"Audiophile" Cables: A different angle
Greg Guarino
I'd like to take another stab at looking at this question from another
direction. I intend to describe a kind of cable used frequently in
recording studios and then use it as an example to make two points.
The manufacturer is Mogami. The cable is one of their multipair
snakes. (the exact model # escapes me right now). It is designed to
carry 24 separate signals. (from a console to a tape machine for
example)
This is what it consists of:
24 twisted pairs of 22 gage stranded copper.
Each conductor with color coded insulation.
Each pair individually shielded, with drain wire.
Each pair jacketed with numbered insulator.
Highly flexible outer jacket.
Low capacitance design.
Approximately 7/8 inch in diameter.
Point #1:
If you listen to just about any mutitrack recording (ALL Rock, Pop,
R & B, MOST Jazz, some Classical) the signal has gone through
thousands of feet of this wire (or something similar) before it gets
to the 10 feet or so in your home system. Some people are willing to
spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on these last few feet. I don't
see that as a wise investment (A rough calculation in my head tells me
that there is about 6 miles of cable in one of our studios!)
Point #2:
This wire is of made from very high quality materials and is well
regarded in the recording industry. No one would choose to use such
cable for a single interconnect, or for speaker wire, but I'd like to
make a comparison based on cost of materials and complexity of
construction.
Please note again the description of the wire above: 48 individually
insulated conductors, 24 individual shields with drain wires, each
pair indiviually jacketed and numbered, plus a reinforced outer
jacket. Surely this is at least as costly to make as any esoteric
interconnect or speaker cabling.
It sells for between $4.00 and $5.00 per foot.
That's FOUR or FIVE DOLLARS, not four or five hundred.
I'm sure I'll get responses claiming that audiophile cables are made
in smaller quantities or of more expensive materials. Even if we
assume both, does anyone think that either of these factors can
explain why a SINGLE cable should be ten or twenty or FIFTY times as
expensive as studio quality cable meant to carry 24 signals?
Greg Guarino
Doug Schneider
> Point #1:
> If you listen to just about any mutitrack recording (ALL Rock, Pop,
> R & B, MOST Jazz, some Classical) the signal has gone through
> thousands of feet of this wire (or something similar) before it gets
> to the 10 feet or so in your home system. Some people are willing to
> spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on these last few feet. I don't
> see that as a wise investment (A rough calculation in my head tells me
> that there is about 6 miles of cable in one of our studios!)
Good Point! However, I can control what is in my listening room not the
recording studios (although I can send a nasty letter or two). Although
you are correct in saying that improvement up front may yield better
results down the pipe (proof is from Chesky, DCC, MFLS, that sound good
on bad systems), there is still nothing I can do about that. If we
could control the recording environment, it may be a different story.
Doug Schneider
http://www.sstage.com/
J. Sanders
Greg>
Ever wonder why CDs cost so much at a store? Because people have
shown they're willing to continue to pay the high price. They cost less
than LPs to make yet cost quite a bit more.
Several dealers have told me that in their conversations with
cable manufacturing reps they've heard admissions that cable pricing has
absolutely nothing to do with cost of production. Rather, it's "what the
market will bear". Meaning, since there have been enough people with
enough money out there to sink a fortune into fancy cables, the rest of
us continue to pay inflated prices, as in the case of CDs.
Rather sorry state of affairs, but that's one of the prices we
all pay for living in a "free market economy".
Sand Man
Jim Cate
In <32B3B5...@inreach.com> "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com>
writes:
>
>Greg>
>
> Several dealers have told me that in their conversations with
>cable manufacturing reps they've heard admissions that cable pricing
has
>absolutely nothing to do with cost of production. Rather, it's "what
the
>market will bear". Meaning, since there have been enough people with
>enough money out there to sink a fortune into fancy cables, the rest
of
>us continue to pay inflated prices, as in the case of CDs.
I agree with your analysis, and the unfortunate aspect of it all is
that the effects of cables on the signal are a question of physics and
math, rather than an existential, "what I hear and what you hear"
subject as is the case with speakers. Its a rather basic evaluation
entailing the gage, resistance, surface area, capacitance, etc., that
can be determined by any first year EE student. Silver wires may
indeed provide a slight decrease in resistance, but the same could be
accomplished by using a slightly heavier gage of copper wire, which
also would have less resistance and impeadance.
My own "cables" consitute 12-gage multi-strand speaker wire obtained
from our local building supply house, Builders Square. At about 30
cents per foot, my entire "cable" system for two sets of speakers
(12-15 feet of cable length) cost about $25. I soldered the strands
together on both ends, and soldered terminal clips on one set where
needed, so that each strand of wire in each cable would be connected at
both ends with each other strand. (The $25 included the clips and the
solder.)
The supposed improvements obtained by high-end cables, in tests I have
read about, do not use controlled condiditions and do not match the
volumes precisely as is necessary for any useful data.
Jim Cate
Stephen Armstrong
Great points Greg!
In addition to highlighting the stupidity of paying outrageous prices
for "audiophile" cables, your examples underscore the folly of believing
esoteric cables have any audible effect - good or bad. As many readers
of this forum may remember, several years ago Stereo Review ran a
scientifically sound and statistically valid double-blind A/B test
comparing many brands of audiophile cable and some ordinary copper
16-gauge zip cord. The panelists for the test were knowledgeable audio
professions, many of whom swore by the sonic benefits of high-priced
cables. The test used top-quality audio equipment and a variety of
recordings and sources to compare the cables.
In the end, none of the experts could distinguish between any of the
different high-priced cables or between audiophile cables and the zip
cord. Just for fun, Stereo Review even used a cheap 18-gauge zip cord
to see if ANY cable could produce a noticeable change in the sound.
Again, no one on the panel could reliably identify the 18 gauge cable
from among the others.
As a research psychologist and audio enthusiast, I immediately
appreciated the significance of this elegant experiment: despite
advertising claims to the contrary, properly functioning cables of any
kind don't alter an audio signal in any audible way. I'm sure those who
wish to believe otherwise will continue to do so, undeterred by the
truth. Fooled by hocus pocus and slick marketing rhetoric, they and
others like them will continue wasting millions of dollars every year on
audiophile cables.
SDA
tar...@michiana.org
Gene Steinberg
In article <32B4B9...@michiana.org>, tar...@michiana.org wrote:
>Gene? Is that you?
No, it's just an indication that people who take the time to research this
properly, or who have a good grounding in audio technology will come to the
inevitable conclusion that most claims that audio cables (of proper gauge
for the purpose) can sound different from one another is largely
advertising hype.
--
Peace,
Gene
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Actually, there are many cables that do sound different. Of course this
is due to many measureable factors, like R,L,C, propogation velocity,
skin effect and also due to different dielectrics & materials used.
Stuff like filling them with water, or having them insulated from light
is a lot of bullshit.
The truth exists somewhere halfway between the loonies & Gene.
Cheers
Zip
tar...@michiana.org
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <32B4B9...@michiana.org>, tar...@michiana.org wrote:
>
> >Gene? Is that you?
>
> No, it's just an indication that people who take the time to research this
> properly, or who have a good grounding in audio technology will come to the
> inevitable conclusion that most claims that audio cables (of proper gauge
> for the purpose) can sound different from one another is largely
> advertising hype.
>
> Peace,
> Gene
Yer soooo much fun Gene, I can always get a rise out of you.
(Unhook the meter and take the bananas out of your ears)
Werner Ogiers
Greg Guarino wrote:
> direction. I intend to describe a kind of cable used frequently in
> recording studios and then use it as an example to make two points.
> The manufacturer is Mogami. The cable is one of their multipair
I mostly use home-made interconnects based on Prefer MGK-226 OFC
microphone
cable, essentially equivalent to other pro-cables from Belden and
Mogami.
I also have a solid core silver cable from Deskadel (cost: $50 or so)
which
can sound a bit different, depending on its source component. However,
it is not a dramatic difference. The money can better be spent on more
LPs
and CDs, which invariably will make the system sound better ;-)
An example of the opposite is Rega: their Planet is an incredible
sounding
CD-player at a price of $800. But then they recommend using it with
their
$130 Couple interconnect. And that one is just a Klotz pro-cable with
Neutrik connectors.
Other example: the RB-900 tonearm is in fact an RB-300 with *allegedly*
better
bearings (better selected, the things themselves are identical in both
arms),
a different colour and one meter of Klotz instead of non-descript wire.
The 900 costs 3 times as much as the 300...
--
Werner Ogiers IMEC, division MAP
e-mail: ogi...@imec.be Belgium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audio Visions -> http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/4133
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Butler
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> In article <32B4B9...@michiana.org>, tar...@michiana.org wrote:
> >Gene? Is that you?
> No, it's just an indication that people who take the time to research this
> properly, or who have a good grounding in audio technology will come to the
> inevitable conclusion that most claims that audio cables (of proper gauge
> for the purpose) can sound different from one another is largely
> advertising hype.
>
> --
> Peace,
> Gene
He said nothing of the sort. He came to no "inevitable conclusion."
He posed a question. And he did not address the issue of sonic
differences at all. He was posing a question as to the cost effectiveness
of $50 -to- 500/foot audiophile wire. Most audiophiles who use
premium wire would question that, too.
After all, the wire he held up as a cost-effective example used
in recording studios employs twisted pair, shielded, drain-wired,
low capacitance technology. These are the same design and theory
principles espoused and practiced by AudioQuest, Tara Labs, Monster,
StraightWire, and many others.
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <32B4B9...@michiana.org> tar...@michiana.org writes:
>Stephen Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> As a research psychologist and audio enthusiast, I immediately
>> appreciated the significance of this elegant experiment: despite
>> advertising claims to the contrary, properly functioning cables of any
>> kind don't alter an audio signal in any audible way. I'm sure those who
>> wish to believe otherwise will continue to do so, undeterred by the
>> truth. Fooled by hocus pocus and slick marketing rhetoric, they and
>> others like them will continue wasting millions of dollars every year on
>> audiophile cables.
>
Hmmm... Would have asked: "Dr. Greenhill? It can't be you, can it?"
Disclaimer: This is a joke which takes its roots in rather "warm"
discussions that took place several months ago and
that some regulars will remember for sure. Here I
mean absolutely no offense to either Dr. Armstrong
or Dr. Greenhill.
--
,
Sebastien
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Sebastien P. McIntyre wrote:
>
> In article <32B4B9...@michiana.org> tar...@michiana.org writes:
> >Stephen Armstrong wrote:
> >>
> >> As a research psychologist and audio enthusiast, I immediately
> >> appreciated the significance of this elegant experiment: despite
> >> advertising claims to the contrary, properly functioning cables of any
> >> kind don't alter an audio signal in any audible way. I'm sure those who
> >> wish to believe otherwise will continue to do so, undeterred by the
> >> truth. Fooled by hocus pocus and slick marketing rhetoric, they and
> >> others like them will continue wasting millions of dollars every year on
> >> audiophile cables.
> >
> >Gene? Is that you?
>
> Hmmm... Would have asked: "Dr. Greenhill? It can't be you, can it?"
>
You could have asked, Sebastian - but you would have been wrong, as
usual. It is Greenhill's opinion that coubles do make audible
differences in the sound of music reproduction systems. He is right.
The above poster is wrong. It is that simple.
G'day
Zip
Tony Ching-Kong Hwang
Werner Ogiers (ogi...@imec.be) wrote:
: Greg Guarino wrote:
: > direction. I intend to describe a kind of cable used frequently in
: > recording studios and then use it as an example to make two points.
: > The manufacturer is Mogami. The cable is one of their multipair
: I mostly use home-made interconnects based on Prefer MGK-226 OFC
: microphone
: cable, essentially equivalent to other pro-cables from Belden and
: Mogami.
: I also have a solid core silver cable from Deskadel (cost: $50 or so)
: which
: can sound a bit different, depending on its source component. However,
: it is not a dramatic difference. The money can better be spent on more
: LPs
: and CDs, which invariably will make the system sound better ;-)
I opened up my pre-amp, and noticed that the wire inside is REAL cheap
looking! And I'm using Kimber PBJ. I wonder, how does such good
interconnects work if inside, most stuff has just "cheap" wire, and by
cheap, I mean like paper clip wire, not even real "wire". I mean, not even
strands, sometimes! (I'm using a Dynaco PAS-2 made in the 60's...)
- Tony
: An example of the opposite is Rega: their Planet is an incredible
: sounding
: CD-player at a price of $800. But then they recommend using it with
: their
: $130 Couple interconnect. And that one is just a Klotz pro-cable with
: Neutrik connectors.
: Other example: the RB-900 tonearm is in fact an RB-300 with *allegedly*
: better
: bearings (better selected, the things themselves are identical in both
: arms),
: a different colour and one meter of Klotz instead of non-descript wire.
: The 900 costs 3 times as much as the 300...
: --
: Werner Ogiers IMEC, division MAP
: e-mail: ogi...@imec.be Belgium
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Audio Visions -> http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/4133
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
/*** Tony Ching-Kong Hwang ******* (510) 549 - 2808 ************\
* T R Y S O M E O R A N G E M A R M A L A D E *
\**************** http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~thwang/ ***/
Gene Steinberg
In article <595jtj$j...@agate.berkeley.edu>, thw...@hopi.CS.Berkeley.EDU
(Tony Ching-Kong Hwang) wrote:
>I opened up my pre-amp, and noticed that the wire inside is REAL cheap
>looking! And I'm using Kimber PBJ. I wonder, how does such good
>interconnects work if inside, most stuff has just "cheap" wire, and by
>cheap, I mean like paper clip wire, not even real "wire". I mean, not even
>strands, sometimes! (I'm using a Dynaco PAS-2 made in the 60's...)
>
> - Tony
I'll make it more graphic. The music that you hear must travel through
miles and miles of cables in the recording studio and mastering studio
before it reaches your equipment in the form of a CD or LP. If you really
believe that 10-feet of exotic audio cable can possibly make any difference
after all that, you are on shaky ground in terms of logic. Basically, cable
is one of the things you should worry least about in your system, so long
as the plugs are good and the wires aren't frayed.
--
Peace,
Gene
David Boeren
Gene Steinberg (Ge...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: I'll make it more graphic. The music that you hear must travel through
: miles and miles of cables in the recording studio and mastering studio
: before it reaches your equipment in the form of a CD or LP. If you really
: believe that 10-feet of exotic audio cable can possibly make any difference
: after all that, you are on shaky ground in terms of logic. Basically, cable
: is one of the things you should worry least about in your system, so long
: as the plugs are good and the wires aren't frayed.
