Results of My SECOND BLIND CD PLAYER TEST......
Rich Harkness
(whoops, made a mistake in the header in my first post attempt)
I wrote the original post entitled "My BLIND TEST of CD Players -
here’s the results…."
That post detailed my experience in hearing differences between my
Museatex DAC and my Meridian 508.20 in a blind test that I
constructed. Many helpful types pointed out to me that the Radio
Shack meter I used was not the proper device to employ if I wanted to
match output levels with real accuracy. "Get thee a voltmeter and do
it right" they said. And so I went forth, and lo, I did find a
voltmeter.
I borrowed a voltmeter from the tech department at work (I work at a
large sound editing/mixing facility).
The sound technicians showed me how to work it, and best deploy it,
for my test.
I had been working up a sweat imagining having to beg my spouse to
help me in another audio-nerd test. In a stroke of luck, my
father-in-law happened to be around to help me do these tests. He’s a
classical music nut and owns a beautiful-sounding music system. He is
also a hard-nosed engineer, and does not bother listening to
components that should sound the same (re: amps, CD players etc.) -
his late 80’s CD player and amp are doing just fine, thank you.
Luckily he’s more sympathetic to the cause of good sound, and I was
able to squeeze many more test scenarios out of this session than in
the first one.
Right then. The test.
I chose a comfortable volume at which to listen, and used the
voltmeter to measure the level at the speaker terminals. My speakers
measured a few tenths-of-a-volt different in level, so I used my
pre-amp’s balance control slightly to even them out. I set both the
Meridian and the Museatex DAC to 1.72 volts. As in the previous test,
they measured the same, and I could not perceive a volume difference
between the two units.
The method we used was the same as the last test (as this was deemed
acceptable by the critics). He did not know which DAC was connected
to which inputs. I told him not to simply switch between the two
sources constantly, but to make the switching unpredictable and
‘random.’ A sans music pre-test showed that, with a few ‘fake’ switch
movements of the source selector in between source selections, I could
not reliably guess which source had been selected. I was blind-folded
and we did not talk to each other during the test, except when I said
"switch." My FIL (father-in-law), kept track of my correct and
incorrect answers.
Here’s the score for TEST A:
Meridian vs Museatex
Out of 18 trials
Incorrect Guesses: 1
Correct Guesses: 17
For some reason I guessed the first sound I heard as the Meridian, but
it was the Museatex. As soon as I heard the next choice I immediately
recognized IT as being the Meridian and knew I’d made a mistake, but
the incorrect guess was ‘on record.’
These units simply sounded different. All the differences I’d
mentioned in my first post were easily heard in this test as well:
The Meridian’s clearer, sharper sound, better image focus, higher
highs, excellent separation of instruments etc. The Museatex’s
bigger, lusher sound and deeper, wider soundstaging, it’s smoother
sound, and a dead giveaway being it’s bigger, deeper bass.
Interestingly, the Museatex displayed more of the original acoustics
of the recording - reverb trails and all - than the Meridian. I’d
have guessed the reverse - that the Meridian with it’s ‘extended’
treble energy would evince the acoustics more, but this was not the
case. (I’d noted this long before in my subjective comparisons).
Again, not HUGE differences, but distinct and detectable.
I’ve always felt that I perceived the differences between these units
even when I’m listening from another room. Aha, another test! I knew
that I’d hooked the Meridian to the CD input and the Museatex to the
Auxiliary input. So I listened from another room, about twenty feet
from the opening of the listening room.
My FIL manned the selector and I shouted my guesses as to which input
he’d selected.
Results of TEST B:
(Out of 10 trials)
Incorrect Guesses: none
Correct Guesses: 10
Again, as mentioned in my last post, the Museatex sounded smoother,
fuller, with bigger bass, but the Meridian sounded cleaner, brighter
and tonally more convincing. I’ve always felt that if I’m paying big
bucks for a source whose attributes disappear unless I’m sitting
facing the speakers, then it’s not worth my money. I listen too often
from various rooms adjacent to my listening/living room.
Next, I brought out my wife’s Sony CDP-295 CD player. It’s
approximately seven years old, and in excellent condition. I wanted
to test it against the Meridian and the Mietner because it is held by
many people that an expensive high-end CD player will not improve on
the sonic performance of a well-made mid-level Sony player (which this
is). Unfortunately, the Sony’s output level was SLIGHTLY lower than
the Meridian/Museatex. Since the Sony had no separate volume control,
we had to match the outputs using the pre-amp volume and mark beside
the volume pot how much my FIL had to turn it to match outputs (very
little). I realize this is not as perfect a set-up as the
Mietner/Meridian test, but my FIL was very good at getting within a
couple of 10ths of a volt using the pot marks (on our test tone).
Anyway, I’ll give you the test results:
(I started lowering the trial numbers, so as not to wear out my FIL’s
patience, plus it was more cumbersome: my FIL had to open and close
both CD trays at once so I didn’t know which unit was receiving the
CD. There was a CD in each machine - so that I always heard the sound
of two drawers opening and two CDs being removed, but I couldn’t tell
if a switch was happening.)
Results of TEST C
Meridian vs Sony
(out of 6 trials)
Incorrect Guesses: 0
Correct guesses: 6
Again, very easy. The Sony sounded flat, more electronic, less
detailed, less spacious, less real. The drum hi-hat on the Sony
sounded more like white noise bursts, whereas on the Meridian, the
drumstick and texture of the high-hat was more audible and natural.
The Meridian simply exceeded the Sony in all those areas that we would
deem ‘higher fidelity.’ When distant string lines entered behind the
singer, on the Sony
they were ‘colorless,’ flat, thin - I would not confidently tell if
they were synthetic, sampled or real strings.
On the Meridian the strings were better separated in the mix, with
tone and texture that immediately said ‘real strings.’ Subtle, but to
me, significant.
Next we tried the ‘Listening from the other room’ test. Here’s the
results:
TEST D
Meridian/Sony
(out of 12 trials)
Incorrect Guesses: 0
Correct Guesses: 12
‘nuf said.
Next up: Sony VS Museatex.
I figured this one would be the hardest, because there wasn’t anything
like the Meridian’s extended treble to cue me - both the Sony and the
Museatex seemed to have the same rolled off treble (relative to the
Meridian). However, once I heard the difference between them (even
level-matched) I could tell each apart.
Sony vs Museatex
(out of 8 trials)
Incorrect Guesses: 1
Correct Guesses: 7
Same thing as the first test - heard the Sony first and thought "
rolled off treble, must be the Museatex." But after hearing the
Museatex I recognized it and could identify it accurately. The
Museatex sounded fuller, lusher, bigger soundstage by far (relatively)
and deeper bass. The main thing is the Museatex just sounded more
rich, more ‘real’ in a way that allowed me to listen to the performers
as if I were eavesdropping in the studio. The Sony just sounded too
one-dimensional and electronic in comparison.
Must I say again - subtle sonic differences, big subjective effect.
OK, so there you are. I’ve tried to describe the tests exactly as
they occurred, with no fudging. If I wanted to confirm my biases I’d
just invite an audio buddy over to talk about how great my components
are. Instead, I wanted to confront my subjective biases to see if
they hold up in an objective test. Gimme the truth, I can take it, I
swear.
Any comments on these shenanigans?
Rich H.
The Devil
Yep, you've just proven to yourself what most of us here already know.
You have just made yourself a number of enemies. They're not worth
taking seriously. Just enjoy your audio gear! ;-)
__
Roy Briggs. Remove [SPAMOFF] to reply.
Arny Krüger
The Devil wrote in message <7311fs$dvo$3...@newsreader4.core.theplanet.net>...
>Rich Harkness wrote
>
In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
communicate unspoken cues.
The Devil
>In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
>communicate unspoken cues.
Wanna make a quick £4M proving that assertion of yours?
Arny Krüger
The Devil wrote in message <7318cb$h8j$1...@newsreader4.core.theplanet.net>...
>Arny Krüger wrote
>>communicate unspoken cues.
>
>Wanna make a quick £4M proving that assertion of yours?
It's not my assertion. It's a generally-known scientific fact. References
showing that, and examples of the same applying to audio have been posted here
many times.
>
I'd settle for $100 and doing something that will actually happen. ;-)
The Devil
>>Wanna make a quick Ł4M proving that assertion of yours?
>It's not my assertion. It's a generally-known scientific fact. References
>showing that, and examples of the same applying to audio have been posted
>here many times.
Yeh, and you're all full of the same shit. Picking up my annual income plus
travel expenses just for confirming a scientific fact must seem like a terribly
delicious proposition. When you coming over to England? And when are you
going to answer the questions I asked you? Here they are again, just in case
you forgot:
1. What amp that you have recommended as sonically indistinguishable
from all other properly functioning designs would you like to put to
the test?
2. What is the likelihood of me scoring correct in a 30-trial AB test
with two pieces of equipment that are, as far as you are concerned,
identical? What are the odds? What is the P of guessing correct?
3. Explain how I am buying the pot when all conditions and operating
parameters will be agreed upon prior to the test and leave conditions
which you claim are impossible for distinguishing the two set-ups?
How can you even contemplate that I am trying to buy the pot when
you state opinions on RAO over and over that would clearly indicate
that if you are correct there is no way I can win this bet? Explain,
please.
4. What compensation do you require for loss of earnings during the
few days you will be staying in England?
5. What is your annual income?
Chuck Ross
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
> communicate unspoken cues.
Rich, there's the first attempt at poking a hole in your tests. You
did, of course, mention that you were blindfolded, so the Grisly One
must be referring to that ESP that seems to be prevalent with in-laws.
Disregard it, Rich.
--
Steve Zipser
>
> In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
> communicate unspoken cues.
SO WHAT!!!!
Zip
>
--
LETS GO PANTHERS
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
PASS Rega NOVA Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC Camelot Parasound
Audio Logic Chiro Benz-Micro Dunlavy NEAR NHT Gallo Zenith Arcane
Mordaunt-Short EAD Vans-Evers Monster/ENTECH ESP Straightwire MORE!
