Meridian 518 & the Placebo Effect
John Atkinson
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) noted that:
>I've set [the Meridian 518] to change incoming 16 bit words to 24 bit to
>take advantage of the 360's 24/96 capability, and the difference is clear
>and significant to my ears. In addition, the 518 is a superior
>de-jittering box, although given the 360's capabilities in this area
>that might be coals to newcastle.
To which Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> replied in Message
<KUzf2.1511$S7....@news.flash.net>:
>Clear example of placebo effect at work. Guess what how many valid bits
>are in a 24 bit word "converted" this way?
Followed in Message <aS3g2.4222$S7....@news.flash.net> (if you snip away a
lot of gratuitous name-calling) by:
>There is no way to take 16 bit digital data and get anything in the way
>of information out of it, but 16 bit information.
Mr. Krüger appears to be assuming that Mr. Shain believes he hears a
difference introduced by the Meridian 518 is because it creates a digital
datastream with greater resolution (24 bits as opposed to 16) when set to
increase word length. However, Mr. Shain was careful not to state this. And
as you can read in Jonathan Scull's review of the dCS 972 in the February
1999 Stereophile, Mr. Krüger is correct: 16 bits of original resolution
cannot be improved by devices like the Meridian and dCS digital processors
set to increase word length.
However, like Mr. Shain, I have found the Meridian 518 to be sonically
beneficial when set to increase the word length to 24 bits. After I
reviewed the Meridian 518 for Stereophile (in January and July 1996, Vol.19
Nos.1 & 7), I purchased the review sample for use both on Stereophile
recordings, where the final stage of mastering to to reduce the 20- or 24-
bit word depth of the original data to the CD's 16 bits, and to use as a
digital "preamplifier," providing control of volume and source selection.
It is an essential part of my system.
The fact that no new data are created does _not_ mean that the only reason
the 518 sounds better is the placebo effect. By increasing word length to
24 bits when using the 518 to adjust volume, you are basically adding 8
bits of dither noise below the 16th bit of a CD's data. It appears that
when this new datastream is fed to an oversampling digital low-pass filter
D/A converter combination, as found in all standalone D/A processors, it
will behave in a more linear manner. In addition, the jitter signature of a
datastream with its word length increased in this manner will be different.
And while in Message-ID: <Z3dg2.375$ok1...@news.flash.net>, Arny Krüger
<ar...@flash.net> antagonistically states that Mr. Shain:
>...hung [his] whole claim on jitter. Got any objective, reliable means for
>characterizing jitter? Didn't think so!
I have done quite a lot of work examining the effect of the Meridian 518 on
reducing word-clock jitter in a digital datastream, as have others (see Bob
Katz's discussion on www.digido.com). Regardless of the measurement
technique used, we all seem to be in agreement that the 518 does a good job
in significantly reducing data-related jitter. However, while doing so, it
does introduce low-levels of random, low-frequency jitter. (If anyone is
interested, I can send them a JPEG of a high-resolution spectrum, generated
by the Miller Audio Research Analyzer, that shows both effects.) I do wonder
if this mechanism also introduces an audible difference, though if so, it
appears to be one that listeners prefer.
Finally, in Message-ID: <aS3g2.4222$S7....@news.flash.net>, Arny Krüger
<ar...@flash.net> throws down a gauntlet:
>I challenge you to take my "Digital Challenge" and see if you can hear the
>effect of reducing musical data down to 10 bits.
This is old news. In single-blind experiments I did in the early '80s using
a Sony PCM-F1, it seemed that 14-bit digitization produced a statistically
significant audible difference while setting the PCM-F1 to a 16-bit word
length did not. Of course, the PCM-F1 featured very early digital
technology, and it might have introduced other audible differences between
its two word-length settings. Further experiments I have done more
recently, however, also suggest that 16 bits is the minimum word length to
prevent audible degradation---and then only when no additional processing
is done to the data (which is why the use of 20- and 24-bit data is now
ubiquitous in the classical recording industry---if you want 16 valid bits
on a CD, you make the master's word length as long as is practicable for
as long as possible during the editing/mixing/mastering process).
This agrees with Bob Stuart's work (reprinted in one of the Spring '98 issues
of Audio magazine) that while 16-bit digital data can be audibly transparent,
this will not be so to _all_ listeners _all_ of the time on _all_ kinds of
music under _all_ playback conditions. Meaning that 16-bit digitization
_will_ be audible to _some_ listeners _some_ of the time. Duh.
I included a blind test on Stereophile's Test CD 3 to illustrate the effect
of truncation to a shorter word length. Tracks 13 and 14 allow the listener
to compare the original 16-bit data with the same data truncated to 15
valid bits. With the word length locked to 16 bits and without dither, a
digital audio workstation was used to produce a new file with the level
reduced by 6dB, ie, the effective resolution of the new signal was then 15
bits. These data were then amplified by 6dB in the digital domain so that
the music's peak level was identical to the original, but the 16th bit or
LSB was now not conveying musical information.
As audiophiles can find out for themselves, the relevant sections of music
on track 14 sound different from the same sections on Track 13, ie, 15 bits
are not sufficient. Arny Krüger's 10-bit challenge would therefore seem
unnecessary, particularly when all the academic work done in the '70s by
the BBC and others also suggested that less than 13 bits would not be
audibly transparent.
Unless, of course, Mr. Krüger has set up the auditory equivalent of a
shell game. (The gamesmanship aspects of double-blind testing are
almost always overlooked by its most vociferous supporters, IMHO.)
A Happy New Year to the denizens of r.a.o from all of us at Stereophile,
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
--
Edward M. Shain
<7447...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>The fact that no new data are created does _not_ mean that the only reason
>the 518 sounds better is the placebo effect. By increasing word length to
>24 bits when using the 518 to adjust volume, you are basically adding 8
>bits of dither noise below the 16th bit of a CD's data. It appears that
>when this new datastream is fed to an oversampling digital low-pass filter
>D/A converter combination, as found in all standalone D/A processors, it
>will behave in a more linear manner. In addition, the jitter signature of a
>datastream with its word length increased in this manner will be different.
Thank you for chiming in, John, and particularly in providing
a more technical explanation for what I clearly perceive. I am very
grateful.
>I have done quite a lot of work examining the effect of the Meridian 518 on
>reducing word-clock jitter in a digital datastream, as have others (see Bob
>Katz's discussion on www.digido.com). Regardless of the measurement
>technique used, we all seem to be in agreement that the 518 does a good job
>in significantly reducing data-related jitter. However, while doing so, it
>does introduce low-levels of random, low-frequency jitter. (If anyone is
>interested, I can send them a JPEG of a high-resolution spectrum, generated
>by the Miller Audio Research Analyzer, that shows both effects.) I do wonder
>if this mechanism also introduces an audible difference, though if so, it
>appears to be one that listeners prefer.
I can't tell what benefit the 518 provides as an anti-jitter
device because I have no conclusive means of testing it. I can use a
cd player's variable outs directly into the 360, and that sounds worse
to my ears than going through the 518, but then all I'm demonstrating
is that using the gain, word-length, and emphasis capabilities of the
518 allow me far better sound, which is why I bought the unit in the
first place.
I also have to give credit here to Stereophile for alerting me
to this unit. I would never have known about it otherwise.
>
>Unless, of course, Mr. Krüger has set up the auditory equivalent of a
>shell game. (The gamesmanship aspects of double-blind testing are
>almost always overlooked by its most vociferous supporters, IMHO.)
This moves to the heart of an entirely different matter.
Double blind testing has enormous value. It also requires that one is
testing for the right variables, and that the information gleaned is
properly applied.
Beyond that, any time such complex tools are suggested as
ordinary and reasonable for routine tasks, the forest is usually lost
for the trees. It is impossible to capture value solely in
quantitative terms since the very meanings of value and quality have
subjective levels that require a blend of ideas, measurements,
selective applications, and applied judgement.
Everything depends on how the acquired information is used and
absolutely nothing depends on the quantitative values alone.
>A Happy New Year to the denizens of r.a.o from all of us at Stereophile,
All the best to you, John. I appreciate your contribution
here.
Ed
>
gfre...@northnet.org
John Atkinson <7447...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> Finally, in Message-ID: <aS3g2.4222$S7....@news.flash.net>, Arny Krüger
> <ar...@flash.net> throws down a gauntlet:
> >I challenge you to take my "Digital Challenge" and see if you can hear the
> >effect of reducing musical data down to 10 bits.
> Further experiments I have done more
> recently, however, also suggest that 16 bits is the minimum word length to
> prevent audible degradation---
> I included a blind test on Stereophile's Test CD 3 to illustrate the effect
> of truncation to a shorter word length. Tracks 13 and 14 allow the listener
> to compare the original 16-bit data with the same data truncated to 15
> valid bits.
