The end of R.A.H-E

[RAHE Moderator]

Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the
rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016.

We have a few options, and I will lay them out.

1. Close the newsgroup.

This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will
send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some
servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator,
no more messages will ever appear.

2. Open the newsgroup.

In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone
can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant,
and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear
differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody
can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's
just my opinion.)

3. Self-moderate the newsgroup.

There's a secret method to getting posts approved on rec.audio.high-end.
If you do it without authorization, people will consider your actions
despicable. In this proposal, I will grant that authorization to everyone.
Spammers will be unlikely to use it, but people who don't remember how to
do it will have their messages disappear without a trace. Moderation
effectively ends.

4. Find a new moderator.

Self-explanatory, I think.


Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, theorizing,
whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is constrained to the
topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather than the general
purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close April 1, 2017, unless
there is an active discussion going on.

-dsr-

[abbeynormal]

am unfamiliar with #3 so obviously that wouldn't work for me. #2 IMHO would be a slow death, compared to the quick death of #1. if #4 doesn't work, then #2 IMHO would be better than nothing.

[Bruce Esquibel]

RAHE Moderator <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> wrote:

> 2. Open the newsgroup.

> In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone
> can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant,
> and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear
> differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody
> can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's
> just my opinion.)

That's probably the best bet.

I really think the spamming era is over for massive disruptions.

The trolls and spammers need an audience to keep their attention to the group
and being the audience is gone, I really don't see it as a problem.

Usenet died and there was a film at 11 which no one bothered to watch.

My only concern is with switching the status, there used to be "a board"
where the control message is sent out from, but I haven't see a peep out of
them except for "lists of usenet groups" lately.

Even if the moderation flag change is sent out, not sure how many news
servers will honor it anymore. So some servers will still have it moderated
and others won't.

But out of the other choices, it's probably the most sane one to try.

-bruce
b...@ripco.com

[Andrew Haley]

RAHE Moderator <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> wrote:
> Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the
> rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016.
>
> We have a few options, and I will lay them out.
>
> 1. Close the newsgroup.
>
> This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will
> send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some
> servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator,
> no more messages will ever appear.

This is surely the best option. Usenet doen't need another newsgroup
full of spam. Nothing good is going to be posted here.

Andrew.

[C. Leeds]

On 2/10/2017 5:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote:
> Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the
> rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016.
>
> We have a few options, and I will lay them out.
>
> 1. Close the newsgroup.
>
> This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will
> send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some
> servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator,
> no more messages will ever appear.

I'm sorry to say that closing the group is probably the best option. This
was once a vibrant community, but of course that was a long while ago.
Competition from other sites surely helped accelerate the decline here, and
the aging of usenet itself is certainly another factor.

[Peter Wieck]

It would be too bad if it were to die - but there is little life in any case. Writing entirely for myself and from the position that quality is in no way related to cost, it was always interesting to see the various views and ideas.

Further to this, this is not, and has seldom been, a place to get advice, help or suggestions with gear, either in the care/feeding or purchasing aspects. Often legitimate questions and concerns would either be dismissed or ignored.

Although I betcha if I were to troll 'this wire/interconnect/capacitor is (insert elaborate descriptive here) and so justifies (insert time and trouble here) at a (insert cost here) premium, we would have half-a-dozen answers within a day, and 40+ in a week.

Leaving it unmoderated would be the most efficient way of providing a venue for the few actually interested in this hobby, do nothing to deter others and allow some lively discussions on off-topic, but often relevant issues.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[~misfit~]

I'd rather no moderation than ending the group. Then, if *you* don't like
the results you can unsubscribe. It gives the readers the option rather than
it being arbitrarily decided for them.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Peter Wieck wrote:
> It would be too bad if it were to die - but there is little life in
> any case. Writing entirely for myself and from the position that
> quality is in no way related to cost, it was always interesting to
> see the various views and ideas.
>
> Further to this, this is not, and has seldom been, a place to get
> advice, help or suggestions with gear, either in the care/feeding or
> purchasing aspects. Often legitimate questions and concerns would
> either be dismissed or ignored.
>
> Although I betcha if I were to troll 'this
> wire/interconnect/capacitor is (insert elaborate descriptive here)
> and so justifies (insert time and trouble here) at a (insert cost
> here) premium, we would have half-a-dozen answers within a day, and
> 40+ in a week.
>
> Leaving it unmoderated would be the most efficient way of providing a
> venue for the few actually interested in this hobby, do nothing to
> deter others and allow some lively discussions on off-topic, but
> often relevant issues.

