Improving 2-channel recommendations!!!
gbozo...@yahoo.com
I have the Paradigm Studio 100s with Denon 3300. The purpose of an
upgrade is to get better 2-channel audio. I want to add a Rotel RB-1080
200watt amp and a new CD player to improve the quality of the 2-channel
CD listening sound. While the Denon sounds ok, I think its not getting
the full potential out of my speakers, as in the showroom when I bought
them. The sound is a bit thin and the bass is lethargic.
With this setup, I can hook up the Rotel amp to the Denon pre/out and
use the Denon 3300 direct mode which has analogue bypass. Thus, the CD
player will go to the Denon which will in turn go to the amp.
But if I was to add a comprable Rotel pre/amp to the combo, how much
better would the sound be for 2-channel listening?
I am buying used, so I don't have the option of going to the dealer and
borrow. Any recommendations are appreciated.
kind regards,
George
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<gbozo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132028181.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I have the Paradigm Studio 100s with Denon 3300. The purpose of an
> upgrade is to get better 2-channel audio. I want to add a Rotel RB-1080
> 200watt amp and a new CD player to improve the quality of the 2-channel
> CD listening sound. While the Denon sounds ok, I think its not getting
> the full potential out of my speakers, as in the showroom when I bought
> them. The sound is a bit thin and the bass is lethargic.
>
to the sound from your speakers, there's an equal chance that adding a
subvwoofer woould do the same. Rotel makes a very good product but from
what I'm told by a service tech, their stuff is made with parts that are
custom so if there is a need for repair, it can be difficult sometimes to
get them.
> With this setup, I can hook up the Rotel amp to the Denon pre/out and
> use the Denon 3300 direct mode which has analogue bypass. Thus, the CD
> player will go to the Denon which will in turn go to the amp.
>
The idea for using the Denon as a preamp should work, I've done it myself
with a different amp and receiver without any problem until I got a
dedicated premap.
> But if I was to add a comprable Rotel pre/amp to the combo, how much
> better would the sound be for 2-channel listening?
Quite possibly no difference at all unless there is something wrong with the
preamp section of the Denon.
> I am buying used, so I don't have the option of going to the dealer and
> borrow. Any recommendations are appreciated.
>
Consider this as your amp. I'll wager it will sound no different and
probably cost less than the used Rotel. Plus this one is new with a
warranty.
gbozo...@yahoo.com
it's just that I'm trying to squeeze more out of the speakers. In wide
opinion, while recievers may do justice for HT or small systems, from
what I read Paradigm studio 100s really come alive with a dedicated amp
and seperates. At the time I was buying the speakers it was not
affordable to buy seperates, now I feel I should move towards them.
What amp do you recommended instead of Rotel?
MINe 109
gbozo...@yahoo.com wrote:
The bass from the Paradigms shouldn't be lethargic! I'd guess the Denon
should work well in direct mode, but give the internal DAC a chance
unles you're sure of your dc player. I don't know that the Rotel pre
would be an improvement, but the amp might be. The Paradigms I heard
were driven by a McIntosh MC 2500 (500 watts per side). This was in a
big room, but suggests a big amp for best results.
Be sure to exhaust your speaker placement options before giving up on
the Denon amp section. The pair I heard were several feet from the wall
without any bass deficiency.
Stephen
MINe 109
MINe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> give the internal DAC a chance
> unles you're sure of your dc player.
Argh. 'cd player'.
Stephen
MINe 109
gbozo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Rotel makes good amps, especially for the price of a used one.
Stephen
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<gbozo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132078312.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
which is: http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHA500
As you can see it's 160 WPC @ 8 ohms and 230 @4 ohms with the capability to
be bridged to 500 watts @ 8 ohms in mono. At the price they are selling it
for you could possibly get 2 for dual mono.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
"MINe 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-7CC6B0...@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
Hey, don't sweat it. Even I make typos once in awhile. :-)
neilnew...@hotmail.com
MINe 109 wrote:
> In article <1132028181.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> gbozo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have the Paradigm Studio 100s with Denon 3300. The purpose of an
> > upgrade is to get better 2-channel audio. I want to add a Rotel RB-1080
> > 200watt amp and a new CD player to improve the quality of the 2-channel
> > CD listening sound. While the Denon sounds ok, I think its not getting
> > the full potential out of my speakers, as in the showroom when I bought
> > them. The sound is a bit thin and the bass is lethargic.
Is it possible you've connected your speakers out of phase? That would
give you the symptoms you describe. Been there, done that! ;-)
Suggest you power everything down, then disconnect speaker wire from
receiver and speakers. Then reconnect the wire to the receiver and
speakers, making sure that speaker wire is attached correctly with
receiver ground going to speaker ground, and receiver positive going to
speaker positive.
Connecting speakers out of phase is a very common, easy-to-make
mistake, but fortunately it's also easy to fix.
Another thought: Maybe you accidentally set the Denon for small
speakers, not for full-range speakers? If so, your Paradigms will
receive little or no bass from the Denon. Check those settings on your
Denon. Also see Denon manual for possible fixes. Maybe the Denon's
default settings are for small speakers, so you need to set the Denon
for larger speakers like your Paradigms?
(snip)
> Be sure to exhaust your speaker placement options before giving up on
> the Denon amp section. The pair I heard were several feet from the wall
> without any bass deficiency.
IOW, your problems could be with the acoustics of your room. If the
problem is the acoustics of your room, adding or replacing an amp
and/or a new CD player probably won't solve your problems.
Adding a new amp to your Denon may make no difference at all, other
than to your wallet and to adding complexity to your system. Your Denon
receiver should be able to provide plenty of power.
Acoustics are extremely important, yet many hobbyists ignore acoustics.
See what your Paradigm manual recommends and also experiment with
different locations of the speakers in your room.
If you experiment with speaker placement and that doesn't solve your
problems, I suggest you consider adding a powered subwoofer, as another
poster suggested. Having a powered subwoofer will give you a fuller,
richer sound, with more bass, and you'll be able to adjust the
subwoofer to suit your needs and taste.
> Stephen
gbozo...@yahoo.com
case would probably be along the lines of Rotel RC-1070/2 or even
RC-991 if I can find a used one at a good price. I also take
suggestions for other CD players. Thus, I would hook it up to the
reciever using analogue inputs, use the direct mode which, according to
Denon, disables some of the analogue circuity (such as tonal controls,
etc) and have it go out the pre/out of the reciever to the Rotel amp.
Since I want to keep the reciever (at least for now) for HT, adding a
2-channel pre/amp would be expensive and would complicate the system
(since I have one set of speakers). But I am curious as to how much
better would the entire system sound.
gbozo...@yahoo.com
Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as mass-retailer CSW. I would need
to upgrade the sub to something more respectful/better. I also do not
like subwoofers as I feel they add unrealistic bass to the 2-channel
music. I use the sub only for movies (5.1).
When I first auditioned the Paradigm Studios against others in various
listening shops in Canada and here in Boston, the dealers, of course,
used their top-grade seperates. While the Denon reciever sounds fine
(good), the sound is not as good as in store. I checked the Denon, it
is wired correctly. Again, it sounds good, but not great. When I
purchased the system one combination at the dealer at which the
Paradigms sounded real good was the Rotel RB991/RC991 and Rotel
pre-amp.
I would be suprised that adding the amp does not improve the sound; I
mean, why do people then have seperates? The Denon MSRP with
pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel amplification costs as much as the
Rotel 2-channel amp (MSRP). With all things being equal (placement,
room, cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not sound
better with the seperate amp rather than the reciever. And I am not
suggesting that spending more money necessarly always yields better
sound.
It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it?
Thank you,
George
MINe 109
gbozo...@yahoo.com wrote:
I assume this is in reply to me. I wouldn't be worried about a Rotel cd
player either. Another good cd player brand is Arcam, especially used
models with the RingDAC.
Is there a reason you refer to a pre/amp rather than just an amp? A
package deal for used pieces?