Anonymous lo14
>=20
> Right then. The test.
>=20
> Meridian and the Museatex DAC to 1.72 volts. As in the previous test,
level matching: frequency(ies)? weighting?
details please.
> they measured the same, and I could not perceive a volume difference
> between the two units.
how could you tell them apart then?
>=20
> These units simply sounded different. All the differences I^=D2d
> mentioned in my first post were easily heard in this test as well:
> The Meridian^=D2s clearer, sharper sound, better image focus, higher
> highs, excellent separation of instruments etc. The Museatex^=D2s
> bigger, lusher sound and deeper, wider soundstaging, it^=D2s smoother
> sound, and a dead giveaway being it^=D2s bigger, deeper bass.
> Interestingly, the Museatex displayed more of the original acoustics
> of the recording - reverb trails and all - than the Meridian. I^=D2d
> have guessed the reverse - that the Meridian with it^=D2s ^=D1extended^=
=D2
> treble energy would evince the acoustics more, but this was not the
> case. (I^=D2d noted this long before in my subjective comparisons).
> Again, not HUGE differences, but distinct and detectable.
relative FR deviatoins at 50 Hz? 2khz? 3khz?
4kHz? 5kHz? 10kHz?
>=20
> Results of TEST C
> Meridian vs Sony
>=20
> (out of 6 trials)
> Incorrect Guesses: 0
> Correct guesses: 6
how did you synch the units?
relative FR deviatoins at 50 Hz? 2khz? 3khz?
4kHz? 5kHz? 10kHz?
>=20
> TEST D
> Meridian/Sony
>=20
> (out of 12 trials)
> Incorrect Guesses: 0
> Correct Guesses: 12
>=20
> ^=D1nuf said.
not yet. How did you synch output streams?
give estimate of tolernace.
give estimate of switching delay.
relative FR deviatoins at 50 Hz? 2khz? 3khz?
4kHz? 5kHz? 10kHz?
>=20
> Sony vs Museatex
> (out of 8 trials)
> Incorrect Guesses: 1
> Correct Guesses: 7
ditto.
> Any comments on these shenanigans?
judgment to come after "all" the evidence is prsented=20
Anonymous lo14
>
> Yep, you've just proven to yourself what most of us here already know.
> You have just made yourself a number of enemies. They're not worth
> taking seriously. Just enjoy your audio gear! ;-)
why not dissemunate these "aces?"
Rich Harkness
wrote:
>
>The Devil wrote in message <7311fs$dvo$3...@newsreader4.core.theplanet.net>...
>>Rich Harkness wrote
>>
>
>In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
>communicate unspoken cues.
>
>
Arny, I was blindfolded - no visual cues. There was no talking at all
between us except my saying 'switch.' My father-in-law did not make
a peep during the test. Besides, he did not know which source he was
hearing either - he kept track of my guesses, as I did with a piece of
paper, and we compared afterwords. Plus, as mentioned, we did a
'pre-test' were I tried to guess which source he was selecting simply
by listening to him switch the source selector (with no music). There
were no 'unspoken' cues happening, because I was unable to guess
accurately which source he'd chosen. You've asserted the idea of
unspoken cues contaminating this test - could you point out what kind
of cues I could have picked up considering the above?
As well, please remember the following test, wherein I identified the
sound of the Museatex vs the Mietner from another room. In this case
I listened to the music and yelled 'switch.' When a switch occured I
yelled either 'the selector is on 'CD' (the Meridian) or 'the
selector is on 'auxiliary' (the Museatex). My father did not say a
single word - he'd have to shout like I did. I couldn't even hear the
pre-amp switching sources, only the music briefly stopping and
starting. What possible cues could my father-in-law given me in that
case?
As I admitted, because of the lack of volume control on the Sony
player, during the Sony player tests my father-in-law knew which
source he was selecting. I can see that these were 'single blind'
tests. However, we did 'pre-tests' for each one, not using music, to
see if I could reliably identify the source being selected via cues
other than the sound of the units. I could not. The only variable
that changed in the tests was the use of music as my focus.
Rich H.
rne...@my-dejanews.com
Amen, brother, Amen. Too bad we can't make this test come up on the screen
every time 'the enemies' start tap-tap-tapping on their drums.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
rne...@my-dejanews.com
"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> The Devil wrote in message <7311fs$dvo$3...@newsreader4.core.theplanet.net>...
> >Rich Harkness wrote
> >
>
> communicate unspoken cues.
>
done. Get a new cause. "Votes for Women"? Get a job.
rne...@my-dejanews.com
ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
> In article <7317ba$ae3$1...@excalibur.flash.net>, "Arny Krüger"
> <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
> > communicate unspoken cues.
>
> did, of course, mention that you were blindfolded, so the Grisly One
> must be referring to that ESP that seems to be prevalent with in-laws.
>
> Disregard it, Rich.
> --
second test, I thought, foolishly, finally we'll have peace on this one
for a while. But Mr. Briggs and others knew better. All the best from those
of us who believe our ears.
Bob Neill/Worcester, MA
Arny Krüger
The Devil wrote in message <731aa9$ohe$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net>...
>Arny Krüger wrote
>
>>>Wanna make a quick Ł4M proving that assertion of yours?
>
>>It's not my assertion. It's a generally-known scientific fact. References
>>showing that, and examples of the same applying to audio have been posted
>>here many times.
>
>Yeh, and you're all full of the same shit. Picking up my annual income plus
>travel expenses just for confirming a scientific fact must seem like a
terribly
>delicious proposition.
Given your track record as a filthy liar...
> When you coming over to England?
When there is a business and personal reasons make it a good idea.
Also, when I was not worried that the first time I saw your filthy slandering
face I wouldn't punch it.
Given all the bad business between us, the worst of it on your filthy, slimy
hands, any remaining issues are moot.
When you develop some character that is fitting of a human, please reply,
Arny Krüger
Rich Harkness wrote in message <365452e...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
>>>Rich Harkness wrote
>>>
>>
>>communicate unspoken cues.
>>
>>
>
>between us except my saying 'switch.' My father-in-law did not make
>a peep during the test. Besides, he did not know which source he was
>hearing either - he kept track of my guesses, as I did with a piece of
>paper, and we compared afterwords. Plus, as mentioned, we did a
>'pre-test' were I tried to guess which source he was selecting simply
>by listening to him switch the source selector (with no music). There
>were no 'unspoken' cues happening, because I was unable to guess
>accurately which source he'd chosen. You've asserted the idea of
>unspoken cues contaminating this test - could you point out what kind
>of cues I could have picked up considering the above?
Since the "random guessing" results your alleged test of cues coming from the
source selector could be the results of you deciding a priori, that it was not
an issue, that would be as good of a cause as any.
SDuraybito
>Since the "random guessing" results your alleged test of cues coming from the
>source selector could be the results of you deciding a priori, that it was
>not
>an issue, that would be as good of a cause as any.
Folks, as soon as we realize their incessant double-speak will NEVER end the
sooner we can get back to enjoying our hobby.
Siegfried
-- Opinion: a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive
knowledge --
The Devil
>On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:45:55 -0500, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>>In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
>>communicate unspoken cues.
>Arny, I was blindfolded - no visual cues.
You might aswell talk to your bed spread. Arnii hears only what Arnii
wants to hear. He's a nutter, an idiot, laughed at by engineers who
pop in to RAO from time to time.
>There was no talking at all
>between us except my saying 'switch.'
If you don't agree with Arnii, you're a liar. It really is as easy as that. ;-)
>My father-in-law did not make
>a peep during the test. Besides, he did not know which source he was
>hearing either - he kept track of my guesses, as I did with a piece of
>paper, and we compared afterwords. Plus, as mentioned, we did a
>'pre-test' were I tried to guess which source he was selecting simply
>by listening to him switch the source selector (with no music). There
>were no 'unspoken' cues happening, because I was unable to guess
>accurately which source he'd chosen. You've asserted the idea of
>unspoken cues contaminating this test - could you point out what kind
>of cues I could have picked up considering the above?
No chance. Try him on how the unspoken clues were picked up by
you when you were out of the room. ROTFL!
>As well, please remember the following test, wherein I identified the
>sound of the Museatex vs the Mietner from another room.
Oops, you're already there.
Enjoy conversing with RAO's punchbag. If never enlightening, he's always
good to give the occasional kick to, just to break the monotony of his
sameness psuedo-techno-imaginaris mantras.
The Devil
>Given your track record as a filthy liar...
>When there is a business and personal reasons make it a good idea.
>Also, when I was not worried that the first time I saw your filthy slandering
>face I wouldn't punch it.
>Given all the bad business between us, the worst of it on your filthy, slimy
>hands, any remaining issues are moot.
>When you develop some character that is fitting of a human, please reply,
ROTFLMAO! I take it that means you don't want to meet me. Aw gosh,
I'm all cut up.
Just like Nate.
Tom Melanson
your test that "there will always be *something* wrong with your test
unless of course you hear no difference."
The multiple posts following yours prove the sad truth that some
advocates of DBTing really advocate more that DBT's. They have a belief
system as strong as any "subjectivist". I.E.: Since I don't believe
there can be a difference between the tested components (or at least I
don't hear any) , as long as you hear one, your test must be flawed.
It is this philosophy, and not the value of the DBT, to which many on
this newsgroup object.
Tom
Joe Duffy
>OK, so there you are. I’ve tried to describe the tests exactly as
>they occurred, with no fudging. If I wanted to confirm my biases I’d
>just invite an audio buddy over to talk about how great my components
>are. Instead, I wanted to confront my subjective biases to see if
>they hold up in an objective test. Gimme the truth, I can take it, I
>swear.
>
>Any comments on these shenanigans?
>
yes, thank you much from those of us who do not KNOW EVERYTHING
and DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING that we ourselves have not said.
i would love to engage in the same tests with amplifiers.
good thing you are prepared for the nay-sayers, BECAUSE you
certainly did not do EVERYTHING right to PROVE BEYOND THE
SHADOW OF A DOUBT that you heard differences!
joe
Mike
wrote:
>Since the "random guessing" results your alleged test of cues coming from the
>source selector could be the results of you deciding a priori, that it was not
>an issue, that would be as good of a cause as any.