Seconded.

> "The time has come," the Walrus said,
> "To talk of many things:
> Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
> Of cabbages--and kings--
> And why the sea is boiling hot--
> And whether pigs have wings."

How very apt. )

[Art Shapiro]

On 2/10/2017 2:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote:

> Please let me know what you all think.

RAHE used to be a great and active resource. I personally had RAHE
business cards and would fly to the Stereophile Show each year, wherever
it happened to be, to talk about the shows and what I heard in this
newsgroup. I had the pleasure of meeting the then moderator (prior to
David's long tenure) at one of the shows.

Then the newsgroup got *stridently* usurped by those of the opinion "if
I can't measure it, it must not exist and you can't possibly be hearing
any differences", aka "tin-eared objectivists". This would probably be
the late 90s.

The newsgroup never recovered.

Having it unmoderated would presumably change it into a spam heaven, as
with most other similarly uncontrolled newsgroups.

I'll sadly opine that euthanasia is probably the appropriate decision.

Art

[Ed Presson]

"Art Shapiro" wrote in message news:egf7dv...@mid.individual.net...

________________________________________________________

Before signing off, I'd like to get recommendations for other discussion
groups
on the Internet about hi-end stereo gear.

I'm not up for magazines that review
Wilson's latest WAMM at almost $700,000. (That's not a typo.)

Ed Presson

[Peter Wieck]

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:13:21 PM UTC-5, Art Shapiro wrote:

> Then the newsgroup got *stridently* usurped by those of the opinion "if
> I can't measure it, it must not exist and you can't possibly be hearing
> any differences", aka "tin-eared objectivists". This would probably be
> the late 90s.

I see. "Tin-eared".

I guess that would be the contrast to "received wisdom'?

And why this NG is moribund. When camps are so-divided that the necessary descriptive of the other camp is negative, there is no room for discussion or the fair and free exchange of information or opinion.

[John Stone]

On 2/14/17, 9:11 AM, in article eggl1l...@mid.individual.net,

Is it maybe just possible that the reason this group is dead is simply
because all of Usenet is itself obsolete and dead?

[~misfit~]

I respectfully suggest that, if you think the group is bad enough (and/or
will get worse if unmoderated) then *you* decide to stop following it
yourself and let others decide on a case-by-case basis in future.

Usenet is slow these days but the days of mass spam are gone. For those of
us who still check groups of interest regularly having options is good.

[Peter Wieck]

I dunno.... A few other groups are quite lively. Infinitely better than facebook in any case.

[Ed Presson]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message news:eghuvm...@mid.individual.net...

Yes, I am a participant in one of those active groups. However, many others
are moribund or
stuffed with spam advertisements that have killed participation. I had
hoped that this
group could survive and thrive.

Ed Presson

[Peter Wieck]

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 11:53:58 AM UTC-5, Ed Presson wrote:

> Yes, I am a participant in one of those active groups. However, many others
> are moribund or
> stuffed with spam advertisements that have killed participation. I had
> hoped that this
> group could survive and thrive.
>
> Ed Presson

It can not if +/- 1/3 of the participants are considered a-priori 'tin eared'.

As with the American Revolution at its beginning:

1/3 were 'for' it. As it happens, that 1/3 tended to be amongst the educated, and many, but not most, were land-owners and fairly well off.

1/3 were 'agin' it. As it happens, that 1/3 tended to be amongst the less educated, poorer and not so well off.

1/3 held no brief for either side, and, in fact, found both sides equally annoying as it disrupted trade and commerce. These tended to be amongst those who engaged in trade, commerce, sales and transportation. No surprise there.

As with subjective/objective (ists): They are both more concerned with their own received wisdom, per the tenets of their own revealed religion. Neither is amenable to free and fair discussion, and both would much rather win than be right. Nor would either admit to any sort of testing at any level, as there are far too many oxen on the line.

The other 1/3 or so would like to get on with the business of enjoying the hobby - but dodging the flack is just too many for them.