I googled the Paradigms to make sure they were in fact the speakers I
had heard and found a reviewer who used five of them for his surround
system! If one had the room, that's a way to be sure your speakers match.
Stephen
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<gbozo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132090685.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Unfortunantely, the subwoofer we have is the rotten CSW Powered
> Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as mass-retailer CSW. I would need
> to upgrade the sub to something more respectful/better. I also do not
> like subwoofers as I feel they add unrealistic bass to the 2-channel
> music. I use the sub only for movies (5.1).
>
> When I first auditioned the Paradigm Studios against others in various
> listening shops in Canada and here in Boston, the dealers, of course,
> used their top-grade seperates. While the Denon reciever sounds fine
> (good), the sound is not as good as in store. I checked the Denon, it
> is wired correctly. Again, it sounds good, but not great. When I
> purchased the system one combination at the dealer at which the
> Paradigms sounded real good was the Rotel RB991/RC991 and Rotel
> pre-amp.
>
> I would be suprised that adding the amp does not improve the sound; I
> mean, why do people then have seperates?
Mostly becuase the BELIEVE they will be better. The main reason to have
separates is for flexibility and if the tuner goes bad you just have it
fixed and aren't without the rest of the system.
The Denon MSRP with
> pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel amplification costs as much as the
> Rotel 2-channel amp (MSRP).
Because only one metal case is need for a reciever as opposed to 3 for
separates, plus some other reasons.
With all things being equal (placement,
> room, cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not sound
> better with the seperate amp rather than the reciever.
Not so strange if the amplification in the Denon is good which it probably
is, but added power can improve the bass becuase it will keep the amp in the
Denon from clipping.
You should keep in mind that at 105 wpc for the Denon a 200 wpc amp is not
going to make it play much louder. 3 db of increased loudness requires 50%
more amplifier power. IOW doubleing the power to 210 wpc would yield 6db of
increased volume.
Improvement might come from increased power if you play your stuff fairly
loudly and it has a lot of bass. Bass takes much more power from an amp
than a tweeter or midrange.
IME more power is generally a good thing especially with speakers that are
rated for 300 or 350 as the Paradigms are. If you bridge the amps I
recomended and run 500wpc you will never have to worry about clipping, but
you might have to worry about blowing speakers if you are heavy handed with
the volume levels.
And I am not
> suggesting that spending more money necessarly always yields better
> sound.
>
Good, since there is almost no connection to price and performance in audio,
except as it pertains to speakers and then it's not certain.
gbozo...@yahoo.com
http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/paradigm-reference/PRD_120330_1594crx.aspx
Looking at most of the reviwers, they mention that a good amp should be
used. They are indeed big speakers.
I have the Denon reciever and I want to keep it to power the other
speakers in my HT setup (5.1) I see the amp as being the logical
upgrade, along with the CD player. No specific tie to the Rotel, I just
remember hearing the on a Rotel RB-991 amp and liking the match.
Down the line, perhaps, get rid of the reciever and move up to a
pre/processor, but then I would need more amps for the other speakers.
I think this upgrade would be logical for now.
George
MINe 109
gbozo...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm actually in a similar situation. My tv system speakers have an
active crossover and three stereo amps. I bought inexpensive surrounds
and am looking for a center speaker and a receiver that can accommodate
the powered fronts. Small room, so bass isn't an issue.
Good luck!
Stephen
neilnew...@hotmail.com
gbozo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Unfortunantely, the subwoofer we have is the rotten CSW Powered
> Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as mass-retailer CSW. I would need
> to upgrade the sub to something more respectful/better.
Don't know what model CSW you mean, but I agree that if you don't like
it, you shouldn't use it.
> I also do not
> like subwoofers as I feel they add unrealistic bass to the 2-channel
> music.
That's your choice, but there's no reason that a good sub can't improve
the sound and accuracy of a stereo or 5.1 system. It depends on your
other speakers and how the sub is adjusted and placed.
I have several small stereo systems in my home, all with small speakers
(to save space), and can't imagine living w/o a powered sub. Having a
powered sub lets me dial in just the amount of bass I like. I don't
like exaggerated bass, I like just enough so that I feel like I can
hear the music the way I want it. Anyway, I guess my point here is that
a powered sub can be used in subtle ways to get the best sound for
music and anything else I listen to, including TV and video
soundtracks.
> I use the sub only for movies (5.1).
>
> When I first auditioned the Paradigm Studios against others in various
> listening shops in Canada and here in Boston, the dealers, of course,
> used their top-grade seperates. While the Denon reciever sounds fine
> (good), the sound is not as good as in store.
This could be because the acoustics in the store are different from the
acoustics in your home. The size, shape, acoustics etc. of different
rooms can make a big difference. In different rooms, it's not
surprising that your speakers sound different. That's normal.
BTW, about 10 years ago, I was waaaaay into home audio and had tons of
gear, which I bought and sold for fun and (occasionally) profit. I had
tons of gear at home. Anyway, I could try my gear in different rooms at
home and was surprised to hear just how differently speakers could
sound in different rooms. For example, I found my small speakers
sounded good in my small rooms, while my big speakers sounded best in
my biggest room.
My point here is that your speakers could easily sound different in in
your home than they did in the store, because the acoustics are
different. I point this out because I think you're overlooking what may
be your problem. This is not a problem that a new amp will solve.
You'll need to deal with this type of problem by trying different
speaker placements and other things that may affect the acoustics of
your room.
Room/speaker interaction is very important and just swapping in a new
amp won't fix problems with acoustics.
Then again, audio is just a hobby for people like you and me, and
trying new gear can be part of the fun. I've learned a lot by owning
and trying a lot of gear. One thing I've learned is that if an amp is
functioning correctly, just swapping in another amp that is also
functioning correctly won't fix anything. Speakers and speaker
placement are much, much more important.
Another thought: Are you listening to the same recordings at home that
you heard at the dealer?
>I checked the Denon, it
> is wired correctly. Again, it sounds good, but not great.
What about the Denon's speaker settings? Are they set to large for your
Paradigms and are you sure the Denon is sending the Paradigms
full-range sound, without sending the bass to the Denon's sub output?
>When I
> purchased the system one combination at the dealer at which the
> Paradigms sounded real good was the Rotel RB991/RC991 and Rotel
> pre-amp.
For people like you and me, audio is just a hobby, so maybe you sell
your Denon and other 5.1 gear and go with the Rotels or anything else
that you really want. Or you could keep your Denon and your Paradigms,
sell all your other 5.1 audio gear, and use the Denon only in stereo
mode. In stereo mode, your Denon should operate the same as a stereo
pre amp/power amp combo.
Due to my dislike of clutter and cumbersome gear, I suggest you not try
to keep the Denon and Rotel gear and have all of it in the same room,
unless complexity appeals to you. I'd either get your existing gear
working to suit you or else keep the Paradigms, sell all your 5.1 gear
(including the Denon), and buy the Rotel stuff you want.
> I would be suprised that adding the amp does not improve the sound; I
> mean, why do people then have seperates?
Good question. IMHO, that idea is really more of a leftover from
decades ago, when audiophiles wanted to pick each component separately
and get exactly what each audiophile wanted, while having the option of
upgrading each component individually.
In the case of preamp/power amp combos vs. receivers vs. integrated
amps, any of these should give you decent performance. The receivers
offer by far the most bang for the buck and almost all receivers now
have a huge range of features, including 5.1 sound.
But stereo gear can be easier to operate because stereo gear is so much
simpler and has so many fewer features.
BTW, I'm in the US, but I look at the UK audio magazines occasionally.
It appears to me that in the UK, there's still a strong interest in
having many different components from different brands and I gather
that UK audiophiles still think this way.
>The Denon MSRP with
> pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel amplification costs as much as the
> Rotel 2-channel amp (MSRP).
