>And, remember, you are the one who first started this thread saying
>we should all dispense with this "ABX crap." Sorry, Mark, you can't
>have it both ways. If you feel you have the right to express an
>opinion about what you think you hear, others have a right to
>express theirs about ABX or anything else germain to audio.
>
>"rec.audio.opinion.except.abx" or some such, that is your privilege
>(if you wish to undertake the process). Better yet, start your own
>mailing list. As "Editor" you'd have the right to control the
>direction of the messages and accept or reject them as you wish.
>Then you wouldn't have to worry if someone takes something you write
>and rips it apart with logic and reason.
>
>Peace
>Gene
Gene when anyone here says that in their opinion something sounds
different all you do is pull out the old well did you do it in an abx
tests crap. That is not needed and not welcome. You just can't seem to
let opinions be that OPINIONS.
If you left peoples opinions alone we would not have been through this
mess, that is the problem. I have not seen anyone on this group claim
their opinions were fact but I have seen you jamm your litle abx shpeal
done everyones throught which is uncalled for, an opinion newsgroup.
ABX is fine to debate in and of itself but when you start harrassing
people about their own personal opinions about audio that is when it
needs to stop. Of course you will just refute this with your normal
script but I really don't care anymore.
We would just like a place to express our opinions on audio and
differences we hear if you cannot except that people will hear
differences I suggest you leave this group.
I hear differences in almost all different equipment this is my opinion
and if you don't like it I dont care. But I will express my opinions
and their is zilch you can do to stop that.
J. Sanders
See my recent post under the thread entitled "Re: A stupid question
maybe, but what is A/B/X?" According to proper use of statistics and
statistical interpretation, ABX has served up a lot of NOTHING over the
years, and proponents of ABX of the particular persuasion of the Aczels,
Nousaines, and Gene Steinbergs of this world continue to VIOLATE those
laws of statistics with their ludicrous claims that they prove ANYTHING
BUT NOTHING! Those claims have absolutely NO basis in fact, but rather
misrepresent the meaning of null test results, and therefore are nothing
but opinions which have been irrefutably proven to be FALSE. If such
defenders of ABX think that their tests can prove that the differences
audiophiles hear between components do not exist, then they are simply
wrong, because the laws of statistics, which they rely on in their test
methodology, prohibits such negative proof. In other words, and ABX test
cannot prove a negative. It can only offer probabilities of a positive,
to a statistically significant confidence level, in the rare cases in
which positive results are achieved, and then have meaning only within
the context of those specific test results, which cannot be generalized
to other components, other listeners, other test conditions, etc.
Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that this newsgroup is stuck
with Gene Steinberg's ABX debate because he will not ever admit to being
wrong about his false statements about null results, and will never give
up his cause, and no matter how much anyone in this newsgroup tries to
ignore him, he won't let you, he'll keep pounding sand at you with the
same falsehoods, and if you just try to discuss between yourselves your
opinions about the sound qualities of various audio components, he will
continue to interrupt you one and all with this ABX mantra. That has not
only been his crusade in this newsgroup, it has been his crusade on AOL
for years.
He has been proven wrong yet has remained in denial about it so
any of you out there who want to blame anyone else for the continued ABX
debate on this newsgroup should pay attention to exactly who it is that
keeps interrupting everyone with his ABX religion. Those of us who have
responded to his drivel have been repeatedly attacked by him, which he
continues to falsely characterize as "correcting" us. He hasn't
corrected anyone, he just continues to bitch about it all. Sure, we're
all tired of it, and would like to see it go away. But it won't go away
until Gene goes away, because he's the one who started it and he's the
one who won't let it die.
End of discussion.
Jim S.
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Let me ask you, have you ever read a single, published A/B/X test? Even
> one? You don't seem to understand a thing about what has been tested,
> how it has been tested and what the results mean.
you are the one misusing the results, claiming that all properly designed amps sound the same.
There are no such test results showing that. The tests are of very limited scope. Your gross
expansion of such scope is a bald cfaced lie. You are lying and you know it. You only are herre to
cause trouble, based upon your resentment of audio hobbuyists.
> I'm not talking about your methodology, because you haven't shown us
> any. I'm talking of your knowledge of the published reports and what
> they mean. It's clear from what you say that you haven't read a single
> test, not one, or if you did, you never tried to spend more than a few
> seconds trying to understand what it was you were reading.