As an open suggestion on how understand the typical perception of logic, and how all too many of us look at the world - Read Lewis Carroll's Hunting of the Snark. As a send-up of common logic as practiced, it is unsurpassed. If one starts out with a fixed idea - and that idea is not amenable to any level of discussion, then no discussion is possible. Only agreement or disagreement, and only by the 'other' as defined by the 'first' party.

May as well be on Facebook.

[olds...@tubes.com]

On 10 Feb 2017 22:39:04 GMT, RAHE Moderator

I just came here looking for a place to post about where to find some
PRECISION CAPACITORS (for an old piece of tube test equipment that
requires PRECISION Caps. I figured people working on high end gear would
maybe know where to get these caps. I did not know this group was
moderated, I've been on usenet for many years, but I thought all
moderated groups had the word "moderated" in the group name.

Yea, usenet is close to dead, but for old timers like me, there is no
alternative. I wont touch Facebook or any of that so called "social
media" Even if someone paid me to use that crap, I would not touch it,
unless the pay was quite large. Not only is that crap geared to kids
that talk worthless nonsense, and it's too darn slow and its filled with
ads, which are worse than the spam on usenet and can not be filtered,
but I also value my privacy, and if the young generation wants to sell
out and give away all their privacy on Facebook, let them do it, because
I wont....

Since I just came here for the first time, I guess I dont have much to
say, but I'd probably NOT do #1. Maybe try #4, and if thats not
possible, just open it up.... #3 sounds interesting, but I am not sure
how you "Self-moderate the newsgroup". Maybe worth a try though.
Just my 2 cents.

[abbeynormal]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:39:06 PM UTC-8, RAHE Moderator wrote:

I came here hoping to learn of other audio hobbyists'/music lovers' experiences so I could integrate the best of them into my own practices. I wonder how many other people here listen in "augmented stereo"?

[Bill...@the.farm]

On 10 Feb 2017 22:39:04 GMT, RAHE Moderator
<dsr-u...@randomstring.org> wrote:

#2 Open it up, I do not see any reason to just turn it off. If it
gets way to much spam people will self regulate themselves and
unsubscribe. I myself have been viewing since the early 90's but
almost never posted because I never want my e-mail exposed.

[Robert Peirce]

On 2/10/17 5:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote:
> 2. Open the newsgroup.
>
> In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone
> can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant,
> and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear
> differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody
> can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's
> just my opinion.)

This works for me. I think this is the only group I read that is
moderated. Other groups seem to get along fine without moderation.

[bna...@gmail.com]

Back in the 90s, having always been interested in audio and finally finding myself with some discretionary income (i.e., enough that the wife wouldn’t object to my wasting a little), I decided to delve a little deeper into the subject, in particular to answer this question: What should I be listening for to tell the difference between amplifiers?

Fortunately, I soon found my way to RAHE and learned at the feet of a few masters (thank you JJ & Arny & Dick Pierce and a few others) that my inability to distinguish amplifiers by sound wasn’t a personal failing.

At the time, there was nowhere else on Teh Internets that you could learn this, and the moderation (thank you Reynaud and Dave Bath) was essential to RAHE’s value. Everywhere else, foul-mouthed yahoos (and more knowledgeable types who were nonetheless willing to bait the yahoos) ensured a signal-to-noise ratio somewhere in the vicinity of the lower circles of Hell.

In those days, RAHE was a lively place, but it was most lively on the subject of the objectivist/subjectivist wars, a discussion that eventually burned itself out. Once it did, traffic slowed dramatically, and it doesn’t surprise me that DSR finds himself somewhat in the role of the Maytag repairman.

I haven’t posted here in a long time (I migrated to the audio-related discussions at avsforum.com for a while, but my interest in ultra-accurate sound reproduction has waned of late), so I‘ll leave the open-it-up vs. shut-it-down debate to those with an actual stake in the outcome. But before it disappears or morphs into something else, I wanted to thank all the people --mods and posters alike--who made it so great for so long.

bob

[dpierce.ca...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:13:21 PM UTC-5, Art Shapiro wrote:

> On 2/10/2017 2:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote:
>
> > Please let me know what you all think.

First, let me put in my non-vote: do with the group as whatever
respondents see fit. It's essentially dead as it is.