There are now two variables introduced, you are now comparing a dithered 16
bit signal with a non-dithered 15 bit signal.
> With the word length locked to 16 bits and without dither, a
> digital audio workstation was used to produce a new file with the level
> reduced by 6dB, ie, the effective resolution of the new signal was then 15
> bits. These data were then amplified by 6dB in the digital domain so that
> the music's peak level was identical to the original, but the 16th bit or
> LSB was now not conveying musical information.
Correct me if I am wrong but the 15 bit file was not redithered?
> As audiophiles can find out for themselves, the relevant sections of music
> on track 14 sound different from the same sections on Track 13, ie, 15 bits
> are not sufficient.
No doubt they will sound different, but your conclusion is more than suspect.
Why was the 15 bit file not dithered? I would suggest that you start with a
18 or 20 bit file, make two files, truncate one to 16 bits and dither the
other to 16 bits. The effect would be the same as your track 13, 14
comparison.
> Arny Krüger's 10-bit challenge would therefore seem
> unnecessary,
Not if he dithered the 10 bit signal, there would be only one variable then.
Christopher Hicks had some examples of dithering floating around the net at
one time, they went down to 6 bits. The effect was an increase in the noise
floor.
> Unless, of course, Mr. Krüger has set up the auditory equivalent of a
> shell game.
Well truncating a 16 bit signal to 15 bits and then not dithering the 15 bit
file is "auditory equivalent of a shell game".
Greg
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rodney Gold
>However, like Mr. Shain, I have found the Meridian 518 to be sonically
>beneficial when set to increase the word length to 24 bits. After I
>reviewed the Meridian 518 for Stereophile (in January and July 1996, Vol.19
>Nos.1 & 7), I purchased the review sample for use both on Stereophile
>recordings, where the final stage of mastering to to reduce the 20- or 24-
>bit word depth of the original data to the CD's 16 bits, and to use as a
>digital "preamplifier," providing control of volume and source selection.
>It is an essential part of my system.
>
>The fact that no new data are created does _not_ mean that the only reason
>the 518 sounds better is the placebo effect. By increasing word length to
>24 bits when using the 518 to adjust volume, you are basically adding 8
>bits of dither noise below the 16th bit of a CD's data. It appears that
>when this new datastream is fed to an oversampling digital low-pass filter
>D/A converter combination, as found in all standalone D/A processors, it
>will behave in a more linear manner. In addition, the jitter signature of a
>datastream with its word length increased in this manner will be different.
In fact the 518 alters the sound regardless of the settings you use ,
even in bypass mode it still does pll de-jittering
I have multiple digital inputs /outputs into my speakers , Rdp-1 , 518
and lens and can , with all these output/input options have any combo
of of these devices in or out the system with the click of one button
or another , thus the ability to AB their effects.
Using the 518 in the system vs out is plainly audible - period
Using a 518 (even in bypass mode) will give these primary effects ,
1) width of soundstage or focus therof becomes wider and more difuse
2) Transients become less pronounced , the sound softens (will become
more evident with addition of dither , and even more evident with
addition of pre-emphasis)
3) the depth of the very last octave is somewhat truncated
Whatever the causes of this are , it is certainly MOST audible on AB
switching , this is no placebo affect at all , in fact I have to
adjust a notch filter at 40 hz if I switch between system + 518 or
system + digital lens , thus something is definately happening with
either of these units
>
>I have done quite a lot of work examining the effect of the Meridian 518 on
>reducing word-clock jitter in a digital datastream, as have others (see Bob
>Katz's discussion on www.digido.com). Regardless of the measurement
>technique used, we all seem to be in agreement that the 518 does a good job
>in significantly reducing data-related jitter. However, while doing so, it
>does introduce low-levels of random, low-frequency jitter. (If anyone is
>interested, I can send them a JPEG of a high-resolution spectrum, generated
>by the Miller Audio Research Analyzer, that shows both effects.) I do wonder
>if this mechanism also introduces an audible difference, though if so, it
>appears to be one that listeners prefer.
It seems that this must have an appreciable effect on the sound , as I
stated before , the 518 has a gross effect when just in the signal
chain and apart from the pre-emphasis function introducing a very
audible effect (unfortunately using this also causes digital clipping
, sometimes gain has to be reduced) the overall effect of using
various dither flavours or wordlengths on playback is not quite as
pronouced , indeed changing dither is hardly audible on AB ing
settings
(It must be noted that dither on the RDP-1 is VERY noticeable as is
changing its output wordlength , the same with the digital lens - I
dont like the RDP-1s dither algorithms at all)
However there is one effect I have noticed when using the 518 , if one
attenuates the RDP-1's output to -99 (essentially no signal) sends
this signal thru a 518 and thence in the digital domain to the
speakers and then whacks up my Meridian dsp5500's speaker output to
full blast , (full blast on a dsp5500 is equivalent to output of well
over 115 db at 1 meter , seems like some residual dac noise is
reproduced as slight hiss ) , the 24 bit output and dither shape D
and the addition of Pre-emphasis attenuates this hiss substantially
The DSP 5500's have inbuilt dacs , I dont know what this does to them
but it certainly also has measurable effect.
I use the 518 as both a resolution enhancement device for listening
and for recording , it is invaluable when recording to my pioneer
PDR-05 as it CAN improve the original
All of the above gives lie to Anies assertation the the 518 etc is
merely a placebo product ,
As a "sidebar" to this discussion , I have recorded different devices
and settings onto CD (digital cables , transports , anti jitter
products , different settings with these products etc) to give myself
a reference as to which devices and settings "improve" on the original
recording going to my Pioneer PDR-05.
I had made this disc available to various folk for their own AB
testing and had received some very interesting and positive results as
to differences between transports/cables/settings etc , as an aside
preference judgemnts were VERY VERY interesting , a LOT of folk
considered a recording made via the anlog outputs of a Meridian 508.20
into the anlog inputs of the PDR-05 as very good , tho this wasnt
precisely level matched with respect to to digital only recordings
Whether the effects of these devices are system depenadant or not is
perhaps debateable , but as a reference I can give you my system setup
At the moment , my permanent transport is a Theta Data II universal ,
but have used a Meridian 508.20 , Copland CDA288 , Aracm Delta 250 ,
Mark levinson 31.5 , Thata Jade etc for tests , I also use a Z-sys
RDP -1 , Meridian 518 , Genesis digital lens and thence into Meridian
DSP5500 digital active speakers , Kimber D60 is used for SPDIF and
Orchid for AES connections. I use the speakers for gain and set all
other devices to not use digital attn
Rodney Gold
"The nicest thing about smacking your head against the wall is-
the feeling you get when you stop."
Gene Steinberg
<7447...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Arny Krüger's 10-bit challenge would therefore seem
>unnecessary, particularly when all the academic work done in the '70s by
>the BBC and others also suggested that less than 13 bits would not be
>audibly transparent.
>
>Unless, of course, Mr. Krüger has set up the auditory equivalent of a
>shell game. (The gamesmanship aspects of double-blind testing are
>almost always overlooked by its most vociferous supporters, IMHO.)
I realize you prefer to hit and run, Atkinson. You open a topic. then
disappear because you don't have the courage to engage in a proper give
and take.
So why not get one of Kruger's CDs yourself, and let's see how you score
when you try it?
Otherwise, you're just typical of the others in this newsgroup who attack
things they're afraid to try themselves.
And how about that $1600 pot for those who can hear cable differences.
Care to try your luck? If you succeed, you'll gave a great story for your
next issue of Stereophile.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you ignore that challenge too.
Happy Holidays.
Peace,
Gene
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
> And how about that $1600 pot for those who can hear cable differences.
> Care to try your luck? If you succeed, you'll gave a great story for your
> next issue of Stereophile.
>
Here you go, Gene - I will take up the challenge. I will provide two
cables, standard 16 guage and MIT Shotgun. I will tell them apart even
with your phony baloney Double Jeopardy SuperBlind Tripple worthless
Test.
I also get to choose the electronics and the speakers.
Put up or shut up, lets get ready to rumble!
Zip
Edward M. Shain
>In article <O0JdJzPM#GA....@nih2naab.prod2.compuserve.com>, John Atkinson
><7447...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
>>unnecessary, particularly when all the academic work done in the '70s by
>>the BBC and others also suggested that less than 13 bits would not be
>>audibly transparent.
>>
>>Unless, of course, Mr. Krüger has set up the auditory equivalent of a
>>shell game. (The gamesmanship aspects of double-blind testing are
>>almost always overlooked by its most vociferous supporters, IMHO.)