That should have read YOUR methodology. You have been constsntly shown where you are wrong
and you ignore it.
> What I have said is that published A/B/X tests have failed to verify
> most claims of audible differences among audio electronics and cables
> and that where differences were heard in the tests, they were shown to
> be due to easily measured factors.
That is not at all what you said earlier, and it is npot what you will say tomorrow. You have
constantly claime that there are no audible differences between the music produced by any of two
competently designed amps.
>
> That is the "universal pronouncement" you argue with. Now show me where
> it is wrong--show me a single, valid publsihed test (correct
> methodology) that differs from the above. One will do for starters.
You have not published any test results here for us to verify,
You have only talked "about" such tests, and misrepresented them at best. Put up or shut up.
>
> So far you've made baseless claims and haven't backed up anything.
You have not backed up anything. Ypou make the abx claims.
There is nothing to PROVE anyway, wha tyou hear is important.
You have not come anywhere close to proving that what I hear does not exist, and you never will.
>
> --
> Gene
>
>>>>
idk...@smart.net
This is because of basic defects in his personality structure that are not likely to change.
He is a 3 year old mind in an adult body.
We are stuck with him till he finds another group of people to pester.
How about going after wine, car or camera afficiandos for a change, Gene?
, and if you just try to discuss between yourselves your
> opinions about the sound qualities of various audio components, he will
> continue to interrupt you one and all with this ABX mantra. That has not
> only been his crusade in this newsgroup, it has been his crusade on AOL
> for years.
>
> He has been proven wrong yet has remained in denial about it
Gene lives in a perpetual state of denial
so
> any of you out there who want to blame anyone else for the continued ABX
> debate on this newsgroup should pay attention to exactly who it is that
> keeps interrupting everyone with his ABX religion. Those of us who have
> responded to his drivel have been repeatedly attacked by him, which he
> continues to falsely characterize as "correcting" us. He hasn't
> corrected anyone, he just continues to bitch about it all. Sure, we're
> all tired of it, and would like to see it go away. But it won't go away
> until Gene goes away, because he's the one who started it and he's the
> one who won't let it die.
>
> End of discussion.
Unfortunately not, Gene will continue, and we will have to continue to refute him, hopefully as
eloquently as you have just done. This is his game, his ego trip, forcing us to have to refute him. He
is a VVVEEERRRYY sick puupy.
van...@netzone.com
Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Gene,
You are going to get an ulcer bothering to reply to all such drival.
Let the self deluded dwell in their own little worlds. At least they
are not going around plotting to blow up public buildings ( I hope).
The "High End" set doesnt like the Audio Critic, cause the Audio
Critic publishes the kind of technically informative articles they
wish they could if they werent controlled (translated thier
livelihoods from) the "voodo" high end advertisers, who sell largely
to to overpaided lawyers and doctors with inferiority complexes, and
big imaginations.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc)
Vander:
What is your address?
I want to send you some Q-Tips to clean out your ears. Then try
listening to music instead of your keyboard!
Zip
Gene Steinberg
idk...@smart.net wrote:
>
> > Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> you are the one misusing the results, claiming that all properly designed amps sound the same.
> There are no such test results showing that. The tests are of very limited scope. Your gross
> expansion of such scope is a bald cfaced lie. You are lying and you know it. You only are herre to
> cause trouble, based upon your resentment of audio hobbuyists.
The scope of the tests is matching levels and hiding product labels.
If your alleged sonic differences cannot withstand those simple
controls, then you are without an iota of evidence that those
differences exist.
> That should have read YOUR methodology. You have been constsntly shown where you are wrong
> and you ignore it.
Definitely not by you. You still ignore my request to provide a
single example.
>
> That is not at all what you said earlier, and it is not what you will say tomorrow. You have
> constantly claime that there are no audible differences between the music produced by any of two
> competently designed amps.
>
Nope, your reading skills fail you here. What I have said is that if
two amplifiers have a relatively flat frequency response, high
damping factor, low distortion, and are not overdriven, they will
sound the same. So far, you've failed to show a single example, with
proper bias controls, that indicates this isn't so. Before you
argue, give me examples. One will do.