The signal has also passed through many electronics in the form of
mixers, amplifiers, microphones, and other components. Probably dozens
at least. Anyone who thinks having good components in the final stage
at their house will make a difference is deluding themselves!
:)
My actual belief is that there is a difference between the typical crappy
cables that come with most equipment and getting reasonably good cables.
Buy some cables of reasonable thickness and good gold-plated connectors
and you'll have the lion's share of any improvement that cables will give
you. Yes, you can probably squeeze a little more performance out of
super high-end cables, but not as much as if you'd spent that money buying
a better amp or better speakers. Personally, I think Kimber PBJ is great
stuff and as good as you're going to need. Alternate real-world choices
are Audioquest Jade or Turqoise, or some of the Monster cables. A tip
on comparing cables, you can often tell the difference easier using a
cable for video than for audio, just because humans have better eyes than
ears and seeing differences is easier than hearing them.
J. Sanders
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <32B4B9...@michiana.org>, tar...@michiana.org wrote:
>
> >Gene? Is that you?
>
> No, it's just an indication that people who take the time to research this
> properly,
Presumably Gene is here referring to Gene and his shortlist of ABX tests
(Ha!)
> or who have a good grounding in audio technology
Presumably Gene is referring here to Tom Nousaine and Peter Aczel (Double
Ha!)
> will come to the inevitable
Huh?
> conclusion that most
Most? Are we witnessing a retreat here from Gene's usual iron-fisted
dogma?
> claims that audio cables (of proper gauge for the purpose)
Wouldn't it be nice to see Gene just once define what he means by such
vague, generalized statments as "proper" ... "for the purpose".
> can sound different from one another is largely advertising hype.
Largely? More evidence of such a retreat?
Perhaps in Gene's universe there are but two possible alternatives: his
shortlist of ABX tests and "advertising hype". In such a collapsed
universe, his cogitations and pronouncements might indeed make sense, but
unfortunately, offer no assistance/insight to the rest of us living in a
non-collapsed universe.
Sand Man
John Butler
ak...@netcom.com (David Boeren) writes:
> My actual belief is that there is a difference between the typical crappy
> cables that come with most equipment and getting reasonably good cables.
> Buy some cables of reasonable thickness and good gold-plated connectors
> and you'll have the lion's share of any improvement that cables will give
> you. Yes, you can probably squeeze a little more performance out of
> super high-end cables, but not as much as if you'd spent that money buying
> a better amp or better speakers. Personally, I think Kimber PBJ is great
> stuff and as good as you're going to need. Alternate real-world choices
> are Audioquest Jade or Turqoise, or some of the Monster cables. A tip
> on comparing cables, you can often tell the difference easier using a
> cable for video than for audio, just because humans have better eyes than
> ears and seeing differences is easier than hearing them.
To these low cost nominees, I'd also add a recommendation for several
offerings from TARA Labs:
Interconnects:
Prism 22 -- $30 to $35/meter pair -- High quality basic co-ax.
Prism 33 -- $50 to $59/meter pair -- Double shielded!
Quantum 66 -- $50/meter pair -- unshielded twisted solid core pair
All the above have first-rate RCA connectors on them as well.
Their low-cost speaker cable offerings are quite good, too:
TARA Klara -- spaced pair of multi-stranded braids -- 79 cents/foot
Prism 2+2: $45/factory terminated 8-foot pair, and bi-wirable.
Armand
In article <32B5E6...@netrunner.net>, z...@netrunner.net says...
>
>Sebastien P. McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm... Would have asked: "Dr. Greenhill? It can't be you, can it?"
You could have asked, Sebastian - but you would have been wrong, as
>usual. It is Greenhill's opinion that coubles do make audible
>differences in the sound of music reproduction systems. He is right.
>The above poster is wrong. It is that simple.
>G'day
>Zip
Everything makes a difference-even coubles, :-D, but we knew that.
And your're right, so does Greenhill.
(How bout' dem Flyers! Da' sur can shut dat puck!
Just 3 points behind and gaining fast. Time for some Coffey in a Cup?)
Armand
PS- Question to all dealers here. Do the sales of high-end equipment
increase this season? I ask that because I wouldn't consider, say a Krell
to be found under anyone's Christmas tree. Maybe an ugly tie........
Armand
In article <akemiE2...@netcom.com>, ak...@netcom.com says...
>
>Gene Steinberg (Ge...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>
>: I'll make it more graphic. The music that you hear must travel through
>: miles and miles of cables in the recording studio and mastering studio
>: before it reaches your equipment in the form of a CD or LP.
Miles and miles, Gene? I think you're stretching it for effect. And no
matter how long recording cables are, you will realize better sound if
those "miles and miles" of cables are of the high quality type. Just ask
Mr. Renner, Mr. Chesky, Mr. Johnson.........
Akemi says...
>The signal has also passed through many electronics in the form of
>mixers, amplifiers, microphones, and other components. Probably dozens
>at least. Anyone who thinks having good components in the final stage
>at their house will make a difference is deluding themselves!
Huh?!
Maybe we should pack it in and log onto rec.knitting.where'stheprozacandbeer ?
>My actual belief is that there is a difference between the typical crappy
>cables that come with most equipment and getting reasonably good cables.
>Buy some cables of reasonable thickness and good gold-plated connectors
>and you'll have the lion's share of any improvement that cables will give
>you. Yes, you can probably squeeze a little more performance out of
>super high-end cables, but not as much as if you'd spent that money buying
>a better amp or better speakers. Personally, I think Kimber PBJ is great
>stuff and as good as you're going to need. Alternate real-world choices
>are Audioquest Jade or Turqoise, or some of the Monster cables.
Wow. What an about face. Now your talking AQ, Kimber and Monster?
A tip
>on comparing cables, you can often tell the difference easier using a
>cable for video than for audio, just because humans have better eyes than
>ears and seeing differences is easier than hearing them.
Not a tip. Prove that cables that perform well in the Mz range also
perform well in the audible range.
Armand
Greg Guarino
mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) wrote:
>In article <akemiE2...@netcom.com>, ak...@netcom.com says...
>>
>>Gene Steinberg (Ge...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>>
>>: I'll make it more graphic. The music that you hear must travel through
>>: miles and miles of cables in the recording studio and mastering studio
>>: before it reaches your equipment in the form of a CD or LP.
>Miles and miles, Gene? I think you're stretching it for effect. And no
>matter how long recording cables are, you will realize better sound if
>those "miles and miles" of cables are of the high quality type. Just ask
>Mr. Renner, Mr. Chesky, Mr. Johnson.........
The wire used in most studios IS of a high quality type, that costs
about a dime a foot for line level cables. You can pay hundreds or
thousands for your interconnects if you like, but a lot of us studio
folks will chuckle a little.
As for the "miles and miles": A good sized professional recording
studio will have several miles of cable. It is unlikely that ALL of it
will be used on any one recording. This does not diminish the point
being made about the signal having been through a LOT of wire before
it gets to your stereo.
Wire is pretty benign stuff generally. It is simply not that difficult
a task to get an audio signal cleanly through a short piece of wire.
Greg Guarino
Gene Steinberg
In article <32B6F7...@inreach.com>, "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com>
wrote:
>Gene Steinberg wrote:
>>
>> No, it's just an indication that people who take the time to research this
>> properly,
>
>Presumably Gene is here referring to Gene and his shortlist of ABX tests
>(Ha!)
>
Not it is a long list of ABX tests. Problem is you would rather not listen
to the results, since they don't justify the equipment purchases you've
made. Your alter ego Jammer has tried to refute those results for months
now, but the engineers who hang out in rec.audio.high-end aren't letting
him/you get away with it.
>> or who have a good grounding in audio technology
>
>Presumably Gene is referring here to Tom Nousaine and Peter Aczel (Double
>Ha!)
>
And hundreds of degreed engineers with knowledge of the basics of audio
electronics.
>
>Wouldn't it be nice to see Gene just once define what he means by such
>vague, generalized statments as "proper" ... "for the purpose".
>
For most purposes 16 gauge or less ought to be enough, unless the run is
very long. Let's talk common sense here, Sand Brain. Many speaker manuals
will suggest cable thickness (I recall some of the Carver speaker manuals
did, for example).
>Perhaps in Gene's universe there are but two possible alternatives: his
>shortlist of ABX tests and "advertising hype". In such a collapsed
>universe, his cogitations and pronouncements might indeed make sense, but
>unfortunately, offer no assistance/insight to the rest of us living in a
>non-collapsed universe.
>
My universe is the one in which real people live, a world in which people
can live in fantasy and real worlds, as they choose. Not your collapsed
universe in which people who don't support your narrow-minded view of the
universe are denigrated and attacked.
Be nice or maybe some day I'll reveal to the people what your online
profile on AOL listed your profession as--the profile you wrote yourself
(it it wasn't the legal profession). Nuff said.
--
Gene
Alan Derrida
David Boeren (ak...@netcom.com) wrote:
: The signal has also passed through many electronics in the form of
: mixers, amplifiers, microphones, and other components. Probably dozens
: at least. Anyone who thinks having good components in the final stage
: at their house will make a difference is deluding themselves!
Blah blah blah. Anyone who makes these kinds of generalizations without
ever having listened to what their talking about are the one's who are
deluding themselves. Telling somebody that because electronics weren't
optimal during the recording stage so you should listen to the result on
electrified crap in your living room makes about as much sense as telling
someone that it's not worth it to spend the extra bucks on a Ferrari
because the people who made it drove to the factory in a Volkswagen. That
sure is one hell of a mass delusion of people who can identify cable
differences out there.
: Buy some cables of reasonable thickness and good gold-plated connectors
: and you'll have the lion's share of any improvement that cables willgive
: you.
You are perpetuating the myth here that "thickness" is always a
qualitative measure of good cable when nothing could be further from the
truth. In audiophile circles, it never was always the rule.
: Yes, you can probably squeeze a little more performance out of super
: high-end cables, but not as much as if you'd spent that money buying a
: better amp or better speakers.
You can spend millions of dollars on your speakers or your amplifier,
but your system is only as strong as its weakest link, so if your
amp is communicating to your equipment with garbage for cables, garbage
is what you're going to hear as a result. OTOH, if you don't have a
system of sufficient resolution to appreciate these high end cables you're
talking about, then you shouldn't EVEN be talking about them. Your
experiences are then meaningless because the differences get smaller and
less significant the lower the res of the system. That's a fact of life.
: Personally, I think Kimber PBJ is great stuff and as good as you're
going
: to need.
Personally, you should keep in mind that YOUR needs are not the needs
of all others. If you don't ever want to go higher than Kimber PBJ fine,
but there's no reason everybody else should suffer.
: A tip on comparing cables, you can often tell the difference easierusing
: a cable for video than for audio, just because humans have better eyes
: than ears and seeing differences is easier than hearing them.
I also disagree with your tip, but at least you're *trying* to be helpful,
which is more than I can say for the truly hopeless, ie. CrazyGene. Human
ears are essentially no better or worse than eyes, it's just that most
people do not train their ears to concentrate on sound, they just take it
in - so you can expect to require some practice doing so. Most people have
plenty of experience watching tv - it usually requires a form of
concentration, namely visual, to be able to follow it. Presumably, that's
why you find it easier to concentrate on differences that are
visually-oriented.
However, telling people to compare audio cables using _visual_ stimulii is
just so damn *bizarre*, I can't even find a WORD for it in my dictionary.
I mean *c'mon on*! I don't want to imply that you're a complete idiot
here, but does it really not occur to you that audiophile-grade audio
cables are not designed for video purposes, but for the purpose of
reproducing sound? Specifically MUSIC?? No, looking at brightness,
contrast or colour patterns on a tv monitor is not even going to begin
to tell you what the cable sounds like reproducing music, and I sure hope
no other audiophiles out there needs this particular aspect of audio
cables pointed out to them. Just get yourself a lot more practice with
cable sound until you're better at identifying them aurally. I personally
have no problems hearing such differences, even with directions of
directional cables, but as far as high grade video cables are concerned, I
saw no great advantages with them that would make me spend a lot of money
on them - especially if you can usually get the same effect twiddling the
controls on your tv.
David Boeren
David Boeren (ak...@netcom.com) wrote:
Several people seem to be taking what I wrote the wrong way, so I feel
compelled to clarify. Here is what I wrote...
: The signal has also passed through many electronics in the form of
: mixers, amplifiers, microphones, and other components. Probably dozens
: at least. Anyone who thinks having good components in the final stage
: at their house will make a difference is deluding themselves!
: :)
I wrote this as a sarcastic followup to the comments that since the
signals have passed through miles of cable, that using good cable would
make no difference. I had thought the sarcasm was obvious, especially
with the smiley, and particularly when followed by the next paragraph
explaining what I really thought.
: My actual belief is that there is a difference between the typical crappy
: cables that come with most equipment and getting reasonably good cables.
: Buy some cables of reasonable thickness and good gold-plated connectors
: and you'll have the lion's share of any improvement that cables will give
: you. Yes, you can probably squeeze a little more performance out of
: super high-end cables, but not as much as if you'd spent that money buying
: a better amp or better speakers. Personally, I think Kimber PBJ is great
: stuff and as good as you're going to need. Alternate real-world choices
: are Audioquest Jade or Turqoise, or some of the Monster cables. A tip
: on comparing cables, you can often tell the difference easier using a
: cable for video than for audio, just because humans have better eyes than
: ears and seeing differences is easier than hearing them.
Now, to answer a couple specific points. First, I don't think that just
because a cable is thick, that makes it good. What I meant is that you
should buy cable of at least some minimum thickness of gauge, because
very thin cables are generally NOT good. I'm sure that a very thin cable
made of exotic elements may be good, but in the real world you're better
off buying an equally good cable of thicker but more normal/cheap material.
The point I'm trying to make is that using well-made cables which are not
ultra-thin and which have good quality gold-plated connections is
definately worthwhile, even if you do not want to spend a ton of money on
exotic cables. At this level a little money can make a noticable
difference, so there's little sense in not getting something decent. If
you want to spend $500 on a cable, that's your business, but my own
opinion is that the improvement-per-dollar goes sharply and steadily down
once you pass up the cables in the Kimber PBJ or Audioquest Topaz general
catagory.
I'm sorry if my tip on trying cables out for video is misguided. I was
attempting to be helpful, providing a way so that people who don't
believe that cables can make any difference can easily see that they do.
I did not intend it as a method to compare high-level interconnects, only
as a way to make it obvious that a solidly built "reasonable" cable was
better than the cheap RCA cables that usually come with new equipment.
Anyway, if someone can point me to a resource that explains why quality
cables perform much better on some frequencies than others, I'd like to
become more familiar with the technical side of this.