Yep. Receivers (which sell in big numbers) are a much, much better deal
these days than separates, which sell only to a very small group of
customers. Because receivers are made in huge numbers, they can be much
cheaper than separates, while the receivers offer many more features.
>With all things being equal (placement,
> room, cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not sound
> better with the seperate amp rather than the reciever.
I think you're talking about your expectations, which may or may not be
what really would happen if you switched from the Denon receiver to the
Rotel separates.
I think it's quite possible that switching from the Denon receiver to
something else will make little or no difference. If the Denon and the
Rotels are operating correctly, there's no reason for them to sound
different.
>And I am not
> suggesting that spending more money necessarly always yields better
> sound.
>
> It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it?
Agree, especially in newsgroups!
Maybe you should go back to your Paradigm dealer and work with the
staff there, so you can get advice and opinions IRL from people who can
hear your gear?
There may be some simple solution that would be easy for someone else
to spot IRL, but very difficult for you to spot because you may have
overlooked something in setting up your gear.
> Thank you,
> George
nyo...@peoplepc.com
> Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as mass-retailer CSW. I would need
> to upgrade the sub to something more respectful/better. I also do not
> like subwoofers as I feel they add unrealistic bass to the 2-channel
> music. I use the sub only for movies (5.1).
I missed the part about unrealistic bass from subwoofers for 2 channel
stereo.
I simply don't agree that that is true. Once a subwoofer is properly
situated and an appropriate xover chosen and level set there is nothing
about itthat is unnatural. If the xover is properly set the sub disappears
as a source and the only thing that would make it sound unnatural would be a
level mismatch.
My sub is on for all music playback and for HT. I have never heard the
slightest hint of unnatural sound with it on, since the level is set to 60
Hz with a 24 db/oct slope, nothing gets out that isn't actual bass and it's
impossible to locate it as a source.
Arny Krueger
> Unfortunantely, the subwoofer we have is the rotten CSW
> Powered Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as
> mass-retailer CSW.
OK, so you were pressed for money, or just plain made a bad
choice. This one bad apple doesn't reflect accurately on
subwoofers in general.
> I would need to upgrade the sub to
> something more respectful/better. I also do not like
> subwoofers as I feel they add unrealistic bass to the
> 2-channel music. I use the sub only for movies (5.1).
I'm sorry that you've only encounted poor implementations. A
sub done right has almost no audible effects - until you
play music with extended bass content. Then there is a
sense of ease and depth that would be otherwise lacking.
> When I first auditioned the Paradigm Studios against
> others in various listening shops in Canada and here in
> Boston, the dealers, of course, used their top-grade
> seperates. While the Denon reciever sounds fine (good),
> the sound is not as good as in store. I checked the
> Denon, it is wired correctly. Again, it sounds good, but
> not great. When I purchased the system one combination at
> the dealer at which the Paradigms sounded real good was
> the Rotel RB991/RC991 and Rotel pre-amp.
> I would be suprised that adding the amp does not improve
> the sound; I mean, why do people then have seperates?
There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things
as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make all
amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the first ABX
test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier
section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate
power amp. The results were "no differences heard".
>The
> Denon MSRP with pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel
> amplification costs as much as the Rotel 2-channel amp
> (MSRP). With all things being equal (placement, room,
> cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not
> sound better with the seperate amp rather than the
> reciever. And I am not suggesting that spending more
> money necessarly always yields better sound.
>
> It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it?
It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier
than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern
a difference. There's no need for you to know that that
difference is. You don't have to characterize the sound or
the difference in order to obtain a positive result. This
vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very
sensitive to small differences.
paul packer
wrote:
>There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things
>as ABX tests
Never heard of them.
>which some people say prove or make all
>amplifiers sound the same.
That's a pretty outrageous notion. Who are these people?
> It turns out that the first ABX
>test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier
>section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate
>power amp. The results were "no differences heard".
No!
>>The
>> Denon MSRP with pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel
>> amplification costs as much as the Rotel 2-channel amp
>> (MSRP). With all things being equal (placement, room,
>> cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not
>> sound better with the seperate amp rather than the
>> reciever. And I am not suggesting that spending more
>> money necessarly always yields better sound.
>>
>> It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it?
Only when listening through a box.
>It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier
>than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern
>a difference.
Yes, that's all. And for that you get a free set of steak knives.
>There's no need for you to know that that
>difference is.
Don't you mean "what" that difference is?
>You don't have to characterize the sound or
>the difference in order to obtain a positive result.
No, you just wait for the bell on top of the box to start clanging.
>This
>vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very
>sensitive to small differences.
Very sensitive. That's why nobody ever hears them.
norman...@comcast.net
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:JsKdnTZJTLgM7eHe...@comcast.com...
> <gbozo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1132090685.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
>> Unfortunantely, the subwoofer we have is the rotten CSW
>> Powered Subwoofer (w/slave) which was bought as
>> mass-retailer CSW.
>
> OK, so you were pressed for money, or just plain made a bad choice. This
> one bad apple doesn't reflect accurately on subwoofers in general.
I saw an ad in a flyer from mcm electronics for a 5.1 speaker system; 5
satellites and a powered sub for $25. I couldn't imagine how you could get
such a system for that price--so I bought one.
It just arrived, and I must say, the quality of construction is much better
than I could have imagined. The 5 satellites actually have tweeters in
them, and the sub is a bandpass enclosure. Not made in China, as one might
guess, but in Taiwan. I'm going to set the system up in the basement for a
listening evaluation. Stay tuned.
Norm Strong
nyo...@peoplepc.com
"paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:437c80f6...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:59:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things
>>as ABX tests
>
> Never heard of them.
>
>>which some people say prove or make all
>>amplifiers sound the same.
>
> That's a pretty outrageous notion. Who are these people?
>
>> It turns out that the first ABX
>>test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier
>>section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate
>>power amp. The results were "no differences heard".
>
> No!
>
>>>The
>>> Denon MSRP with pre/processing, tuner, and 5-channel
>>> amplification costs as much as the Rotel 2-channel amp
>>> (MSRP). With all things being equal (placement, room,
>>> cables), it would be strange that the speakers did not
>>> sound better with the seperate amp rather than the
>>> reciever. And I am not suggesting that spending more
>>> money necessarly always yields better sound.
>>>
>>> It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it?
>
> Only when listening through a box.
>
>>It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier
>>than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern
>>a difference.
>
> Yes, that's all. And for that you get a free set of steak knives.
>
No, you just get an answer to the question, was there a difference.
>>There's no need for you to know that that
>>difference is.
>
> Don't you mean "what" that difference is?
>
No need to pick nits.
>>You don't have to characterize the sound or
>>the difference in order to obtain a positive result.
>
> No, you just wait for the bell on top of the box to start clanging.
>
>>This
>>vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very
>>sensitive to small differences.
>
> Very sensitive. That's why nobody ever hears them.
>
It would kill the high end business, so they don't exactly want it
publicized. That's why they fight so hard and so nasty to make people who
acknowledge its efficacy look bad.
In their eyes, ABX is the end of their world. Is it surprising they act
like pigs in order to defend their status quo?
George Middius
duh-Mikey borrows the Krooborg's Borganoia chip.
>>>[The aBxism torture ritual paradigm] vastly simplifies things,
>>>and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small differences.
>> Very sensitive. That's why nobody ever hears them.
>It would kill the high end business, so they don't exactly want it
>publicized. That's why they fight so hard and so nasty to make people who
>acknowledge its efficacy look bad.
>In their eyes, ABX is the end of their world. Is it surprising they act
>like pigs in order to defend their status quo?
Thanks Mr. McMickey for providing concrete evidence that devotion to the aBxism
cult can drive a person crazy.
.
.
.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
"George Middius" <George...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dliqb...@drn.newsguy.com...
George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> >There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things
> >as ABX tests
>
> Never heard of them.
Thanks Mr. Pecker for, admitting your lying, again, LOt"S.
> >which some people say prove or make all
> >amplifiers sound the same.