What the hell does that mean?
trotsky
Arny Krüger wrote:
> The Devil wrote in message <731aa9$ohe$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net>...
> >Arny Krüger wrote
> >
> >>>Wanna make a quick Ł4M proving that assertion of yours?
> >
> >>It's not my assertion. It's a generally-known scientific fact. References
> >>showing that, and examples of the same applying to audio have been posted
> >>here many times.
> >
> >Yeh, and you're all full of the same shit. Picking up my annual income plus
> >travel expenses just for confirming a scientific fact must seem like a
> terribly
> >delicious proposition.
>
> Given your track record as a filthy liar...
>
> > When you coming over to England?
>
> When there is a business and personal reasons make it a good idea.
>
> Also, when I was not worried that the first time I saw your filthy slandering
> face I wouldn't punch it.
>
> Given all the bad business between us, the worst of it on your filthy, slimy
> hands, any remaining issues are moot.
>
> When you develop some character that is fitting of a human, please reply,
Don't you have to locate a human first?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Rich Harkness <hark...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>As I admitted, because of the lack of volume control on the Sony
>player, during the Sony player tests my father-in-law knew which
>source he was selecting.
if there was any effect due to input to the preamp? Yes, I know
there shouldn't be. But there shouldn't be any difference between
ACCURATE CD players (as opposed to euphonic ones), either, and as
we've had shoved at us more than once, the level of engineering quality
is quite variable, at any level of consumer or high-end equipment.
Another thing to try would be an attempt to check frequency response,
to check levels at the speakers for each player, at, say,
50Hz, 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 1kHz, 2, 5, ...
and see if there is a difference in the CD players in frequency response.
I've several times found that there was enough ripple in an antialias
filter to make strict level matching impossible, i.e. the ripple was bigger
than the .1dB, and the filters didn't have zeros in the same place.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
WolfGberg
>Also, when I was not worried that the first time I saw your filthy slandering
>face I wouldn't punch it.
Oy a klug! It finally happened! When you push a Paranoid Personality Disorder
far enough, two things can happen. Either, they cross the line into Psychosis,
or, they are so overwhelmed with anxiety provoking material that they release
it in violence.
Mr Kruger! Get help! Talk to someone! Even you should write a letter to a dunce
like Ann Landers, I don't care but you are stepping over the edge! TALK TO
SOMEONE! You need a professional to help you ventilate all your grief and
anger. Then, maybe, G-d willing, you will see the world as the nice place it
is. Please already. Help yourself. It's not too late!
Wolfgang Goldberg
George M. Middius
>>Since the "random guessing" results your alleged test of cues coming from the
>>source selector could be the results of you deciding a priori, that it was not
>>an issue, that would be as good of a cause as any.
>What the hell does that mean?
It means Arnii is having a Sausage Crisis. As has been
proven several times, when the Vile One's excitement module
is flush from overstimulation, its language processing
subroutine gets shorted out. The resulting spew of
Krooglish, as seen above, is purely a defense mechanism.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
George M. Middius
>>Any comments on these shenanigans?
> yes, thank you much from those of us who do not KNOW EVERYTHING
> and DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING that we ourselves have not said.
God will help you. And then He will show you that evolution
does not exist and you should trust implicitly in whatever
you think He "said" in the Bible.
> i would love to engage in the same tests with amplifiers.
Is that what God wants of you? How do you know God approves
of electricity? Has it been proven beyond all doubt?
> good thing you are prepared for the nay-sayers, BECAUSE you
> certainly did not do EVERYTHING right to PROVE BEYOND THE
> SHADOW OF A DOUBT that you heard differences!
In Heaven, all musical performances border on perfection.
Please, won't you teach us about God's scheme for audio?
Arny Krüger
The Devil wrote in message <731qdk$alc$1...@newsreader2.core.theplanet.net>...
>Aw gosh,I'm all cut up.
>Just like Nate.
I guess that is what happens when you donate the organs.
George M. Middius
encounters with the son he recently drove to suicide.
>>>>Wanna make a quick £4M proving that assertion of yours?
>Given your track record as a filthy liar...
Cue the heavy leather belt. No, wait, make that a razor
strop. Did Nate cry out when you disciplined him, Arnii?
>> When you coming over to England?
>When there is a business and personal reasons make it a good idea.
Perhaps you can organize a prayer group for well-adjusted
youngsters, and then lead them into a self-hating despair
from which their only escape, you'll assure them, is suicide.
You don't want to be the only daddy whose children took the
Big Step, do you? ;-)
>Also, when I was not worried that the first time I saw your filthy slandering
>face I wouldn't punch it.
Oops! Mr. Coroner, please dig up Nate's body and check for
bruises and fractures. Once a bully, always a bully.
>Given all the bad business between us, the worst of it on your filthy, slimy
>hands, any remaining issues are moot.
Roy, I believe Arnii considers you his peer in nastiness.
It's hard to believe you could achieve such a rarefied
plateau in just a few short months when it's taken Vile Arnii
40 years to make himself into the millennial NastyBorg.
>When you develop some character that is fitting of a human, please reply,
Translation: If you ever decide to join the Hive, Arnii will
reserve a Special Sausage Session just for you. (That's
supposed to be a temptation -- it usually works on his little
robot groupies.)
What will happen when Arnii stomps back over to the CD-ROM
newsgroups and tries to flaunt his potent hugeness there?
Will they sneer at him as ever before? More likely they'll
just laugh, laugh, laugh at the ridiculous caricature of an
"engineer" ;-) that Arnii actually is.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
__________________________________________
The Krooborg Speaks
Problem: Humans enjoying music on their stereos.
Solution: Torture them with ABX boxes.
__________________________________________
George M. Middius
>> When you develop some character that is fitting of a human, please reply,
>Don't you have to locate a human first?
Don't encourage him, Greg. Right now he's too depressed to
go on an assimilation binge. Remind him of his true
calling and off he'll go to the Gootank Storage Facility
for another canister. He's much more pathetic when he's
trying to match wits with the normals, particularly the
ones who can show what a patently obvious failure he is as
an "engineer." ;-)
Marc Blank
> Sad to say, but this what I mean't when I said in an earlier comment on
> your test that "there will always be *something* wrong with your test
> unless of course you hear no difference."
> The multiple posts following yours prove the sad truth that some
> advocates of DBTing really advocate more that DBT's. They have a belief
> system as strong as any "subjectivist". I.E.: Since I don't believe
> there can be a difference between the tested components (or at least I
> don't hear any) , as long as you hear one, your test must be flawed.
> It is this philosophy, and not the value of the DBT, to which many on
> this newsgroup object.
> Tom
>
This is why I suggested that Rich take a similar test under "neutral"
conditions (i.e. in the manner that Singh's infamous test was performed).
Then, presumably, there will be no question about the validity of the
results. Also, there may be $ at stake, if the betting pool gets
involved.
Rich?
- Marc
Arny Krüger
The Devil wrote in message <7311fs$dvo$3...@newsreader4.core.theplanet.net>...
>Rich Harkness wrote
>
>
>>they occurred, with no fudging. If I wanted to confirm my biases I’d
>>just invite an audio buddy over to talk about how great my components
>>are. Instead, I wanted to confront my subjective biases to see if
>>they hold up in an objective test. Gimme the truth, I can take it, I
>>swear.
>>
Sure with a batting average like that, you should have no problem with a few
discs from "The Perceptual Challenge", Email a UPS-able address to me, and
I'll put your discs on the list..
aquatone-nospam
>
>In short, a single blind test
Hmm. From the description I thought it was double blind. Can
someone please unambiguously state the criteria for what is
single blind and what is double blind?
--
regards,
John
His philosophy was a mixture of three famous schools -- the Cynics, the
Stoics and the Epicureans -- and summed up all three of them in his
famous phrase, "You can't trust any bugger further than you can throw
him, and there's nothing you can do about it, so let's have a drink."
-- We meet Dydactylos the philosopher
(Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Sandman
Mike <theb...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<36567759...@news.prodigy.net>...
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:38:13 -0500, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Since the "random guessing" results your alleged test of cues coming
from the
> >source selector could be the results of you deciding a priori, that it
was not
> >an issue, that would be as good of a cause as any.
>
>
> What the hell does that mean?
Welcome, Mike, to the mind-numbing befuddlement of Kroogspeak.
Sandman
George M. Middius
>>Aw gosh,I'm all cut up.
>>Just like Nate.
>I guess that is what happens when you donate the organs.
Or when you mutilate a corpse to get your jollies.
WolfGberg
>someone please unambiguously state the criteria for what is
>single blind and what is double blind?
It's a simple thing. Single blind is when the subject does not know if he is
drinking Coke or Pepsi. Double blind is when both the subject and the person
handing him the can does not if it is Coke or Pepsi. And what any of this
mishugas has to do with loving to hear good music? I have NO idea, you nutsy
birds!
Wolfgang Goldberg
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>In article <ckross-1911...@usrx2-86.chi-focal.enteract.com>,
> ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>> Rich, all of us owe you a bundle for your patience. When I read your
>second test, I thought, foolishly, finally we'll have peace on this one
>of us who believe our ears.
Rich, I hope that you realize that you've stepped into a minefield,
where a bunch of anti-scientific individuals on this newsgroup, who have
a proven record of harrassing both individuals and employers engage
in a propaganda war that seems intended to bury scientific knowledge
under a barrage of rhetoric.
Under this barrage, some of the people who support basic science have
themselves, it seems to be, gone beyond a reasonable rhetorical
position, to replying with name-calling and the like.
In this atmosphere, it's very hard to discuss much of anything, which is,
I think, what some of the individuals desire.
For instance, nobody here has claimed "all cd players sound the same".
Ditto for most any component, yet you see replies to it on a constant basis.
Btw, did you know that someone has lifted your article in its entirety and
posted it on the tech talk board? I hope they had your permission.