> RAHE used to be a great and active resource. I personally had RAHE
> business cards and would fly to the Stereophile Show each year, wherever
> it happened to be, to talk about the shows and what I heard in this
> newsgroup. I had the pleasure of meeting the then moderator (prior to
> David's long tenure) at one of the shows.
>
> Then the newsgroup got *stridently* usurped by those of the opinion "if
> I can't measure it, it must not exist and you can't possibly be hearing
> any differences", aka "tin-eared objectivists". This would probably be
> the late 90s.

And this sort of response could be seen as another reason why it went
down hill, though the moderators did a pretty good job or tempering
both side of the argument.

But, more to the point, I suppose since the poster has decided to
indiscriminately wave such a broad brush, clearly using (as was often
done in the past), the time-dishonored tool of ad hominem attack, I
suspect I could be one of those splattered with a lot of that paint.

In my particular case, it was rare, if at all, that I ever disparaged
any opinions proffered by anyone as to whether they liked or disliked
a particular piece of equipment or sound of technology or anything.
Rather, I (and MANY others that have been herded into the "tin-eared
objectivist" camp) considered personal preference to be sacrosanct
and unimpeachable.

What I often did, however, is go after the many bogus "technical"
explanations as to why a particular preference was superior. I
specifically attacked (and I know of no kinder word) explanations
like:

* Digital is inferior because there is audio "missing" between the
samples,

* Digital is inferior because the output is a series of stair-steps,

* Digital cannot preserve the phase relationship at higher and higher
frequencies,

* There is a secret, classified, I musty kill you if I show you Army
gun-shot study showing that the ear CAN hear well above 20 kHz.

* Vented box (reflex) loudpeakers can't possible produce proper
bass transients because the vent output is 180 degrees out of phase
with the woofer.

And on and on and on.

And I have always said that people can like what they like, but to
attempts to demonstrate the superiority of one's personal preference
with completely nonsense pseudoscience and expect the world to accept
it as the TRVTH (tm), sorry, you're out of your league.

If you don't like someone pointing to a turd and stating what it is in
simple understandable, verifiable terms, then don't poop there.

> The newsgroup never recovered.

No, it was specifically because of the moderators that it never
suffered from thye extreme stridency of either camp.

Dick Pierce

[Peter Wieck]

My only quibble is that:

Yes, my choices are infinitely superior to yours - for me. As yours are for you. If they happen to conform to each other, good. If not, there is neither harm nor foul *unless* either of us chooses to dictate to the other.

Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure, possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources. Not all of them meaningful to every user. My sovereign example of this phenomenon is the fact that some systems/speakers/amps as a group or individually make me restless. Meaning that after some short period of time I *must* get up and move around, or leave the room (Aside: By that point the cats are long gone). Other do not (and the cats stay, too). The equipment I have accumulated over the years does not make me restless - although it would probably give some here the cold sweats.

But in any case, to me, this is all in good fun. As much as I enjoy popping balloons, I try not to take the joy out of it in doing so. However, those attempting to pop my balloon(s) out of malice or self-declared expertise are entirely fair game.

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Peter Wieck wrote:
> My only quibble is that:
>
> Yes, my choices are infinitely superior to yours - for me. As yours
> are for you. If they happen to conform to each other, good. If not,
> there is neither harm nor foul *unless* either of us chooses to
> dictate to the other.
>
> Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure,
> possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources. Not all
> of them meaningful to every user. My sovereign example of this
> phenomenon is the fact that some systems/speakers/amps as a group or
> individually make me restless. Meaning that after some short period
> of time I *must* get up and move around, or leave the room (Aside: By
> that point the cats are long gone). Other do not (and the cats stay,
> too). The equipment I have accumulated over the years does not make
> me restless - although it would probably give some here the cold
> sweats.

I might say that, as long as you're listening to music that cats like to
hear live, this is a perfectly valid metric. ;)

--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

[dpierce.ca...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
>
> Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure,
> possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources.

Actually, I have NEVER encountered a case where, when a verifiable,
repeatable audible difference was demonstrated, there was not a
large, repeatable difference in measurement. On the other hand,
I have witnessed very large differences in measurements and no definite
repeatable and verifiable audible difference was to be discerned
(differences audible to others, including those claiming to NOT
live in the "tin-eared objectivist" camp).