> You have not come anywhere close to proving that what I hear does not exist, and you never will.
>
Since you make the extraordinary claim, it's up to you to prove what
whether it's real or not. Care to take the test? Or would you rather
duck the issue as others have done.
--
Peace
Gene
Gene Steinberg
Mark Davenport wrote:
>
> We would just like a place to express our opinions on audio and
> differences we hear if you cannot except that people will hear
> differences I suggest you leave this group.
>
Sorry, Mark, I have every right to express my opinion, and to point
out where scientific evidence contradicts an extraordinary claim
(such as the ones you make). If you don't like the message, don't
read it. If you do not understand how to scroll from one message to
another in a newsgroup, I can suggest some books to help you use
your computer more efficiently. If you don't like that either, I am
not forcing you to participate in this newsgroup; that's up to you.
--
Peace
Gene
Gene Steinberg
Chuck Ross wrote:
>
> I don't know that "a/b/x testing makes sense" is quite true. What is the
> actual purpose of a/b/x testing? Of course, the answer from the a/b/x ilk
> will say "to demonstrate that "high-priced" "esoteric" products sound
> exactly the same in controlled listening tests as the stuff found at
> Circuit City".
>
No--one purpose of A/B/X testing is to see whether the components
under test can be identified when simple bias controls are applied.
> I think it's a matter of the a/b/x guys with their newly-discovered
> toy that can actually PROVE that everything sounds the same within
> the confines of the a/b/x mantra gloating that they have found the
> way to show high-end equipment devotees that they're all wet.
>
Since the A/B/X product is over a decade old, it hardly qualifies as
a "newly-disocvered toy," and since you have actually gotten the
sense of the results wrong, I can only suggest you do a little more
reading on the subject. Yes, in many cases, no audible difference is
heard, but in other instances, it is, and when you understand the
reason for a difference, and when it occurs, the buyer can make more
informed decisions, and not be fooled by dealers who make money off
the high-end religion.
--
Peace
Gene
Armand
In article <4rloa5$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Mike Wilson <michae...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>From: Mike Wilson <michae...@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: Re: To Everyone
>I agree that a/b/x testing makes sense. Apparently Zipser disagrees. Let us
>all just pick up
>the pieces of our life and move on.
>Mike Wilson,
Theoretically ABX testing makes sense but unfortunately our world contains
something called variables and therein lies the problem. No one can seem to
agree that all variables have truly been compensated for in any reported ABX
test I've ever read. Remember when some guy named Dan tried to prove that all
cables sound alike at an AES meeting? Thiele speakers smashed up against the
wall in a large room about 10' off the floor! And you wonder why audiophiles
are skeptical?
Armand
Stewart Pinkerton
gig...@ix.netcom.com(Mark Davenport) writes:
>I hear differences in almost all different equipment this is my opinion
>and if you don't like it I dont care. But I will express my opinions
>and their is zilch you can do to stop that.
We all hear differences, but some of us try to determine whether they
are real differences and then, if they are real, what is causing them.
This is how progress is made, not by stumbling around trying to discover
some magical combination that will unlock the door to audio nirvana.
Stewart Pinkerton
Stewart Pinkerton
idk...@smart.net writes:
>This is because of basic defects in his personality structure that are not likely to change.
>He is a 3 year old mind in an adult body.
Unlike the mature and reasoned opinions expressed by Mark Davenport, J.
Sanders, idkwid et al?
Chuck Ross
The Accoustic Research test of substituting electronics for live
musicians are -well- over a decade old; more like 3 decades old, but
I doubt that anyone listening really closely could be fooled by them
today.
Eventually, the abx product will be torn apart for the scam that it
really is.
(waiting for the e-mail...)
Mark Davenport
In <31DF9A...@worldnet.att.net> Gene Steinberg
You make a post to each and every thread don't you have a life.
And if you consider saying audio equipment sounds different an
extraordinary claim you have serious problems.
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Mark Davenport wrote:
> >
>
>
> > We would just like a place to express our opinions on audio and
> > differences we hear if you cannot except that people will hear
> > differences I suggest you leave this group.
> >
>
> Sorry, Mark, I have every right to express my opinion, and to point
> out where scientific evidence contradicts an extraordinary claim
> (such as the ones you make). If you don't like the message, don't
> read it. If you do not understand how to scroll from one message to
> another in a newsgroup, I can suggest some books to help you use
> your computer more efficiently. If you don't like that either, I am
> not forcing you to participate in this newsgroup; that's up to you.