On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 04:06:48 -0700, gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene
Steinberg) wrote:
>
>I realize you prefer to hit and run, Atkinson. You open a topic. then
>disappear because you don't have the courage to engage in a proper give
>and take.
Gene, that's nonsense. He didn't open up the topic. He's
responding in mid-thread, and in an appropriate manner, and your
response simply adds insults instead of ideas to whatever discussion
might be possible.
This thread now contains several productive responses on both
sides of the issue, including a very interesting technical one that
asked for some important clarification from John. It would be more
constructive if you were to answer John in the same fashion as others
have done.
>
>So why not get one of Kruger's CDs yourself, and let's see how you score
>when you try it?
>
>Otherwise, you're just typical of the others in this newsgroup who attack
>things they're afraid to try themselves.
John did exactly the opposite of what you're now doing, Gene.
He replied at length within the thread, staying perfectly on topic,
and introducing new information in his arguments. His response
elevated the discussion, and stimulated in turn, an interesting
response from someone (I apologize that I can't retrieve his name
right now) that answered John in the same technical terms Atkinson had
used.
Arnie's disc has nothing to do with this discussion. The
point of the disc is, in capsule form, that resolution is much less an
issue than ordinarily presumed, and that the sonic difference between
16 bit (much less 20) and something lower is, essentially inaudible,
suggesting that 16 bit is sufficient for all normal purposes.
Is that a fair representation?
Arnie's disc seems to me to be a wonderful and productive
tool. I'm quite willing to accept it on face value. It's value in this
discussion has yet to be demonstrated. Even if no one were able to
discriminate between various levels of resolution on that famous disc
how does that address the issue of the 518's effect?
Atkinson was very careful to stipulate that changing word
length did not increase true resolution. His point was that something
else was happening.
Are we reading the same thread here, Gene, or are you just
interested in flinging nonsense about? Your response added nothing but
taunts and trolls to a thread that already has enough of that to last
a lifetime.
Lastly, and most important, John Atkinson needs no moral
defense from me or anyone else. He can hold his own whenever and
however he chooses. Having said that, whatever else you may say about
John, he is no coward, and he ably defends himself when he feels the
need to do so. I would doubt he needs to respond to your
characterization of him.
Your suggestion that he is a coward is so over the top, so miserable
in its entirety that it suggests strongly that you're after different
game.
>And how about that $1600 pot for those who can hear cable differences.
>Care to try your luck? If you succeed, you'll gave a great story for your
>next issue of Stereophile.
What has this to do with anything? How is this productive?
What does this add to this discussion, or any other for that matter?
>
>Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you ignore that challenge too.
>Happy Holidays.
>
>Peace,
>Gene
A nice touch, this, adding an additional suggestion that Atkinson is a
moral coward before ending with the sanctimonial smugness of your
signature lines.
Gene, this is a beautiful example of the "outta left field"
category of responses. Thank you for contributing to the usual
high-toned nature of discussion here.
Ed
KevinLng
> Gene, that's nonsense. He didn't open up the topic. He's
>responding in mid-thread, and in an appropriate manner, and your
>response simply adds insults instead of ideas to whatever discussion
>might be possible.
Well you are a very nice and smart person to talk so nice and smart to people
like Gene. You already did try that with Mr kruger but it did not work. My dad
says that even if you spend a hundred years talking english to a chinpanzee
they probably still will talk chinpanzee language back to you. You are trying
to prove that my dad is wrong and maybe he is but we will see and I do not
think so.
Your pal who is not a chinpanzee but who likes to monkey around a lot. (Ha!
That is a joke.)
Kevin Laing
ps Daisy says hello to Mr Vizsla and bets that a lot of people would not be
able to spell his name right in a spelling be.
BT S
And how about that $1600 pot for those who can hear cable differences.
Care to try your luck? If you succeed, you'll gave a great story for
your next issue of Stereophile.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you ignore that challenge too.
=====================================
Gene, One need not look any further than your circle of friend's to find
someone unwilling to take a challenge.Even one they claim is a sure win!
Sully
====================================
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
====================================
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>Well you are a very nice and smart person to talk so nice and smart to people
>like Gene. You already did try that with Mr kruger but it did not work. My dad
>says that even if you spend a hundred years talking english to a chinpanzee
>they probably still will talk chinpanzee language back to you. You are trying
>to prove that my dad is wrong and maybe he is but we will see and I do not
>think so.
That's an interesting thought, Kevin, and your Dad's idea is
well-expressed. Still, I'm left with my own sense that as a person I
must continually respond as one. If I end up trying to speak
chimpanzee who gains?
>ps Daisy says hello to Mr Vizsla and bets that a lot of people would not be
>able to spell his name right in a spelling be.
You got that right, Kev! ::grin:: Do you know how to
pronounce it? ("Mr. Vizsla's" name is "Clifford")
Ed
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>
> The fact that no new data are created does _not_ mean that the only reason
> the 518 sounds better is the placebo effect. By increasing word length to
> 24 bits when using the 518 to adjust volume, you are basically adding 8
> bits of dither noise below the 16th bit of a CD's data. It appears that
> when this new datastream is fed to an oversampling digital low-pass filter
> D/A converter combination, as found in all standalone D/A processors, it
> will behave in a more linear manner. In addition, the jitter signature of a
> datastream with its word length increased in this manner will be different.
listening results and methodology?
>
> I have done quite a lot of work examining the effect of the Meridian 518 on
> reducing word-clock jitter in a digital datastream, as have others (see Bob
> Katz's discussion on www.digido.com). Regardless of the measurement
> technique used, we all seem to be in agreement that the 518 does a good job
> in significantly reducing data-related jitter. However, while doing so, it
> does introduce low-levels of random, low-frequency jitter. (If anyone is
> interested, I can send them a JPEG of a high-resolution spectrum, generated
> by the Miller Audio Research Analyzer, that shows both effects.) I do wonder
> if this mechanism also introduces an audible difference, though if so, it
> appears to be one that listeners prefer.
listenign results and methodology?
>
> This is old news. In single-blind experiments I did in the early '80s using
> a Sony PCM-F1, it seemed that 14-bit digitization produced a statistically
> significant audible difference while setting the PCM-F1 to a 16-bit word
> length did not.
with this "positive" resut you dedid the test
double-blind this time right? results?
>
> This agrees with Bob Stuart's work (reprinted in one of the Spring '98 issues
> of Audio magazine) that while 16-bit digital data can be audibly transparent,
> this will not be so to _all_ listeners _all_ of the time on _all_ kinds of
> music under _all_ playback conditions. Meaning that 16-bit digitization
> _will_ be audible to _some_ listeners _some_ of the time. Duh.
results and methodology?
>
> I included a blind test on Stereophile's Test CD 3 to illustrate the effect
> of truncation to a shorter word length. Tracks 13 and 14 allow the listener
> to compare the original 16-bit data with the same data truncated to 15
> valid bits. With the word length locked to 16 bits and without dither, a
> digital audio workstation was used to produce a new file with the level
> reduced by 6dB, ie, the effective resolution of the new signal was then 15
> bits. These data were then amplified by 6dB in the digital domain so that
> the music's peak level was identical to the original, but the 16th bit or
> LSB was now not conveying musical information.
>
> As audiophiles can find out for themselves, the relevant sections of music
> on track 14 sound different from the same sections on Track 13, ie, 15 bits
> are not sufficient.
show that what you did above is equivalent to 15 bits
_withiut_ the introductoin of other unrelated
artifacts and that both signal received the same
conditioning.
Arny Kr|ger's 10-bit challenge would therefore seem
> unnecessary, particularly when all the academic work done in the '70s by
> the BBC and others also suggested that less than 13 bits would not be
> audibly transparent.
when is the last time you turned a posituve scoresheet
on a good 69$ portable?
>
> Unless, of course, Mr. Kr|ger has set up the auditory equivalent of a
> shell game. (The gamesmanship aspects of double-blind testing are
> almost always overlooked by its most vociferous supporters, IMHO.)
if you really undesrtood what you just
wrote re: 15 bits vs 16 bits you would know
what a shell game aka parlor trick is.
awaiting your "I dont know shit and am
fully aware of that."
oh are you the same JOhn Atkinson who said
"I regard 'double-blind comparative
listening tests' as the last refuge of the agenda-driven scoundrel."
http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=354537425
you know i like when things are set in proper perspective.
that leaves less room to ambiguity......................
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>
> All the best to you, John. I appreciate your contribution
> here.
yeah lets read his answers........
good clean fun ahaed! only if he dares though.......
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>
> Here you go, Gene - I will take up the challenge. I will provide two
> cables, standard 16 guage and MIT Shotgun. I will tell them apart even
> with your phony baloney Double Jeopardy SuperBlind Tripple worthless
> Test.
from some0ne who cant tell wires with
a 20:1 resistance diference. amazing!