>
> That's a pretty outrageous notion. Who are these people?
Mr. Parcek its like you thought you were alone, in the world? LOL ;-)
> > It turns out that the first ABX
> >test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier
> >section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate
> >power amp. The results were "no differences heard".
>
> No!
Thanks Mr. Prepack for admitting, you have no understanding of irony or
hypocracy.
> >> It's often hard characterizing sound isn't it?
>
> Only when listening through a box.
Please provide documented double-blind test results and published NTWT papers
etc. or, other proof you're not lieing, again Mr. Percake.
> >It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier
> >than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern
> >a difference.
>
> Yes, that's all. And for that you get a free set of steak knives.
Been there done, that. Personal attack, noted.
> >There's no need for you to know what that
> >difference is.
>
> Don't you mean "what" that difference is?
As if you new the differince. LOL!
> >You don't have to characterize the sound or
> >the difference in order to obtain a positive result.
>
> No, you just wait for the bell on top of the box to start clanging.
Mr. Prekce is obviously lying again. There is no bell on top of the box, or
anywhere else, as you would know if you had access to this box.
> >vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very
> >sensitive to small differences.
> Very sensitive. That's why nobody ever hears them.
Thanks paul for (finally) admitting you understand the purpose of ABx.
Clyde Slick
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jqOdnZoOqJK...@comcast.com...
just think, if they didn't have to pack it in a cardboard box,
they could knock another $5 off the price.
dizzy
>I also do not
>like subwoofers as I feel they add unrealistic bass to the 2-channel
>music. I use the sub only for movies (5.1).
Then you have the gain set too high. The gain on the subwoofer
amplifier should be set so that it's difficult (with normal music) to
tell if the sub is switched-in or not.
John Corbett
<nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> You should keep in mind that at 105 wpc for the Denon a 200 wpc amp is not
> going to make it play much louder. 3 db of increased loudness requires 50%
> more amplifier power. IOW doubleing the power to 210 wpc would yield 6db of
> increased volume.
No, doubling the power is a 3 dB increase.
John Corbett
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things
> as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make all
> amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the first ABX
> test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier
> section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate
> power amp. The results were "no differences heard".
>
The claim of "over 30 years ago" would place that test no later than 1975,
yet the official ABX site and other sources have claimed the first ABX
test took place years later. Those sources also say what the first tested
components were (amplifiers) but they do not mention any receivers.
Fnally, the results of those first tests were mostly that differences
_were_ detected, except for one set of trials.
>
> It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot easier
> than that. All you have to do is to somehow reliably discern
> a difference. There's no need for you to know that that
> difference is. You don't have to characterize the sound or
> the difference in order to obtain a positive result. This
> vastly simplifies things, and makes for a test that is very
> sensitive to small differences.
Actually a typical ABX test is _not_ "a test that is very sensitive to
small differences". In fact, an ABX test involving 16 trials and
requiring 14 or more successes is an absurdly _insensitive_ test for small
differences---it will detect threshold-level performance less than 20% of
the time!
Of course, you _can_ make a very sensitive test using ABX, but you have to
know how to choose an appropriate sample size and critical value. You
need far more than 16 trials if you want the test to actually perform as
well as some people claim their tests do.
That's what mathematical probability theory says, and it is consistent
with the real-world experience of many listeners.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
"John Corbett" <cor...@stat.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:corbett-1811...@0.0.0.0...
> In article <JsKdnTZJTLgM7eHe...@comcast.com>, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> There's an irony here. As you may know there are such things
>> as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make all
>> amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the first ABX
>> test ever done over 30 years ago compared the amplifier
>> section of a then-SOTA receiver with a then-SOTA separate
>> power amp. The results were "no differences heard".
>>
>
> The claim of "over 30 years ago" would place that test no later than 1975,
> yet the official ABX site and other sources have claimed the first ABX
> test took place years later. Those sources also say what the first tested
> components were (amplifiers) but they do not mention any receivers.
> Fnally, the results of those first tests were mostly that differences
> _were_ detected, except for one set of trials.
>
developed the first audio ABX comaprator along with Mr. Carlstrom?
You might also wish to visit his website www.pcabx.com where you can
download your own pcabx comparator.
John Corbett
<nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >
> Do you realize that the person you're responding to is the person who
> developed the first audio ABX comaprator along with Mr. Carlstrom?
>
Of course I was well aware of that, but apparently it was too subtle for you.
Did you not catch that Arny's mention of irony introduced a list of
claims, most of which are clearly contradicted by his own postings on
Usenet as well as by links from his pcabx site?
> You might also wish to visit his website www.pcabx.com where you can
> download your own pcabx comparator.
DBT (Done Been There) already.
BTW, he still hasn't fixed the broken links I pointed out about a year ago.
Arny Krueger
> <JsKdnTZJTLgM7eHe...@comcast.com>, "Arny
> Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> There's an irony here. As you may know there are such
>> things as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make
>> all amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the
>> first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the
>> amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a
>> then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no
>> differences heard".
>>
>
> The claim of "over 30 years ago" would place that test no
> later than 1975, yet the official ABX site and other
> sources have claimed the first ABX test took place years
> later.
Wow, it was a whopping two years later.
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm
"May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind
subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility
of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in
November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind
test could settle the question."
> Those sources also say what the first tested
> components were (amplifiers) but they do not mention any
> receivers.
The first ABX test compared the amp section of a Heath
AR1500 receiver with a Dyna 400.
>Fnally, the results of those first tests were
> mostly that differences _were_ detected, except for one
> set of trials.
No difference was detected in the first ABX test.
>> It turns out that in ABX tests things are a whole lot
>> easier than that. All you have to do is to somehow
>> reliably discern a difference. There's no need for you
>> to know that that difference is. You don't have to
>> characterize the sound or the difference in order to
>> obtain a positive result. This vastly simplifies things,
>> and makes for a test that is very sensitive to small
>> differences.
> Actually a typical ABX test is _not_ "a test that is very
> sensitive to small differences". In fact, an ABX test
> involving 16 trials and requiring 14 or more successes is
> an absurdly _insensitive_ test for small differences---it
> will detect threshold-level performance less than 20% of
> the time!
Whose idea of threshold are we talking about here?
> Of course, you _can_ make a very sensitive test using
> ABX, but you have to know how to choose an appropriate
> sample size and critical value. You need far more than
> 16 trials if you want the test to actually perform as
> well as some people claim their tests do.
Nahh. Once the listener gets trained, if he can't get
positive results in 16 trials, the difference is probably
too small to worry about.
> That's what mathematical probability theory says, and it
> is consistent with the real-world experience of many
> listeners.
Nope and nope.
Stick to your statistics books, John. They seem to be all
you've got.
Back in the real world... ;-)
John Corbett
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "John Corbett" <cor...@stat.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:corbett-1811...@0.0.0.0
> > In article
> > <JsKdnTZJTLgM7eHe...@comcast.com>, "Arny
> > Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> There's an irony here. As you may know there are such
> >> things as ABX tests, which some people say prove or make
> >> all amplifiers sound the same. It turns out that the
> >> first ABX test ever done over 30 years ago compared the
> >> amplifier section of a then-SOTA receiver with a
> >> then-SOTA separate power amp. The results were "no
> >> differences heard".
> >>
> >
> > The claim of "over 30 years ago" would place that test no
> > later than 1975, yet the official ABX site and other
> > sources have claimed the first ABX test took place years
> > later.
>
> Wow, it was a whopping two years later.
Just more whoppers from Arny.
>
> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm
>
> "May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind
> subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility
> of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in
> November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind
> test could settle the question."
>
> > Those sources also say what the first tested
> > components were (amplifiers) but they do not mention any
> > receivers.
>
> The first ABX test compared the amp section of a Heath
> AR1500 receiver with a Dyna 400.
>
> >Fnally, the results of those first tests were
> > mostly that differences _were_ detected, except for one
> > set of trials.