WolfGberg
>
>George M. Middius
>Remove "jiffy" to reply
Can I ask you a personal question maybe? What are you doing torturing this poor
Kruger? He is obviously suffering a mental illness to begin with. He needs
medication like I needed a woman when I turned18. That was in 1933 and almost
nobody shtupped back then, you should know, unless you paid them, goddamit! But
I digress. This Kruger is bursting at the seams with delusions and anger. His
head must feel like a Pepsi bottle all shook up and ready to pop. The man
sounds so ferbissine, so bitter and unhappy, that if the bluebird of happiness
flew into his window he'd mistake it fora turkey and stuff if for Thanksgiving,
G-d forbid! I think he's beginning to understand he needs to seek professional
help. So let's just be menches and encourage him to do that already, okay? It's
a big mitzvah. Take a tip from Wolfie even if we don't agree on Pastrami. It
couldn't hurt.
Wolfgang Goldberg
PAUL MACCA
>In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
>communicate unspoken cues.
Show proof.
----
"We gotta put out these goddamn mop-haired little bastards from England. Jesus
Christ, The Beatles! What a name! And that hair! It's gonna ruin Capitol,
I'm telling you! It's gonna ruin us!" -- Glenn Wallachs, cofounder of Capitol
Records.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
PAUL MACCA <paul...@aol.com> wrote:
>ar...@flash.net wrote:
>
>>In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
>>communicate unspoken cues.
>
>Show proof.
Show your counter-proof.
Now, the test Rich H ran was pretty good in this regard, but your
demand for "proof" is absurd at best, since there is NO "proof"
of any negative, and that's what you're asking for.
George M. Middius
>>Or when you mutilate a corpse to get your jollies.
>Can I ask you a personal question maybe?
>What are you doing torturing this poor Kruger?
Well, it's a long story, Doc. See, it started when Vile Arnii
first attacked me for having an opinion that I couldn't
"prove." It's all been downhill since then.
>He is obviously suffering a mental illness to begin with.
I'm glad to hear that a mental health professional like you
can assert that. Me, I'm just a layman, and I can't
distinguish between a run-of-the-mill asshole who has a
gigantic chip on his shoulder and a real nutcase like a PPD.
>He needs medication like I needed a woman when I turned18.
>That was in 1933 and almost nobody shtupped back then,
>you should know, unless you paid them, goddamit! But I digress.
Just don't undress. :-) Bad-a-boom!
Seriously, though, it's funny you should bring up shtupping.
You haven't been here that long so you may not have seen some
posts Arnii made about sex. Recently he said he porks the
Kroobitch (that's our affectionate nickname for his
wifey-bitch) seven days a week. Nobody believed that, of
course, but it's not something we want to verify, if you take
my meaning.
Before that, NastyBorg (one of Arnii's nicknames here on RAO)
boasted about his wonderful sexual performance, his insatiable
appetite, his predilection for challenging society's backward
social mores on bedroom conduct, etc. It's really quite
disgusting. He's even put statements in his posts about how he
just this minute finished porking the Kroobitch. Now, like I
said before, I'm just an amateur, but isn't it natural to be
suspicious of someone who boasts of his prowess in such a
manner?
>This Kruger is bursting at the seams with delusions and anger.
>His head must feel like a Pepsi bottle all shook up and ready to pop.
>The man sounds so ferbissine, so bitter and unhappy, that if the
>bluebird of happiness flew into his window he'd mistake it for a
>turkey and stuff if for Thanksgiving, G-d forbid!
Whew! Metaphors galore, Doc.
>I think he's beginning to understand he needs to seek professional help.
>So let's just be menches and encourage him to do that already, okay?
Sure. Hear that, Arnii? Get some of that help like the Doc
says.
>It's a big mitzvah. Take a tip from Wolfie even if we don't agree on Pastrami.
>It couldn't hurt.
I don't do a whole turkey at my house. It's Cornish hens all
the way. It may not be kosher, but neither am I.
SDuraybito
wrote: writes:
>Since the "random guessing" results your alleged test of cues coming from the
>source selector could be the results of you deciding a priori, that it was not
>an issue, that would be as good of a cause as any.
Huh?
SDuraybito
>The Krooborg reminisces fondly about his tough-love
>encounters with the son he recently drove to suicide.
Did I miss something? If I remember correctly, it appears the boy suffered
some sort of massive aneurism. Often I miss posts - was there evidence of
suicide discussed?
Nousaine
Rich Harkness <hark...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>As I admitted, because of the lack of volume control on the Sony
>player, during the Sony player tests my father-in-law knew which
>source he was selecting.
Rich, did you try reversing inputs for the two boxes, to see
if there was any effect due to input to the preamp? Yes, I know
there shouldn't be. But there shouldn't be any difference between
ACCURATE CD players (as opposed to euphonic ones), either, and as
we've had shoved at us more than once, the level of engineering quality
is quite variable, at any level of consumer or high-end equipment.
Another thing to try would be an attempt to check frequency response,
to check levels at the speakers for each player, at, say,
50Hz, 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 1kHz, 2, 5, ...
and see if there is a difference in the CD players in frequency response.
I've several times found that there was enough ripple in an antialias
filter to make strict level matching impossible, i.e. the ripple was bigger
than the .1dB, and the filters didn't have zeros in the same place.>>>
Rich how did you synch the Cd players?
--
WolfGberg
>Seriously, though, it's funny you should bring up shtupping.
>You haven't been here that long so you may not have seen some
>posts Arnii made about sex. Recently he said he porks the
>Kroobitch (that's our affectionate nickname for his
>wifey-bitch) seven days a week. Nobody believed that, of
>course, but it's not something we want to verify, if you take
>my meaning.
>
>Before that, NastyBorg (one of Arnii's nicknames here on RAO)
>boasted about his wonderful sexual performance, his insatiable
>appetite, his predilection for challenging society's backward
>social mores on bedroom conduct, etc. It's really quite
>disgusting. He's even put statements in his posts about how he
>just this minute finished porking the Kroobitch. Now, like I
>said before, I'm just an amateur, but isn't it natural to be
>suspicious of someone who boasts of his prowess in such a
>manner?
I'm sorry to say it, but all this sexual bragging you describe fits the
paranoid syndrome to a tee. Most PPDs also have this thing that's called
Megalomania. Along with thinking everyone is trying to do you harm, you also
have to think, somehow somewhere, that maybe you yourself are the one and only
Mr Hotsy Totsy, and THIS is why people hate you. Out of envy! Even in Paranoid
Schizophrenia, the man who thinks the FBI is tapping his phone and the CIA is
following him and the Martians are sending him brain waves, even this meshuga
secretly thinks he is very important. Why ELSE would all these people persecute
him? So your friend Mr Kruger swaggers around like he's a big sexual rooster
and boasts. Of course he does! It correlates! At one and the same time he spits
in the face of these people who are out to get him and tries to give them more
reason to be jealous. Now his paranoia is grounded. At least inside his own nut
jar of a head. Then, when people try to knock him off his pedestal, it
validates his paranoia and his feelings that he is Mister Hoo Hah. So here we
go loop dee loo inside the head of this meschuga man, a man who would be king
because maybe he's afraid he's a * queen*? If you know what I mean, tahtela?
But you know, young man, in all my life, I've been sure about not too many
things. So take it from Wolfie when he says he's pretty sure that much of the
time this is true: The men with the biggest mouths about sex are usually the
men with the smallest love shmeckels. Such a pity.
But we should all live and be healthy and happy and hope this man gets some
help soon.
Wofgang Goldberg
Wolfgang Goldberg
SDuraybito
>Rich how did you synch the Cd players?
By hooking them up to each of your testicles.
Joe Duffy
>does not exist and you should trust implicitly in whatever
>you think He "said" in the Bible.
>
>
>of electricity? Has it been proven beyond all doubt?
>
>
>Please, won't you teach us about God's scheme for audio?
>
is this the little georgey middius mindgame?
oh, excuse me, i used the word mind :-)
Sandman
Mike <theb...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<36567759...@news.prodigy.net>...
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:38:13 -0500, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Since the "random guessing" results your alleged test of cues coming
from the
> >source selector could be the results of you deciding a priori, that it
was not
> >an issue, that would be as good of a cause as any.
>
>
Marc Blank
> Marc, if it were convenient to do so I'd love to (if we lived in the
> same city, for instance). This isn't because I think I'd 'ace' the
> test, but because it would be fun, and the results, either way, I'd
> find enlightening. Since I can't do that, I'm just trying to do the
> best I can in my home. I'm not so serious about this stuff that I'm
> going to hop on a plane or something. I make no claims whatsoever to
> being a golden ear.
> Just because I report hearing a difference between my CD players
> doesn't mean I'm trying to convince you as well. Even IF my test
> results are valid ones, I wouldn't expect you to drop everything
> you've learned about audio and change your view. I understand why
> you wouldn't put a lot of stock in the postings of some person you've
> never met - you weren't there, so who knows how I could have slipped
> up in my test procedure. I'm just trying to get a sense as to whether
> I feel I can put any stock in my own results. The comments have been
> very helpful.
>
> Rich.
>
Don't get me wrong; I do believe you. But I am also aware of the value
of having your experiences verified by those who do not. Thanks for
posting your experiences!
- Marc
Steve Maki
> Another thing to try would be an attempt to check frequency response,
> to check levels at the speakers for each player, at, say,
> 50Hz, 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 1kHz, 2, 5, ...
>
> and see if there is a difference in the CD players in frequency response.
That would be the logical next step, especially in a case where
the differences are so dramatic as to be heard easily from another
room!
--
Steve Maki
Trevor Wilson
Arny Krüger wrote in message <7317ba$ae3$1...@excalibur.flash.net>...
>In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
>communicate unspoken cues.
>
**How, Arny? You Americans got a handle on some unseen, unspoken method of
communication?
Cheers,
Trevor Wilson
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rage
Rich Harkness
>In article <365452e...@nntp.netcom.ca>,
>Rich Harkness <hark...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>As I admitted, because of the lack of volume control on the Sony
>>player, during the Sony player tests my father-in-law knew which
>>source he was selecting.