Tom Morley
> Anyway, if someone can point me to a resource that explains why quality
> cables perform much better on some frequencies than others, I'd like to
> become more familiar with the technical side of this.
The analysis of cables, is (fortunately or unfortuntely,
depending on ones point of view.... see address below...:-) )
very Mathematical, at least if one goes past simple LRC analyses.
(And even there, how do you predict the L and C from the geometry..)
If you go all the way to Transmission Line analysis (Let's not get into
the controversy of whether or not this is essential...to predict
L and C from geometry requires at least Maxwell or some
approximation... ) , then
Lots of PDE's. :-( or :-) .
Maxwells's equations, Poisson's Eqn, the tellagraph eqn and
all kinds of PDE's first studied by O. Heaviside. Very technical.
One classical reference is "Electrical Transmission Lines, Distributed
Constants, Theory and Applications." by H. H. Skilling, 1951.
OTOH, I think that there is alot of purely mechanical stuff.
Quality of contacts, etc.
At a non-technical level (always relative to what one coniders
technical...) I don't know of a good reference, at least one
that isn't controversial from one side or the other. But
do see John Dunlavy's postings here and in RAHE on the
subject. (Try DejaNews)
Sorry if can't be more helpful, but in any case
Happy Holidays,
Tom Morley | Whereof one cannot speak,
mor...@math.gatech.edu | thereof one must be silent.
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com | - L. Wittgenstein
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <Gene-ya02368000...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
Ge...@worldnet.att.net (Gene Steinberg) writes:
>In article <32B6F7...@inreach.com>,
"J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>
>Be nice or maybe some day I'll reveal to the people what your online
>profile on AOL listed your profession as--the profile you wrote yourself
Which means we may never know should he stay quiet and act nicely?
You are blackmailing........... _us_, Mr. Steinberg. We now feel
compelled to flame him in order he goes into reprehensible behaviour
here so we may finally be told what you know. Pas gentil du tout
(not nice at all). ;-)
Now let me guess about his listed profession on AOL: consulting
statistician? This would definitely make strong sense to me in view
of his complete, repeated misunderstanding of what statistical
significance is. Huh??? Well, the clue seems to be in "consulting"...
He might have have been a consultant to "JMR" on statistical issues
and this would explain why "JMR" himself/herself is also very
confused about statistical significance (re: RAHE, last week). >:->
--
,
Sebastien
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <32B5E6...@netrunner.net>
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>Sebastien P. McIntyre wrote:
>> tar...@michiana.org wrote:
>> >Stephen Armstrong wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As a research psychologist and audio enthusiast, I immediately
>> >> appreciated the significance of this elegant experiment: despite
>> >> advertising claims to the contrary, properly functioning cables of any
>> >> kind don't alter an audio signal in any audible way. I'm sure those who
>> >> wish to believe otherwise will continue to do so, undeterred by the
>> >> truth. Fooled by hocus pocus and slick marketing rhetoric, they and
>> >> others like them will continue wasting millions of dollars every year on
>> >> audiophile cables.
>> >
>> >Gene? Is that you?
>>
>
>You could have asked, Sebastian - but you would have been wrong, as
>differences in the sound of music reproduction systems.
I am of the same opinion.
>He is right.
So am I?
>The above poster is wrong. It is that simple.
No, Dr. Armstrong ain't wrong. But who's wrong here? I'm afraid
it is he/she who makes too general a statement, meaning all cables,
_including_ those that are not "properly functioning". Speaker cables,
when appropriately selected (some for as low as a couple of dimes a
foot), "sound" very much alike according to blind listening test
results, e.g.:
"Wired Wisdom (Cables: Specialty vs. Generic)", Tom Nousaine, Sound
& Vision, Vol.11 No.3, 1995.
"Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?", Laurence Greenhill,
Stereo Review, August 1983, pp.46-51.
"Amplifiers & Speaker Cables", Follow-up report to preceding
prepared by Ian G. Masters, AudioScene Canada, June 1981, pp.24-27.
And nobody here is a better witness to some of these results, for
being yourself a member of the listening panel in the Greenhill
article. In this article, 16-gauge zipcord and 11-gauge Monster
Cable could not be differentiated in 30' cable runs on music (levels
_not_ equalized). Only when the gauge of the cable was too thin to
begin with (24-gauge) was there positive differentiation. When levels
were equalized, 24-gauge zipcord was difficult to distinguish reliably
from lower-gauge cables for more than half of the listening panel (30'
runs, music).
In the Nousaine article, 14-gauge zipcord (mono-wiring fashion) has
been pitted against costly specialty speaker cables (bi-wiring
fashion) with random results (hypothesis under test -- "audible
differences" -- not confirmed).
>G'day
Goo'nite, Monsieur Zipser.
--
,
Sebastien Playing: "The 7th Son" (Willie Dixon)
Tom Brush
David Boeren wrote:
>
> Gene Steinberg (Ge...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>
> : I'll make it more graphic. The music that you hear must travel through
> : miles and miles of cables in the recording studio and mastering studio
> : believe that 10-feet of exotic audio cable can possibly make any difference
> : after all that, you are on shaky ground in terms of logic. Basically, cable
> : is one of the things you should worry least about in your system, so long
> : as the plugs are good and the wires aren't frayed.
>
> mixers, amplifiers, microphones, and other components. Probably dozens
> at least. Anyone who thinks having good components in the final stage
> at their house will make a difference is deluding themselves!
>
> :)
>
> cables that come with most equipment and getting reasonably good cables.
I have compared zip cord to some cables I made using 8 individually insulated 24 ga copper solids going
in each direction. I tries to keep the + and - runs about an inch apart.
I have an audio spectrum analyser. When I replaced the zip cord on my tweeters, the highs were much
more prominent, meaning the zip cord was attenuating them. The spectrum analyser confirmed this and I
have to re-equalize my whole system.
This mystery cable was telephone wire, the kind inside your walls. It's rated to carry over 100v and
you can get it at the lumberyard for less than a dime per foot.
The theoretical basis for my experiment was the Stereophile article in the 10/95 issue. It stated a
good size for audio wire would be .5mm, approx 24ga, and the wires should be individually insulated.
So I found there is a big difference in speaker cables, and no, you don't have to spend a lot to
improve that performance.
Tom Brush
dr...@iquest.net
Tom Brush
F. Blaine Dickson
Sebastien P. McIntyre <NA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> wrote:
> In article <32B5E6...@netrunner.net>
> "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
> >Sebastien P. McIntyre wrote:
>
> >The above poster is wrong. It is that simple.
>
>
> No, Dr. Armstrong ain't wrong. But who's wrong here? I'm afraid
> it is he/she who makes too general a statement, meaning all cables,
> _including_ those that are not "properly functioning". Speaker cables,
> when appropriately selected (some for as low as a couple of dimes a
> foot), "sound" very much alike according to blind listening test
> results, e.g.:
>
> "Wired Wisdom (Cables: Specialty vs. Generic)", Tom Nousaine, Sound
> & Vision, Vol.11 No.3, 1995.
>
> "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?", Laurence Greenhill,
> Stereo Review, August 1983, pp.46-51.
>
> "Amplifiers & Speaker Cables", Follow-up report to preceding
> prepared by Ian G. Masters, AudioScene Canada, June 1981, pp.24-27.
>
All *tests* done by magazines and contributors that also espouse that
ALL CD players and amps sound the same. We all know that a Yorx or
Fisher component does not sound the same as any hi-end component. Give
your head a shake, guys! If that were the case, Extra Foods would be
selling generic audio equipment in yellow boxes because they *all sound
alike*.
Tom Brush
Tom Brush
Tom Brush
David Boeren wrote:
>
> Gene Steinberg (Ge...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>
> : I'll make it more graphic. The music that you hear must travel through
> : miles and miles of cables in the recording studio and mastering studio
> : before it reaches your equipment in the form of a CD or LP. If you really
> : believe that 10-feet of exotic audio cable can possibly make any difference
> : after all that, you are on shaky ground in terms of logic. Basically, cable
> : is one of the things you should worry least about in your system, so long
> : as the plugs are good and the wires aren't frayed.
>
> The signal has also passed through many electronics in the form of
> mixers, amplifiers, microphones, and other components. Probably dozens
> at least. Anyone who thinks having good components in the final stage
> at their house will make a difference is deluding themselves!
>
> :)
>
> My actual belief is that there is a difference between the typical crappy
> cables that come with most equipment and getting reasonably good cables.
I have compared zip cord to some cables I made using 8 individually insulated 24 ga copper solids going in each
direction. I tried to keep the + and - runs about an inch apart.
Tom Brush
David Boeren wrote:
>
> Gene Steinberg (Ge...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>
> : I'll make it more graphic. The music that you hear must travel through
> : miles and miles of cables in the recording studio and mastering studio
> : before it reaches your equipment in the form of a CD or LP. If you really
> : believe that 10-feet of exotic audio cable can possibly make any difference
> : after all that, you are on shaky ground in terms of logic. Basically, cable
> : is one of the things you should worry least about in your system, so long
> : as the plugs are good and the wires aren't frayed.
>
> The signal has also passed through many electronics in the form of
> mixers, amplifiers, microphones, and other components. Probably dozens
> at least. Anyone who thinks having good components in the final stage
> at their house will make a difference is deluding themselves!
>
> :)
>
> My actual belief is that there is a difference between the typical crappy
> cables that come with most equipment and getting reasonably good cables.
I have compared zip cord to some cables I made using 8 individually insulated 24 ga copper solids going
in each direction. I tries to keep the + and - runs about an inch apart.
J. Sanders
Sebastien P. McIntyre wrote:
>
> Gene writes:
> >
> >Be nice or maybe some day I'll reveal to the people what your online
> >profile on AOL listed your profession as--the profile you wrote yourself
> >(it wasn't the legal profession). Nuff said.
Typical bullshit based on typical false assumptions from Mr.
Steinberg. As I made quite clear numerous times last summer on RAO
(resulting from the numerous false assumptions and statements/lies made
up about me in the past on RAO from Mr. Steinberg) I was NEVER a member
of AOL. It was my wife's account, not mine. She took out the account
and she was the one who entered HER biographical data, if indeed any was
entered at all, and she was the one to cancel the account and switch to
Inreach due to the high cost of an AOL subscription last spring (I
understand AOL is NOW offering the same package deal as Inreach,
$19.95/month for unlimited use).
I don't know what my wife wrote down in her online profile on
AOL, if anything, but (1) she is not a lawyer, rather (2) she is a legal
secretary working for the local government here. She has worked for the
same government employer for the past 11-12 years. So sorry, Mr.
Steinberg, but she DOES work in the legal profession, she's just not a
licensed attorney. I would be more specific, but in view of the
existence of dishonest harassing asshole bastards like Mr. Steinberg on
the internet, I will refrain from doing so to protect her privacy rights
from the likes of him.
> Which means we may never know should he stay quiet and act nicely?
> You are blackmailing........... _us_, Mr. Steinberg. We now feel
> compelled to flame him in order he goes into reprehensible behaviour
> here so we may finally be told what you know. Pas gentil du tout
> (not nice at all). ;-)
Hard to make sense of the above gibberish, but one thing is for
sure: you now know something Mr. Steinberg either knows already and is
lying about, or something he doesn't know and made up his usual insulting
false assumptions about.
> Now let me guess about his listed profession on AOL: consulting
> statistician? This would definitely make strong sense to me in view
> of his complete, repeated misunderstanding of what statistical
> significance is. Huh???
I admit I made a mental error in one or more posts in the past
regarding "statistical significance". I am NOT a statistician, and I
have made it very clear that although I studied statistics many years
ago, I am NOT an expert on ANYTHING (including the law - I'm just a
practicing lawyer) and my purpose in discussing statistics was simply to
convey Jammer's message about misinterpreting null results of ABX tests
to equal a negative result. Really quite simple, and nothing
particularly astonishing about it, except in the way in which the likes
of Steinberg, Aczel and Nousaine violate such simple principles
repeatedly in their public pronouncements about audio.
> Well, the clue seems to be in "consulting"...
I've never claimed anywhere to be a "consultant". Gene's AOL
biography, however, as listed in AOL last spring DID make reference to
his being a "consultant"... maybe you should ask him about what kind of
"consulting" he does and see if you can get a straight answer from him.
I seriously doubt he'll give you any kind of straightforward answer which
will give you any clue as to what on earth it is he actually does, on a
day-to-day basis, if anything, to make a living. Might as well ask him
to describe the components in any audio system he may own. Lotsaluck!
> He might have have been a consultant to "JMR" on statistical issues
> and this would explain why "JMR" himself/herself is also very
> confused about statistical significance (re: RAHE, last week). >:->
If you think Jammer "is also very confused about statistical
significance", perhaps you should (1) quote those statements of his
(don't just distort and misrepresent, as is your usual practice) you
claim demonstrate such confusion, (2) cite and quote an authoritative
source or sources on statistics on point, and (3) provide your analysis
of precisely HOW any statements made by Jammer violate any statistical
principals as presented in any generally accepted and authoritative
statistical text or reference book. Then the rest of us might benefit
from your input, rather than simply wonder about why you make such vague,
consdescending, insulting, generalized statements all the time. This
would also give Jammer an opportunity to respond with specific
information. But that might just be TOO fair of you, huh?
Good grief. The BS from certain quarters just never ends, does
it.
Sand Man
Tom Brush
To All,
Sorry about the multiple postings, that's what I get for using the "Re:Both" option from Netscape!
I tried to post and got back an error, and the window didn't disappear, so I reposted.
Sorry,
Tom Brush
dr...@iquest.net
Gene Steinberg
In article <32B9F7...@inreach.com>, "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com>
wrote:
> Good grief. The BS from certain quarters just never ends, does
>it.
>
Speak for yourself, Sand Man.
So far, you have regaled everyone with false statements about me.
You have regaled everyone with promises about releasing information of ABX
tests we've all ignored, with results contrary to those published. No such
results have been forthcoming.
You have claimed that you'd provide proof that the tests done by such
people as Tom Nousaine were invalid, and all you could produce was your
fake Jammer persona to bore everyone to tears.
They say confession is good for the soul. And you've got lots to confess.
With the new year coming, you ought to make a resolution to begin to tell
the truth. Tell us what your game is, who you really are, and what this is
all about. No more BS. Just the facts.
--
Gene
User ID 1299692
Gene Steinberg wrote:
Oh, shut up! Gene is such a study in arrested development.
Take it to the grade school playground where it belongs.
...
Oh, and Happy Holidays.
--
Gene
J. Sanders
Gene Steinberg wrote:
(clip)
> Speak for yourself, Sand Man.