>
> No difference was detected in the first ABX test.
From the link you gave:
"May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind
subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility
of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in
November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind test
could settle the question. Just six months later, Arny Krueger
gave a lecture on his design of a double blind comparator and
the first three double blind tests were done. The results
include the first three listed in the Power Amplifier Comparison
Table in the data."
Here are data from that Power Amplifier Comparison Table:
-------------------------------
May 7, 1977
The Original SMWTMS ABX Test Results
Power Amplifier Comparison Result
10 Watt Tubes vs. Dyna 400
Different
Paoli 60M vs. Dyna 400 Different
Swartz 40* vs. Dyna 400
Same
These were the first three audio double blind tests ever done.
-------------------------------
As I wrote earlier, no mention of a receiver and most of the results
supported claims of audible differences.
Arny, it seems that either the amplifier section of your Griefkit receiver
was a Swartz 40 or else you and David Carlstrom aren't talking about the
same tests. In the latter case, one of you is wrong about its being the
first test. But you have elsewhere written that the May 7, 1977 tests
were the first tests:
"I assembled the first A/B/X switch box into a steel alarm box on my living
room table in a rented house on Lakewood in Detroit. Its relays had silver
contacts that seemed to be as big as dimes. They were spring mounted and
wiped themselves clean before every use. I filed and diamond burnished them
during construction. The relay coils ran on 120 volts AC. Massive relays
resounding on the heavy steel box made distinct clunking sounds that quickly
lead the members to nickname it ³The Clunker². A coiled cord connected it to
a hand-held controller that had push-buttons for advancing and resetting a
stepping relay.
SMWTMS used the Clunker for our first double-blind Amplifier tests at Jeff
Vajgert's apartment on May 7, 1977."
from "Re: ABX, theory of (long text)" Mar 27 1998, RAO
>
> > Actually a typical ABX test is _not_ "a test that is very
> > sensitive to small differences". In fact, an ABX test
> > involving 16 trials and requiring 14 or more successes is
> > an absurdly _insensitive_ test for small differences---it
> > will detect threshold-level performance less than 20% of
> > the time!
>
> Whose idea of threshold are we talking about here?
I'm referring a common psychometric idea of threshold as used in psychophysics.
If you observe the response to a stimulus as that stimulus is varied over
a sufficiently broad range, you see scores at one end reflecting pure
guessing and at the other end essentially perfect performance. For
intermediate levels of the stimulus, we may see performance that is
somewhat better then totally-blind guessing, but not perfect either. But
the performance we actually see in any single run of trials also displays
additional random variability due to sampling error. As we increase the
number of trials (while holding the stimulus level fixed) we reduce the
effect of that sampling variability, so the proportion of correct
responses approaches the true success rate for that stimulus level. If we
could do an infinite number of trials we could determine the true success
rate exactly. We can think of that ideal proportion as the probability of
success for a single trial at that stimulus level. So if the test stimulus
level is low enough the subject is reduced to guessing, and his
probability of success would be 50%. For a very high stimulus level, the
subject always detects, so he'll get 100%. But for an intermediate level
he may sometimes detect and sometimes guess, so his long-term proportion
of successful answers reflects that combination of detection and
guessing. For example, if he detects half the time and guesses the other
half of the time, in the long run half of those guesses will be correct,
so he will get the correct answer 75% of the time.
Such a stimulus level where response is halfway between pure chance and
perfection is often taken as a threshold level for that subject's
performance under the conditions of that test; threshold is then a value
on the scale where we measure the stimulus level, but that threshold value
is determined by the proportion of correct responses. This works even if
the response function is not continuous.
Since for an ABX test pure guessing would correspond to a long-term
success rate of 50% and perfect detection would be 100%, we can take
threshold-level performance to be 75%. It is important to remember that
these performance figures involve the long-term average success rate, and
not merely the observed proportion in a single run of trials. Stimulus
levels above threshold are those having at least a 75% probability of
correct response, corresponding to an actual detection rate of at least
50%. In other words, the stimulus is more likely to be detected than
missed.
Such above-threshold effect sizes are said to be "psychoacoustically
significant". Note that the term "psychoacoustically significant"
properly refers to an _effect size_ (i.e., stimulus level). BTW many
authors (including Greenhill and Clark) have mistakenly used
"psychoacoustically significant" to describe situations where the sample
proportion exceeded 75%, suggesting that they did not understand what
psychoacoustical significance means.
> Nahh. Once the listener gets trained, if he can't get
> positive results in 16 trials, the difference is probably
> too small to worry about.
WRONG!
If by positive results you mean 14 or more correct in 16 trials, then your
claim is essentially that at the 99% confidence level the difference
between pure chance guessing (50%) and getting 97% correct answers in the
long run is too small to worry about! Remember that 75% long-run
performance is usually regarded as substantially better than chance. (If
you know what a confidence level and a confidence set are, then you should
be able to verify that based on data of 13 correct in 16 trials a
one-sided upper 99% confidence bound for the true success probability is
about 0.971.)
To be 99% confident that an effect is below-threshold (i.e., that the
effect size is no more than .75 correct long term) you have to see
performance with no more then 7 correct in 16 trials. Even a score of 8
correct in 16 trials is _not_ bad enough to rule out psychoacoustically
significant effects.
So at the 99% confidence level, a score of 14 or more is evidence that the
subject is really doing better than 50% correct (long-term), and a score
of 7 or less is evidence that his true long-run performance is either no
better than chance or not enough better than chance to be worried about.
But scores from 8 through 13 are inconclusive, as they are simultaneously
consistent with pure chance and above-threshold performance.
If you say that failure to get 14 or more correct in 16 trials is evidence
that someone is not detecting something worth detecting, you are _vastly_
overstating your case unless you only consider gross effects as worth
detecting.
Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to say about the
abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX tests. He described that
performance as "outlandish in a search for the truth about audible
differences."
Clyde Slick
>
> Since for an ABX test pure guessing would correspond to a long-term
> success rate of 50% and perfect detection would be 100%, we can take
> threshold-level performance to be 75%. It is important to remember that
> these performance figures involve the long-term average success rate, and
> not merely the observed proportion in a single run of trials. Stimulus
> levels above threshold are those having at least a 75% probability of
> correct response, corresponding to an actual detection rate of at least
> 50%. In other words, the stimulus is more likely to be detected than
> missed.
>
>
> claim is essentially that at the 99% confidence level the difference
> between pure chance guessing (50%) and getting 97% correct answers in the
> long run is too small to worry about! Remember that 75% long-run
> performance is usually regarded as substantially better than chance. (If
> you know what a confidence level and a confidence set are, then you should
> be able to verify that based on data of 13 correct in 16 trials a
> one-sided upper 99% confidence bound for the true success probability is
> about 0.971.)
>
> To be 99% confident that an effect is below-threshold (i.e., that the
> effect size is no more than .75 correct long term) you have to see
> performance with no more then 7 correct in 16 trials. Even a score of 8
> correct in 16 trials is _not_ bad enough to rule out psychoacoustically
> significant effects.
>
> So at the 99% confidence level, a score of 14 or more is evidence that the
> subject is really doing better than 50% correct (long-term), and a score
> of 7 or less is evidence that his true long-run performance is either no
> better than chance or not enough better than chance to be worried about.
> But scores from 8 through 13 are inconclusive, as they are simultaneously
> consistent with pure chance and above-threshold performance.
>
They are more than inconclusive, they are a result that is
better than chance, it is more likely a result from
hearing differences than it is likely a result from chance.
In terms of consumer preference, that is sufficient, the consumer does
not need any more of a confidence level than
'the preponderance of evidence" in making a choice
based upon a preference of perceived sonic difference.
Robert Morein
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Robert Morein
Arny Krueger
> These were the first three audio double blind tests ever
> done.
No, they were the first three ABX tests that were done at an
official SMWTMS meeting.
I set up *all* of the tests that are listed on the ABX web
page, and the ones that proceeded it as well.