>
> I also get to choose the electronics and the speakers.
will they be SOTA or ill-designed high-end junk
trying to correct flaws with more flaws ha?
>
> Put up or shut up, lets get ready to rumble!
yeah..............................
dctest Anonymous Remailer
> Well you are a very nice and smart person to talk so nice and smart to people
> like Gene. You already did try that with Mr kruger but it did not work. My dad
> says
will your dad be at CES " Kevin?" <G>
KevinLng
Well of course he will because I could not go if he did not go. I do not think
he will be at the Rock Hard lunch meeting because he will have to do busines
things probably but I will be there.
Kevin Laing
psDoes it feel bad to be a nobody like your name says you are? I am not so
smart about some things but I am still proud to be me.
KevinLng
>pronounce it? ("Mr. Vizsla's" name is "Clifford")
Well I think you say
VEEEEZZZHHHLUH
but I would rather say
HERE BOY!!!!
your pal
Kevin
Steve Zipser
>
> >will your dad be at CES " Kevin?" <G>
>
> Well of course he will because I could not go if he did not go. I do not think
> he will be at the Rock Hard lunch meeting because he will have to do busines
> things probably but I will be there.
>
> Kevin Laing
Kevin:
Don't even respond to that anonymous idiot. He is president of NAMBLA.
I'll be at the RAO group meeting - it should be fun ;-)
Zip
LETS GO PANTHERS LETS GO JETS
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
PASS Rega 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 XLO
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>Well I think you say
>VEEEEZZZHHHLUH
>
>but I would rather say
>HERE BOY!!!!
>
>your pal
>Kevin
You're close. It's pronounced veeesh-luh. "Here, boy" works
even better ::grin::
Ed
Gene Steinberg
>Here you go, Gene - I will take up the challenge. I will provide two
>cables, standard 16 guage and MIT Shotgun. I will tell them apart even
>with your phony baloney Double Jeopardy SuperBlind Tripple worthless
>Test.
Since Kruger and Nousaine are the ones reponsible for setting this stuff
up, I can only suggest you work with them about the logicistics.
Peace,
Gene
Gene Steinberg
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
> Lastly, and most important, John Atkinson needs no moral
>defense from me or anyone else. He can hold his own whenever and
>however he chooses. Having said that, whatever else you may say about
>John, he is no coward, and he ably defends himself when he feels the
>need to do so. I would doubt he needs to respond to your
>characterization of him.
John Atkinson and morality are at divergent points in reality.
I don't doubt that he'll not respond to what I say, because he can't. He
refuses to submit his published claims about the audibility of exotic
cables, CD transports, etc. to a proper level-matched, double blind test.
His factual misstatements have been refuted time and time again in The
Audio Critic's "Hip Boots" section, and I've never seen him provide an
acceptable response.
He knows full well there is a $1600 "pot" offered by some folks here for
those who can prove they can hear cable differences. He has yet to even
acknowledge it, let alone offer to participate.
He knows about Kruger's CD, but didn't once offer to look it over for
himself or show us what he can hear.
As I said, he's a hit and run artist.
That's not an attack. It's a fact, and I don't see him showing otherwise.
Peace,
Gene
Gene Steinberg
BTS...@webtv.net (BT S) wrote:
>Gene, One need not look any further than your circle of friend's to find
>someone unwilling to take a challenge.Even one they claim is a sure win!
>
If you are willing to show what you can hear in a double-blind, level
matched listening test, I'm sure there are people who visit this newsgroup
who would be able to set you up.
Peace,
Gene
Trotsky
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
> In article <36865dae...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
>
> > Lastly, and most important, John Atkinson needs no moral
> >defense from me or anyone else. He can hold his own whenever and
> >however he chooses. Having said that, whatever else you may say about
> >John, he is no coward, and he ably defends himself when he feels the
> >need to do so. I would doubt he needs to respond to your
> >characterization of him.
>
> John Atkinson and morality are at divergent points in reality.
>
> I don't doubt that he'll not respond to what I say, because he can't. He
> refuses to submit his published claims about the audibility of exotic
> cables, CD transports, etc. to a proper level-matched, double blind test.
>
> His factual misstatements have been refuted time and time again in The
> Audio Critic's "Hip Boots" section, and I've never seen him provide an
> acceptable response.
And to be certain, the five people that read TAC expressly agree with you.
--
What time is it?" said the judge to Joey when they met
"Five to Ten," said Joey
The judge said, "That's exactly what you get"
Joey, Joey, what made them want to come and blow you away?
Bob Dylan--"Joey" p.1975
Greg M. Singh
gsi...@mc.net
BT S
<If you are willing to show what you can hear in a double-blind, level
matched listening test, I'm sure there are people who visit this
newsgroup who would be able to set you up.>
That's a very interesting choice of word's Gene! "I'm sure there are
people who visit this newsgroup who would be able to set you up".
Hmmmm,I'll tell you what,I bet $10,000 that there is not anybody on this
NG able to "set me up",as you so eloquently put it.
BTW is anybody going to go play in Briggs' sand box or not? THAT is the
challenge we're all interested in.(well I am anyway)
Surfshop
>
> BTW is anybody going to go play in Briggs' sand box or not? THAT is the
> challenge we're all interested in. (well I am anyway)
Briggs don't play fair. Anyone that would put anything at risk to
play in that sandbox is a fool.
CHartm7505
Mr. Nobody, I wish you would learn to put things in their proper
perspective, since you`re the master of ambiguity! Take your spelling and
grammatical errors, please!
There`s a wonderful gizmo on your keyboard, that says "Caps Lock", so
why don`t take the time out, and learn how to use it! I`ve seen some teenagers
use better grammar than you, and that`s not saying much!
Instead of being a "Nobody", practice your mastery of the English
language, and you too, can be a "Somebody", some day.
Regards,
Charles.
BT S
>Briggs don't play fair<
Well I've followed the situation from the beginning and couldn't
disagree with you any more.
>Anyone that would put anything at risk to play in that sandbox is a
fool<
Correct me if I'm wrong here,but don't these people claim infallibility
on this subject? Actually to the point of it not being a "bet" at
all,more akin to just flying over there and stealing Briggs' money?
This cannot be explained away here.The fact's are that he claimed to be
able to do something that they claim is more or less impossible,offered
them a substantial bet w/fabulous odd's and everyone refused.
It appears to me that the jury has spoken and abx is awaiting
sentencing. Probably the death penalty from what it look's like to me.
Arny Krüger
>The fact that no new data are created does _not_ mean that the only reason
>the 518 sounds better is the placebo effect.
Obviously, the placebo effect is not the only reason why a digital device
might sound better or worse. However, much digital equipment has technical
performance that far exceeds the lesser of:
(1) The basic technical properties of the original recording
-or-
(2) What a real-world home stereo has in the way of technical performance
-or-
(3) The limitations of the human ear when it comes to detecting technical
problems in sound reproduction.
Therefore, when exceptional claims are made by people who don't do listening
tests that control the placebo effect, the placebo effect becomes the most
probable explanation for what they perceive.
>By increasing word length to
>24 bits when using the 518 to adjust volume, you are basically adding 8
>bits of dither noise below the 16th bit of a CD's data. It appears that
>when this new datastream is fed to an oversampling digital low-pass filter
>D/A converter combination, as found in all standalone D/A processors, it
>will behave in a more linear manner. In addition, the jitter signature of a
>datastream with its word length increased in this manner will be different.
As if DAC's that reliably handle much more than 18 bits exist in consumer
audio equipment...
As if home audio equipment attached to an 18 bit DAC would reliably reproduce
the 17 and 18th bits...
As if the listener would be able to hear it...
As if the recording did not contain noise that was so high it masked all of
the above!
>I have done quite a lot of work examining the effect of the Meridian 518 on
>reducing word-clock jitter in a digital datastream, as have others (see Bob
>Katz's discussion on www.digido.com).
Let me say that IMO, that web site is very interesting, but seems to me to
contain a lot of science fiction. Therefore, anything I read there is
automatically suspect. Citing it cuts no bait with me!
>Regardless of the measurement
>technique used, we all seem to be in agreement that the 518 does a good job
>in significantly reducing data-related jitter.
So does a Technics SHAC-300 for what, a tenth or less of the street price? ;-)
> However, while doing so, it
>does introduce low-levels of random, low-frequency jitter. (If anyone is
>interested, I can send them a JPEG of a high-resolution spectrum, generated
>by the Miller Audio Research Analyzer, that shows both effects.) I do wonder
>if this mechanism also introduces an audible difference, though if so, it
>appears to be one that listeners prefer.