I think I just did.
> So far, you have regaled everyone with false statements about me.
Name one. Everything I've said about you is true. YOU, Mr.
Steinberg, have proven yourself repeatedly on this newsgroup to be a
vicious, compulsive liar, with absolutely nothing worth saying, but you
just never shut up, do you.
> You have regaled everyone with promises about releasing information of ABX
> tests we've all ignored, with results contrary to those published.
No I haven't. I have mentioned several times that I've been
spending time here and there researching results of "blind" tests (not
just ABX, but a variety of blind test methodologies). I got bored with
it quite some time ago and have never gotten around to finishing it, but
hope to some day. I have also stated more than once that I have little
doubt that the ABX tests conducted by the likes of Nousaine, who have an
agenda, have shown null results. So quit distorting what I say.
> You have claimed that you'd provide proof that the tests done by such
> people as Tom Nousaine were invalid
Oh? Quote ANY post of mine where I said I would "provide proof
that the tests done by such people as Tom Nousaine were invalid". Why
do you make this shit up?
On the contrary, I have mentioned numerous times that both on
RAO and RAHE numerous engineers have questioned the "sensitivity" and
"resolution" of the ABX tests conducted by such people as Nousaine. A
check of DejaNews will confirm that this is the case.
> and all you could produce was your
> fake Jammer persona to bore everyone to tears.
Before calling Jammer a "fake", you should be prepared to prove
it beyond a shadow of a doubt. To date you have failed miserably. He
has already provided numerous citations to statistical authority proving
Nousaine's and YOUR wild interpretations of his ABX tests are a sham.
> They say confession is good for the soul. And you've got lots to confess.
Need I again quote the immortal words of Chuck Ross here?
> With the new year coming, you ought to make a resolution to begin to tell
> the truth.
Were you perhaps gazing goofily in the mirror when you wrote
this?
> Tell us what your game is,
No game. Just an audio consumer fed up with phonies like you.
> who you really are,
I'm a lawyer. I'm also a consumer. I'm also a citizen of the
U.S. I'm also male (my wife isn't). I'm 51 years old. What's that -
you want to see my birth certificate????
Gene, I think YOU owe me an apology for your numerous lies about
me and your most recent lies about my supposed "AOL" biography" which
supposedly shows I'm not employed in the "legal profession". How about
it, big boy? Big enough for that? Thought not. How pathetic.
Sand Man
Gene Steinberg
In article <32BB40...@inreach.com>, "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com>
wrote:
>Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
>
> Name one. Everything I've said about you is true. YOU, Mr.
>Steinberg, have proven yourself repeatedly on this newsgroup to be a
>vicious, compulsive liar, with absolutely nothing worth saying, but you
>just never shut up, do you.
>
Sorry, Sand/Jammer, you are lying to everyone and you know it. You have
never provided a single instance where anything I've said is false. Whereas
I have pointed to lie after lie after lie from you, and you just ignore it
and go back to your unfounded charges. You can start the new year right by
admitting to your false charges and starting from a clean slate (but I'm
not holding my breath).
> No I haven't. I have mentioned several times that I've been
>spending time here and there researching results of "blind" tests (not
>just ABX, but a variety of blind test methodologies). I got bored with
>it quite some time ago and have never gotten around to finishing it, but
>hope to some day. I have also stated more than once that I have little
>doubt that the ABX tests conducted by the likes of Nousaine, who have an
>agenda, have shown null results. So quit distorting what I say.
>
The tests conducted by Nousaine and others are double blind, done according
to the published standards for ABX test methodology. Hence their agenda has
nothing to do with it; they do not influence the outcome.
> On the contrary, I have mentioned numerous times that both on
>RAO and RAHE numerous engineers have questioned the "sensitivity" and
>"resolution" of the ABX tests conducted by such people as Nousaine. A
>check of DejaNews will confirm that this is the case.
>
There have been a few people who have posted such messages, but the
majority of engineers who hang out in that area have pointed out that it is
the questioners themselves whose logic is questionable.
>
> Before calling Jammer a "fake", you should be prepared to prove
>it beyond a shadow of a doubt. To date you have failed miserably. He
>has already provided numerous citations to statistical authority proving
>Nousaine's and YOUR wild interpretations of his ABX tests are a sham.
>
I don't have to prove anything about you Sand/Jammer. So far your Jammer
persona refuses to reveal any of his research, affiliations, publications,
and in fact any evidence at all that he is an experienced audio engineer.
On the contrary, as the engineers who hang out in RAHE point out, his
knowledge of the fundamentals of audio electronics is seriously flawed.
The ball is in his/your court. You have extraordinary results or knowledge
to offer, put up.
As far as your profile on AOL is concerned--you know very well what I'm
talking about. Come clean, stop trying to fool anyone anymore. The game is
over.
--
Gene
James Dean
>>Gene Steinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>> Name one. Everything I've said about you is true. YOU, Mr.
>>Steinberg, have proven yourself repeatedly on this newsgroup to be a
>>vicious, compulsive liar, with absolutely nothing worth saying, but you
>>just never shut up, do you.
>>
>
>Sorry, Sand/Jammer, you are lying to everyone and you know it. You have
>never provided a single instance where anything I've said is false. Whereas
>I have pointed to lie after lie after lie from you, and you just ignore it
>and go back to your unfounded charges. You can start the new year right by
>admitting to your false charges and starting from a clean slate (but I'm
>not holding my breath).
You are entirely full of shit gene and if he is Lying then prove it and I know
you won't not just because you know that you are the only liar but because
you'll find an excuse not to. unless he really is wich means you should be
able to prove it with something other than your cronie friends stickin up for
you cause they are as dumb as you.
nuff said...
James Dean
Also keep in mind that whole weakest link theory so think about this
for a while if you go out and buy a _NICE_ set of lets say $800 B&W's at
tweeter's or cookin whatever (I am using these because I own a pair and Love
em) now go out and get a decent preamp like an adcom GTP-350 and a real clean
power amp like a Crown D-75A (this is my stereo as the example) and you run
just 12AWG Zip to your speakers it's gonna sound pretty good compared to that
18/24 AWG radio shack wire right?? nope only half because think about it what
comes after your speaker wires? your speaker terminal... and next the wires to
your builtin passive crossover... to cheap wires connecting your speakers so
if you _REALLY_ think speaker wires make all the difference that some people
believe then you should not only replace those but also the wiring inside with
higher quality wire because therein lies one of the absolute _WEAKEST_ links
wich I am going to try to see if it changes anything. but just on the side
what do people think of this kind of a setup for a "Junior" Audiophile or
audio enthusiast (I could never justify spending 500 on cables or
interconnect...)
Adcom GTP-350
Crown D-75A (Will be adding a D-150A and biamping soon)
Technics SL-PD887 5 CD CD Changer (Mass market but sounds pretty good to me)
Just low capacitance interconnect from my dad's studio
12AWG Zipcord (thinking about 10AWG OFC Wire for a replacement)
(all else was funded by me from my job so I am not spoiled by mom and dad)
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <32B9F7...@inreach.com>> (...) and my purpose in discussing statistics was simply to
>convey Jammer's message about misinterpreting null results of ABX tests
>to equal a negative result.
One word seems missing above:
"...about _his_ misinterpreting of null results..."
> Really quite simple, and nothing
>particularly astonishing about it, except in the way in which the likes
>of Steinberg, Aczel and Nousaine violate such simple principles
>repeatedly in their public pronouncements about audio.
With my understanding they don't. The only thing that can turn
negative is the verification of the hypothesis under test ("the
results are due to audible differences between the DUTs") within
some criterion of statistical significance chosen _prior_ to
analysis. Period. Don't complexify simple things.
With small-scale tests, <5% is not even acceptable to experienced
statisticians. Anyway, if the hypothesis under test is wrongfully
accepted below 5%, nobody will die from this, so it's OK with me.
> If you think Jammer "is also very confused about statistical
>significance", perhaps you should (1) quote those statements of his
>(don't just distort and misrepresent, as is your usual practice)
A few examples, Mr. Sand Gran'pappy? :)
> you
>claim demonstrate such confusion,
<top of repost>
#From: jamm...@aol.com (Jammer995)
#Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
#Subject: Re: ABX Test Negatives as Proof
#Date: 13 Dec 1996 06:11:36 GMT
#Approved: rtro...@hpsrjtc.sr.hp.com
#Message-ID: <58s1tl$3...@canyon.sr.hp.com>
#References: <58a7js$j...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>
#
#<58a7js$j...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> bpau...@panix.com
#(Brian Paulsen) wrote:
#
# (...)
#
#The switchbox problem was approached from two different angles. One
#was a frontal assault where the switchbox itself was tested using
#classical techniques, and the results were less than overwhelming. I
#prefer a confidence level of over 83% to start thinkin in terms of
#valid positive results. the switchbox tests were in the range of 65-
#70% confidence level. Not considered statistically significant.
#
#However, when I went at it from the other end, conducting listening
#tests with the switchbox, and then duplicate the tests without the
#switchbox, all conditions being equal. Now the listening tests using
#the switchbox came out less than statistically significant, yet a
#number of the cable swap style tests ended up with confidence levels
#above 83%. No results with box, results without.
#
# (...)
#
#JMR
<end of repost>
> (2) cite and quote an authoritative
>source or sources on statistics on point,
Any standard textbook on statistics read in __proper context__
(i.e. probabilities and listening tests have _no_ common ground).
> and (3) provide your analysis
>of precisely HOW any statements made by Jammer violate any statistical
>principals as presented in any generally accepted and authoritative
>statistical text or reference book. Then the rest of us might benefit
>from your input, rather than simply wonder about why you make such vague,
>consdescending, insulting, generalized statements all the time. This
>would also give Jammer an opportunity to respond with specific
>information. But that might just be TOO fair of you, huh?
Did I say "violate"? I said he is confused (or he doesn't understand
correctly) but depending on who's looking at it, this might always be
interpreted as "violation". You know I'm more constructive than this.
My analysis? Two short appendices to write and my long "concept" post
will be ready (I still have to explain what you seem to ignore: the
difference between a 1-, 2- and 3-toss coin test analysis). I tried
to make it self-contained and readable by all but it's not easy...
Tentatively scheduled for Jan. 6, 1997.
> Good grief. The BS from certain quarters just never ends, does
>it.
The BS is in the eye of the B***S****er.
--
,
Sebastien
Thomas Nulla
magicb...@bort.mv.net (James Dean) wrote:
>You are entirely full of shit gene and if he is Lying then prove it and I know
>you won't not just because you know that you are the only liar but because
>you'll find an excuse not to. unless he really is wich means you should be
>able to prove it with something other than your cronie friends stickin up for
>you cause they are as dumb as you.
>nuff said...
With friends like this...
Thomas
http://www.io.com/~nulla (high fidelity and miscellany)
*** The humor-impaired should avoid this page. ***
Ultracheap Pilz CD's, John Dunlavy RAHE archive to 19 Dec 96
"Watch out where the huskies go..."
Thomas Nulla
magicb...@bort.mv.net (James Dean) wrote:
>You are entirely full of shit gene and if he is Lying then prove it and I know
>you won't not just because you know that you are the only liar but because
>you'll find an excuse not to. unless he really is wich means you should be
>able to prove it with something other than your cronie friends stickin up for
>you cause they are as dumb as you.
>nuff said...
With enemies like this...
J. Sanders
Sebastien P. McIntyre wrote:
> "J. Sanders" writes:
> >Sebastien P. McIntyre wrote:
> >
> > (...) and my purpose in discussing statistics was simply to
> >convey Jammer's message about misinterpreting null results of ABX tests
> >to equal a negative result.
>
> One word seems missing above:
>
> "...about _his_ misinterpreting of null results..."
OK, smart ass. Jammer provided quotes from and citations to
numerous statistical authorities in his AOL debate with Nousaine last
spring to prove his points. I reproduced some of those citations here on
RAO in late June to early July last summer. Check Dejanews for the
cites.
Now YOU provide YOUR contrary statistical authorities, please.
Come on, McIntired, we're all waiting on you... and waiting on you...
and waiting on you...
> > Really quite simple, and nothing
> >particularly astonishing about it, except in the way in which the likes
> >of Steinberg, Aczel and Nousaine violate such simple principles
> >repeatedly in their public pronouncements about audio.
>
> With my understanding they don't. The only thing that can turn
> negative is the verification of the hypothesis under test ("the
> results are due to audible differences between the DUTs") within
> some criterion of statistical significance chosen _prior_ to
> analysis. Period. Don't complexify simple things.
I thought I was simplifying (perhaps oversimplifying) a more
complex matter. On the other hand, where did you get that (rather
unintelligible) understanding? Define "negative" and distinguish it from
"null". At what point does a "null" result, say a 50% result, become a
"negative" result, and at that point, what is the significance in terms
of interpretation of test results? E.g., at what point do the test
results indicate a lack of audible differences existing in the DUTs
themselves, as opposed to any particular listener's inability to provide
a positive result in the context of any particular test setting? And
cite the authorities, please! We're waiting... and waiting... and
waiting...
Bear in mind that Nousaine, Aczel and Steinberg are fond of (in a
variety of words and phrases, some more emphatic than others) claiming
that ABX tests "scientifically prove" that all cables sound the same
("wire is wire", etc.), all "properly constructed" and/or "properly
operating" amplifiers, etc. sound the same. If that is your
understanding as well, then this is your opportunity to accomplish
something none of those gentlemen have accomplished to date.
> > If you think Jammer "is also very confused about statistical
> >significance", perhaps you should (1) quote those statements of his
> >(don't just distort and misrepresent, as is your usual practice)
>
> A few examples, Mr. Sand Gran'pappy? :)
(CLIP - CITE OF EXAMPLE I ASSUMED YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT - THE ONE WHICH
INCLUDED REFERENCES TO 83%, ETC. - MY NEWS SERVER WILL NOT POST ANY POST
WHICH CONTAINS MORE QUOTED MATERIAL THAN ORIGINAL TEXT)
> > (2) cite and quote an authoritative
> >source or sources on statistics on point,
>
> Any standard textbook on statistics read in __proper context__
> (i.e. probabilities and listening tests have _no_ common ground).
You've got to do better than that. QUOTE from ANY such text, and
give us the CITATION to the quote which illustrates your point, please.
We're waiting... and waiting... and waiting....
> > and (3) provide your analysis
> >of precisely HOW any statements made by Jammer violate any statistical
> >principals as presented in any generally accepted and authoritative
> >statistical text or reference book....(clip)
> Did I say "violate"? I said he is confused (or he doesn't understand
> correctly) but depending on who's looking at it, this might always be
> interpreted as "violation".