I can tell that John Corbett has no experience with doing
public events.
Three words: rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.
I really don't know how many ABX rehearsals preceeded the
first SMWTMS tests. It appears that my recollection of
which years they happened in are off by a couple, but this
was like 30 years ago.
However, I do clearly recall the first test that I performed
after I finished building the first ABX Comparator. It was a
test of the amplifier section of a Heathkit AR 1500 receiver
as compared to a Dyna ST400, and the results were null.
I vaguely recall a conversation with one of the other SMWTMS
board members before the first tests at that club meeting. I
was asked whether the equipment was ready, and I affirmed
that. I was asked what I thought was going to happen and I
said that it would be "interesting". Nothing more, because I
didn't want to bias the outcome of the tests.
Steven Sullivan
> Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to say about the
> abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX tests. He described that
> performance as "outlandish in a search for the truth about audible
> differences."
And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and
magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls?
*That* is the dominant paradigm here.
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
Arny Krueger
news:dlrkbn$k4c$2...@reader2.panix.com
> John Corbett <cor...@stat.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to
>> say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX
>> tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in
>> a search for the truth about audible differences."
No doubt an out-of-context quote.
> And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and
> magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no
> controls? *That* is the dominant paradigm here.
Corebett is just another Ludovic-like posturer who tries to
attract attention to himself by overlooking the obvious
flaws of sighted evaluations.
George M. Middius
Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic rituals of listening
to music.
> And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and
> magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls?
> *That* is the dominant paradigm here.
You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg oil, Silly. The
first thing you have to do is convince your intended victims their lives
will be better if they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably.
dave weil
And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by the High
Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one, is materially
impossible.
Why would anyone find it odd that the magazines mirror real life and
not some audio fundamentalist's idea of utopia?
Steven Sullivan
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:15:37 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic rituals of listening
> >to music.
> >
> >> And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and
> >> magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls?
> >> *That* is the dominant paradigm here.
> >
> >You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg oil, Silly. The
> >first thing you have to do is convince your intended victims their lives
> >will be better if they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably.
> And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by the High
> Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one, is materially
> impossible.
It's materially impossible for audio magazines to conduct double-blind
level-matched reviews?
> Why would anyone find it odd that the magazines mirror real life and
> not some audio fundamentalist's idea of utopia?
In 'real life' most people don't do bench tests of components either.
Yet audio magazines routinely do.
The only fundamentalism here is your fundamental inability to construct
an argument, and Midi-man's fundamental sociopathy.
Arny Krueger
> dave weil <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:15:37 -0500, George M. Middius
>> <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic
>>> rituals of listening to music.
>>>
>>>> And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists
>>>> and magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison,
>>>> no controls? *That* is the dominant paradigm here.
>>>
>>> You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg
>>> oil, Silly. The first thing you have to do is convince
>>> your intended victims their lives will be better if
>>> they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably.
>
>> And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by
>> the High Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one,
>> is materially impossible.
>
> It's materially impossible for audio magazines to conduct
> double-blind level-matched reviews?
Don't tell Sound & Vision. ;-)
>> Why would anyone find it odd that the magazines mirror
>> real life and not some audio fundamentalist's idea of
>> utopia?
> In 'real life' most people don't do bench tests of
> components either. Yet audio magazines routinely do.
Even Stereophile.
> The only fundamentalism here is your fundamental
> inability to construct an argument, and Midi-man's
> fundamental sociopathy.
Middiot's biggest problem is lack of social maturity. Other
than his loyal followers and servants, who is impessed by
his middle-school name-calling?
dave weil
<ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic rituals of listening
>> >to music.
>> >
>> >> And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and
>> >> magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls?
>> >> *That* is the dominant paradigm here.
>> >
>> >You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg oil, Silly. The
>> >first thing you have to do is convince your intended victims their lives
>> >will be better if they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably.
>
>> And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by the High
>> Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one, is materially
>> impossible.
>
>It's materially impossible for audio magazines to conduct double-blind
>level-matched reviews?
No, it's materially impossible to do PCABX for consumers to do audio
purchases, and VERY difficult to do ABX for them as well.
Steven Sullivan
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:dlsvvu$enp$4...@reader2.panix.com
> > dave weil <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:15:37 -0500, George M. Middius
> >> <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sillybot calls on audiophiles to cast out the satanic
> >>> rituals of listening to music.
> >>>
> >>>> And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists
> >>>> and magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison,
> >>>> no controls? *That* is the dominant paradigm here.
> >>>
> >>> You're not doing a very good job of selling your 'borg
> >>> oil, Silly. The first thing you have to do is convince
> >>> your intended victims their lives will be better if
> >>> they join the Hive. So far you're failing miserably.
> >
> >> And his problem is that of promoting a paradigm, that by
> >> the High Priest's own admission, and his own tacit one,
> >> is materially impossible.
> >
> > It's materially impossible for audio magazines to conduct
> > double-blind level-matched reviews?
> Don't tell Sound & Vision. ;-)
Sad to say, after its recent overhaul
S&V now relegates their bench
results largely to their website, with a tiny summary
box in the print version. I dont' see much by Ranada
there any more either. The magazine seems to be
re-tooling itself more for the in-wall speaker/iPod/
HTiB consumer than the people who used to read
Stereo Review or Audio.
Steven Sullivan
Mainly because it required having more than one piece of gear at hand
to compare, a means of level-matching, and having an ABX switcher. If you have those,
they're certainly materially possible for the consumer.
Similarly, if you have a bench full of expensive test equipment, bench tests are
certainly materially possible for the consumer.
Yet consumers don't routinely do them. Shame on audio magazines, then,
for bothering to do bench tests. What an insult to the real world.
Or the Weil world, at least.
Arny Krueger
> dave weil <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> No, it's materially impossible to do PCABX for consumers
>> to do audio purchases,
If this were a proper sentence, I might even lower myself
and respond to it.
>> and VERY difficult to do ABX for them as well.
In fact ABX was invented by audio consumers.
> Mainly because it required having more than one piece of
> gear at hand to compare, a means of level-matching, and
> having an ABX
> switcher.
Mission impossible for technological mental midgets like
Weil to do. I could never even teach him how to rip CDs.
> If you have those, they're certainly
> materially possible for the consumer.
Been there, done that.
> Similarly, if you have a bench full of expensive test
> equipment, bench tests are certainly materially possible
> for the consumer.
Been there, done that.
dave weil
wrote:
>"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dlt9pv$mb2$3...@reader2.panix.com
>> dave weil <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>> No, it's materially impossible to do PCABX for consumers
>>> to do audio purchases,
>
>If this were a proper sentence, I might even lower myself
>and respond to it.
No you wouldn't. Because you're afraid to respond directly to me, for
good reason.
>>> and VERY difficult to do ABX for them as well.
>
>In fact ABX was invented by audio consumers.
So?
>> Mainly because it required having more than one piece of
>> gear at hand to compare, a means of level-matching, and
>> having an ABX
>> switcher.
>
>Mission impossible for technological mental midgets like
>Weil to do. I could never even teach him how to rip CDs.
In the same sense that I could never teach YOU how to drive a car.
>> If you have those, they're certainly
>> materially possible for the consumer.
I said "very difficult" in the case of ABX. And it is. It's materially
impossible for PCABX for the very reasons that Mr. Krueger has already
clearly explained.
>Been there, done that.
Well, you've also claimed to wipe your ass with $1000 checks, but very
few of us endorse THAT.
>> Similarly, if you have a bench full of expensive test
>> equipment, bench tests are certainly materially possible
>> for the consumer.
I never said that they weren't. I just suggested that most don't and
if they did, they might not want to duplicate tests that were already
published, because it would be a waste of time.
Stop putting words in my mouth, Mr. Sullivan.
John Corbett
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "John Corbett" <cor...@stat.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:corbett-1911...@0.0.0.0
>
> > These were the first three audio double blind tests ever
> > done.