Same to you, if you do not care for our responses to your misreperentations
of scientific evidence.
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> idk...@smart.net wrote:
> >
> > > Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> > you are the one misusing the results, claiming that all properly designed amps sound the same.
> > There are no such test results showing that. The tests are of very limited scope. Your gross
> > expansion of such scope is a bald cfaced lie. You are lying and you know it. You only are herre
to
> > cause trouble, based upon your resentment of audio hobbuyists.
>
> The scope of the tests is matching levels and hiding product labels.
The scope of the tests is that people other than myself do the listeneing, and in an environment
other than my own, and using equipmwnt other than that whuch I use.
> > That should have read YOUR methodology. You have been constsntly shown where you are
wrong
> > and you ignore it.
>
> Definitely not by you. You still ignore my request to provide a
> single example.
Lie, I point to what I have said before, and Sanders.
I can't help it if you are to stupid to understand it (I seriously doubt that) or are living in a delusional
state of denial (likely).
>
> >
> > That is not at all what you said earlier, and it is not what you will say tomorrow. You have
> > constantly claime that there are no audible differences between the music produced by any of
two
> > competently designed amps.
> >
>
> Nope, your reading skills fail you here. What I have said is that if
> two amplifiers have a relatively flat frequency response, high
> damping factor, low distortion, and are not overdriven, they will
> sound the same. So far, you've failed to show a single example, with
> proper bias controls, that indicates this isn't so.
What something sounds like, qualitatively is a matter of opinion and not a subject for proof.
One cannot prove what it sounds like, or if it sounds different or the same.
It is no more than a matter of individual opinion.
Reasons given many times before and ignored many times before.
I won't repeat them, everybody but you knows tham and accepts them.
> > You have not come anywhere close to proving that what I hear does not exist, and you never
will.
> >
>
> Since you make the extraordinary claim, it's up to you to prove what
> whether it's real or not.
That is not an extraodnary claim. Think about it. You have not proven that what "I" hear does not
exist. You tell me what I do not hear and then state I have to prove what I do hear!!!
Care to take the test?
I told you I would take the test.
I would test cd players in my home, using my equipment.
You bring some over, or arrange others to do so, include a Theta DAC, please.
Or would you rather
> duck the issue as others have done.
Let's do it.
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> No--one purpose of A/B/X testing is to see whether the components
> under test can be identified when simple bias controls are applied.
As determined by others
>
> Yes, in many cases, no audible difference is
> heard, but in other instances, it is, and when you understand the
> reason for a difference, and when it occurs, the buyer can make more
> informed decisions, and not be fooled by dealers who make money off
> the high-end religion.
If you wish to base your buying decisions on what others, not you, may or may not hear.
Remeber, abx testing is so limited in scope; it is doubtful that any abx test was done by others in
regard to the particular two or three specific pieces the buyer is considering.
What you have is an abx test doen by others, on pieces other than what you are considering, such
abx test mya have been doen with as little as 3 subjects.
And Gene describes such results as scientific evedence.
Gene you are giving the "REAL" objectivists a bad name.
Culbert B. Laney
In article <31DE6B...@worldnet.att.net>, Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
|> Then you wouldn't have to worry if someone takes something you write
|> and rips it apart with logic and reason.
Fortunately, no one has to worry about that happening in this or
related threads :-)
Bert
J. Sanders
On Saturday, June 29, 1996 I renewed four challenges to Gene, and gave
him a more than generous amount of time to respond: one week. Well, that
week expired at midnight last night, and Gene has been lurking around
this newsgroup spouting his usual garbage, issuing a few lame phony
denials, and generally pissing people off, but has he ever responded to
the four challenges? Nooooooooo...
I stated at the time of that post that if Gene continues to run
and hide and fails to respond to the four challenges that this would have
to be taken as conclusive evidence that he is a "compulsive liar" who
cannot be believed about anything. These words may appear at first blush
to be a bit harsh, but anyone who has taken the time to follow his
threads in this newsgroup over the past week/weeks/months has probably
already come to that conclusion on their own, as reflected in numerous
posts from numerous people. As for the rest of you, you can call it as
you see it.