> My analysis? Two short appendices to write and my long "concept" post
> will be ready (I still have to explain what you seem to ignore: the
> difference between a 1-, 2- and 3-toss coin test analysis). I tried
> to make it self-contained and readable by all but it's not easy...
> Tentatively scheduled for Jan. 6, 1997.
Well, before posting your "analysis", you still need to quote and
cite specific statistical authority on which you rely in your claim that
Jammer is "confused" about "statistical significance"... and it's really
not clear yet from your post what exactly it is that Jammer has said in
the portion of his post you reproduced here that you specifically object
to. It would seem that it MAY be his reference to an 83% figure. If
that's the case, then be so kind as to SAY SO up front. Then,
considering the context in which he used that figure, cite and quote
specific statistical authority to provide us with a law of statistics you
rely on which you claim Jammer has violated, or that he is "confused"
about, if that is indeed your claim. Then provide your analysis of the
application of such a statistical rule to Jammer's words in context to
illustrate your conclusion that he is "confused" about "statistical
significance". It is in this analysis that you can add any commentary
about coin tosses, etc., you feel will illustrate your point further.
Then maybe Jammer can respond with his own authorities to explain
to you why he chose that particular figure of 83% or said whatever else
it is you are objecting to in his quoted passage. I notice he hasn't
posted on RAO for some time (he's been spending time on RAHE, however) so
to get his attention you may have to e-mail him your analysis, inviting a
response on RAO.
Then and only then will any further discussion of this issue be
of any value to anyone on this newsgroup.
If you're really able to accomplish all of the above, then I will
tip my hat to you. And I will probably in that case have some questions
for Jammer myself.
Sand Man
)
In article <32BC81...@inreach.com>,
J. Sanders <jsan...@inreach.com> wrote:
>to. It would seem that it MAY be his reference to an 83% figure. If
>that's the case, then be so kind as to SAY SO up front. Then,
I believe that Sebastian was referring to the 83% figure, which several
rec.audio.high-end posters also took issue with. "Statistical
significance" is a somewhat arbitrary term, but most people hold 95%
or higher confidence levels as the absolute minimum for statistical
significance. In other words, a common standard for significance is
that there is 5% chance or less that the results are due to chance.
An 80% confidence level would be unacceptably low in many contexts
(such as medical testing).
> Then maybe Jammer can respond with his own authorities to explain
>to you why he chose that particular figure of 83% or said whatever else
>it is you are objecting to in his quoted passage. I notice he hasn't
>posted on RAO for some time (he's been spending time on RAHE, however) so
>to get his attention you may have to e-mail him your analysis, inviting a
>response on RAO.
Actually, if you read rec.audio.high-end (where "Jammer" has "been spending
time"), you might notice that a number of professionals and engineers
have taken issue with Jammer's claims. They have *repeatedly* ask him
to provide details about his experiments and evidence supporting his
more controversial allegations. He has repeatedly failed to do so, and
even the moderators have stepped in and asked him for these details and
evidence. Furthermore, these RAHE posters have pointed out Jammer's
apparent misunderstanding of issues such as partial loudness, the ABX
box and its components, and the measurability of changes in source
material. Given Jammer's inability to "respond with his own authorities"
to these critics, you probably shouldn't hold your breath.
Unless Jammer is able to substantiate his claims and refute his critics,
his performance in rec.audio.high-end brings the words "weak" and even
"humiliating" to mind (my mind, at least). You should read RAHE and
decide for yourself, of course.
Young-Ho
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <59iro2$6...@larmor.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
you...@larmor.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu (\) writes:
>
> (...) "Statistical
>significance" is a somewhat arbitrary term, but most people hold 95%
>or higher confidence levels as the absolute minimum for statistical
>significance. In other words, a common standard for significance is
>that there is 5% chance or less that the results are due to chance.
>An 80% confidence level would be unacceptably low in many contexts
>(such as medical testing).
"in medical testing": even at 95%. I'm sure you can confirm that
97-99% is more run-of-the-mill.
--
,
Sebastien
Tom Albertz
J. Sanders wrote:
>
> ............ I have also stated more than once that I have little
> doubt that the ABX tests conducted by the likes of Nousaine, who
> have an agenda, have shown null results. So quit distorting what
> I say.
What has been PROVEN by testing is that people who REALLY BELIEVE
they hear differences, can't always detect them under blind conditions.
In other words, the placebo effect is REAL.
Sometimes the differences are real - but many times the mind is fooled.
The fact that Steve Z. missed ONE PICK when the Yamaha was wired
DIRECTLY into HIS SYSTEM, probably surprised a lot of people.
It just says, "Don't trust your ears." You can be fooled. You can
FOOL YOURSELF. It has been PROVEN.
P.S. - I only copy your email because you seems to miss so much Usenet.
Sorry.
Norm Strong
<32B9F74A.C03@inreach.c
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, magicb...@bort.mv.net (James Dean) says:
>om> <Gene-ya02368000...@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <32BB40...@inreach.com> <Gene-ya02368000...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>X-Nntp-Posting-Host: magicbus.mv.com
>Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 08:52:48 GMT
>Lines: 56
Come on you guys. i've heard 6 year olds have more intelligent fights.
Do it in e-mail!
>>> Name one. Everything I've said about you is true. YOU, Mr.
>>>Steinberg, have proven yourself repeatedly on this newsgroup to be a
>>>vicious, compulsive liar, with absolutely nothing worth saying, but you
>>>just never shut up, do you.
>>>
>>
>>Sorry, Sand/Jammer, you are lying to everyone and you know it. You have
>>never provided a single instance where anything I've said is false. Whereas
>>I have pointed to lie after lie after lie from you, and you just ignore it
>>and go back to your unfounded charges. You can start the new year right by
>>admitting to your false charges and starting from a clean slate (but I'm
>>not holding my breath).
>
>You are entirely full of shit gene and if he is Lying then prove it and I know
>you won't not just because you know that you are the only liar but because
>you'll find an excuse not to. unless he really is wich means you should be
>able to prove it with something other than your cronie friends stickin up for
>you cause they are as dumb as you.
>nuff said...
>
>
>
>>> No I haven't. I have mentioned several times that I've been
>>>spending time here and there researching results of "blind" tests (not
>>>just ABX, but a variety of blind test methodologies). I got bored with
>>>it quite some time ago and have never gotten around to finishing it, but
>>>hope to some day. I have also stated more than once that I have little
>>>doubt that the ABX tests conducted by the likes of Nousaine, who have an
>>>agenda, have shown null results. So quit distorting what I say.
>>>
>>
>>The tests conducted by Nousaine and others are double blind, done according
>>to the published standards for ABX test methodology. Hence their agenda has
>>nothing to do with it; they do not influence the outcome.
>>
>>> On the contrary, I have mentioned numerous times that both on
>>>RAO and RAHE numerous engineers have questioned the "sensitivity" and
>>>"resolution" of the ABX tests conducted by such people as Nousaine. A
>>>check of DejaNews will confirm that this is the case.
>>>
>>
>>There have been a few people who have posted such messages, but the
>>majority of engineers who hang out in that area have pointed out that it is
>>the questioners themselves whose logic is questionable.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Before calling Jammer a "fake", you should be prepared to prove
>>>it beyond a shadow of a doubt. To date you have failed miserably. He
>>>has already provided numerous citations to statistical authority proving
>>>Nousaine's and YOUR wild interpretations of his ABX tests are a sham.
>>>
>>
>
--
Norm Strong (bg...@scn.org)
2528 31st S. Seattle WA 98l44
J. Sanders
James Dean wrote:
(clip)
> >You are entirely full of shit gene and if he is Lying then prove it and I know
> >you won't not just because you know that you are the only liar but because
> >you'll find an excuse not to. unless he really is wich means you should be
> >able to prove it with something other than your cronie friends stickin up for
> >you cause they are as dumb as you.
> >nuff said...
Thank you, Mr. Dean. Any relation to THE James Dean?
I realize it's futile to get into pissing matches with Gene -
kind of like trying to fight a computer hacker on-screen who keeps
fouling up everyone's messages. Every now and then he says something
completely outrageous about me (such as his reference to my wife's
supposed AOL biography as if it were mine) which triggers an irresistible
urge to kick his dumb patootie through the goal-posts of hell, but it
never does any good - he just piles lie upon lie anyway, and anyone who
really cared about it could just check out his threads on DejaNews to
note all the times he's been publicly busted for his lies by numerous
people on this newsgroup including myself), but so long as he continues
to believe people's memories are so short, he'll continue to reinvent
history to conform to his inane schemes. And very rarely, he will
succeed in provoking a response from me as he did with his recent
bullshit about my supposed AOL biography (which never existed, as I was
never an AOL member).
I'm sure it will never make any difference to Gene or his clones
one way or another, but I do appreciate your vote of confidence - I
entered the legal field to try to make a difference in what I perceived
to be a corrupt system, and in numerous small ways, I have accomplished
that by now. I do not lie and do not tolerate liars in my law practice,
or in my life, but it is rare indeed even in law that I run across a
scoundrel as low and so thoroughly immoral as Gene - where I have, I have
thoroughly fried and humiliated the bastards in court. The same tools
are not available on the internet, or I would do the same to him here.
Anyway, I'm off for a few weeks - the house is crammed with
company and the computer room has become from this day forward off-limits
to me. See you all somewhere around mid-January.
Thanks again, Mr. Dean, and Happy Holidays.
Sand Man
Gene Steinberg
In article <32C08E...@inreach.com>, "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com>
wrote:
>
> I realize it's futile to get into pissing matches with Gene -
>kind of like trying to fight a computer hacker on-screen who keeps
>fouling up everyone's messages. Every now and then he says something
>completely outrageous about me (such as his reference to my wife's
>supposed AOL biography as if it were mine) which triggers an irresistible
>urge to kick his dumb patootie through the goal-posts of hell, but it
>never does any good - he just piles lie upon lie anyway, and anyone who
>really cared about it could just check out his threads on DejaNews to
>note all the times he's been publicly busted for his lies by numerous
>people on this newsgroup including myself), but so long as he continues
>to believe people's memories are so short, he'll continue to reinvent
>history to conform to his inane schemes. And very rarely, he will
>succeed in provoking a response from me as he did with his recent
>bullshit about my supposed AOL biography (which never existed, as I was
>never an AOL member).
>
OK, let's tell the truth Sanders/Jammer, shall we?
You say, you don't want to get into a "pissing match," then repeat the same
old lies about me again.
If you don't want to get involved in a discussion about this, fine. Just
apologize publicly for your repeated misstatements about me and let's go
on. No hard feelings.
As to your claims, there are a few threads in DejaNews where some folks
falsely accused me of sending them unwanted e-mail. When asked to produce
same, they vanished in the wind. Just false charges, such as the ones you
make here. If you read those archives, you'll find there are also a very
few immature people who used to post here who treated any message that
disagreed with their views as a personal attack, and responded in kind.
That's their problem, unfortunately, and one is glad they no longer post
actively here..
Again, I've asked you to provide evidence I have lied, and again you
produce nothing but a couple of discredited old messages and repeat the
same unfounded, unverified claims. That reflects on your credibility, or
lack thereof.
The ball is in your court. You started this, and you can stop it very, very
simply.
--
Gene
Armand
In article <Gene-ya02408000R...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Ge...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>OK, let's tell the truth Sanders/Jammer, shall we?
Gene
Can't you guys let it go for one day? It's Christmas, for Chr......darn sake!
I guess we ain't gonna find you two under the mistle toe are we?
Merry Christmas gentlemen.
Armand
Gene Steinberg
>Can't you guys let it go for one day? It's Christmas, for Chr......darn sake!
>I guess we ain't gonna find you two under the mistle toe are we?
>Merry Christmas gentlemen.
>Armand
Armand, I am perfectly willing to forget Sander/Jammer's existence, but he
won't let us. He first appeared in this newsgroup telling lies about me and
making fake promises of what he was to deliver in terms of proof about ABX
tests and the ones I and others had ignored. He has continued to express
the same lies over and over again, making serious personal attacks against
me for no reason at all. Heck, I don't even know this person and the
charges he makes are absolutely unjustified.
The ball is in his court. He started this and he can stop it--once and for all!
--
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Author, ³Using America Online²
Stewart Pinkerton
Ge...@worldnet.att.net (Gene Steinberg) writes:
I think Gene just made your point, Armand. Luckily, these two as***les
tend to cancel each other out opinion wise, but in every other respect
there's nothing to choose. Looks like you can forget peace on earth and
goodwill to all men. Sheesh, what an obsessive pair of grouches!
--
Stewart Pinkerton | If you can't measure what you're making,
A S P Consulting | how do you know when you've got it made?
(44) 1509 880112 |
"I canna change the laws o' physics" - the other Scotty
yoyo
Armand wrote:
>
> In article <Gene-ya02408000R...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ge...@worldnet.att.net says...
> >
> >In article <32C08E...@inreach.com>, "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >
> >OK, let's tell the truth Sanders/Jammer, shall we?
> Gene
>
> I guess we ain't gonna find you two under the mistle toe are we?
> Merry Christmas gentlemen.
> Armand
Hehe... They'll be in the bedroom on the coats once the eggnog kicks in.
-yoyo
Armand
In article <32c28439...@news.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
says...
>
>Ge...@worldnet.att.net (Gene Steinberg) writes:
>
>>In article <59r7rc$f...@news1.voicenet.com>, mo...@voicenet.com (Armand)
wrote:
>>
>>>I guess we ain't gonna find you two under the mistle toe are we?
>>>Merry Christmas gentlemen.
>>>Armand
>>
>>won't let us. He first appeared in this newsgroup telling lies about me and
>>making fake promises of what he was to deliver in terms of proof about ABX
>>tests and the ones I and others had ignored. He has continued to express
>>the same lies over and over again, making serious personal attacks against
>>me for no reason at all. Heck, I don't even know this person and the
>>charges he makes are absolutely unjustified.
>>
>>The ball is in his court. He started this and he can stop it--once and for all!
>
>I think Gene just made your point, Armand. Luckily, these two as***les
>tend to cancel each other out opinion wise, but in every other respect
>there's nothing to choose. Looks like you can forget peace on earth and
>goodwill to all men. Sheesh, what an obsessive pair of grouches!
Yeah Stewart, they cancel out like matter and anti-matter!!! :-D
Armand
Armand
In article <32C290...@digital.net>, yo...@digital.net says...
>
>Armand wrote:
>>
>> In article <Gene-ya02408000R...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Ge...@worldnet.att.net says...