>
> No, they were the first three ABX tests that were done at an
> official SMWTMS meeting.
>
Arny, you are arguing over a direct quotation from the ABX web site.
If you doubt its accuracy, perhaps you should address your concern to
David Carlstrom.
George M. Middius
OnanismBorg has a mess on his hands.
> official SMWTMS meeting.
This is a coded phrase for "wearing our Sunday best to a circle-jerk".
John Corbett
<ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> John Corbett <cor...@stat.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to say about the
> > abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX tests. He described that
> > performance as "outlandish in a search for the truth about audible
> > differences."
>
> And what does he say about the SOP of audio hobbyists and
> magazine reviewers -- that is, sighted comparison, no controls?
> *That* is the dominant paradigm here.
Sighted tests may be the dominant paradigm here, as you say, but that
really has nothing to do with the point I raised about problems with
small-sample blind tests. A bad test is a bad test, whether or not you
can find an even worse one.
John Corbett
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to
> >> say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX
> >> tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in
> >> a search for the truth about audible differences."
>
> No doubt an out-of-context quote.
Not at all, Arny. Why don't you go read the article?
"Statistics in A/B Testing: By the Numbers", H. Burstein, Audio, February
1990, pp.43-48.
>
> Corebett is just another Ludovic-like posturer who tries to
> attract attention to himself by overlooking the obvious
> flaws of sighted evaluations.
This is, uh, ludicrous.
Arny, are you really stupid enough to believe what you post?
I have laid out out the facts about sensitivity of the 14-of-16 ABX test,
and your response is name-calling and a pathetic attempt to deflect the
subject to Ludovic and sighted tests. But I don't see that you have
actually attempted to refute what I have said about sensitivity of
small-sample tests for subtle effects.
George M. Middius
John Corbett said:
> Arny, are you really stupid enough to believe what you post?
;-)
> I have laid out out the facts about sensitivity of the 14-of-16 ABX test,
> and your response is name-calling and a pathetic attempt to deflect the
> subject to Ludovic and sighted tests. But I don't see that you have
> actually attempted to refute what I have said about sensitivity of
> small-sample tests for subtle effects.
And here will begin this holiday's installment in the Krooborg "debating
trade" minstrel show....
Arny Krueger
> In article <ueCdnam_GOM...@comcast.com>, "Arny
> Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Corbett" <cor...@stat.umn.edu> wrote in message
>> news:corbett-1911...@0.0.0.0
>>
>>> These were the first three audio double blind tests ever
>>> done.
>>
>> No, they were the first three ABX tests that were done
>> at an official SMWTMS meeting.
> Arny, you are arguing over a direct quotation from the
> ABX web site.
Not at all, John. I have no argument with the ABX web site's
statements in the context in which they were made. The web
site is about the public meetings of the SMWTMS club.
Your comment shows how logically-challenged you are John.
I'm happy to stipulate that the quotes from the ABX web site
are correct within the context in which they are stated. I
feel like I've already done so once, but it all seems to
have flown way over your head, John.
>If you doubt its accuracy, perhaps you
> should address your concern to David Carlstrom.
Dave's web page is correct within the context in which it is
stated, which is a web site belonging to the SMWTMS club.
Again Corbett obviously has no sense of how one organizes
practical demonstrations.
If you follow Corbett's laughable activities on Usenet, you
will find that he likes to pretend that he's found some
theoretical flaw. The operative word here is theoretical, as
opposed to practical. Corbett has demonstrated no competence
or even serious interest in practical matters.
Part of the planning and preparation for any but the most
demonstration should be some parctice runs of the
demonstration. The practice runs that I did privately in
preparation for the demonstrations at the SMWTMS club
meeting were in fact the first ABX tests.
Arny Krueger
> A bad test is a bad test, whether or not you can find an
> even worse one.
Given that the worse test is so widely used to such a
practical disadvantage, we see here yet another example of
Corbett's disconnect from the real world.
Arny Krueger
> In article
> <a6adnTGo6qJeJRze...@comcast.com>, "Arny
> Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to
>>>> say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX
>>>> tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in
>>>> a search for the truth about audible differences."
>>
>> No doubt an out-of-context quote.
>
> Not at all, Arny. Why don't you go read the article?
>
> "Statistics in A/B Testing: By the Numbers", H. Burstein,
> Audio, February 1990, pp.43-48.
John, since you are so unwilling to provide a quote fromk
Bernstein in its proper context, it becomes clear that in
fact your quote is out-of-context.
Your descent into debating trade posturing and obfuscation
will no doubt win you even more favor with Middius.
John Corbett
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "John Corbett" <cor...@stat.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:corbett-2411...@0.0.0.0
> > In article
> > <a6adnTGo6qJeJRze...@comcast.com>, "Arny
> > Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>> Perhaps you're unaware of what Herman Burstein had to
> >>>> say about the abysmal sensitivity of small-sample ABX
> >>>> tests. He described that performance as "outlandish in
> >>>> a search for the truth about audible differences."
> >>
> >> No doubt an out-of-context quote.
> >
> > Not at all, Arny. Why don't you go read the article?
> >
> > "Statistics in A/B Testing: By the Numbers", H. Burstein,
> > Audio, February 1990, pp.43-48.
>
> John, since you are so unwilling to provide a quote fromk
> Bernstein in its proper context, it becomes clear that in
> fact your quote is out-of-context.
>
I provided detailed information so you could find the article and read it
yourself. Since you are unwilling to actually do the work to support your
baseless claim about the context of the quotation, I'll provide a longer
quotation from that article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Still with a score of 12/16, now assume that we previously chose alpha'
equals 0.01, leading us to reject H_1 and conclude that audible
differences do not exist. Further assume an effect size of 70%. In this
situation, Type 2 error risk is 0.75. If a subject can make correct
identifications 70% of the time in the long run, we run a 75% risk of
being wrong in rejecting H_1.
An error risk of 0.75 is, of course, outlandish in a search for the truth
about audible differences. More attention should have been paid to the
design of the A/B test with respect to specifications of error risk,
effect size, and resultant sample size.
--------------------------------------------------------------
So how, exactly, is my earlier quote out of context?
BTW, your 14/16 ABX test is actually even worse than Burstein's example.
His example is an approximate 0.01-level test (where 13/16 is the critical
score, so 12/16 is not enough to reject H_0). However, under the same
conditions as in the article, your test has a 90% error risk.
> Your descent into debating trade posturing and obfuscation
> will no doubt win you even more favor with Middius.
Arny, are you really stupid enough to believe what you post?
Do you think you are fooling anyone else?
John Corbett
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
How, exactly, does existence of a flaw in someone else's sighted testing
do _anything_ to fix the problems in your test, Arny? In the real world,
where I live and work, people understand that merely saying there is a
problem with sighted testing cannot fix the proven failures of other
tests.
Elsewhere in this thread, you wrote
> ... likes to pretend that he's found some theoretical flaw.
> The operative word here is theoretical, as opposed to practical.
I'm not pretending anything. Your test are fundamentally flawed as tests
for small effects.
Theoretical issues have practical real-world consequences.
Arny, it's about time for a reality check.
Statistical theory applies to real-world testing every bit as much as
electronic theory and acoustical theory do to audio in general. In the
real world, we don't believe that a cable manufacturer's marketing
department can suspend the laws of physics, and we don't believe that laws
of nature are waived just because you don't know about them. Your
ignorance of probability and statistical theory does not prevent your
tests from behaving as theory says they should.
In setting up an ABX test, we have four quantities to consider:
(i) Type 1 error rate (alpha)
(ii) Type 2 error rate (beta)
(iii) Minimum reliably detected effect size (theta)
(iv) Sample size (n)
Once we choose any three of these the fourth is also determined. For example,
I - When you pick alpha = .01 and beta = .01 and you want to reliably
detect threshold-level effect sizes (theta = .75) you will need sample
size n = 80.