To remind everyone, the four challenges essentially asked Gene to
back up his contentions that (1) the authorities cited by Jammer995
regarding the null hypothesis, which gives the lie to Gene's ABX rant,
are invalid; (2) provide SOME evidence to back up his statements
regarding Nousaine "refuting" "everything" Jammer995 said in that debate;
(3) quote the AOL policy he claims I violated, along with his analysis of
how my quoting the Jammer995 posts violated that policy; (3) quote the
"Internet copyright law" (his words) he claims I violated with those
posts along with his analysis of such purported violation.
Well, when someone makes a bunch of flippant statements like Gene
did and is then challenged to back them up and he then runs and hides
like Gene has, what is one to conclude? One may only conclude it's just
more of the same dishonest BS we've all seen from Gene in this
newsgroup. This, from a clown who claims that everything he says is
"scientific". (He's just proved by his cowardice that nothing he says
has anything to do with science).
The challenges were accompanied by a note that this is his
wake-up call - time to "put up or shut up". Well, he couldn't/wouldn't
"put up", so...
Sorry, time's up. So get lost.
Jim S.
Curtis Leeds
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> It comes down to the nature of the claim. If you say you "felt" that
> amplifier B imaged better than amplifier A, no problem. If you state
> it as a fact, then one has a right to say, hey wait a minute, you
> are making an extraordinary claim here, and we'd like to see some
> proof of that. Do you see the distinction?
No, I don't see the distinction. What the heck is so extraordinary about
the observation that two different amplifiers image differently? Is it
the apparent fact that a lot of objectivists haven't yet figured out how
to measure such a difference? If so, there is nothing about that failure
that I consider extraordinary. Science has difficulty accurately
measuring all sorts of things.
Anthony Genovese
In article <31DC02...@worldnet.att.net>, Ge...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> If you wish to take an A/B/X test to show you can hear audible
> differences among like measuring components, I'm sure there are
> people in this newsgroup who would be happy to put your alleged
> claims to the test. Care to try?
>
> --
> Peace
> Gene
I care to try. I live in the Boston area. Who can I contact to
participate in ABX tests and how often are they run? I read the Boston
Globe daily and have never seen ads for ABX test candidates (although I
often see ads for sleep deprival, experimental drugs and treatments, etc.
As you probably know, Boston is a hot bed of medical research).
I know E. Brad Meyer ran some tests at Goodwin's High End in Waltham about
a year ago, but according to Brad the results were inconclusive and the
test setting poor.
I don't make any alleged claims, but I would very much like to participate
in tests proving the inaudibility (or audibility) of wires, etc. Who do I
contact?
Tony
J. Sanders
Curtis Leeds responded to Gene:
"No, I don't see the distinction. What the heck is so
extraordinary about the observation that two different amplifiers image
differently? Is it the apparent fact that a lot of objectivists haven't
yet figured out how to measure such a difference? If so, there is
nothing about that failure that I consider extraordinary. Science has
difficulty accurately measuring all sorts of things."
Right on! And welcome.
Stewart Pinkerton
mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:
>>Mike Wilson,
Why does the use of an arguably less than perfect positioning for the
speakers introduce a variable? No wonder engineers are skeptical.
Stewart Pinkerton
gig...@ix.netcom.com(Mark Davenport) writes:
>>Sorry, Mark, I have every right to express my opinion, and to point
>>out where scientific evidence contradicts an extraordinary claim
>>(such as the ones you make). If you don't like the message, don't
>>read it. If you do not understand how to scroll from one message to
>>another in a newsgroup, I can suggest some books to help you use
>>your computer more efficiently. If you don't like that either, I am
>>not forcing you to participate in this newsgroup; that's up to you.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Peace
>>Gene
>Its kind of hard to ignore you when YOU RESPOND TO EVERY GOD DAMN POST.
>You make a post to each and every thread don't you have a life.
>And if you consider saying audio equipment sounds different an
>extraordinary claim you have serious problems.
I'd have thought it was kind of easy, there's this little bit in
parentheses at the end of the header - if it says (Gene Steinberg) you
don't read the post. There, that wasn't too hard was it?