Please show a scientific paper (refereed publication - ASA or JAES seems like
likely places) that shows the reliably audible thresholds of jitter as a
function of jitter level, and jitter frequency.
>Finally, in Message-ID: <aS3g2.4222$S7....@news.flash.net>, Arny Krüger
><ar...@flash.net> throws down a gauntlet:
>>I challenge you to take my "Digital Challenge" and see if you can hear the
>>effect of reducing musical data down to 10 bits.
>
>This is old news. In single-blind experiments I did in the early '80s using
>a Sony PCM-F1, it seemed that 14-bit digitization produced a statistically
>significant audible difference while setting the PCM-F1 to a 16-bit word
>length did not.
Like you said, single-blind. ;-)
>Of course, the PCM-F1 featured very early digital
>technology, and it might have introduced other audible differences between
>its two word-length settings.
I'm glad you said that! I'd like to measure a PCM-F1 and judge it by modern
standards. I listened to them some when they were current technology, and they
were very impressive at the time. Of course, then, our standards were analog -
kinda a low bar to hurdle, no? ;-)
>Further experiments I have done more
>recently, however, also suggest that 16 bits is the minimum word length to
>prevent audible degradation---and then only when no additional processing
>is done to the data (which is why the use of 20- and 24-bit data is now
>ubiquitous in the classical recording industry---if you want 16 valid bits
>on a CD, you make the master's word length as long as is practicable for
>as long as possible during the editing/mixing/mastering process).
I agree that if you want 16 bits on the finished recording, you have to use
>16 bits for production.
However, I challenge you to produce an example of a commercial recording that
has a recorded passage from the original performance whose average level
(extending for a second or more) is 85 dB or more below digital FS.
>This agrees with Bob Stuart's work (reprinted in one of the Spring '98 issues
>of Audio magazine) that while 16-bit digital data can be audibly transparent,
>this will not be so to _all_ listeners _all_ of the time on _all_ kinds of
>music under _all_ playback conditions. Meaning that 16-bit digitization
>_will_ be audible to _some_ listeners _some_ of the time. Duh.
Bob Stuart's supporting analysis is interesting, and contains some supporting
evidence that I've even gone so far as to reproduce on my web site. However,
his analysis, as I recall, was based on a peak listening level of 120 dB, and
also did not seem to consider the well-known fact that human ears do this
nasty little thing called MASKING. I consolidated some information about what
can happen when you try to listen at peak levels of 120 dB into a page on my
web site titled:
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/techtalk/Ear_Damage/index.htm .
I need to write a paper for PCAVTech on masking - it explains why people are
so hard put to hear what amounts to 90% digital distortion... ;-)
I think the title of
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/techtalk/Ear_Damage/index.htm says it all,
but the facts presented there, some of which may have the force of law behind
them, are relevant... No? ;-)
>I included a blind test on Stereophile's Test CD 3 to illustrate the effect
>of truncation to a shorter word length. Tracks 13 and 14 allow the listener
>to compare the original 16-bit data with the same data truncated to 15
>valid bits. With the word length locked to 16 bits and without dither, a
>digital audio workstation was used to produce a new file with the level
>reduced by 6dB, i.e., the effective resolution of the new signal was then 15
>bits. These data were then amplified by 6dB in the digital domain so that
>the music's peak level was identical to the original, but the 16th bit or
>LSB was now not conveying musical information.
The technique I used for producing my CD's, exactly.
>As audiophiles can find out for themselves, the relevant sections of music
>on track 14 sound different from the same sections on Track 13, i.e., 15 bits
>are not sufficient. Arny Krüger's 10-bit challenge would therefore seem
>unnecessary, particularly when all the academic work done in the '70s by
>the BBC and others also suggested that less than 13 bits would not be
>audibly transparent.
I put the 10 bit stuff in as a lark. The disc runs from 10 to 16 bits. I am
aware of the BBC work, and I've done a little of my own, based on open
evaluations, that suggested that 12 or 13 bits would be where most people
would start hearing things. The fact that so many are so challenged by 10 bits
was a surprise to me! However, after carefully analyzing the situation, its
not as weird as it seems.
>
>Unless, of course, Mr.. Krüger has set up the auditory equivalent of a
>shell game. (The gamesmanship aspects of double-blind testing are
>almost always overlooked by its most vociferous supporters, IMHO.)
>
I think you just called me a liar, which is slander. Low blow!
I assure you that full disclosure and everything on top of the table is how I
work. If somebody in this discussion between you and I has a track record of
public deception, it ain't me!
Arny Krüger
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote in message
<368637...@sunshinestereo.com>...
>Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
>> And how about that $1600 pot for those who can hear cable differences.
>> Care to try your luck? If you succeed, you'll gave a great story for your
>> next issue of Stereophile.
>>
>
>cables, standard 16 guage and MIT Shotgun. I will tell them apart even
>with your phony baloney Double Jeopardy SuperBlind Tripple worthless
>Test.
>
Think that this test will pass the 0.1 dB criteria?
Will the 16 gauge wires pass my well-known wire-sizing criteria in the
application you propose?
How about a little disclosure about the rest of the details of this proposed
test?
Arny Krüger
Trotsky wrote in message ...
>In article <gsteinberg-28...@ip188.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>,
>gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
>
>> In article <36865dae...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
>>
>> > Lastly, and most important, John Atkinson needs no moral
>> >defense from me or anyone else. He can hold his own whenever and
>> >however he chooses. Having said that, whatever else you may say about
>> >John, he is no coward, and he ably defends himself when he feels the
>> >need to do so. I would doubt he needs to respond to your
>> >characterization of him.
>>
>> John Atkinson and morality are at divergent points in reality.
>>
>> I don't doubt that he'll not respond to what I say, because he can't. He
>> refuses to submit his published claims about the audibility of exotic
>> cables, CD transports, etc. to a proper level-matched, double blind test.
>>
>> His factual misstatements have been refuted time and time again in The
>> Audio Critic's "Hip Boots" section, and I've never seen him provide an
>> acceptable response.
>
>
>
>And to be certain, the five people that read TAC expressly agree with you.
>
That's a flaming lie! I know of at least 10 people who read the TAC (on those
blue moon's when it actually gets published) ;-)
Edward M. Shain
Surfshop
>
> Surfshop wrote;
>
> Well I've followed the situation from the beginning and couldn't
> disagree with you any more.
Briggs foremost objective is to hurt Arny. It's all out war for him.
Win at all costs. Have you seen him go "over the top"? Have you seen
him use extreme measures? If you were Arny, would you trust him?
Is his word good? I don't know. He hasn't proven that it is. Does
he play fairly in this sandbox? No.
WRT ABX, do I think he can pass the test? No - I don't. Would I bet
$30K plus airfare plus time? No. That doesn't mean I believe it any
less. People's failure to accept a ludicrous bet from a hateful man
means nothing.
If Roy really wants to prove something, he should fly here to CES, rent
a suite, invite all interested parties to participate for free and prove
his point. HUGE WIN.
trotsky
Surfshop wrote:
> BT S wrote:
> >
> > Surfshop wrote;
> >
> > >Briggs don't play fair.
>
> > Well I've followed the situation from the beginning and couldn't
> > disagree with you any more.
>
> Briggs foremost objective is to hurt Arny. It's all out war for him.
> Win at all costs. Have you seen him go "over the top"? Have you seen
> him use extreme measures? If you were Arny, would you trust him?
> Is his word good? I don't know. He hasn't proven that it is. Does
> he play fairly in this sandbox? No.
Smurfs, what the bejesus are you talking about? "Hurt Arny?" What the hell
does that mean? Are you talking about physical injury? Psychological
trauma? You're nuts--we aren't talking about a mythical 15 yr. old boy
here, we're talking about a full grown robot, which, if damaged, can always
be sold for scrap metal.
Ratchett
in 20 years?
trotsky wrote in message <3689390C...@mc.net>...
George M. Middius
>Isnt "Trotsky" the weasel who did more for ABX in 2 hours than Arny has done
>in 20 years?
Hey Greg, look -- a minor 'borg wants to have you written up
in the Big Book of ABXism. You should be honored. ;-)
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
Paul Dormer
>BT S wrote:
>>
>> BTW is anybody going to go play in Briggs' sand box or not? THAT is the
>> challenge we're all interested in. (well I am anyway)
>
>Briggs don't play fair. Anyone that would put anything at risk to
>play in that sandbox is a fool.
Apparantly the reason none of Briggs targets even DISCUSS the wager is
threefold
1/ "not convinced he is genuine"
Weak excuse.. Roy has indicated he will provide evidence to Stewart
Pinkerton once discussion gets underway.