>> >
>> >In article <32C08E...@inreach.com>, "J. Sanders"
<jsan...@inreach.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >OK, let's tell the truth Sanders/Jammer, shall we?
>> Gene
>>
>> I guess we ain't gonna find you two under the mistle toe are we?
>> Merry Christmas gentlemen.
>> Armand
>
>
>-yoyo
Post of the month!
( And I'll never wear that coat again!)
Armand
PS-Pictures available at alt.binaries.whatthehelltheydoinethyl?
James Dean
>
>(clip)
>
>> >You are entirely full of shit gene and if he is Lying then prove it and I
know
>> >you won't not just because you know that you are the only liar but because
>> >you'll find an excuse not to. unless he really is wich means you should be
>> >able to prove it with something other than your cronie friends stickin up
for
>> >you cause they are as dumb as you.
>> >nuff said...
>
> Thank you, Mr. Dean. Any relation to THE James Dean?
I wish! hehehe
> I realize it's futile to get into pissing matches with Gene -
>kind of like trying to fight a computer hacker on-screen who keeps
>fouling up everyone's messages.
I've been a not so frequent poster of this group and noticed all of it but
maybe if enough people see gene for what he is he will have _absolutly_ no
credit whatsoever and people will not even respond to him.
>Every now and then he says something
>completely outrageous about me (such as his reference to my wife's
>supposed AOL biography as if it were mine) which triggers an irresistible
>urge to kick his dumb patootie through the goal-posts of hell, but it
>never does any good - he just piles lie upon lie anyway, and anyone who
>really cared about it could just check out his threads on DejaNews to
>note all the times he's been publicly busted for his lies by numerous
>people on this newsgroup including myself), but so long as he continues
>to believe people's memories are so short, he'll continue to reinvent
>history to conform to his inane schemes. And very rarely, he will
>succeed in provoking a response from me as he did with his recent
>bullshit about my supposed AOL biography (which never existed, as I was
>never an AOL member).
I see what you are saying and I dealt with someone much like Gene maybe even
related. to make a long story short I went out and bought some all leather
hiking boots like the ones I had as a small child (you know the suede ones
w/red laces) and they were stolen in school. a week later the theif wore them
to school I confronted him dragged him to the office furnished proof and all
that but... but... the parents said no... I got those at the local town
recycling center (wich has a flea market) wich covered all their ground. I
went out and bought another pair after a week or so of aggravation and no
winter shoes.
> I'm sure it will never make any difference to Gene or his clones
>one way or another, but I do appreciate your vote of confidence - I
As long as I see you making legit statements that I feel are honest and also
see that they are you can usualy have that vote
>entered the legal field to try to make a difference in what I perceived
>to be a corrupt system, and in numerous small ways, I have accomplished
>that by now. I do not lie and do not tolerate liars in my law practice,
>or in my life, but it is rare indeed even in law that I run across a
>scoundrel as low and so thoroughly immoral as Gene - where I have, I have
>thoroughly fried and humiliated the bastards in court. The same tools
>are not available on the internet, or I would do the same to him here.
If only 1 man could change the world eh?
> Anyway, I'm off for a few weeks - the house is crammed with
>company and the computer room has become from this day forward off-limits
>to me. See you all somewhere around mid-January.
>
> Thanks again, Mr. Dean, and Happy Holidays.
>
> Sand Man
Yes happy holidays J. Sanders/Sand Man
Swanlee
On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 06:24:49 -0700, Ge...@worldnet.att.net (Gene
Steinberg) wrote:
>In article <32BB40...@inreach.com>, "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Gene Steinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>> Name one. Everything I've said about you is true. YOU, Mr.
>>Steinberg, have proven yourself repeatedly on this newsgroup to be a
>>vicious, compulsive liar, with absolutely nothing worth saying, but you
>>just never shut up, do you.
>>
>
>Sorry, Sand/Jammer, you are lying to everyone and you know it. You have
>never provided a single instance where anything I've said is false. Whereas
>I have pointed to lie after lie after lie from you, and you just ignore it
>and go back to your unfounded charges. You can start the new year right by
>admitting to your false charges and starting from a clean slate (but I'm
>not holding my breath).
>
>> No I haven't. I have mentioned several times that I've been
>>spending time here and there researching results of "blind" tests (not
>>just ABX, but a variety of blind test methodologies). I got bored with
>>it quite some time ago and have never gotten around to finishing it, but
>>hope to some day. I have also stated more than once that I have little
>>doubt that the ABX tests conducted by the likes of Nousaine, who have an
>>agenda, have shown null results. So quit distorting what I say.
>>
>
>The tests conducted by Nousaine and others are double blind, done according
>to the published standards for ABX test methodology. Hence their agenda has
>nothing to do with it; they do not influence the outcome.
>
>> On the contrary, I have mentioned numerous times that both on
>>RAO and RAHE numerous engineers have questioned the "sensitivity" and
>>"resolution" of the ABX tests conducted by such people as Nousaine. A
>>check of DejaNews will confirm that this is the case.
>>
>
>There have been a few people who have posted such messages, but the
>majority of engineers who hang out in that area have pointed out that it is
>the questioners themselves whose logic is questionable.
>
>
>>
>> Before calling Jammer a "fake", you should be prepared to prove
>>it beyond a shadow of a doubt. To date you have failed miserably. He
>>has already provided numerous citations to statistical authority proving
>>Nousaine's and YOUR wild interpretations of his ABX tests are a sham.
>>
>
>I don't have to prove anything about you Sand/Jammer. So far your Jammer
>persona refuses to reveal any of his research, affiliations, publications,
>and in fact any evidence at all that he is an experienced audio engineer.
>On the contrary, as the engineers who hang out in RAHE point out, his
>knowledge of the fundamentals of audio electronics is seriously flawed.
>
>The ball is in his/your court. You have extraordinary results or knowledge
>to offer, put up.
>
>As far as your profile on AOL is concerned--you know very well what I'm
>talking about. Come clean, stop trying to fool anyone anymore. The game is
>over.
>
>--
>Gene
Gene you don't even care about audio your just a baby that likes to
argue please get a life.
James Dean
>In article <Gene-ya02408000R...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ge...@worldnet.att.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
>In article <59r7rc$f...@news1.voicenet.com>, mo...@voicenet.com (Armand)
>wrote:
>
>>sake!
>>I guess we ain't gonna find you two under the mistle toe are we?
>>Merry Christmas gentlemen.
>>Armand
>
>won't let us.
drop it. want proof? here it is:
"OK, let's tell the truth Sanders/Jammer, shall we?
You say, you don't want to get into a "pissing match," then repeat the same
old lies about me again.
If you don't want to get involved in a discussion about this, fine. Just
apologize publicly for your repeated misstatements about me and let's go
on. No hard feelings."
There is PROOF that you are not dropping it!!!
>He first appeared in this newsgroup telling lies about me and
>making fake promises of what he was to deliver in terms of proof about ABX
>tests and the ones I and others had ignored. He has continued to express
>the same lies over and over again, making serious personal attacks against
>me for no reason at all. Heck, I don't even know this person and the
>charges he makes are absolutely unjustified.
Oh? lets see some proof and I'll disregard your lack of short term memory.
>The ball is in his court. He started this and he can stop it--once and for
>all!
The ball so to speak is now in your court gene... where do you stand? on sure
or shaky ground? better have it tested! DOUBLE BLIND TO MAKE SURE! and again
gene you started this not Sanders. only you can stop it. You want to know how
you say? SHUT UP! there is that too hard for you to understand?
Gene Steinberg
>
>The ball so to speak is now in your court gene... where do you stand? on sure
>or shaky ground? better have it tested! DOUBLE BLIND TO MAKE SURE! and again
>gene you started this not Sanders. only you can stop it. You want to know how
>you say? SHUT UP! there is that too hard for you to understand?
Sorry, you've got this so very confused, it's hard to know where to begin.
Before Sanders/Jammers came upon the scene in this newsgroup, nobody ever
heard of him (I sure didn't). His very first message included an attack on
me, without justification, containing outright lies. Now I don't know about
you, but if I just picked your name out of a hat and started making up
stories about you for no reason, possibly because I made have seen a
message of yours I didn't agree with, I'm sure you would be rather
concerned about it.
The point is made. Whenever I ignore Sanders/Jammer, he just comes back a
few messages later on and repeats more lies about me, without any action on
my part.
So it's up to him. He started all this, he's got to stop. And nothing I
will say about ignoring him will change that. He'll just come back a few
messages later and lie and lie again.
It's up to him to stop what he began, if he has an ounce of integrity.
--
Gene
Gene Steinberg
>
>Gene you don't even care about audio your just a baby that likes to
>argue please get a life.
I am happy to discuss audio with anyone if they are willing to write in a
civil manner, and not make up tall tales about me to get attention.
You want to talk about audio, fine. What do you have to say?
As far as quoting my entire message with just a one line response, also
please read up on Internet etiquette (netiquette). You need not waste
everyone's time quoting a message already posted. If you wish to respond
strictly to the tone of the message, the introductory paragraph is enough,
OK?
--
Peace,
Gene
Gary Barger
I would certainly appreciate it if both you and Mr. Sanders would show
the good sense and common courtesy to continue these egoistic rantings
in private. I imagine this is too much to hope for, but I want you
both to realize that this selfish and endless pursuit of your personal
agendas is a boring imposition on many of us.
Tom Albertz
"J. Sanders" wrote:
> > I'm sure it will never make any difference to Gene or his clones
> > one way or another, but I do appreciate your vote of confidence - I
> As long as I see you making legit statements that I feel are honest
> and also see that they are you can usualy have that vote
This is a cute alliance. Sanders doesn't get much support. He'll even
take this. Sad.
James Dean
>In article <Gene-ya02408000R...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ge...@worldnet.att.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
>In article <E324E...@mv.mv.com>, magicb...@bort.mv.net (James Dean)
wrote:
>
>>
>>The ball so to speak is now in your court gene... where do you stand? on
sure
>>or shaky ground? better have it tested! DOUBLE BLIND TO MAKE SURE! and again
>>gene you started this not Sanders. only you can stop it. You want to know
>>how you say? SHUT UP! there is that too hard for you to understand?
>
>Sorry, you've got this so very confused, it's hard to know where to begin.
Try real hard and maybe you'll get it!
>Before Sanders/Jammers came upon the scene in this newsgroup, nobody ever
>heard of him (I sure didn't).
Nothing to do with my questions and so forth but I'll humor you.
>His very first message included an attack on me, without justification,
>containing outright lies.
Then lets see them then. You claim that they are in DejaNews so if in fact you
are not lieing as usual you would easily be able to furnish proof of those
messages and if they are in fact lies you should also be able to furnish proof
that they are in fact lies and nothing more. I'd like to see this but until
then I still do not see how you bringing up the topic about him makes him the
one who isn't letting it go.
>Now I don't know about you, but if I just picked your name out of a hat and
>started making up stories about you for no reason, possibly because I made
>have seen a message of yours I didn't agree with, I'm sure you would be
>rather concerned about it.
Knowing who you are as far as your reputation, seeing your posts and many
other people's responses to you. I probably wouldn't give a rats ass.
>The point is made. Whenever I ignore Sanders/Jammer, he just comes back a
>few messages later on and repeats more lies about me, without any action on
>my part.
You still fail to see that you are the one who brought up the topic again not
sanders so my challenge for you to prove me wrong still stands.
>So it's up to him. He started all this, he's got to stop. And nothing I
>will say about ignoring him will change that. He'll just come back a few
>messages later and lie and lie again.
see above, and enough from you about lies you would know best though wouldn't
you?
>It's up to him to stop what he began, if he has an ounce of integrity.
see, right here is where you are proving IN YOUR OWN MESSAGE!!! that you won't
drop it not sanders by making personal attacks on him. Talk about being a
HIPOCRIT!!! no wonder you have such a bad rep!!!
James Dean
>>Gene you don't even care about audio your just a baby that likes to
>>argue please get a life.
>
>I am happy to discuss audio with anyone if they are willing to write in a
>civil manner, and not make up tall tales about me to get attention.
Oh? is that so... You seem to be the only one making up tall tales here gene
sorry. wrong again. HIPOCRIT
>You want to talk about audio, fine. What do you have to say?
Well I think that good quality Interconnects and speaker wire does make a
difference, you want to know why? it's called physics for starters. but on a
more sound related note I upgraded my interconnects from Radio Shack gold
plated dubbing connnectors to Monster Cable (not entirely sure what model. the
$60 per pair flavor) and then upgraded from cheap radio shack 22 or 18 AWG
speaker wire to thicker OFC 10AWG zip cord and between the two noticed both
cleaner brighter highs and fatter or beefier lows with more slam and tighter
as well. It is indisputable fact that low quality thin gauge copper is less
efficient then high grade OFC copper wires at a thicker gauge it is physics
gene and you can't deny it, do the math, more current or wattage is lost in
cheap speaker wire and interconnect then in expensive or high quality
interconnect and wires. However I am not in favor of the extremely high priced
$300 per 1m interconnect but $60 or so a pair for good interconnect I can
justify
Swanlee
On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 08:38:14 -0700, Ge...@worldnet.att.net (Gene
Steinberg) wrote:
>In article <32c36026....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Swa...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Gene you don't even care about audio your just a baby that likes to
>>argue please get a life.
>
>I am happy to discuss audio with anyone if they are willing to write in a
>civil manner, and not make up tall tales about me to get attention.
>
>You want to talk about audio, fine. What do you have to say?
>
>As far as quoting my entire message with just a one line response, also
>please read up on Internet etiquette (netiquette). You need not waste
>everyone's time quoting a message already posted. If you wish to respond
>strictly to the tone of the message, the introductory paragraph is enough,
>OK?
>
>--
>Peace,
>Gene
Hey Gene its not like you have not wasted peoples time here for almost
2 years now posting the same thing over and over again have you?
I enjoy my audio and am not going to push my beliefs about it on every
human I come in contact with unlike you that is what I have to say.
Im also not errogant enough to tell people what they do and don't hear
unlike yourself and then deny everything you ever say.
Thomas Nulla
Swa...@ix.netcom.com (Swanlee) wrote:
>>>Gene you don't even care about audio your just a baby that likes to
>>>argue please get a life.
<snip>
>Hey Gene its not like you have not wasted peoples time here for almost
>2 years now posting the same thing over and over again have you?
>I enjoy my audio and am not going to push my beliefs about it on every
>human I come in contact with unlike you that is what I have to say.
>Im also not errogant enough to tell people what they do and don't hear
>unlike yourself and then deny everything you ever say.
Wow! I'm completely convinced! Your cogent and coherent comments
clearly corrected the confused contingent.