Stewart Pinkerton
Curtis Leeds <cle...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>Gene Steinberg wrote:
>> It comes down to the nature of the claim. If you say you "felt" that
>> amplifier B imaged better than amplifier A, no problem. If you state
>> it as a fact, then one has a right to say, hey wait a minute, you
>> are making an extraordinary claim here, and we'd like to see some
>> proof of that. Do you see the distinction?
>No, I don't see the distinction. What the heck is so extraordinary about
>the observation that two different amplifiers image differently? Is it
>the apparent fact that a lot of objectivists haven't yet figured out how
>to measure such a difference? If so, there is nothing about that failure
>that I consider extraordinary. Science has difficulty accurately
>measuring all sorts of things.
Well you should see the distinction. If you claim that the two
amplifiers really do sound diferent and if you care about having someone
else agree with your opinion (which of course you don't have to), then
the burden of proof does lie with you to describe the difference and to
make some effort to verify its existence outside your own head.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
are skeptical?
>
> Why does the use of an arguably less than perfect positioning for the
> speakers introduce a variable? No wonder engineers are skeptical.
The faulty use of a product prevents that product from performing its
best or properly functioning. Do you think you could properly tell the
differences between a Pioneer receiver & your Krell amp, Stewart, if
your Apogees were jammed against the back wall? Could you tell which
one images more correctly? In fact, it would be difficult, if not
impossible to even compare recodings under those conditions.
Of course not!
Cheers & happy listening!
Zip
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> if it says (Gene Steinberg) you
> don't read the post. There, that wasn't too hard was it?
The most sage advice ever out of the UK :)
Zip
Gene Steinberg
idk...@smart.net wrote:
>
> The scope of the tests is that people other than myself do the listeneing, and in an environment
> other than my own, and using equipmwnt other than that whuch I use.
>
Then arrange to do a test yourself and see what happens if you do
not wish to trust the results of what others have done. Let me ask
you: When you try a new drug, do you insist that the drug company
run a trial in your home to prove it cures your headache?
>
> What something sounds like, qualitatively is a matter of opinion and not a subject for proof.
> One cannot prove what it sounds like, or if it sounds different or the same.
If you can hear it when you cannot identify the product under test
(and levels are matched) then you have proven you heard an audible
difference. Otherwise you haven't; you've only demonstrated you
think you hear something. It is, as has been stated many times here,
very, very possible to prove whether or not something sounds the
same or different with proper bias controls in place.
--
Peace
Gene
Gene Steinberg
Gene Steinberg
1: Jammer provides no evidence or citations to support his rather
unique point of view.
2: Any of the messages you ignored from Nousaine in that AOL message
board thread, in toto, refute Jammer's charges. Try reading them for
once. However, I would not recommend you quoting them here without
permission.
3: Read AOL's Terms of Service and check their Internet channel for
information of this sort. Jammer said he never gave you permission
to quote his stuff; why do you choose to ignore that? (Oh, I know,
you said you didn't know his screen name, yet you have already
mentioned it in your messages; lame excuse that.)
2nd 3: You're a lawyer, right? Look it up. Why do I need to do YOUR
research for you?
>
> Sorry, time's up. So get lost.
>
You going somewhere? Well, so long.
--
Gene
Stewart Pinkerton
ckr...@ais.net (Chuck Ross) writes:
>I don't know that "a/b/x testing makes sense" is quite true. What is the
>actual purpose of a/b/x testing? Of course, the answer from the a/b/x ilk
>will say "to demonstrate that "high-priced" "esoteric" products sound
>exactly the same in controlled listening tests as the stuff found at
>Circuit City".
Not necessarily, but if that turns out to be true, wouldn't you want to
at least consider whether you are apportioning your budget correctly?
Let's face it, unless you have more than $200,000 to spend on audio,
EVERYONE has a budget.
>To whom? To audiophile newbies?
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
>I would venture to guess that, should an experienced audiophile subject
>himself to an a/b/x test for, say, cables and fail the test miserably,
>he would not discard all of his high-end cables anyways. So, what's the
>use of a/b/x testing?
Stops you buying more expensive cables? Worked for me!
>I think it's a matter of the a/b/x guys with their newly-discovered
>toy that can actually PROVE that everything sounds the same within
>the confines of the a/b/x mantra gloating that they have found the
>way to show high-end equipment devotees that they're all wet.