II - When you pick alpha = .01 and want to detect threshold-level effect
sizes using a sample size of only 16, your type 2 error rate is beta =
.80; this is _not_ a reliable test for those effects. In other words,
when a subject's true long-run success rate is at threshold, this test
will _miss_ that 4 times out of 5.
III - When you pick alpha = .01 and beta = .01 and use n = 16, you are
going to only be able to reliably detect effects so gross that their
long-run correct-response rate is at least about 97%.
I'm not making these figures up---these are basic results from standard
formulas and tables that appear in many textbooks and other sources. For
instance, one of Burstein's AES papers is a collection of formulas and
worked examples you can use for these. (However, his formulas are
approximations, so they are slightly different from these exact values.)
You can also get some of these figures from tables in Sensory Evaluation
Techniques, 3rd ed., (Meilgaard, Civille, and Carr). For example, the
required sample size for alpha = .01 and beta = .01 and theta = .75 (theta
is p_max in SET) is 80 as found in table T9 on p. 370. Also in that table
you may note that for alpha = .01 there is no sample size as small as 16,
since the beta risk value is then over 50%. In other words, they realize
that an experiment for detecting theta = .75 with alpha = .01 and n = 16
is hardly worth doing.
You won't have much luck finding any authoritative source who says you can
hold both type 1 and type 2 error rates as low as .01 while making an ABX
test a sensitive test for small effects using a sample size of 16.
So on the one hand we have the knowledge of real-world mathematicians and
statisticians and other researchers, and the standard formulas and tables
we use to determine sample size and related quantities when we construct
an experiment.
These methods are in widespread use throughout the real-world research
community; people agree that those methods work, and they accept the
theory behind those methods. That theory says that tests such as the
14/16 ABX test cannot reliably detect small differences, so it is hardly
surprising that such tests rarely find evidence very often that smaller
effects are really present.
On the other hand, we have Arny, who says that the 14/16 ABX test is
sensitive to both large and small effects, and uses null results as if
they were strong evidence that listeners were doing no better than
guessing. This flies in the face of what professional researchers know,
but Arny offers no theory to support his version, and seems to think that
merely using a broken test for many years makes it a good procedure.
So who is disconnected from the real world here?
Ruud Broens
: In article <seadnWxcmau...@comcast.com>, "Arny Krueger"
and let's not forget the other nail to the ABX coffin:
a little thing called operationism.
"The validity of any scientific finding or concept depends on the validity
of the procedures employed in arriving at that finding or concept"
iow the validity of both results and interpretations thereof are
contingent upon the way you get them
it's like, you're using a broken calculator
it may have clearly marked keys and functioning display
the results _are_ nonsense :-)
Rudy
Sander deWaal
>it's like, you're using a broken calculator
> it may have clearly marked keys and functioning display
> the results _are_ nonsense :-)
Thank's for admitting Roud that you don't now the differecne between a
broken calculator and, a broken clock, thats right, twice a day, LOL!!
When you hook up your trusty Fluke 73 to a 9V battery and it displays
23.00 volts, do you believe the meter just because it is digital?
ROTFLMAO!!
--
"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
Ruud Broens
"Sander deWaal" <nos...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:mt6ho1l01pnamrl0u...@4ax.com...
some broken thingies are better than others is all
one needs to know :-) trust me
Rudio
Sander deWaal
>: >it's like, you're using a broken calculator
>: > it may have clearly marked keys and functioning display
>: > the results _are_ nonsense :-)
>: Thank's for admitting Roud that you don't now the differecne between a
>: broken calculator and, a broken clock, thats right, twice a day, LOL!!
>: When you hook up your trusty Fluke 73 to a 9V battery and it displays
>: 23.00 volts, do you believe the meter just because it is digital?
>: ROTFLMAO!!
>some broken thingies are better than others is all
>one needs to know :-) trust me
>Rudio
Thanks for admitting mr. Brownose that the best you, can do is an
imitation of a broken, Fesrtler, LoT:s! ;-(
Steven Sullivan
> In article <seadnWxcmau...@comcast.com>, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > "John Corbett" <cor...@stat.umn.edu> wrote in message
> > news:corbett-2411...@0.0.0.0
> >
> > > A bad test is a bad test, whether or not you can find an
> > > even worse one.
> >
> > Given that the worse test is so widely used to such a
> > practical disadvantage, we see here yet another example of
> > Corbett's disconnect from the real world.
> How, exactly, does existence of a flaw in someone else's sighted testing
> do _anything_ to fix the problems in your test, Arny? In the real world,
> where I live and work, people understand that merely saying there is a
> problem with sighted testing cannot fix the proven failures of other
> tests.
But in the real world, the sighted test is the one that produces
the recommendations that most consumers see in the audio press.
If the 'flaw' in a particular DBT (whether it was an ABX or
other species of DBT) is that insufficient trials were done to
exclude errors to a specified degree Y, then you will have to agree
that that's not an *intrinsic* flaw of DBT. It's an implementation
or protocol issue. Yet in the meantime you
have an *intrinsically* flawed method -- sighted evaluation --
as the dominant paradigm in audio journalism and reviewing.
To deny *that* is to be truly disconnected from the real world.
Can you suggest a test to remedy that?
Ruud Broens
btw what is your guitarist audio opnion when i use a
ck5654 at 72V 2mA Rl=15K with a 4 Vtt in ? ;-)
R.
George M. Middius
Sillybot rants on and on and on.
> But in the real world, the sighted test is the one that produces
> the recommendations that most consumers see in the audio press.
You already know all auditions are worthless, including your own. So why do
you keep beating this dead horse, Silly?
Clyde Slick
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
He has some kind of perceptual tic that precludes him from cognitively
registering the word 'enjoyment'.
Sander deWaal
>btw what is your guitarist audio opnion when i use a
>ck5654 at 72V 2mA Rl=15K with a 4 Vtt in ? ;-)
>R.
LoT;S! of second harmonics.
Use a LM741 instead, supplied with +/- 3V.
Ruud Broens
: "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> said:
:
: >btw what is your guitarist audio opnion when i use a
: >ck5654 at 72V 2mA Rl=15K with a 4 Vtt in ? ;-)
: >R.
:
:
: LoT;S! of second harmonics.
yes! a dajly portion of distortion
just what the doctor prescribed :-)
(you corretcly gathered it was in triode mode)
:
: Use a LM741 instead, supplied with +/- 3V.
err, may try that l8er - that's not part of a serious hobby, is it ?
sounds more like tweako freako stuff
:
: --
Sander deWaal
>: >btw what is your guitarist audio opnion when i use a
>: >ck5654 at 72V 2mA Rl=15K with a 4 Vtt in ? ;-)
>: >R.
>: LoT;S! of second harmonics.
>yes! a dajly portion of distortion
> just what the doctor prescribed :-)
>(you corretcly gathered it was in triode mode)
Of course, with a Ra of 15 k!
Wimpy tube, BTW.
Get a 6S19pi instead:
http://home.planet.nl/~benadski/CO/6S19P.pdf
>: Use a LM741 instead, supplied with +/- 3V.
>err, may try that l8er - that's not part of a serious hobby, is it ?
> sounds more like tweako freako stuff
For even tweakier results, a 709 would do fine, you will note.
Forget about the frequency compensation, you're looking for a distinct
sound, no?
Ruud Broens
: "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> said:
:
: >: >btw what is your guitarist audio opnion when i use a
: >: >ck5654 at 72V 2mA Rl=15K with a 4 Vtt in ? ;-)
:
unregulated, you will note :-)
: >: Use a LM741 instead, supplied with +/- 3V.
:
: >err, may try that l8er - that's not part of a serious hobby, is it ?
: > sounds more like tweako freako stuff
:
:
:
: For even tweakier results, a 709 would do fine, you will note.
: Forget about the frequency compensation, you're looking for a distinct
: sound, no?
distinct but gooood, pls ;-)
RB
: --