In fact, I have seldom, if ever, encountered two pieces of equipment
did not have measurable difference between them.

And, as I have related before, I have even measured and personally
heard LARGE differences in some cables. The glaring example was
a case where a semi-pro TASCAM DAT recorder that suffered from
a fairly poorly designed S/P-DIF output driver connected to a
VERY poorly designed (but highly regarded by the high-end press)
Levinson DAC that suffered from dreadful clock recovery was a combination
that was critically sensitive to the capacitance of the interconnecting
digital cable, where the wrong cable put the combination on the verge
of losing sync. The DAC was highly regarded as being "very revealing"
of subtle differences in cables when, in fact, it was a piece of sh*t
mixed analog-digital design.

But, to reiterate, I NEVER encoutered a case where an reliable audible
difference was accompanied by no measurable difference.

And, as an example of bad measuring, there was a measurement of
a new "power supply" for the infamous Linn Sondek done by a magazine
that should LARGE differences in "jitter" between the two when, in fact,
the difference inthe measurement could be shown to be nothing more
than simple truncation error caused by a combinations of a small speed
difference (a fraction of a percent) and improper data windowing before
doing the FFT.

This has NOTHING with "tin-eared objectivists" or any other cheap
attacks: these two example are simple cases of sheer incompetence,
intentional or otherwise.

That was my goal: root out the incompetence and ignorance. Much of
it is due to innocence and simply lack of knowledge, but much is
quite intentional, unfortunately.

Dick Pierce

[Peter Wieck]

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:15:15 AM UTC-4, dpierce.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
> >
> > Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure,
> > possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources.
>
> Actually, I have NEVER encountered a case where, when a verifiable,

> repeatable audible difference was demonstrated,t there was not a

> large, repeatable difference in measurement.

Nor would I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people. But, there is some sort of something that makes me uncomfortable when listening that I cannot point out except by the lack of comfort. Sounds good, seems good, but after some period of time usually less than 3 hours, more than 1 hour with variations, I can no longer sit still. The secondary indicator is that the cats, who usually very much enjoy music of many sorts and genres will leave the room in much shorter order than I will. Others I have spoken to seem to be entirely unaware of this, and whose ears are easily as good as mine, or better. I am not claiming magic, and it is probably measurable with the correct instruments - that I do not have.

[ScottW]

"Peter Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eivifo...@mid.individual.net...

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:15:15 AM UTC-4, dpierce.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
> >
> > Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure,
> > possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources.
>
> Actually, I have NEVER encountered a case where, when a verifiable,
> repeatable audible difference was demonstrated,t there was not a
> >large, repeatable difference in measurement.

>Nor would I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people.

People are different...that's a given. Not sure why that refutes the position
that any difference a person (any person) can repeatably detect is easily
measurable.
The trick is determining what parameters or combinations thereof is triggering
your detection.

ScottW

[Peter Wieck]

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:48:11 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
ould I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people.
>
> People are different...that's a given. Not sure why that refutes the position
> that any difference a person (any person) can repeatably detect is easily
> measurable.
> The trick is determining what parameters or combinations thereof is triggering
> your detection.

I would like to be able to predict that. Here is one example, however:

I happen to have a serious weakness for Dynaco products, tube and solid-state. I have rebuilt enough ST-120s in my time such that I do not even need a schematic and I can pretty much go directly to the problem based on the symptoms. Early versions using 2N3055s for drivers sound much like glass-in-a-blender despite "good specs." There are no less than five (5) factory iterations of this device from first-to-last, the final being called the "TIP-Mod" using TIP31/32 drivers and 2N3772 outputs (and a bunch of other stuff). If I do a simple rebuild, about 80% of the time, it is fine. 20% of the time, the cats leave and eventually so do I. HOWEVER - if I match drivers and outputs very closely, that problem goes away. In the 80% unmatched successes, they outputs and drivers are quite often well over 15% apart. Can I tell you what bothers me? Not in terms that have any clarity to them. Is it repeatable - with that unit, absolutely. I usually put in sockets so making such changes is a matter of moments.

And, it is both cats. One nearly 8, one coming up 4 in July.

I can tell how well I am doing on a restoration based on how many cats are with me in my work room, and for how long as I burn in each item, often step by step - until the cats stop running away.