No it doesn't. It only demonstrates that things that sound the same
sound the same.
>Well...so what. Would this discourage anyone who hears differences
>between components from still buying equipment that satisfies him?
Probably not, but at least you're buying it for the right reasons (nice
front panel, impressive name tag etc., not just because it actually
sounds better)
>It's almost like demonstrating to a BMW owner that a Honda can go
>exactly the same places in pretty much the same time with considerably
>less cost.
Oh, I dunno. Don't think there'd be much in it between an M3 and an NSX,
and the M3 is a LOT cheaper. And a new 528i is much better than an Acura
Legend etc. Beware analogies!
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
We sages know our onions, old bean!
Stewart Pinkerton
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>are skeptical?
>>
>> Why does the use of an arguably less than perfect positioning for the
>> speakers introduce a variable? No wonder engineers are skeptical.
>The faulty use of a product prevents that product from performing its
>best or properly functioning. Do you think you could properly tell the
>differences between a Pioneer receiver & your Krell amp, Stewart, if
>your Apogees were jammed against the back wall?
My Duettas are dipoles - Thiels ain't. For a large audience, a high-set
position hard against the wall may have given the best result over such
a wide audience seating variation. I think the point was whether a
difference could be discerned when cables were changed and I hope I
could tell the difference (if there was one!) if my speakers were
against the back wall, but OK it's true I've not tried it.
>Could you tell which
>one images more correctly? In fact, it would be difficult, if not
>impossible to even compare recodings under those conditions.
Not true - I've had them crunched against the wall for parties and a
crap recording is still a crap recording! Even after mucho vino!
Peace
Stewart
Armand
>> If you wish to take an A/B/X test to show you can hear audible
>> differences among like measuring components, I'm sure there are
>> people in this newsgroup who would be happy to put your alleged
>> claims to the test. Care to try?
>> Gene
>I care to try. I live in the Boston area.
Tony
Me too! I live in the Philly area. Anytime, anywhere! As Al Bundy would say
let's rock!
Armand (mo...@voicenet.com)
idk...@smart.net
> to...@zipnet.net (Anthony Genovese) writes:
> In article <31DC02...@worldnet.att.net>, Ge...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > If you wish to take an A/B/X test to show you can hear audible
> > differences among like measuring components, I'm sure there are
> > people in this newsgroup who would be happy to put your alleged
> > claims to the test. Care to try?
> >
> > Peace
> > Gene
>
> participate in ABX tests and how often are they run? I read the Boston
> Globe daily and have never seen ads for ABX test candidates (although I
> often see ads for sleep deprival, experimental drugs and treatments, etc.
> As you probably know, Boston is a hot bed of medical research).
>
> I know E. Brad Meyer ran some tests at Goodwin's High End in Waltham about
> a year ago, but according to Brad the results were inconclusive and the
> test setting poor.
>
> I don't make any alleged claims, but I would very much like to participate
> in tests proving the inaudibility (or audibility) of wires, etc. Who do I
> contact?
> Tony
>
>>>>
you take the test in your own home, listening through the system which you enjoy and are familiar
with.
If you wish to be part of a pool of test subjets, you will have to abide by an environment foreign
to your experience andabide by test parameters arbitrarily set by others. This may not be the most
relaxed environment, and you may not be in control of the pace of the test and the musical
selections presented. You may not be the only person listening at one time, and you may be
prevented from situating yourself in the optimal listenening spot for that room. These are also
some reasons the results may be tainted. To test a large number of subjects, from which to extrract
statistical data, you need to control the environment so that each subject's test is identical. This
may very well mask your ability to discern differences. On the other hand, if each subject is allowed
to define his/her particular test environment, results can not be cumulative, as each persons test is
of apples and oranges to the circumstances of another individual's test conditions. Thus, the data
is tainted, either by dissimilar conditions for each subject, or uniform conditions that mask the
ability to discern differences.
Armand
>> Since the A/B/X product is over a decade old, it hardly qualifies as
>> a "newly-disocvered toy," and since you have actually gotten the
>> sense of the results wrong, I can only suggest you do a little more
>> reason for a difference, and when it occurs, the buyer can make more
>> informed decisions, and not be fooled by dealers who make money off
>> the high-end religion.