2/ Concerns about trickery
Weak excuse.. Roy has suggested measures to satisfy all concerned and
will entertain other suggestions .. he will be strip searched,
handcuffed, blindfolded, an independant party will act as referee, an
independant party will hold the money, participants can make test
measurements of the equipment involved.. etc etc
3/ He's buying the pot
Weak excuse.. if there is no possibility of failure.. why not go
collect the cash? If the wager is too high.. what stake is
acceptable? ($200 is a fuckin joke!)
Paul Dormer Me...@clara.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Design, Editing, Mastering
BT S
3/ He's buying the pot
Weak excuse.. if there is no possibility of failure.. why not go collect
the cash? If the wager is too high.. what stake is acceptable? ($200 is
a fuckin joke!)
This is the part that really ices it for me.How can a bet be to high
when the participant's "KNOW" they cannot lose.
How can they say Brigg's is buying the pot when all along they have
claimed to have a royal straight flush?
The credibility begin's to >shrink<!
Surfshop
>
> .... "Hurt Arny?" What the hell does that mean?
Sheesh, Greg. You gotta be the only RAO regular that doesn't
know what I mean when I say that Roy will use anything to "hurt
Arny." Email me if you want to discuss it.
surfshop at verinet dot com.
Mythical 15 year old boy? BTW, are you going to CES?
Trotsky
($200 is a fuckin joke!)
Consider the source.
--
Nwespapermen eating candy
Had to be held down by big police
Someday, everything is gonna be diff'rent
When I paint that masterpiece
Bob Dylan--"When I Paint My Masterpiece", performed by The Band, p. ?
Greg M. Singh
gsi...@mc.net
Trotsky
<wittge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Isnt "Trotsky" the weasel who did more for ABX in 2 hours than Arny has done
> in 20 years?
Nurse Ratchett--you were great in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"! Why
don't you just fly over this one too?
Nousaine
In article <368637...@sunshinestereo.com>, z...@sunshinestereo.com wrote:
>Here you go, Gene - I will take up the challenge. I will provide two
>cables, standard 16 guage and MIT Shotgun. I will tell them apart even
>with your phony baloney Double Jeopardy SuperBlind Tripple worthless
>Test.
<<<<<Since Kruger and Nousaine are the ones reponsible for setting this stuff
up, I can only suggest you work with them about the logicistics.
Peace,
Gene>>>\\\
Okay Steve you are on. Tell me when you will show up with the cables that have
obvious 'differences?' I will be in Vegas for the CES but should be available
for any days but Tuesdays in January.
Arny Krüger
Paul Dormer wrote in message <369651b7...@news.clara.net>...
>Surfshop <surf...@notreally.com> wrote:
>
>>BT S wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW is anybody going to go play in Briggs' sand box or not? THAT is the
>>> challenge we're all interested in. (well I am anyway)
>>
>>Briggs don't play fair. Anyone that would put anything at risk to
>>play in that sandbox is a fool.
>
>Apparantly the reason none of Briggs targets even DISCUSS the wager is
>threefold
>
>1/ "not convinced he is genuine"
>
>Weak excuse.. Roy has indicated he will provide evidence to Stewart
>Pinkerton once discussion gets underway.
One of the signs of a charlatan is a purported need for secrecy. It is a
simple matter to logon to a british ISP's mail server from the US and claim to
be a brit. There is so much about Roy that does not ring true, it's hard to
know where to start.
>2/ Concerns about trickery
>
>Weak excuse.. Roy has suggested measures to satisfy all concerned and
>will entertain other suggestions .. he will be strip searched,
>handcuffed, blindfolded, an independant party will act as referee, an
>independant party will hold the money, participants can make test
>measurements of the equipment involved.. etc etc
The high bar for even getting into the door to make the tests would be a far
more important issue for me.
>3/ He's buying the pot
>
>Weak excuse.. if there is no possibility of failure.. why not go
>collect the cash?
Who knows if the cash even exists? And if it exists, who says that "Briggs"
would actually disburse it, if he lost?
George M. Middius
as the vile and odious Krooborg prompts his Lie-O-Matic module
with the favoriate keyword "Briggs."
>>Roy has indicated he will provide evidence to Stewart
>>Pinkerton once discussion gets underway.
>One of the signs of a charlatan is a purported need for secrecy.
One of the signs of humanity is the ability to respond in kind
to a reasonable argument. That lets you out, NastyBorg. In your
weird and wacky little universe, "facts" generate themselves
spontanously in response to your random impulses. You have been
embarrassed and humiliated hundreds of times by Roy, so your
only defense is to attack a meaningless admission of real-life
anonymity. Yes, Roy has said he works professionally under a
pseudonym. Only to a weird and wacky cyborg from hell is that
evidence of charlatanry.
>It is a simple matter to logon to a british ISP's mail server from
>the US and claim to be a brit.
And also simple to use distinctively British grammar, spelling,
and slang, right?
Your "reasoning" is pathetic, as usual. Just yesterday you were
whining to little Kevin that proving one's existence is an
epistemological logjam. But when the mood takes you, you attack
Roy because he hasn't proved his identity to your satisfaction.
How pathetic you are. What a joke you make when you bleat about
"science" all the time.
>There is so much about Roy that does not ring true, it's hard to
>know where to start.
Conversely, there is so much we know about you that we would
rather not know. BTW, who programmed your grief response module?
>>3. He's buying the pot
>>Weak excuse.. if there is no possibility of failure.. why not go
>>collect the cash?
>Who knows if the cash even exists? And if it exists, who says that "Briggs"
>would actually disburse it, if he lost?
So many excuses, so many rationalizations, so many lies. Is it
any wonder that Arnii Krooger is the laughingstock of Usenet?
TorResist
>That lets you out, NastyBorg. In your
>weird and wacky little universe, "facts" generate themselves
>spontanously in response to your random impulses.
"Truth's what I preach!" Hear Kroo tell it.
He makes up a 'fact' just to sell it.
In poem or in prose
We can know with our nose
It's a big pile of shit; can't you smell it?
I'd be much remiss not to mention,
This master of anal retention,
When caught in a lie
Will indignantly cry:
"Read Kierkegaard! Ethics suspension!"
Beside him is Doug, his fair pixie.
With logic confounded and trixy.
Alas and forsooth
These two wouldn't know *Truth*
If it crawled up their ass whistling "Dixie"!
tor b
Gruvmyster
> Beside him is Doug, his fair pixie.
> With logic confounded and trixy.
> Alas and forsooth
> These two wouldn't know *Truth*
> If it crawled up their ass whistling "Dixie"!
Very cute, Tor! Kudos on yet another convincing rhyme!
Personally, I think you are a "very complex limerick laureate"!
BTW, whatever happened to the description of the cognitive
processes you use while evaluating equipment? That had looked
like such an interesting discussion.
End up not having the stomach for it?
Doug
--
"Ignorance per se is not nearly as dangerous
as ignorance of ignorance"-- Sydney Harris
TorResist
Doug:
>BTW, whatever happened to the description of the cognitive
>processes you use while evaluating equipment?
Sorry Ms Mini Kroo. I asked you first. You're the one who shouts "Science!"
tor
Nexus 6
Don't hold your breath, Tor.
Doug likes leaping into threads to change the subject, or obfuscate
the discussion as often as possible.
It is his way of running interference for Arny.
---
Nexus 6
--- "It's a terrible thing to live in fear."
Douglas
>
>Doug likes leaping into threads to change the subject, or obfuscate
>the discussion as often as possible.
>
>It is his way of running interference for Arny.
>
Awwww........
Nexus and Tor are buddies. Isn't that a cute way to dodge the issue?
Doug writes a very elegant, non-flame-ridden response with a simple
question, and Tweedledum and tweedledumber refuse to answer the question.
Typical of the "Juden!" errrr..... "Borg!" screaming brainwashed "Normals."
Must have stayed up too many late nights watching Star Trek.
douglas not arny
Nexus 6
>>Don't hold your breath, Tor.
>>
>>Doug likes leaping into threads to change the subject, or obfuscate
>>the discussion as often as possible.
>>
>>It is his way of running interference for Arny.
>>
>
>
>Awwww........
>
>Nexus and Tor are buddies. Isn't that a cute way to dodge the issue?
Read a few of Doug's posts, and you will learn all about "dodging the
issue."
>
>Doug writes a very elegant, non-flame-ridden response with a simple
>question, and Tweedledum and tweedledumber refuse to answer the question.
Doug is a master of flammage, so give it a rest, "douglas."
Doug has been called on already to answer many questions, which he
refuses to do, despite his own like demands.
Nice of you to scurryv to his defense, though. Shows you *really*
care.
>
>Typical of the "Juden!" errrr..... "Borg!" screaming brainwashed "Normals."
>Must have stayed up too many late nights watching Star Trek.
I gave up Star Trek in my teens, moron.