Test pieces include Kiri TeKanawa, Exultate Jubilate, Emmylou Harris & Mark Knopfler, All The Road Running, Leo Kottke, much Mozart and others.

[ScottW]

[ I would normally reject this message for breaking quoting
rules, and ask ScottW to reformat it to indicate where he is
quoting Peter and where his new material is, but I'm just
not bothering during this period. -- dsr ]

"Peter Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:ej0hft...@mid.individual.net...

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:48:11 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
ould I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people.
>
> People are different...that's a given. Not sure why that refutes the
> position
> that any difference a person (any person) can repeatably detect is easily
> measurable.
> The trick is determining what parameters or combinations thereof is triggering
> your detection.

I would like to be able to predict that. Here is one example, however:

I happen to have a serious weakness for Dynaco products, tube and solid-state. I
have rebuilt enough ST-120s in my time such that I do not even need a schematic
and I can pretty much go directly to the problem based on the symptoms. Early
versions using 2N3055s for drivers sound much like glass-in-a-blender despite
"good specs." There are no less than five (5) factory iterations of this device
from first-to-last, the final being called the "TIP-Mod" using TIP31/32 drivers
and 2N3772 outputs (and a bunch of other stuff). If I do a simple rebuild, about
80% of the time, it is fine. 20% of the time, the cats leave and eventually so
do I. HOWEVER - if I match drivers and outputs very closely, that problem goes
away. In the 80% unmatched successes, they outputs and drivers are quite often
well over 15% apart. Can I tell you what bothers me? Not in terms that have any
clarity to them. Is it repeatable - with that unit, absolutely. I usually put in
sockets so making such >changes is a matter of moments.

A very interesting experience and I don't dispute anything you've said.
I actually think it lends itself toward supporting test measurements.
Matching drivers and outputs (a process of measurements) results in 100%
success.
If you want to know what the problem is with the 20% of unmatched component
amps, you'd have to spend much time carefully and thoroughly characterizing a
defective amp and it's individual components to determine why they don't work
well together in circuit. It could become a lengthy and tedious task requiring
significant equipment and time, especially determining where to draw the line on
what drives a cat away and what lends them to stick around :). The threshold of
acceptable performance in this case.
But it is ultimately, if not practically, measureable.

ScottW

[dpierce.ca...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 9:32:42 AM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:15:15 AM UTC-4, dpierce.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure,
> > > possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources.
> >
> > Actually, I have NEVER encountered a case where, when a verifiable,
> > repeatable audible difference was demonstrated,t there was not a
> > large, repeatable difference in measurement.
>
> Nor would I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people.

How does that follow from what I said? I never claimed that a given
set of measurement data has the same result on all people (presuming
that's what you meant). Different people have different preferences,
sensitivity, biases and "training", unintended and otherwise (perhaps
better characterized as long-term acclimitization). Therefore, that
their reactions are different is not the least surprising.

> But, there is some sort of something that makes me uncomfortable
> when listening that I cannot point out except by the lack of
> comfort. Sounds good, seems good, but after some period of time
> usually less than 3 hours, more than 1 hour with variations, I
> can no longer sit still.

I like Sibelius, a lot. But, there is some sort of something that
makes me uncomfortable that I cannot point out except by lack of
comfort when I am listening to the Sibelius violin concerto. Sounds
good, seems good, but after a period of time, usually less than 3
minutes, I can no longer sit still.

But back to the topic at hand. It seems you're implying that there
is something uniquely unmeasurable in your case that you're detecting
by listening. Yes, I'd bet good money you ARE perceiving something,
but I'd also bet that there are measurable differences, probably more
than might account for the difference you are perceiving.

Dick Pierce

[dpierce.ca...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:21:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:48:11 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
> ould I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people.
> >
> > People are different...that's a given. Not sure why that refutes the position
> > that any difference a person (any person) can repeatably detect is easily
> > measurable.
> > The trick is determining what parameters or combinations thereof is triggering
> > your detection.
>
> I would like to be able to predict that. Here is one example, however:
>
> I happen to have a serious weakness for Dynaco products, tube and solid-state. I have rebuilt enough ST-120s in my time such that I do not even need a schematic and I can pretty much go directly to the problem based on the symptoms. Early versions using 2N3055s for drivers sound much like glass-in-a-blender despite "good specs."