>> Gene
Anyone gullible enough to buy a product based on the advice
of any dealer is a fool. If he doesn't take it home and compare it to
competing products and personally audition such, deserves to get ripped
off. And I think the dealers on this line would agree with me. Caveat Emptor
applies everywhere. In one way or another, I disagree with all dealers and
subjective reviewers on certain products or subjects somewhere down the line.
I maintain my position based on what I hear. BUT, if it weren't for them, I
wouldn't enjoy music the way I (or my family!-yes they hear differences
too!)do at the present moment due to their reccomendations. (In what other
endevor in your consumer life would a salesman allow you to take home a
product to try with a non-conditional return policy?) Remember, we have all
experienced the kind of system,like you probably own, at one time and have
discarded it as not as good as it could be. By a mile!
Armand
Armand
Bingo! Read the first paragraph again. This is why ABX'ing doesn't work. Take
it (the component) home and listen to it!
Armand
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> idk...@smart.net wrote:
> >
> > The scope of the tests is that people other than myself do the listeneing, and in an environment
> > other than my own, and using equipmwnt other than that whuch I use.
> >
>
> Then arrange to do a test yourself and see what happens if you do
> not wish to trust the results of what others have done. Let me ask
> you: When you try a new drug, do you insist that the drug company
> run a trial in your home to prove it cures your headache?
So you actually and seriously think that others should do your listening tests for you.
Testing drugs has nothing to do with music.... AND, sometimes, a particular drug may be more
effective on one person than another, and/ or one person may have better results with one
particular drug vs, another.
I suffer from allergies. Certain antihistamines are more effective then others, TO ME, and some
cause more severe side effects than others, TO ME. Through use of many products, I have
found the ones that are most effective with the least side effects, FOR ME. Other allergy sufferers
might find that the best products for them may be different than what I find most effective for me.
>
>
> >
> > What something sounds like, qualitatively is a matter of opinion and not a subject for proof.
> > One cannot prove what it sounds like, or if it sounds different or the same.
>
>
> If you can hear it when you cannot identify the product under test
> (and levels are matched) then you have proven you heard an audible
> difference.
Then I have proven I heard it under the conditions of the test. Anyway, I have no need to prove so.
At any rate, YOU cannot prove I didnot hear such a difference, based upon what others have heard
in a tst in which I did not participate. You cannot prove so. That is trying to use abx to prove the null
hypothesis. This is exactly what you try to do, despite your denials. You are promulgating BAD
SCIENCE!!!!
. Otherwise you haven't; you've only demonstrated you
> think you hear something.
That is all I ever need do!!!!!!!
It is, as has been stated many times here,
> very, very possible to prove whether or not something sounds the
> same or different with proper bias controls in place.
Fine,
Sounds the same or different to whom? I, and others, may hear differencessome of the test
subjects did not.
Your problem is your misuse of data, assuming such data really exists, to state you have PROVEN a
large group of propucts sounds the same, when you have not tested all items in that group
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> 2nd 3: You're a lawyer, right? Look it up. Why do I need to do YOUR
> research for you?
Why do we need to do yours. Provide complete text and data of all abx tests
cited in support of your views. If copyrights are a problem, send a published copy by mail to one of
your detractors. Personally, I prefer you not know my address, since you harrass me with your
unwanted email, and I cannot guarantee you will not harass me in person or by phone. You appear
rude enough to do so.
Gene Steinberg
Armand wrote:
>
>
> Bingo! Read the first paragraph again. This is why ABX'ing doesn't work. Take
> it (the component) home and listen to it!
>
A/B/X tests are also done in people's homes using their own
equipment or in test settings using just one listener at a time,
taking as much time as necessary for optimal seating and for
familiarity with the reference system. Your assumptions are
incorrect.
--
Peace
Gene
Gene Steinberg
idk...@smart.net wrote:
>
> Why do we need to do yours. Provide complete text and data of all abx tests
> cited in support of your views. If copyrights are a problem, send a published copy by mail to one of
> your detractors.
Making copies of copyrighted material and sending it to a third
party is as much a violation of copyright as providing the text and
data here. You have the sources. You want to learn something, go
ahead and check it out for yourself. I'm sure you are perfectly
capable of visiting a library, or contacting a few publishers to
order reprints or back issues.
--
Gene