You must be brainwashed, or is it "asswashed?," by your overexposure
to Arny.
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>
> >will your dad be at CES " Kevin?" <G>
>
> Well of course he will because I could not go if he did not go. I do not think
> he will be at the Rock Hard lunch meeting because he will have to do busines
> things probably but I will be there.
must not you be 21 to be admitted?
is Nevada a 21-state?
oh and remember Mr Lawyer requested that
your "dad" be present. right?
<laughter>
dctest Anonymous Remailer
> Instead of being a "Nobody", practice your mastery of the English
> language, and you too, can be a "Somebody", some day.
now lets discuss your audio knowledge <w> Mr Somebody......
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>
> So many excuses, so many rationalizations, so many lies. Is it
> any wonder that Arnii Krooger is the laughingstock of Usenet?
you didnt spell "George M. Middius" right.
Gruvmyster
> "Douglas" <dhamil...@hamiltonassoc.com> wrote:
>
> >Nexus and Tor are buddies. Isn't that a cute way to dodge the issue?
>
> Read a few of Doug's posts, and you will learn all about "dodging the
> issue."
Lay out the issues you want answers on, Nex. I may respond to them if I feel
like it.
> >Doug writes a very elegant, non-flame-ridden response with a simple
> >question, and Tweedledum and tweedledumber refuse to answer the question.
>
> Doug is a master of flammage, so give it a rest, "douglas."
Why, thank you! Why don't you give your self righteous BS a rest, Nex?
> Doug has been called on already to answer many questions, which he
> refuses to do, despite his own like demands.
You mean Tor's questions, which he is incapable of answering? I tried to engage
him in a non inflammatory discussion. I asked my questions nicely, and responded
to his without flames. All I asked was he get the ball rolling to show his good
faith in discussing things without flames.
Did you, perchance, see his replies?
You need to read the threads before responding, Nex. You look stupid now.
> Nice of you to scurryv to his defense, though. Shows you *really*
> care.
Kinda like you Nex. I can see you "care".
> >Typical of the "Juden!" errrr..... "Borg!" screaming brainwashed "Normals."
> >Must have stayed up too many late nights watching Star Trek.
>
> I gave up Star Trek in my teens, moron.
>
> You must be brainwashed, or is it "asswashed?," by your overexposure
> to Arny.
Just let Nex post in peace. That's all he wants, you know. "Pay no attention to
the man behind the curtain!";-)
Doug
--
"There are some people that if they
don't know, you can't tell 'em"-- Louis Armstrong
Gruvmyster
> torr...@aol.com (TorResist) wrote:
>
> >
> >Doug:
> >>BTW, whatever happened to the description of the cognitive
> >>processes you use while evaluating equipment?
> >
> >Sorry Ms Mini Kroo. I asked you first. You're the one who shouts "Science!"
>
> Don't hold your breath, Tor.
And I won't hold mine. My point, as already explained to Tor (fun seeing Dr. Feng
spank him, I might add...) my point was if this "devastating" variable renders
DBTs suspect, what does it say about sighted evaluations? Secondly, I think Tor
couldn't do what he's asking others to do himself.
> Doug likes leaping into threads to change the subject, or obfuscate
> the discussion as often as possible.
That's one opinion. I advance the discussion as I see fit. My questions are at
least as valid as Tor's; I think even more valid.
> It is his way of running interference for Arny.
Ah. So *that's* it. Still denying your "resistance" affiliation, Nex?;-)
Paul Wagner
> Typical of the "Juden!"
Chuck Ross
In article <368C2ABC...@earthlink.net>, paulw...@earthlink.net wrote:
> .Douglas wrote:
>
> > Typical of the "Juden!"
--
Chuck Ross
See my digital photo page at
http://www.enteract.com/~ckross
All photos taken with Nikon CP900S
Fear3000
>.Douglas wrote:
>> Typical of the "Juden!"
I'm pretty *curious* myself :(
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>
> To which Arny Kr|ger <ar...@flash.net> replied in Message
> <KUzf2.1511$S7....@news.flash.net>:
> >Clear example of placebo effect at work. Guess what how many valid bits
> >are in a 24 bit word "converted" this way?
>
> The fact that no new data are created does _not_ mean that the only reason
> the 518 sounds better is the placebo effect. By increasing word length to
> 24 bits when using the 518 to adjust volume, you are basically adding 8
> bits of dither noise below the 16th bit of a CD's data. It appears that
> when this new datastream is fed to an oversampling digital low-pass filter
> D/A converter combination, as found in all standalone D/A processors, it
> will behave in a more linear manner. In addition, the jitter signature of a
> datastream with its word length increased in this manner will be different.
audible? if so results & methodology?
>
> And while in Message-ID: <Z3dg2.375$ok1...@news.flash.net>, Arny Kr|ger
> <ar...@flash.net> antagonistically states that Mr. Shain:
> >...hung [his] whole claim on jitter. Got any objective, reliable means for
> >characterizing jitter? Didn't think so!
>
> I have done quite a lot of work examining the effect of the Meridian 518 on
> reducing word-clock jitter in a digital datastream, as have others (see Bob
> Katz's discussion on www.digido.com). Regardless of the measurement
> technique used, we all seem to be in agreement that the 518 does a good job
> in significantly reducing data-related jitter. However, while doing so, it
> does introduce low-levels of random, low-frequency jitter. (If anyone is
> interested, I can send them a JPEG of a high-resolution spectrum, generated
> by the Miller Audio Research Analyzer, that shows both effects.) I do wonder
> if this mechanism also introduces an audible difference, though if so, it
> appears to be one that listeners prefer.
sighted or blind preference? wouldnt be prefereble
<pun> to test for difference first? if theres no
difference there cant be preference _based_on_sound_
right? the horse before hte cart right?
>
> Finally, in Message-ID: <aS3g2.4222$S7....@news.flash.net>, Arny Kr|ger
> <ar...@flash.net> throws down a gauntlet:
> >I challenge you to take my "Digital Challenge" and see if you can hear the
> >effect of reducing musical data down to 10 bits.
>
> This is old news. In single-blind experiments I did in the early '80s using
> a Sony PCM-F1, it seemed that 14-bit digitization produced a statistically
> significant audible difference while setting the PCM-F1 to a 16-bit word
> length did not.
"did" or "did not': wrt what?
"it seemed": was significacne that low? <g>
Of course, the PCM-F1 featured very early digital
> technology, and it might have introduced other audible differences between
> its two word-length settings.
as long as tehse differences have their dependence only
ontheir respective word length Isee no problem with the
legitimity of hits head-to-head comparison.............
Further experiments I have done more
> recently, however, also suggest that 16 bits is the minimum word length to
> prevent audible degradation
wrt what? results & methodology?
---and then only when no additional processing
> is done to the data
like?
(which is why the use of 20- and 24-bit data is now
> ubiquitous in the classical recording industry---if you want 16 valid bits
> on a CD, you make the master's word length as long as is practicable for
> as long as possible during the editing/mixing/mastering process).
belaboring hte obvious here. this is known since
the 40s and people have stumbled into this fact
in the 30s even the 20s (Millman, S. (ed.),
"A history of engineering and science in the Bell
system - Comunication sciences (1925- 1980)" 1984)
Anyone performing operatoins in the digital domain
knows this but that the audio industry took this
long to read what was the state of knowledge isnt
an argument or surprising. the crunching I did last
week to test a theory required register lengths
between 80~100 bits to get results wiht 10~30
significant bits. add a reasonable cushion tothat
and you end up using a 128-bit register superstation
but htis doesnt mean i need to keep final resuts
(the equivalent of whats on the CD) in a 128-bit word
lentgh when only the first 16 bits are useful for
my applicatoin (the equivalent of what human
physiology can discrminate as different in audio).
long word lengths are to keep numerical(digital)
noise low during operations (manipulations) not
to get audibly better d/a conversion. and digital
audio manipulations are rather rudimentary compared
to say some new CFD codes nd dont require many
extra bits and only in some particular cases.
>
> This agrees with Bob Stuart's work (reprinted in one of the Spring '98 issues
> of Audio magazine) that while 16-bit digital data can be audibly transparent,
> this will not be so to _all_ listeners _all_ of the time on _all_ kinds of
> music under _all_ playback conditions. Meaning that 16-bit digitization
> _will_ be audible to _some_ listeners _some_ of the time. Duh.
yeah........retest (double blind) to see how many
of these supposedly positive tests are covered
by the propability distrubution of an N-trial
random binary process <G>
>
> I included a blind test on Stereophile's Test CD 3 to illustrate the effect
> of truncation to a shorter word length. Tracks 13 and 14 allow the listener
> to compare the original 16-bit data with the same data truncated to 15
> valid bits. With the word length locked to 16 bits and without dither, a
> digital audio workstation was used to produce a new file with the level
> reduced by 6dB, ie, the effective resolution of the new signal was then 15
> bits. These data were then amplified by 6dB in the digital domain so that
> the music's peak level was identical to the original, but the 16th bit or
> LSB was now not conveying musical information.