What are "good specs"? Well, they are most assuredly NOT good
measurements. "Specs", as published by manufacturers, are more
marketing and sales tools, somewhat less are they legally binding
agreed minimum requirements to meet the definition of "fitness
for purpose" and almost NEVER are they reliable indicators of
actual performance.

Specifications are not measurements.

If this is not clear, let me say it differently:

SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOT MEASUREMENTS.

And the 2N3055 example you give is a classic example of this. I,
too, have come across 2N3055s that "spec'ed" the same but worked
VERY differently in situ. And taking them back out of the circuit
and actually measuring them, they measure VERY differently. Not an
insignificant number of them didn't even met "spec." Those that
did fell within the manufacturer's stated statistical variance of
their target specs, that that variance is wide for many of the
device's many parameters.

Another example: analog high-order filters. Try and find capacitors
with the kinds of manufacturing tolerances needed to implement a high-
order filter: you need tolerances of perhaps 1% or better. Now, go
shopping for them. You're not going to find them, not for any price
that would fit in the budget of a piece of electronics intended to
be sold to all but the most anally retentive consumer. The capacitors
that were sued, most assuredly "met specs", but the variance in
actual performance among, say, a dozen filters implemented with 5%
and 10% capacitors could be enormous.

If one equates "specs" with "measurements", that's simply a piece
of folly.

If someone comes to me and shows me two different pieces of equipment
that sound different but with the same specs, I will, politely as
I am able, send that person back telling them they ain't even started
their homework yet.

And the "specs as measurements" folly is one I have pointed out more
times than I can count.

Dick Pierce

[Peter Wieck]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:02:19 AM UTC-4, dpierce.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:21:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:48:11 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
> > ould I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people.
> > >
> > > People are different...that's a given. Not sure why that refutes the position
> > > that any difference a person (any person) can repeatably detect is easily
> > > measurable.
> > > The trick is determining what parameters or combinations thereof is triggering
> > > your detection.
> >
> > I would like to be able to predict that. Here is one example, however:
> >
> > I happen to have a serious weakness for Dynaco products, tube and solid-state. I have rebuilt enough ST-120s in my time such that I do not even need a schematic and I can pretty much go directly to the problem based on the symptoms. Early versions using 2N3055s for drivers sound much like glass-in-a-blender despite "good specs."
>
> What are "good specs"? Well, they are most assuredly NOT good
> measurements. "Specs", as published by manufacturers, are more
> marketing and sales tools, somewhat less are they legally binding
> agreed minimum requirements to meet the definition of "fitness
> for purpose" and almost NEVER are they reliable indicators of
> actual performance.
>
> Specifications are not measurements.
>

> SNIPPAGE <

I agree entirely with your premise and statement that Specifications are no Measurements Hence the "" around "specs".

Few of us in the hobby end of the range have much more than very crude measuring devices - perhaps a high-end VOM and a sound meter, maybe. Or a scope.

However, I am kept by two cats that more quickly than I recognize something 'off' in audio equipment. So, they are my measuring devices amongst many other attributes and skills that they have. The dogs could care less.

p.s.: Every device in the inventory that once used 3055s is now using 3772s with the 'proper' bias adjustments. Much better, thank you!

[dpierce.ca...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:23 AM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
> p.s.: Every device in the inventory that once used 3055s is now
> using 3772s with the 'proper' bias adjustments. Much better, thank you!

Yeah, well not really.

Way, WAY back, when my father was getting his PhD in Physical Chemistry
at Columbia, he filed and was granted a patent having to do with
epitaxial deposition of compounds on silicon substrates.

A year or so after the patent expired, the world decided THE way
to make a lot of semiconducting devices was via the epitaxial
method. Had he the foresight to wait a few years or to renew the
patent with some appropriate variation, and had managed to get
people like TI to give him a piddling royalty of something like
$0.001 per device*, I'd be a quadrabazillionaire. I'd have the
likes of Bill Gates cleaning my toilets. I'd be able to hire and
fire Trump twice a day just for the fun of it.