>Rich, did you try reversing inputs for the two boxes, to see
>if there was any effect due to input to the preamp? Yes, I know
>there shouldn't be. But there shouldn't be any difference between
>ACCURATE CD players (as opposed to euphonic ones), either, and as
>we've had shoved at us more than once, the level of engineering quality
>is quite variable, at any level of consumer or high-end equipment.
>
>Another thing to try would be an attempt to check frequency response,
>to check levels at the speakers for each player, at, say,
>50Hz, 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 1kHz, 2, 5, ...
>
>and see if there is a difference in the CD players in frequency response.
>
>I've several times found that there was enough ripple in an antialias
>filter to make strict level matching impossible, i.e. the ripple was bigger
>than the .1dB, and the filters didn't have zeros in the same place.>>>
>
>Rich how did you synch the Cd players?
>--
Tom, I didn't sync the Sony with either the Meridian or the Museatex.
I wish I could have. This resulted in a fairly cumbersome procedure
(for 'in room' tests):
I used a single CD for all the tests: Everything But The Girl's
"Atomic Heart." Tracks 1 (vocals, stand-up bass, accoustic guitar,
string section) and 11 (club mix of one of their hits - constant
thumping bass, vocals, hi-hat). Since I had only one CD of this, it
was transfered between players for each trial. When this was done,
the stop button on each player was pressed (both the playing unit and
the silent one) and the and the eject button for each was hit. The
silent player also had a CD in it. Both were lifted out of the trays
and then put down again. Both were loaded, and both play buttons were
pushed. In a 'pre-test' trial to see if this would disguise which
unit was playing, I could not tell if a switch had been made or not.
I want to say that I'm not trying to say all CD players sound
different. I respect the data gathered by Arny et al. I'm just
trying to describe my test method and experience as best I can
to see if more experienced people can tell me if I did it correctly.
I'm not being defensive in trying to counter criticisms. Rather, when
there is a criticism, I'm simply relating whether I had thought of it
beforehand, and then what I did to counter the problem.
I'm just trying to learn about where I stand on all this 'objectivist,
subjectivist' stuff. (I do tend toward the rational, but subjective
experiences can be pretty powerful).
Thanks for the interest.
Rich H.
Rich Harkness
PAUL MACCA
>>>In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
>>>communicate unspoken cues.
>>
>>Show proof.
>See the literature, but not for proof, for convincing evidence.
Really? Which literature provides "convincing evidence" that shows that Rich
Harkness received "unspoken cues" in his blind test, as Arny asserts?
Your reply shows that you haven't the faintest clue as to what I was talking
about.
Strike three son, next batter!
Nousaine
>--
<<Tom, I didn't sync the Sony with either the Meridian or the Museatex.
I wish I could have. This resulted in a fairly cumbersome procedure
(for 'in room' tests):>>>
And one where identification is usually easy. BTW what signal did you use for
level setting?
Rich Harkness
wrote:
>jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote:
>
>> Another thing to try would be an attempt to check frequency response,
>> to check levels at the speakers for each player, at, say,
>> 50Hz, 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 1kHz, 2, 5, ...
>>
>> and see if there is a difference in the CD players in frequency response.
>
>That would be the logical next step, especially in a case where
>the differences are so dramatic as to be heard easily from another
>room!
>
>--
>Steve Maki
Which type of meter should I use for the above test ? The Radio Shack
or the voltmeter?
(Maybe I'll just ask the tech guys at work how to go about this one).
Rich.
Rich Harkness
I used a 1K signal.
Just a reminder: my description of the 'cumbersome procedure'
pertains only to the tests using the Sony player. Both the 'in room'
and 'out of room' tests comparing the Museatex and the Meridian, being
level matched at the same point on the volume pot, involved simply
switching the source selector, and were effectively double-blind.
I'm still waiting for a reasonable criticism of that test.
Rich.
Trevor Wilson
----Original Message-----
From: WolfGberg <wolf...@aol.commune>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: Friday, 20 November 1998 8:40
Subject: Re: Results of My SECOND BLIND CD PLAYER TEST......
>>Or when you mutilate a corpse to get your jollies.
>>
>>George M. Middius
>>Remove "jiffy" to reply
>
>Can I ask you a personal question maybe? What are you doing torturing this
poor
>Kruger? He is obviously suffering a mental illness to begin with. He needs
>medication like I needed a woman when I turned18. That was in 1933 and
almost
>nobody shtupped back then, you should know, unless you paid them, goddamit!
But
>I digress. This Kruger is bursting at the seams with delusions and anger.
His
>head must feel like a Pepsi bottle all shook up and ready to pop. The man
>sounds so ferbissine, so bitter and unhappy, that if the bluebird of
happiness
>flew into his window he'd mistake it fora turkey and stuff if for
Thanksgiving,
>G-d forbid! I think he's beginning to understand he needs to seek
professional
>help. So let's just be menches and encourage him to do that already, okay?
It's
>a big mitzvah. Take a tip from Wolfie even if we don't agree on Pastrami.
It
>couldn't hurt.
>Wolfgang Goldberg
Wolfie, you are OUTSTANDING! I love your work. Please keep it up. I just had
an interesting thought: Just when little Kevin dissappeared, you appeared.
Don't you think that is a curious coincidence? I do.
Please keep posting, Wolfie, or whoever you are. You are a beacon of
brilliance in this list. Like I said to Kevin (your alter ego, maybe): You
are engaged in a battle of wits with a few thousand unarmed opponents.
Then again, maybe I'm a little paranoid...........
Steve Maki
> >> Another thing to try would be an attempt to check frequency response,
> >> to check levels at the speakers for each player, at, say,
> >> 50Hz, 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 1kHz, 2, 5, ...
> >> and see if there is a difference in the CD players in frequency response.
> >That would be the logical next step, especially in a case where
> >the differences are so dramatic as to be heard easily from another
> >room!
> Which type of meter should I use for the above test ? The Radio Shack
> or the voltmeter?
> (Maybe I'll just ask the tech guys at work how to go about this one).
The voltmeter, definitely. And a test CD. Please report back.
--
Steve Maki
Nousaine
<<I used a 1K signal.>>>
Sine wave I assume?
The Devil
>The Devil wrote
>>Aw gosh,I'm all cut up.
>>Just like Nate.
>I guess that is what happens when you donate the organs.
But did your wife really need a new pair of testes?
__
Roy Briggs. Remove [SPAMOFF] to reply.
The Devil
>>>Any comments on these shenanigans?
>Sure with a batting average like that, you should have no problem with a few
>discs from "The Perceptual Challenge", Email a UPS-able address to me, and
>I'll put your discs on the list..
Hey, when you gonna do my test, Arnii? I'll do yours if you'll do mine.
You know the kind of thing . . .
swa...@my-dejanews.com
hark...@netcom.ca (Rich Harkness) wrote:
> I used a 1K signal.
>
> Just a reminder: my description of the 'cumbersome procedure'
> pertains only to the tests using the Sony player. Both the 'in room'
> and 'out of room' tests comparing the Museatex and the Meridian, being
> level matched at the same point on the volume pot, involved simply
> switching the source selector, and were effectively double-blind.
> I'm still waiting for a reasonable criticism of that test.
>
> Rich.
>
One question regarding the Musatex and Meridian test. I read your writeup
(and kudos to you for performing such a test, seeking out more info, and
being good enough to discuss logically and intelligently!), and I had one
question with respect to channel imbalance. You stated that you measured a
channel imbalance, and corrected this with your balance control. Did you
measure after that to see if the channel imbalance was the same for both
players? I've often found small, but potentially audible, channel imbalances
in players and other gear, not only as a result of the players output, but
also as a result of which input on a preamp was being used. These have
usually manifested themselves audibly to me as differences in imaging and
spacial depth, albeit slight. The last series of similar tests I performed, I
used a DB Systems line level device that could boost or cut each channel
independantly to match both level and channels between the units under test.
I originally put the unit in the signal path of the cheapest player, but
afterwards also tried it in the path of the more expensive DAC, and it didn't
alter the results. I heard differences similar to what you described before
level matching, but not afterwards.
Don't get discouraged by the increasing level of detail of questions from the
serious posters like Tom, JJ, etc. It's pretty easy to make a mistake in
methodology that can affect the results when you're new at this, they just
want to help you perform as accurate a test as possible. And the freq
response measurements will be important to figuring out why these players
sound different if all aspects of your test turn out to be good. I think you
are approaching this all really well, much the same way I did when I started
these types of tests years ago. I made my share of errors early on, but had
lots of online help in refining my technique (at that time, it was mainly Dan
Field, Ken Kantor, and E.Brad Meyer who were helping me).
Have fun!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mba...@my-dejanews.com
"Trevor Wilson" <ra...@hutch.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> Arny Krüger wrote in message <7317ba$ae3$1...@excalibur.flash.net>...
> >communicate unspoken cues.
> >
>
> communication?
>
The answer is simple. The test, although performed very well and to the
improved standards set forth after the first test, did not produce the
results Arny expected. Being a "scientist", Arny determines that any test
that doesn't produce results he wants must be wrong and the test must be
continually modified until the desired results are produced.
So much for objectivity.
Rich, good work. You now have the choice of either continuing to investigate
the differences between these units ad infinitum to satisfy the unsatisfiable
set, or you can sit back and enjoy the music.
Cheers,
Mitch
Gruvmyster
> trotsky said to the Hugely Grisly One
>
> >> When you develop some character that is fitting of a human, please reply,
>
> >Don't you have to locate a human first?
>
> Don't encourage him, Greg.
"Greg."
Well, Ace, you've made it! You're in the "resistance" now! Can a "resistance"
commission be far behind?
Private Ace. It *does* sound nice, yes?;-)
Doug
--
"If you let that sort of thing go on, your bread and
butter will be cut right out
from under your feet."-- Former British foreign minister Ernest Bevin
SJMARCY
Why not follow up with some more tests, including some more measurements?
Check out the November s'phile which shows a Cal Audio labs which exhibits
extra bass and treble (smiley curve) page 128. Mild but audible. Perhaps a
similar basic difference was a factor in your tests.