Between you and James Dean, we have found our new messiahs. Lead us
from the darkness of reasoning, good grammar, and correct spelling.
Thomas
http://www.io.com/~nulla (high fidelity and miscellany)
*** The humor-impaired should avoid this page. ***
Ultracheap Pilz CD's, John Dunlavy r.a.h-e archive to 24 Dec 96
"When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases."- R.A.W.
Gene Steinberg
>
>Then lets see them then. You claim that they are in DejaNews so if in fact you
>are not lieing as usual you would easily be able to furnish proof of those
>messages and if they are in fact lies you should also be able to furnish proof
>that they are in fact lies and nothing more. I'd like to see this but until
>then I still do not see how you bringing up the topic about him makes him the
>one who isn't letting it go.
Your statement is a bit incoherent, but I'll try to address it. It's not me
who has to furnish proof here, but those who make the claims. The claim in
DejaNews from a couple of people is that I sent them dozens of unwanted
e-mail messages (spamming). When I challenged them to produce such
messages, they disappeared from the newsgroup. Clearly the charges were
fake (and I know they were fake, cause I didn't bombard their e-mail
accounts with any such messages). Clearly I can not be expected to prove
that which does not exist.
>You still fail to see that you are the one who brought up the topic again not
>sanders so my challenge for you to prove me wrong still stands.
>
Wrong. I was responding to another in a rash of statements from
Sanders/Jammer, repeating his string of lies about me, and you chimed in.
--
Gene
Gene Steinberg
>
>Hey Gene its not like you have not wasted peoples time here for almost
>2 years now posting the same thing over and over again have you?
>I enjoy my audio and am not going to push my beliefs about it on every
>human I come in contact with unlike you that is what I have to say.
>Im also not errogant enough to tell people what they do and don't hear
>unlike yourself and then deny everything you ever say.
Note: For the rest of you, this person's e-mail address is bogus (I checked
it out, and either it's a server error repeated over a 3-day period or this
person established an account to make personal attacks and then
disappeared).
In any case, I'll make a response. I do not tell people what they are
supposed to hear. I explain why folks may hear an audible difference in a
product, and have cited studies indicating when differences are audible and
when they are not. You are free to disagree or agree with the premise, but
until you can provide contrary evidence (and you clearly haven't done so),
and, in fact, until you familiarize yourself with those studies, you can
hardly expect anyone to adopt your point of view.
That clear now?
--
Gene
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> It's not me
> who has to furnish proof here, but those who make the claims.
No one has to "prove" anything Gene. If we hear it it exists. If you
don't, then for you it doesn't exist. That's all :)
Cheers & happy new year
Zip
J. Sanders
Managed to slip onto the internet for a few minutes today despite all the
holiday company camped out here, and frankly, all I think should be said
in this and related threads by now is:
GO JAGUARS!!!!
(Crystal Ball Image: Jacksonville Jaguars vs. Carolina Panthers in Super
Bowl XXXI - and this from a 49'ers fan!!!)
AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
San(ta) Man
Thomas Nulla
Swa...@ix.netcom.com (Swanlee) wrote:
>>>Gene you don't even care about audio your just a baby that likes to
>>>argue please get a life.
<snip>
>Hey Gene its not like you have not wasted peoples time here for almost
>2 years now posting the same thing over and over again have you?
>I enjoy my audio and am not going to push my beliefs about it on every
>human I come in contact with unlike you that is what I have to say.
>Im also not errogant enough to tell people what they do and don't hear
>unlike yourself and then deny everything you ever say.
Wow! I'm completely convinced! Your cogent and coherent comments
Gene Steinberg
Gene Steinberg
>
>Hey Gene its not like you have not wasted peoples time here for almost
>2 years now posting the same thing over and over again have you?
>I enjoy my audio and am not going to push my beliefs about it on every
>human I come in contact with unlike you that is what I have to say.
>Im also not errogant enough to tell people what they do and don't hear
>unlike yourself and then deny everything you ever say.
Note: For the rest of you, this person's e-mail address is bogus (I checked
Swanlee
>In article <32c4a195...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Swa...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Hey Gene its not like you have not wasted peoples time here for almost
>>2 years now posting the same thing over and over again have you?
>>I enjoy my audio and am not going to push my beliefs about it on every
>>human I come in contact with unlike you that is what I have to say.
>>Im also not errogant enough to tell people what they do and don't hear
>>unlike yourself and then deny everything you ever say.
>
>Note: For the rest of you, this person's e-mail address is bogus (I checked
>it out, and either it's a server error repeated over a 3-day period or this
>person established an account to make personal attacks and then
>disappeared).
My address is not working for obvious reasons to avoid your unwated e
mail that you would send no matter what anyone would say.
>
>In any case, I'll make a response. I do not tell people what they are
>supposed to hear. I explain why folks may hear an audible difference in a
>product, and have cited studies indicating when differences are audible and
>when they are not. You are free to disagree or agree with the premise, but
>until you can provide contrary evidence (and you clearly haven't done so),
>and, in fact, until you familiarize yourself with those studies, you can
>hardly expect anyone to adopt your point of view.
>
>That clear now?
>
>--
>Gene
Yes it is clear that by saying things like this sounds similar to that
or these tiems sound pretty much alike in controlled listening test
like you have done in a very recent post that you are stating an
opinion and nothing more.
Saying they sound pretty much a like is a personal judgement call and
nothing more. But to choose a test that strips away every realistitc
condition over actual reality is the act of a fool and your posts over
the last 2 years have demonstrated that fact.
In the end you will listen to music in reality not in an abx test so
no matter what is causing the differences when you test something and
strip away every realistic factor you are doing nothing worthwhile.
And to say that products using differents parts made under different
conditions and designed to meet different standards all sound alike or
similar as you would put it is laughable.
But honestly where does the abx actually do anything? If I listen to
2 products in reality have one I like better then do an abx test can't
tell them apart am I going to choose the one I don't like in reality?
Then I know Ill get home and not like this product as much as the
other.
If the answer is no which it is why bother with this futile test in
the first place.You cannot apply the test to any applicable real world
situations and that in and of itself makes the test worthless.
What can you do from an abx test? In the end you will choose what you
like when you listen to it in the surrondings it will be used.
Different things perform differently when mixed with other components
in different listening enviroments something an abx test with its lab
generic techniques does not account.
And do you honestly believe we can now measure everything that has
to do with sound reproduction and that we understand exactly why we
hear everything we hear. Human ears are not a constant and not the
same in each individual what you hear is irrelavant to anyone but
yourself please understand that.
In the end a practical test is where it is done under the conditions
it will be used in and judged by the person that will use it any other
test is irrelavant to the individual.
James Dean
>James Dean (magicb...@bort.mv.net) wrote:
>:
>: Oh? is that so... You seem to be the only one making up tall tales here
>: gene
>: sorry. wrong again. HIPOCRIT
>:
>: Well I think that good quality Interconnects and speaker wire does make a
>: difference, you want to know why? it's called physics for starters. but on
>: a
>: more sound related note I upgraded my interconnects from Radio Shack gold
>: plated dubbing connnectors to Monster Cable (not entirely sure what model.
>: the
>: $60 per pair flavor) and then upgraded from cheap radio shack 22 or 18 AWG
>: speaker wire to thicker OFC 10AWG zip cord .....
>: .... However I am not in favor of the extremely high priced
>: $300 per 1m interconnect but $60 or so a pair for good interconnect I can
>: justify
>:
>
> SO: since you agree with Gene, why are you calling him a "HIPOCRIT" ????
How am I agreeing with gene I believe that the higher quality the materials
the better the cable and so forth but I also believe in the "point of
diminishing returns" theory that once you go to a certain price range you are
pretty close to as good as you are going to get and anything above that
quality the prices increase exponentially and personally I can not afford them
therefore not being able to justify the cost, if I could afford them I would
James Dean
In article <5a4fjh$5...@nr1.vancouver.istar.net>,
Ge...@worldnet.att.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
>
>Your statement is a bit incoherent, but I'll try to address it. It's not me
>who has to furnish proof here, but those who make the claims.
SO THEN YOU _DO_ have to furnish proof you are proving sanders and whoever
else's guilt. you just said it yourself!!!
>The claim in DejaNews from a couple of people is that I sent them dozens of
>unwanted e-mail messages (spamming). When I challenged them to produce such
>messages, they disappeared from the newsgroup.
And what were their names/handles???
>Clearly the charges were fake (and I know they were fake, cause I didn't
>bombard their e-mail accounts with any such messages). Clearly I can not be
>expected to prove that which does not exist.
Oh yes you can! this is just another way for you to try to sleeze out of
another lie.
>>You still fail to see that you are the one who brought up the topic again
>>not sanders so my challenge for you to prove me wrong still stands.
>
>Wrong. I was responding to another in a rash of statements from
>Sanders/Jammer, repeating his string of lies about me, and you chimed in.
Then prove it cause I have been following this thread for quite some time now
and you were the one who brought it up! so you are indeed wrong as usual and
still lack any proof of your claims
Gene Steinberg
>>The claim in DejaNews from a couple of people is that I sent them dozens of
>>unwanted e-mail messages (spamming). When I challenged them to produce such
>>messages, they disappeared from the newsgroup.
>
>And what were their names/handles???
>
Go check it for yourself.
>>Clearly the charges were fake (and I know they were fake, cause I didn't
>>bombard their e-mail accounts with any such messages). Clearly I can not be
>>expected to prove that which does not exist.
>
>Oh yes you can! this is just another way for you to try to sleeze out of
>another lie.
>
I'm sorry, but it is a point of logic that you cannot prove a negative to a
certainty.
>
>Then prove it cause I have been following this thread for quite some time now
>and you were the one who brought it up! so you are indeed wrong as usual and
>still lack any proof of your claims.
Then you haven't paid attention. You haven't read the charges from
Sanders/Jammer which he repeats every few messages. Just check a little
more carefully next time.
--
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Author, ³Using America Online²
Chuck Ross
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> Then you haven't paid attention. You haven't read the charges from
> Sanders/Jammer which he repeats every few messages. Just check a little
> more carefully next time.
>
> --
> Peace,
> Gene Steinberg
> Author, ³Using America Online²
Gene....I'm really intrigued by your consistent use of the "Sanders/Jammer"
name...I'm kind of curious why you do that.
Do you _really_ think Sanders and Jammer "sound the same"?
'Cuz I can tell the differences between Sanders and Jammer even without
a double blind test.
--
Chuck Ross
South Holland, IL
Gene Steinberg
In article <ckross-2912...@belial-9.d.enteract.com>,
ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>
>Gene....I'm really intrigued by your consistent use of the "Sanders/Jammer"
>name...I'm kind of curious why you do that.
>
>Do you _really_ think Sanders and Jammer "sound the same"?
>
>'Cuz I can tell the differences between Sanders and Jammer even without
>a double blind test.
>
No, I think there is reason to think they are the same person. They both
appeared on the scene at the same time, one sponsors/promotes the other. I
won't say 100% they are one and the same, but so far I see no evidence to
the contrary.
--
Peace,
Gene
Chuck Ross
In other words, you're really saying that Sanders and Jammer are one and the
same, PROBABLY, because "you haven't seen any evidence to the contrary".
Sounds a little like 16th century witch-hunting, doesn't it?
Does this logic sound familiar at all? Isn't it sort of like your ABX-er
logic: "All amplifiers sound the same because I haven't seen any evidence
to the contrary"?
So, by this logic, Hilary Clinton and Bill Clinton are really the same
person because they both appeared on the scene at the same time, one sponsors/
promotes the other, and we really haven't seen anything that disputes this,
have we?
I see no reason to think "one sponsors and promotes the other". I have
corresponded at length with Jim Sanders and assure you that he doesn't have
anything remotely approaching Jammer's readability (not a negative comment,
Jim) Their writing styles are completely different, even with an ABX test.
Actually, I am really AMAZED at your attitude on this: You have no real
reason on EARTH to conclude that Sanders and Jammer are the same person,
but insist on propogating this lie, even tho you mention that you "won't
say 100% that they are one and the same", thus attempting to instill the
seeds of doubt into the newbie reader of this newsgroup, just as you try
to do the same with any newbie who asks a simple question like, "Is there
really a difference between CD players?" with an answer like, "The results
of thousands of published ABX comparisons with CD players indicate that
the only differences are features", or some such. (sorry for the long
run-on sentence)
But basically, you provide the seeds for most of the posts on this forum,
and some of it gets pretty interesting at times. So, keep it up...I know
you will anyways....(:)
Happy New Year!
Make a resolution, Gene.....
Tom Albertz
Swanlee wrote:
>
> ..... But to choose a test that strips away every realistitc
> condition over actual reality is the act of a fool and your posts over
> the last 2 years have demonstrated that fact.
> In the end a practical test is where it is done under the conditions
> it will be used in and judged by the person that will use it any other
> test is irrelavant to the individual.
Have you really been around for two years? Ever hear of the
Sunshine Stereo test?
Why don't you and James Dean go for a ride. You two aren't even
amusing.
Tom Albertz
Ge...@worldnet.att.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
> > No, I think there is reason to think they are the same person. They both
> > appeared on the scene at the same time, one sponsors/promotes the other. I
> > won't say 100% they are one and the same, but so far I see no evidence to
> > the contrary.
>
Chuck Ross wrote:
>
> I see no reason to think "one sponsors and promotes the other". I have
> corresponded at length with Jim Sanders and assure you that he doesn't have
> anything remotely approaching Jammer's readability (not a negative comment,
> Jim) ...
Not a negative comment?
Certainly Sanders promotes Jammer heavily. I haven't seen Jammer even
mention Sanders. I do agree that Jammer's posts seem very intelligent
and well written (although they don't seem to hold much water.) On the
other hand, Sanders seems more like a wannabe intellectual.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Tom Albertz wrote:
>
> Swanlee wrote:
> >
> > ..... But to choose a test that strips away every realistitc
> > condition over actual reality is the act of a fool and your posts over
> > the last 2 years have demonstrated that fact.
> ...
> > In the end a practical test is where it is done under the conditions
> > it will be used in and judged by the person that will use it any other
> > test is irrelavant to the individual.
>
> Have you really been around for two years? Ever hear of the
> Sunshine Stereo test?
I have heard of it :)
In part two we reliably heard differences :)
At that point, the ABX box mysteriously started malfunctioning!
Were you there Mr. Albertz? I don't remember letting you in the door :)
> Why don't you and James Dean go for a ride. You two aren't even
> amusing.
And you are?????
Cheers & have a happy music listening New Year!