* Perhaps the better way, back in the '60's, would have been to
charge $0.00001 per junction, not $0.001 per device. Back then,
the licensees would have jumped at the opportunity, but by
the late '70's royalties would have amounted to a buck a chip,
only to increase exponentially, according to Moore's law, from
that point forward.

Sigh, missed opportunities...

Dick Pierce.

[Peter Wieck]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:37:53 PM UTC-4, dpierce.ca...@gmail.com

>>. I'd have the
> likes of Bill Gates cleaning my toilets. I'd be able to hire and
> fire Trump twice a day just for the fun of it.
>
> * Perhaps the better way, back in the '60's, would have been to
> charge $0.00001 per junction, not $0.001 per device. Back then,
> the licensees would have jumped at the opportunity, but by
> the late '70's royalties would have amounted to a buck a chip,
> only to increase exponentially, according to Moore's law, from
> that point forward.
>
> Sigh, missed opportunities...
>

Snippage

Be careful what you wish for - and you are not the first!

https://dailyoddsandends.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/how-nikola-tesla-threw-away-a-billion-dollar-fortune-then-died-penniless/

[Walt]

On 2/10/2017 5:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote:

>
> 2. Open the newsgroup.
>
> In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone
> can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant,
> and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear
> differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody
> can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's
> just my opinion.)
>

At this point usenet is sufficiently depopulated that a couple of spam
filters seems to work pretty well. I don't read all that many usenet
groups these days, but the few I do are unmoderated and are still usable
(with a few entries in the killfile, of course)

I can't say I'll be heartbroken if RAHE goes away, but leaving it up and
running seems to be the best option.

Thanks a bunch to David for moderating all these years; I understand why
you are ready to move on.

I say set the group free and let it live or die on it's own rather than
killing it.

-Walt

//Walt

[-dsr-]

On 2017-02-10, RAHE Moderator <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> wrote:
> Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the
> rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016.
>
> We have a few options, and I will lay them out.
>
> 1. Close the newsgroup.
>

> 2. Open the newsgroup.
>
> 3. Self-moderate the newsgroup.

>
> 4. Find a new moderator.
>
>

> Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, theorizing,
> whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is constrained to the
> topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather than the general
> purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close April 1, 2017, unless
> there is an active discussion going on.

There is no longer an active discussion on this thread.

However, there is substantially more traffic in the newsgroup.

Here is my decision for the next period of r.a.h-e:

1. The newsgroup will remain moderated.

2. The Guidelines are suspended.

3. I shall generally approve any message that is sent, unless it
appears to be obviously spam or gratuitously objectionable.
In particular, I won't be checking for proper quoting format,
or asking people to edit overly-long messages, or calming
flames.

4. When I get too tired of it, or someone else wants to do it,
we'll talk.

Your humble obedient overlord,

-dsr-

[abbeynormal]

thank you for having stuck with this newsgroup as long as you have. I came here to learn from you all and hope that somehow this will continue.

[Andrew Haley]

-dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> wrote:
> Here is my decision for the next period of r.a.h-e:
>
> 1. The newsgroup will remain moderated.

OK, so we should talk about audio again. Whoopee!

At the Tate Modern (a major art gallery in London) there's an
interesting exhibit. It's a carefully-treated room with a high-end
audio system. The idea was that many people have never had the chance
to hear recorded music played back in the highest quality:

"Wolfgang Tillmans' Playback Room is a space conceived by the artist
specifically for listening to recorded music. While museums are
dedicated to the contemplation of works of visual art and concert
halls allow us to experience live music, no comparable venues exist
where visitors can listen to music in its optimum sound quality."

There's room for about twenty or thirty people to sit. The system is
a pair of B&W 800 D3s and Rotel amplification, and the music is
carefully chosen and very well-recorded. And it sounds wonderful. In
particular, the soundstage is excellent: very broad and deep, and
without any small "sweet spot". I'm guessing that the wide soundstage
is as much due to the acoustic treatment as the speakers.

http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/talk/wolfgang-tillmans-2017/playback-room-sessions

Andrew.

[abbeynormal]

wish they had something like that in my neck of the woods. nearest high-end audio store is half a day's drive from me. and it is oh so snooty in there.

[~misfit~]

Thanks for the not inconsiderable time that you must spend moderating
R.A.H-E. I appreciate it.

[Bart Candlewick]

Dick, you are my hero.

Bart