Stan
Trotsky
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> > trotsky said to the Hugely Grisly One
> >
> > >> When you develop some character that is fitting of a human, please reply,
> >
> > >Don't you have to locate a human first?
> >
> > Don't encourage him, Greg.
>
> "Greg."
>
> Well, Ace, you've made it! You're in the "resistance" now! Can a "resistance"
> commission be far behind?
>
> Private Ace. It *does* sound nice, yes?;-)
>
> Doug
No, "Doug", sorry, but I think military monikers are bullshit. You were in
the military, weren't you?
--
They knew the monster's every trick
They knew his secrets, every stitch
All of it has been a game
Nothing but a charlatan
Procol Harum, "The Idol"--p.1974
Greg M. Singh
gsi...@mc.net
SDuraybito
>Don't get discouraged by the increasing level of detail of questions from the
>serious posters like Tom, JJ, etc. It's pretty easy to make a mistake in
>methodology that can affect the results when you're new at this, they just
>want to help you perform as accurate a test as possible.
Bullshit alert. They will NEVER be satisfied with your methodology as long as
you come up with a difference.
And by continuing to respond to their crap, you will change the parameters of
your test to the point where you will hear no difference.
It's all a big game.
Best bet: Stop now, go back to enjoying recorded music and LEAVE this shit
alone!
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
PAUL MACCA <paul...@aol.com> wrote:
>Really? Which literature provides "convincing evidence" that shows that Rich
>Harkness received "unspoken cues" in his blind test, as Arny asserts?
The question you NOW raise has nothing whatsoever to do with the
original statement. Furthermore, you failed to include the rest of
the article, which IS germane to your disingenious question.
>Your reply shows that you haven't the faintest clue as to what I was talking
>about.
You have engaged in the several rhetorical cheats, including
but not necessarily limited to:
Building a straw man.
Quoting out of context.
Removing germane comments.
in order to make this personal attack. You owe me a direct and
full apology.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Steve Maki <st...@oakcom.com> wrote:
>jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote:
>> Another thing to try would be an attempt to check frequency response,
>> to check levels at the speakers for each player, at, say,
>> 50Hz, 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 1kHz, 2, 5, ...
>> and see if there is a difference in the CD players in frequency response.
>That would be the logical next step, especially in a case where
>the differences are so dramatic as to be heard easily from another
>room!
After all, unlike what the liars here often claim, not only have
differences in CD players been demonstrated in blind test, they
have been demonstrated to exist by perhaps the most vocal proponent
of blind tests, that being me.
In fact, long ago, we posted into the predecessor of this group, the
original rec.audio, the results of an abx style test (done with an unofficial,
level matched, etc, box we made ourselves), showing that at least one subject
(me, in fact) could detect the difference between a specific pair
of CD players, by showing 9/10 and then 10/10 correct identifications in a
blind, controlled, level-matched test, EVEN UNDER MUCH LESS THAN OPTIMUM
LISTENING CONDITIONS.
That test alone shows that any claim that "all CD players sound the same"
is NOT the position of the blind-test advocates here.
Now, in fact, we did discover an error in the CD player in question,
(one CD player was, in fact, identifiable as compared to all others
in the test, we had 5 or 6, I don't recall which) in that bit
14 was stuck to 1 at the input to the DAC's.
There was one other audible difference, as well, but only in the
case where the volume was turned up in silence, as one of the
more inexpensive players had a noticible 400-ish Hz buzz when
the CD was spinning. (yes, of course it varied with the position
of the read head)
It would pay for the new reader in this newsgroup to actually realize
who is placing the claims of "all 'x' sound the same" on the
blind testing advocates. Hint: It's not the people running blind
tests!
Now, again, I will say that two CD players that MEET WHAT SHOULD BE THE
TECHNICAL SPECS FOR CD PLAYERS should be indistinguishable from one
another, period.
When it comes to 'what meets those spec', I sometimes wish, briefly
and fleetingly, that I could name names. The point would be simple,
some cheap players, and some expensive players both meet this criterion.
Many cheap palyers don't, many expensive players and 2-box sets don't.
Such is life in the real world.
PAUL MACCA
>The answer is simple. The test, although performed very well and to the
>improved standards set forth after the first test, did not produce the
>results Arny expected. Being a "scientist", Arny determines that any >test
>that doesn't produce results he wants must be wrong and the test must >be
>continually modified until the desired results are produced.
>So much for objectivity.
What you say is so true. Anyone who has been here on rao long enough knows
that.
Shades of Margaret Meade.
Doug Stabler
bit 14 bit and 12 bit. I am having avery hard time with Arny's test disk. I'll
admit that with my current work load, I haven't really sat down and given it
the effort I should.
Stewart Pinkerton
>swa...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
>>Don't get discouraged by the increasing level of detail of questions from the
>>serious posters like Tom, JJ, etc. It's pretty easy to make a mistake in
>>methodology that can affect the results when you're new at this, they just
>>want to help you perform as accurate a test as possible.
>
>Bullshit alert. They will NEVER be satisfied with your methodology as long as
>you come up with a difference.
>
>And by continuing to respond to their crap, you will change the parameters of
>your test to the point where you will hear no difference.
Quite so. Match all four channels to 0.1 dB from 20-20kHz, and it's
remarkable how little 'magical mystical' difference has ever been
observed - and *that's* almost always down to distortion artifacts!
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
FZman
>remarkable how little 'magical mystical' difference has ever been
>observed - and *that's* almost always down to distortion artifacts!
>
how much hoopla does one have to engage in to saitsfy this criterion? how
likely is it that any 2 players, straight out of the box will meet it?
if 2 players have responses that fail to match across the entire spectrum,
might they not sound different? who claims their machines are 20-20 +/- .1
dB?
curious, as always
Rich Harkness
>Rich wrote:
>
><<I used a 1K signal.>>>
>
>Sine wave I assume?
>
Yes, a 1K sine wave.
BTW, in matching the DAC output levels with the voltmeter, I found
that the Museatex's output was off by .01 volts on the right channel.
I phoned one of the acousticians employed by our company and he
assured me this level difference would be inaudible, thus I forgot
about it and went on setting up the test. Today I again consulted
another one of the staff acousticians, and a couple of sound mixers,
and was again assured by all that the channel difference is below
audibility.
Oh, yes, almost forgot. The acoustician offered to check the
frequency response of both the Meridian and the Museatex using pink
noise tests etc. I told him I'd bring in the units some time next
week.
Sound kosher?
(This is getting embarrassing, my whole darn company is getting in on
this test).
Rich H.
PAUL MACCA
>>Really? Which literature provides "convincing evidence" that shows >that
Rich
>>Harkness received "unspoken cues" in his blind test, as Arny asserts?
>The question you NOW raise has nothing whatsoever to do with the
>original statement.
No, my question remains as it always was. I asked Arny for proof that Rich
Harkness recieved unspoken cues in the blind test he engaged in. Not my fault
you misinterpreted what I was talking about.
>>Your reply shows that you haven't the faintest clue as to what I was >talking
>>about.
>You have engaged in the several rhetorical cheats, including
>but not necessarily limited to:
>Building a straw man.
>Quoting out of context.
>Removing germane comments.
*Yawn.* All of those charges still does not cover up the fact that you
woefully misunderstood the "proof" I was originally asking for.
>in order to make this personal attack. You owe me a direct and
>full apology.
My pointing out to you that you totally misinterpreted my original statement in
this thread is what you now consider a "personal attack?" You want an apology
from me for a misunderstanding on your part? When a teacher pointed out an
error you made in school, did you accuse your teacher of making a personal
attack and demand an apology?
Grow up!
Gruvmyster
> Arny Krüger wrote
>
> >>Wanna make a quick Ł4M proving that assertion of yours?
>
> >It's not my assertion. It's a generally-known scientific fact. References
> >showing that, and examples of the same applying to audio have been posted
> >here many times.
>
> Yeh, and you're all full of the same shit. Picking up my annual income plus
> travel expenses just for confirming a scientific fact must seem like a terribly
> delicious proposition. When you coming over to England?
My bags are packed. BTW, Roy, why are you intent on basing this on everybody's
participation? If that's the case, let's get the vocal ones on your side involved:
Middiot, Bright Boy, Singh, Sanders, and Puff. What a party!;-)
> And when are you
> going to answer the questions I asked you? Here they are again, just in case
> you forgot:
>
> 1. What amp that you have recommended as sonically indistinguishable
> from all other properly functioning designs would you like to put to
> the test?
Your SE vs. Stewart's Krell, as originally proposed. Add other components one by
one.
> 2. What is the likelihood of me scoring correct in a 30-trial AB test
> with two pieces of equipment that are, as far as you are concerned,
> identical? What are the odds? What is the P of guessing correct?
30 out of 30? Very slim, but not impossible.
> 3. Explain how I am buying the pot when all conditions and operating
> parameters will be agreed upon prior to the test and leave conditions
> which you claim are impossible for distinguishing the two set-ups?
> How can you even contemplate that I am trying to buy the pot when
> you state opinions on RAO over and over that would clearly indicate
> that if you are correct there is no way I can win this bet? Explain,
> please.
It appears, since nobody is going to be the amount you want, you have a couple
options: accept what they are willing to wager, and move forward with the test, or
drop it.
The path you and those who hide in your skirts a following does not say much about
your case.
> 4. What compensation do you require for loss of earnings during the
> few days you will be staying in England?
We've already agreed to 500 pounds/day.
> 5. What is your annual income?
Already known by you.
Well?
Gruvmyster
> Arny Krüger wrote
>
> >In short, a single blind test performed by people who are likely to
> >communicate unspoken cues.
>
> Wanna make a quick Ł4M proving that assertion of yours?
No problem, Roy!
Um, are we testing the SE amp vs. Stewart's Krell, or CD players?;-)
Gruvmyster
> Rich Harkness wrote
>
> >Any comments on these shenanigans?
>
> Yep, you've just proven to yourself what most of us here already know.
You mean like invalid test procedures can give invalid results?