>
> As audiophiles can find out for themselves, the relevant sections of music
> on track 14 sound different from the same sections on Track 13, ie, 15 bits
> are not sufficient.
give all details pertaining to these manipulatons.
give listening results for 17 18 etc bits showing this.
Arny Kr|ger's 10-bit challenge would therefore seem
> unnecessary, particularly when all the academic work done in the '70s by
> the BBC and others also suggested that less than 13 bits would not be
> audibly transparent.
references?
>
> Unless, of course, Mr. Kr|ger has set up the auditory equivalent of a
> shell game. (The gamesmanship aspects of double-blind testing are
> almost always overlooked by its most vociferous supporters, IMHO.)
are you saying blind testing is a game/trick?
Paul Dormer
>
>Paul Dormer wrote in message <369651b7...@news.clara.net>...
>>Apparantly the reason none of Briggs targets even DISCUSS the wager is
>>threefold
>>
>>1/ "not convinced he is genuine"
>>
>>Weak excuse.. Roy has indicated he will provide evidence to Stewart
>>Pinkerton once discussion gets underway.
>
>One of the signs of a charlatan is a purported need for secrecy. It is a
>simple matter to logon to a british ISP's mail server from the US and claim to
>be a brit.
So? Devil says he will prove this to Steve.. if you will discuss the
test
>here is so much about Roy that does not ring true, it's hard to
>know where to start.
How about addressing the proposed test
>>2/ Concerns about trickery
>>
>>Weak excuse.. Roy has suggested measures to satisfy all concerned and
>>will entertain other suggestions .. he will be strip searched,
>>handcuffed, blindfolded, an independant party will act as referee, an
>>independant party will hold the money, participants can make test
>>measurements of the equipment involved.. etc etc
>
>The high bar for even getting into the door to make the tests would be a far
>more important issue for me.
Why?
>>3/ He's buying the pot
>>
>>Weak excuse.. if there is no possibility of failure.. why not go
>>collect the cash?
>
>Who knows if the cash even exists? And if it exists, who says that "Briggs"
>would actually disburse it, if he lost?
So what?
If Briggs is phoney, you can demonstrate that to the audience here by
agreeing a test, at which point he will have to drop out thus proving
you correct.. right?
Gruvmyster
> Gruvmyster <dhaugen9@ididn't.net> wrote:
> >Lay out the issues you want answers on, Nex. I may respond to them if I feel
> >like it.
> I already have.
I didn't answer? Hm. I must not have felt like it.
> >Why, thank you! Why don't you give your self righteous BS a rest, Nex?
> 'Cause you inspire me so, sweet-cheeks!
You sound like a "bottom feeder".;-)
> >You need to read the threads before responding, Nex. You look stupid now.
> BWAHAHAHA!
> You must be loking here! It is you who has twice injected himself into
> a thread in order to castigate me, without having a clue about the
> rest of the discussion!
> In all of my time lurking here, I thought you were kind of a sharp
> guy. Come to find out the charade is crumbling....poor boy.
You are being mean again! Please stop it!
> >Kinda like you Nex. I can see you "care".
>
> I do.
>
> Truly.
Me too.
Really.
> >Just let Nex post in peace. That's all he wants, you know. "Pay no attention to
> >the man behind the curtain!";-)
>
> So who is this alleged "man?"
I never called you an "alleged man." That would be inflammatory.
Gruvmyster
> Poor Douggietroll, so utterly desperate to pigeonhole me.
Don't try to inflate your importance. It makes you sound pompous.
Nexus 6
>Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>> "Douglas" <dhamil...@hamiltonassoc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Nexus and Tor are buddies. Isn't that a cute way to dodge the issue?
>>
>> Read a few of Doug's posts, and you will learn all about "dodging the
>> issue."
>
>Lay out the issues you want answers on, Nex. I may respond to them if I feel
>like it.
I already have.
>
>> >Doug writes a very elegant, non-flame-ridden response with a simple
>> >question, and Tweedledum and tweedledumber refuse to answer the question.
>>
>> Doug is a master of flammage, so give it a rest, "douglas."
>
>Why, thank you! Why don't you give your self righteous BS a rest, Nex?
'Cause you inspire me so, sweet-cheeks!
>
>> Doug has been called on already to answer many questions, which he
>> refuses to do, despite his own like demands.
>
>You mean Tor's questions, which he is incapable of answering? I tried to engage
>him in a non inflammatory discussion. I asked my questions nicely, and responded
>to his without flames. All I asked was he get the ball rolling to show his good
>faith in discussing things without flames.
>
>Did you, perchance, see his replies?
>
>You need to read the threads before responding, Nex. You look stupid now.
BWAHAHAHA!
You must be loking here! It is you who has twice injected himself into
a thread in order to castigate me, without having a clue about the
rest of the discussion!
In all of my time lurking here, I thought you were kind of a sharp
guy. Come to find out the charade is crumbling....poor boy.
>
>> Nice of you to scurryv to his defense, though. Shows you *really*
>> care.
>
>Kinda like you Nex. I can see you "care".
I do.
Truly.
>
>> >Typical of the "Juden!" errrr..... "Borg!" screaming brainwashed "Normals."
>> >Must have stayed up too many late nights watching Star Trek.
>>
>> I gave up Star Trek in my teens, moron.
>>
>> You must be brainwashed, or is it "asswashed?," by your overexposure
>> to Arny.
>
>Just let Nex post in peace. That's all he wants, you know. "Pay no attention to
>the man behind the curtain!";-)
So who is this alleged "man?"
---
Nexus 6
>> It is his way of running interference for Arny.
>
>Ah. So *that's* it. Still denying your "resistance" affiliation, Nex?;-)
Since I live in Washingotn, D.C., allow me to give you the proper
response:
"I neither confirm nor deny..."
Poor Douggietroll, so utterly desperate to pigeonhole me.
---
Nexus 6
>Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>> Poor Douggietroll, so utterly desperate to pigeonhole me.
>
>Don't try to inflate your importance. It makes you sound pompous.
I'm *not* important - that's my point, fool.
Why are you still following me?
Nexus 6
>Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>> Gruvmyster <dhaugen9@ididn't.net> wrote:
>
>> >Lay out the issues you want answers on, Nex. I may respond to them if I feel
>> >like it.
>
>> I already have.
>
>I didn't answer? Hm. I must not have felt like it.
So much for "science" and "accuracy."
>
>> >Why, thank you! Why don't you give your self righteous BS a rest, Nex?
>
>> 'Cause you inspire me so, sweet-cheeks!
>
>You sound like a "bottom feeder".;-)
Not.
>
>> >You need to read the threads before responding, Nex. You look stupid now.
>
>> BWAHAHAHA!
>
>> You must be loking here! It is you who has twice injected himself into
>> a thread in order to castigate me, without having a clue about the
>> rest of the discussion!
>
>> In all of my time lurking here, I thought you were kind of a sharp
>> guy. Come to find out the charade is crumbling....poor boy.
>
>You are being mean again! Please stop it!
Just speaking the truth, DrollDouggieTroll.
>
>> >Kinda like you Nex. I can see you "care".
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> Truly.
>
>Me too.
>
>Really.
>
>> >Just let Nex post in peace. That's all he wants, you know. "Pay no attention to
>> >the man behind the curtain!";-)
>>
>> So who is this alleged "man?"
>
>I never called you an "alleged man." That would be inflammatory.
You are inflammatory.
Gruvmyster
> Gruvmyster <dhaugen9@ididn't.net> wrote:
>
> >I didn't answer? Hm. I must not have felt like it.
>
> So much for "science" and "accuracy."
Yeah, Nex, I can see why not answering a question might impugn "science" and
"accuracy."
Oil gasket to your brain leaking again?
> >> >Why, thank you! Why don't you give your self righteous BS a rest, Nex?
> >
> >> 'Cause you inspire me so, sweet-cheeks!
> >
> >You sound like a "bottom feeder".;-)
>
> Not.
You show an interest in cheeks here. Maybe you don't eat them, then.
> >> So who is this alleged "man?"
> >
> >I never called you an "alleged man." That would be inflammatory.
>
> You are inflammatory.
You're an alleged man.
Nexus 6
Gruvmyster <dhaugen9@ididn't.net> wrote:
>> You are inflammatory.
>
>You're an alleged man.
Prove it.
---
Nexus 6
--- "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?
That's what it means to be a slave."