> You have just made yourself a number of enemies.
I doubt it, unless Rich isn't serious about doing it right. Even then I
think "enemies" is a poor word choice.
> They're not worth taking seriously. Just enjoy your audio gear! ;-)
Like you are worth taking seriously? I thought you and the Middiot were
just here for "Humor" and "Irony"...;-)
Gruvmyster
> Very well put j.j.. Out of curiosity, can you hear the difference between 16
> bit 14 bit and 12 bit. I am having avery hard time with Arny's test disk.
I am as well. I haven't attempted the blind portion as yet.
> I'll
> admit that with my current work load, I haven't really sat down and given it
> the effort I should.
Well, ditto, but I would've guessed it would've been simpler to do...:-)
My workload should lighten after this weekend.
Armand
says...
>
>Very well put j.j.. Out of curiosity, can you hear the difference between 16
>bit 14 bit and 12 bit. I am having avery hard time with Arny's test disk.
>admit that with my current work load, I haven't really sat down and given it
>the effort I should.
Arny, how much do you want for the cd?
Armand
Stewart Pinkerton
Yes, but at least you're making a genuine attempt to eliminate all the
obvious variables, and not just screaming 'BORG'!
Once you've finished all this, then you'll have learned something
useful, whether or not you *still* hear a difference.
The Devil
>We've already agreed to 500 pounds/day.
Yep, a couple of days and I pay *you* the stake you're betting
*me*. Like I'm really going to agree to that!
The Devil
>You mean like invalid test procedures can give invalid results?
>I doubt it, unless Rich isn't serious about doing it right. Even then I
>think "enemies" is a poor word choice.
>Like you are worth taking seriously? I thought you and the Middiot were
>just here for "Humor" and "Irony"...;-)
I believe I have remained cordial to you ever since your post agreeing
to tone things down and discuss the wager sensibly. I have not attacked
you, not flamed you, and have not in any way made snide remarks about
you.
Do you want the proposal to go ahead or do you just want to yap on
the sidelines and try everything you can to prevent it from going ahead?
Stewart Pinkerton
>Gruvmyster wrote
>
>>We've already agreed to 500 pounds/day.
>
>Yep, a couple of days and I pay *you* the stake you're betting
>*me*. Like I'm really going to agree to that!
Well, we're certaionly getting used to you never agreeing today to
what you agreed yesterday, now aren't we?
SDuraybito
>When it comes to 'what meets those spec', I sometimes wish, briefly
>and fleetingly, that I could name names.
Implying, of course, that his position in the audio industry is so high profile
that naming names would somehow compromise his position.
What a crock!
It's just another case of a "pseudo-scientist" running around trashing
audiophiles at every opportunity but when asked "what's good?" heading for the
hills.
Two-faced scum.
Kewp
SDuraybito <sdura...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19981121172001...@ng97.aol.com...
>j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) writes:
>
>>When it comes to 'what meets those spec', I sometimes wish, briefly
>>and fleetingly, that I could name names.
>
>Implying, of course, that his position in the audio industry is so high
profile
>that naming names would somehow compromise his position.
Seeing as he authored the codec that is going to replace the compact
disc as the format for all future recorded music, I might think his paranoia
is warrented.
>What a crock!
>
>It's just another case of a "pseudo-scientist" running around trashing
>audiophiles at every opportunity but when asked "what's good?" heading for
the
>hills.
Here is his bibliography, you sure about that "pseudo" thing?
a.. Johnston, J., Herre, J., Quackenbush, S., Allen, J., Dietz, M.,
Davidson, G. and Boltze, T., ``A tutorial on perceptual audio coding,''
Workshop on Perceptual Audio Coding Techniques, 105th Conf., Audio
Engineering Soc., San Francisco, CA, 28 Sept. 1998.
b.. Johnston, J. D., Quackenbush, S., Davidson, G. and Brandenburg, K.,
``Wavelet, subband and block transforms,'' Communications and Multimedia,
Akansu, A. N. and Medley, M. J. (Ed.), Kluwer, April 1998.
c.. Sinha, D., Johnston, J. D., Dorward, S. and Quackenbush, S. R., ``The
perceptual audio coder (PAC),'' The Digital Signal Processing Handbook,
Madisetti, V. K. and Douglas, B. W. (Ed.), CRC Press, IEEE Press, 1998, pp.
42-1 to 42-18, Chapter 42.
d.. Herre, J. and Johnston, J. D., ``Exploiting both time and frequency
structure in a system that uses an analysis/synthesis filterbank with high
frequency resolution,'' AES 103rd Convention, no. preprint 4519, Oct. 1997.
e.. Johnston, J. D., ``A turorial on perceptual audio coding,'' AES 103rd
Convention, Oct. 1997.
f.. Quackenbush, S. and Johnston, J. D., ``Noiseless coding of spectral
components in MPEG-2 advanced audio coding,'' 1997 IEEE ASSP Workshop on
Appl. of Sig. Proc. to Audio and Acoust., New Paltz, New York, Oct. 1997.
g.. Herre, J., Johnston, J. D., Brandenburg, K., Quackenbush, S. and et al,
``Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio: Advanced audio
coding,'' ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG International Standard ISO 13818-7,
1997.
h.. Herre, J. and Johnston, J. D., ``A continuously signal-adaptive
filterbank for high quality perceptual audio coding,'' IEEE ASSP Workshop on
Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, Mohonk, NY, 1997.
i.. Johnston, J. D., Podilchuk, C. and Chen, J-H, ``Digital coding (data
reduction) methods,'' Digital Consumer Elecronics Handbook, Jurgen, R. K.
(Ed.), McGraw Hill, 1997, Chapter 3.
j.. Herre, J. and Johnston, J. D., ``Enhancing the perfmanance of perceptual
audio coders by using temporal noise shaping,'' AES 101st Convention, no.
preprint 4384, 1996.
k.. Johnston, J. D., Sinha, D., Dorward, S. and Quackenbush, S., ``AT&T
perceptual audio coder (PAC),'' Collected Papers on Digital Audio Bit-Rate
Reduction, Gilchrist, N. and Grewin, C. (Ed.), Audio Engineering Society,
1996.
l.. Johnston, J. D., ``Audio coding with filter banks,'' Subband and Wavelet
Transforms, Akansu, A. N. and Smith, M. J. T. (Ed.), Kluwer, 1996.
m.. Sinha, D. and Johnston, J. D., ``Audio compression at low bit rates
using a signal adaptive switched filterbank,'' IEEE ASSP, 1996, pp.
1053-1057.
n.. Jayant, N. S., Johnston, J. D. and Safranek, R. J., ``Image coding based
on models of human vision,'' Handbook of Visual Communication, Academic
Press, Invited Chapter, 1995.
o.. Princen, J. and Johnston, J. D., ``Audio coding with signal adaptive
filterbanks,'' IEEE ICASSP, 1995, pp. 3071-3074.
p.. Jayant, N. S., Johnston, J. D. and Safranek, R. J., ``Signal compression
based on models of human perception,'' Proc. IEEE, Oct. 1993, pp. 1385-1422.
q.. Johnston, J. D. and Ferreira, A. J., ``Sum-difference stereo transform
coding,'' ICASSP '92, March, 1992, pp. II-569-572.
r.. Johnston, J. D., ``Sum-difference stereo transform coding,'' ICASSP-92,
1992.
s.. Jayant, N. S., Johnston, J. D. and Shoham, Y., ``Coding of wideband
speech,'' Proc. Eurospeech '91, Sept. 1991.
t.. Brandenburg, K., Herre, J., Johnston, J. D., Mahieux, Y. and Schroeder,
E. F., ``ASPEC: Adaptive spectral entropy coding of high quality music
signals,'' 90th Convention of the AES, Feb. 1991, Preprint 3011 A-4.
u.. Brandenburg, K., Stoll, G., Johnston, J. D. and et al, ``Coding of
moving pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to
about 1.5 mb./s audio,'' ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG: International Standard
ISO 11172-3, 1991.
v.. Johnston, J. D. and Brandenburg, K., ``Wideband coding - Perceptual
considerations for speech and music,'' Advances in Speech Signal Processing,
Furui and Sondhi (Ed.), Marcel Dekker, 1991, Preprint 3011 A-4.
w.. Brandenburg, K. and Johnston, J. D., ``Second generation perceptual
audio coding: The hybrid coder,'' AES 88th Conv. Preprint, March 1990.
x.. Safranek, R. J., Johnston, J. D. and Rosenholtz, R. E., ``A perceptually
tuned sub-band image coder,'' Proc. SPIE Symp. Human Vision & Electronic
Imaging: Models, Methods & Applications, Santa Clara, CA, Feb. 1990.
y.. Johnston, J. D., ``Digital audio - Future trends in quantization,
storage, and compression,'' AES 7th Intn'l. Conf. Audio in Digital Times,
May 1989.
z.. Johnston, J. D., ``Perceptual transform coding of wideband stereo
signals,'' ICASSP '89, May 1989, pp. 1993-1996.
aa.. Safranek, R. J. and Johnston, J. D., ``A perceptually tuned sub-band
image coder with image dependant quantization and post quantization data
compression,'' ICASSP '89, May 1989, pp. 1945-1948.
ab.. Johnston, J. D., ``Transform coding of audio signals using perceptual
noise criteria,'' IEEE Jour. Selected Areas in Commun., vol. 6, no. 2, Feb
1988, pp. 314-323.
ac.. Johnston, J. D., ``Estimation of perceptual entropy using noise masking
criteria,'' ICASSP '88 Record, 1988, pp. 2524-2527.
ad.. Cox, R. V., Bock, D. E., Bauer, K. B., Johnston, J. D. and Snyder, J.
H., ``The analog voice privacy system,'' AT&T Tech. Jour., vol. 66, no. 1,
Jan-Feb 1987, pp. 119-131.
ae.. Cox, R. V., Bock, D. E., Bauer, K. B., Johnston, J. D. and Snyder, J.
H., ``The analog voice privacy system,'' Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acous.,
Speech, and Sig. Processing, 1986, pp. 341-344.
af.. Elko, G. W., Flanagan, J. L. and Johnston, J. D., ``Computer-steered
microphone arrays for large room teleconferencing,'' Proc. IEEE Workshop on
Applications of Sig. Processing to Audio and Acous., New Paltz, NY, 1986,
Paper 1.6.
ag.. Flanagan, J. L., Johnston, J. D., Zahn, R. and Elko, G.,
``Computer-steered microphone arrays for sound transduction in large
rooms,'' JASA, vol. 78(5), Nov 1985, pp. 1508-1518.
ah.. Cox, R. V., Snyder, J. H., Crochiere, R. E., Bock, D. E. and Johnston,
J. D., ``Testing of wideband digital coders,'' Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acous.,
Speech, and Sig. Processing, 1984, pp. 19.3.1-4.
ai.. Cox, R. V., Crochiere, R. E. and Johnston, J. D., ``Real-time
implementation of time domain, harmonic scaling of speech for rate
modification and coding,'' IEEE Trans. Acous., Speech, and Sig. Processing,
vol. ASSP-31, Feb 1983, pp. 258-272, Also in IEEE Jour. of Solid State
Circuits, Vol. SC-18, 10-24, Feb 1983.
aj.. Crochiere, R. E., Cox, R. V., Johnston, J. D. and Seltzer, L. A., ``A
9.6 Kb/s speech coder,'' Bell Syst. Tech. Jour., vol. 61, no. 9, Nov 1982,
pp. 2263-2288.
ak.. Crochiere, R. E., Cox, R. V. and Johnston, J. D., ``Real-time speech
coding,'' IEEE Trans. Comm., vol. COM-30, Apr 1982, pp. 621-634.
al.. Cox, R. V., Crochiere, R. E. and Johnston, J. D., ``An implementation
of time domain harmonic scaling with application to speech coding,'' Proc.
ICC, 1982, pp. 4G.1.1-4.
am.. Crochiere, R. E., Cox, R. V., Johnston, J. D. and Seltzer, L. A., ``A
9.6 Kb/s speech coder using the Bell Laboratories DSP integrated circuit,''
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acous., Speech, and Sig. Processing, 1982, pp.
1692-1695.
an.. Crochiere, R. E., Randolph, M. A., Upton, J. W. and Johnston, J. D., ``
Real-time implementation of sub-band coding on a programmable integrated
circuit,'' Proc. ICASSP-81, 1981, pp. 455-458.
ao.. Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., ``Digital transmission of
commentary-grade (7kHz) audio at 56 or 64 kb/s,'' IEEE Trans. on Commun.,
Jan 1980.
ap.. Johnston, J. D., ``A filter family designed for use in quadrature
mirror filter banks,'' Proc. ICASSP, 1980, pp. 291-294.
aq.. Steele, R. and Johnston, J. D., ``Slope limiting filters for enhancing
noisy channel performance of coders,'' Proc. ICASSP, 1980.
ar.. Johnston, J. D. and Crochiere, R. E., ``An all digital commentary grade
sub-band coder,'' Jour. of Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 27, no. 10, Oct 1979.
as.. Goodman, D. J. and Johnston, J. D., ``Sidetone expansion for the
regulation of talker loudness,'' Electronics Let., vol. 15, no. 16, Aug
1979, pp. 492-493.
at.. Johnston, J. D. and Crochiere, R. E., ``An all digital commentary grade
sub-band coder,'' Proc. Audio Eng. Soc. '63 Conf., May 1979.
au.. Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., ``Digital transmission of
commentary-grade (7 kHz) audio at 56 or 64 kb/s,'' Proc. ICASSP '79, 1979.
av.. Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., ``Multipurpose hardware for digital
coding of audio signal,'' IEEE Trans. on Commun., 1978.
aw.. Presti, A. J., Johnston, J. D., Crochiere, R. E. and Goodman, D. J.,
``A digital sub-band coder for speech communication at 9.6 kb/s,'' IEEE Int.
Conf. on Commun., vol. 1, Chicago, IL, Jun 1977, pp. 193-197.
ax.. Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., ``Multipurpose hardware for digital
coding of audio signal,'' Proc. NTC77, 1977.
>Two-faced scum.
>Siegfried
You mispelled, "Fuck you, asshole"
Cheers!
Kewp
Gruvmyster
Fair enough. I apologize. As I said yesterday, let's do it! If 1000 pounds
is what Stewart has bet, is betting, and will bet, why not accept it so we
can move on? We still have procedural issues to work out.
I might add, I do not think I've called you anything but Roy for quite some
time here. What's with the name calling?;-)
Mikeylikst
>Glan...@jifffy.erols.com (George M. Middius) writes:
>The Krooborg reminisces fondly about his tough-love
>>encounters with the son he recently drove to suicide.
>Did I miss something? If I remember correctly, it appears the boy suffered
>some sort of massive aneurism. Often I miss posts - was there evidence of
>suicide discussed?
>
>
No, it's just the same kind of fabrications and over the top disgusting cruelty
brought to us by the "Resistance."
Mike McKelvy
"You can't have everything, where would you put it?"
Steven Wright
http://members.aol.com/RLSpeakers/rlsindex.html
Mikeylikst
>I don't do a whole turkey at my house. It's Cornish hens all
>the way. It may not be kosher, but neither am I.
No shit.
Hmmmm, that works a couple of ways.
Mikeylikst
Mikeylikst
>>When it comes to 'what meets those spec', I sometimes wish, briefly
>>and fleetingly, that I could name names.
>
>
>Implying, of course, that his position in the audio industry is so high
>profile
>that naming names would somehow compromise his position.
>
>What a crock!
In the area of audio engineering JJ is a world reknowned expert. Naming nmes
could indeed invite a lawsuit. Or many.
>It's just another case of a "pseudo-scientist" running around trashing
>audiophiles at every opportunity but when asked "what's good?" heading for
>the
>hills.
The pseudo scientists are the ones claiming everything sounds the same, or that
speaker cable has to break in.
Mikeylikst
>I didn't sync the Sony with either the Meridian or the Museatex.
>I wish I could have. This resulted in a fairly cumbersome procedure
>(for 'in room' tests):
>
>
>I want to say that I'm not trying to say all CD players sound
>different. I respect the data
Not so far, but it's not so hard for those who are desparate to cling to the
notion that you have proved them right.
>I'm just
>trying to describe my test method and experience as best I can
>to see if more experienced people can tell me if I did it correctly.
And you should be commended for it. I believe that if you follow this thiong
through it will be a valuable lesson for many here.
>I'm not being defensive in trying to counter criticisms. Rather, when
>there is a criticism, I'm simply relating whether I had thought of it
>beforehand, and then what I did to counter the problem.
Bravo.
>I'm just trying to learn about where I stand on all this 'objectivist,
>subjectivist' stuff. (I do tend toward the rational, but subjective
>experiences can be pretty powerful).
>
>Thanks for the interest.
>
>
You're very welcome. The fact that none of the ABX proponents has ever claimed
that all CD players sound the same, and that what they really said was that
properly functioning units sound the same, is a distinction that seems to
deliberately overlooked by many.
I applaud your efforts and hope you stick with it.
Gruvmyster
> >From: sdura...@aol.com (SDuraybito)
>
> >Did I miss something? If I remember correctly, it appears the boy suffered
> >some sort of massive aneurism. Often I miss posts - was there evidence of
> >suicide discussed?
>
> No, it's just the same kind of fabrications and over the top disgusting cruelty
> brought to us by the "Resistance."
The true "Resistance" (a term as used in WWII for groups fighting an occupying
enemy) exhibited self sacrifice, personal bravery, brains, and a goal of a greater
good for their society over petty personal ones.
Contrast those ideals with our little "resistance" here...;-(
Trotsky
(Mikeylikst) wrote:
Mikey, would you care to tell the group what tests you have done to
yourself to prove cd players don't all sound the same?
--
They knew the monster's every trick
They knew his secrets, every stitch
All of it has been a game
Nothing but a charlatan
Procol Harum, "The Idol"--p.1974
Greg M. Singh
gsi...@mc.net
The Devil
>>Gruvmyster wrote
>>>We've already agreed to 500 pounds/day.
>>Yep, a couple of days and I pay *you* the stake you're betting
>>*me*. Like I'm really going to agree to that!
>Well, we're certaionly getting used to you never agreeing today to
>what you agreed yesterday, now aren't we?
Do you seriously expect me to *give* him the stake he's betting
against me, and provide him with a free trip to England for his
trouble? I think maybe if he's getting in for just a grand, then I'll
pay double everything I said but only if I lose. I'll also go 20:1
on his grand. Fair?
Anonymous lo14
>
> Please keep posting, Wolfie, or whoever you are. You are a beacon of
> brilliance in this list. Like I said to Kevin (your alter ego, maybe): You
> are engaged in a battle of wits with a few thousand unarmed opponents.
speak for yourself will you?
Stewart Pinkerton
Seems fair to me, but you'd better ask Doug. I presume you are still
offering free travel?
Mikeylikst
>Mikey, would you care to tell the group what tests you have done to
>yourself to prove cd players don't all sound the same?
Gregh, would you tell the group why you are still here after losing a wager
with a loser leaves proviso?
Trotsky
(Mikeylikst) wrote:
> >From: gsi...@mc.net (Trotsky)
>
> >Mikey, would you care to tell the group what tests you have done to
> >yourself to prove cd players don't all sound the same?
>
> Gregh, would you tell the group why you are still here after losing a wager
> with a loser leaves proviso?
>
>
MIkey--(a) you are answering a question with a question, and (b) if you
feel I don't belong on this group, you can always killfile me, like Doug
Haugen and Steve Zipser do two or three times a week. Now that that's out
of the way, please tell the group what tests you have performed to give you
reason to make your claim about cd players.
--
There's bats in the belfry, the windows are jammed
The toilets ain't healthy, he don't give a damn
He just chuckles and smiles, and laughs like a madman
Ladies and gentleman, I give you Sheriff Fatman!
Carter U.S.M.--"Sheriff Fatman" p. ?
Greg M. Singh
gsi...@mc.net