Zip
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Chuck Ross wrote:
> > No, I think there is reason to think they are the same person. They both
> > appeared on the scene at the same time, one sponsors/promotes the other. I
> > won't say 100% they are one and the same, but so far I see no evidence to
> > the contrary.
>
> same, PROBABLY, because "you haven't seen any evidence to the contrary".
> Sounds a little like 16th century witch-hunting, doesn't it?
>
> Does this logic sound familiar at all? Isn't it sort of like your ABX-er
> logic: "All amplifiers sound the same because I haven't seen any evidence
> to the contrary"?
>
> So, by this logic, Hilary Clinton and Bill Clinton are really the same
> person because they both appeared on the scene at the same time, one sponsors/
> promotes the other, and we really haven't seen anything that disputes this,
> have we?
Chuck:
Don't you get it? Gene Steinberg and Peter Aczel are the same person!
Have you ever seen them together in the same place? See! I told ya!
Cheers
Zip
J. Sanders
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> Chuck Ross wrote:
>
> >Gene....I'm really intrigued by your consistent use of the "Sanders/Jammer"
> >name...I'm kind of curious why you do that.
> >
> >Do you _really_ think Sanders and Jammer "sound the same"?
> >
> >'Cuz I can tell the differences between Sanders and Jammer even without
> >a double blind test.
Well, perhaps you weren't wearing one of Steinfraud's specially
patented blindfolds when you made that determination, Chuck...
On the other hand, since you won't change the name of this
thread, Chuck, I've taken the liberty of doing so. Now maybe Ginochhio
will start referring to us as Sand/Ross.
BTW, how ya been doin', big guy? I'll have some e-mail for you
before long...
Speaking of e-mail, anyone wondering about Ginocchio's most
recent fabrications in this thread about his "public busting" which
occurred here last August, see my post yesterday in the thread at the
bottom of the reader about Amplifiers referencing Steinfraud's August 16,
1996 post in a thread entitled "I Am Truly Shocked!" in which he
falsely claimed he never e-mails people who request/demand that he stop
doing so, and the posts following that one. It's all easily retrievable
through Dejanews.
> No, I think there is reason to think they are the same person. They both
> appeared on the scene at the same time,
For the record:
1. I appeared "on the scene" on RAO May 15, 1996.
2. Jammer appeared "on the scene" on RAO in November, 1996.
3. I never had an AOL account. I used my wife's last spring
before she switched to Inreach. I also never had an "AOL biography" as a
result. My wife's AOL e-mail handle was quite distinct from
"Jamm...@aol.com". It began, I think (without checking) "Jsand#### -
four numbers after the letters.
4. Jammer has his own AOL account and AOL e-mail handle to
this date, the same one he had on AOL last spring where I first observed
him in a debate with Nousaine. Jammer presumably has his own "AOL
biography" to this date, which undoubtedly is entirely different from my
wife's erstwhile "AOL biography".
> one sponsors/promotes the other.
1. Define "sponsors".
2. Define "promotes".
3. Then check a dictionary for the correct definitions.
4. I quoted a few passages from Jammer's very lengthy AOL
debate with Nousaine in late June, 1996 on RAO to illustrate a very
simple point about the meaning/lack of meaning of null results of
statistical tests.
5. Jammer has never quoted me on RAO.
6. Jammer has already responded to Gene publicly on RAO
stating, in effect, that he doesn't know me and has no relation to me,
and in fact has received far more e-mail from Gene than he has from me (I
sent two e-mails to Jammer, and he sent two back to me).
7. Jammer is an engineer, I am not.
8. Oh, Hell, if you don't want to believe Jammer's an
engineer as he says he is, then at least he claims to be an engineer, I
do not.
9. I'm a licensed practicing attorney, Jammer is not.
10. Oh, hell, if you don't want to believe I'm a licensed
practicing attorney, I not only claim but can prove that I am, and Jammer
has never once made the claim that he is.
11. Chuck Ross can verify that he mailed a DAT he put
together (an excellent one, by the way) to my law office address, and can
confirm that I received it as we exchanged detailed e-mail regarding its
contents after I received it which I could not possibly have engaged in
had I not received it.
> I won't say 100% they are one and the same, but so far I see no evidence to
> the contrary.
Sounds about as credible as Ginocchio's pronouncements about
audio and about my supposed AOL biography.
By the way, Steinfraud, when are you going to post the AOL
biography you claim is mine? You know, the one that supposedly "proves"
I'm not a lawyer. I can't be both my wife and Jammer and myself all at
once, now can I? Let's see it reproduced right here, dweeb, then we'll
all know what you're up to with that most recent pathetic fabrication.
Sand Man
Tom Albertz
Swanlee wrote:
[some stuff - not literate - indicating he doesn't have a clue.]
Have you really been around for two years?
Why don't you and James Dean go for a ride. You two aren't even
amusing.
J. Sanders
Typographical Correction:
The reference to Gene's "August 16, 1996 post" in the thread
entitled "I Am Truly Shocked!" (easily retrievable through Dejanews)
should have been to August *18*, 1996.
Sand Man
James Dean
In article <Gene-ya02408000R...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Ge...@worldnet.att.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
wrote:
>
>>>The claim in DejaNews from a couple of people is that I sent them dozens of
>>>unwanted e-mail messages (spamming). When I challenged them to produce such
>>>messages, they disappeared from the newsgroup.
>>
>>And what were their names/handles???
>>
>
>Go check it for yourself.
Or do you mean "I don't know cause it really never happened"??? I think so
until you prove otherwise
>>>Clearly the charges were fake (and I know they were fake, cause I didn't
>>>bombard their e-mail accounts with any such messages). Clearly I can not be
>>>expected to prove that which does not exist.
>>
>>Oh yes you can! this is just another way for you to try to sleeze out of
>>another lie.
>>
>
>I'm sorry, but it is a point of logic that you cannot prove a negative to a
>certainty.
Yes you are sorry but you still are just trying to cover your ass
>>
>>Then prove it cause I have been following this thread for quite some time
>>now and you were the one who brought it up! so you are indeed wrong as usual
>>and still lack any proof of your claims.
>
>Then you haven't paid attention. You haven't read the charges from
>Sanders/Jammer which he repeats every few messages. Just check a little
>more carefully next time.
Oh really? I have read his messages and there are no "charges" every few
messages the only thing he says to you is that your full of shit and you ought
to just shut up wich I entirely agree with.
Tom Albertz
Swanlee wrote:
> > > In the end a practical test is where it is done under the conditions
> > > it will be used in and judged by the person that will use it any other
> > > test is irrelavant to the individual.
Tom Albertz wrote:
> > Have you really been around for two years? Ever hear of the
> > Sunshine Stereo test?
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
> I have heard of it :)
> In part two we reliably heard differences :)
> At that point, the ABX box mysteriously started malfunctioning!
> Were you there Mr. Albertz? I don't remember letting you in the door :)
I am writing:
I was referring to part one where the amps were wired directly into your
home system "under the conditions it will be used in and judged by the
person that will use it" - and you scored random. :) Even in part two
you missed a guess or two. To me that says something. You should have
been perfect.
I wrote:
> Why don't you and James Dean go for a ride. You two aren't even
> amusing.
Zip wrote:
And you are?????
Some people think so. You surprise me with this response. Are you
identifying with these two individuals? - or just defending your
abilities? As you can see, I reposted my comments without reference
to the Sunshine event. I thought the original post was mistakenly
sent email rather than Usenet. As it turned out, it went both.
Swanlee
On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 11:58:37 -0500, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)"
<z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>Chuck Ross wrote:
>> > No, I think there is reason to think they are the same person. They both
>> > appeared on the scene at the same time, one sponsors/promotes the other. I
>> > won't say 100% they are one and the same, but so far I see no evidence to
>> > the contrary.
>>
>> In other words, you're really saying that Sanders and Jammer are one and the
>> same, PROBABLY, because "you haven't seen any evidence to the contrary".
>> Sounds a little like 16th century witch-hunting, doesn't it?
>>
>> Does this logic sound familiar at all? Isn't it sort of like your ABX-er
>> logic: "All amplifiers sound the same because I haven't seen any evidence
>> to the contrary"?
>>
>> So, by this logic, Hilary Clinton and Bill Clinton are really the same
>> person because they both appeared on the scene at the same time, one sponsors/
>> promotes the other, and we really haven't seen anything that disputes this,
>> have we?
>
>Chuck:
>Don't you get it? Gene Steinberg and Peter Aczel are the same person!
>Have you ever seen them together in the same place? See! I told ya!
>
>Cheers
>Zip
Zip you are right I have seen no evidencee to the contrary so Pete and
Gene must be the same person.Right Gene?
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <32C7EB...@what.fc.hp.com>
Tom Albertz <alb...@what.fc.hp.com> writes:
>
>Chuck Ross wrote:
>>
>> I see no reason to think "one sponsors and promotes the other". I have
>> corresponded at length with Jim Sanders and assure you that he doesn't have
>> anything remotely approaching Jammer's readability (not a negative comment,
>> Jim) ...
>
>Not a negative comment?
>Certainly Sanders promotes Jammer heavily. I haven't seen Jammer even
#From: jamm...@aol.com
#Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
#Subject: Re: CD Player Break-In
#Date: 6 Dec 1996 06:25:43 GMT
#Message-ID: <19961206062...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
#References: <Gene-ya02348000...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
#
# (...)
#
#BTW, I have no affiliation with Mr. Sanders, I do not know the man.
#I recieved a few e-mail inquiries from him this summer, but have
#certainly had less correspondence or communication with him than
#with you Gene! Perhaps YOU are really someone else, and not
#actually Gene Steinberg? Are you really Mike Rivers? :-)
#
#JMR
Now you have. ;-)
--
,
Sebastien
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <32C7F2...@netrunner.net>
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>Tom Albertz wrote:
>>
>> Have you really been around for two years? Ever hear of the
>> Sunshine Stereo test?
>
>In part two we reliably heard differences :)
>At that point, the ABX box mysteriously started malfunctioning!
Mr. Zipser,
If we are to believe this and previous accounts, you were 5 in 6
prior to this malfunctioning. I discussed elsewhere that, _if_ you
were _guessing_, you would have had some trouble keeping that pace
for 20 or even 16 trials, though not impossible according to
probability analysis of binary guessing. This time, we'll examine
if your accumulated score prior to malfunctioning supports your
use of the word "reliably" at the (usual but arbitrary)
significance criterion of 5% ("the score, or better, should have
less than 5% probability to occur by chance alone").
Let's formulate the hypotheses:
Hypothesis under test (H1): a score as high as 5/6 is due to
audible sonic differences between
the Pass Aleph and the Yamaha.
Null hypothesis (H0): a score as high as 5/6 is due to chance.
You will agree that statistics based on finite test samples (one
listener, you, as opposed to the whole population) __cannot prove__
H1 to be true or false, and conversely, H0 to be false or true.
Also statistics __cannot indicate__ whether H1 (hypothesis under
test) could be true since statistics has absolutely no connection
whatsoever with listening tests and has no means whatsoever to
to reliably tell if your 5/6 score contains only real differences
heard, only guessing, or a mix of both. (think about this one...)
The only thing statistics __can indicate__ is the PROBABILITY
of H0 (the null hypothesis) to be true. How? Statistics as used
here means the probability of chance... and above 5/6, we are
sure you weren't lucky since you missed one... :) , otherwise you
would have scored 6/6.
The significance level of your score, 5/6, is the PROBABILITY
of getting a score as high as (meaning: equal or better) 5/6
by chance alone (again, chance we are sure you didn't have since
you missed, couldn't distinguish or any other reason you please).
Thus the significance level of your 5/6 score is (see appendix
for meaning and calculations):
SL = P(5/6) + P(6/6) <--- for 5/6 or better
= 9.4% + 1.6%
= 11% > 5%
which means that a score of 5/6 or better is possible by chance
11% of the time, or about 1 chance in 10, on average, i.e. _more_
than what we have agreed upon above with the pre-established
significance criterion of 5%, or 1 chance in 20 ("To be acceptable,
a score, or better, should have less than 5% chance of occuring by
chance alone").
Thus, your score of 5/6 supports the null hypothesis H0 ("a score
as high as 5/6 is due to chance") at a significance criterion of 5%.
According to accepted practice, you're not allowed to say that you
"reliably heard differences between the Pass Aleph and the Yamaha
before the ABX remote started to misfire". Sorry. :)))))
--
,
Sebastien Playing: French bistro music (accordion) like
"Cafe Italia"...
APPENDIX: The probability of guessing exactly "c" correct calls
in "N" binary trials (like coin flips) is given by:
N!
P(c/N) = ------------- 0.5 N
c! (N - c)!
where N! = (N)(N-1)(N-2)...(3)(2)(1) <--- multiply
0! = 1
0.5 N = (0.5)(0.5)...(0.5) <--- "N" times
6! 6
Ex: P(5/6)= -------------- 0.5 6 = --- 0.0156 = 0.094
5! (6 - 5)! 1 = 9.4%
(The above is given without proof. For a proof, consult
a standard textbook on statistics/probabilities under
"probability distribution (binomial), binary (Bernoulli)
experiments".)
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <32BC81...@inreach.com>
"J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com> writes:
>Sebastien P. McIntyre wrote:
>
>> One word seems missing above:
>>
>> "...about _his_ misinterpreting of null results..."
>
> OK, smart ass. Jammer provided quotes from and citations to
>numerous statistical authorities in his AOL debate with Nousaine last
>spring to prove his points. I reproduced some of those citations here on
>RAO in late June to early July last summer. Check Dejanews for the
>cites.
>
> Now YOU provide YOUR contrary statistical authorities, please.
>Come on, McIntired, we're all waiting on you... and waiting on you...
>and waiting on you...
No problem. Let's first put the horse before the cart ("You can't
disprove what hasn't been proved", dixit Gene Steinberg). Show
us *_evidence_* (something I requested long ago and on more than one
occasion) to your claim that some testers are "misinterpreting null
results of ABX tests to equal a negative result." And by "negative
result", something that demonstrates that results not statistically
significant -- at a loose 5% -- are interpreted as a proof that
differences don't exist; while you're at it, please define what you
mean by "differences", also something requested earlier in view of
_contradicting_ statements of yours showing unequivocally you can't
distinguish the terms "sonic differences" and "audible differences".
Tall order, to be sure.
>> With my understanding they don't. The only thing that can turn
>> negative is the verification of the hypothesis under test ("the
>> results are due to audible differences between the DUTs") within
>> some criterion of statistical significance chosen _prior_ to
>> analysis. Period. Don't complexify simple things.
>
> I thought I was simplifying (perhaps oversimplifying) a more
>complex matter.
"Don't complexify simple things": euphemism for "You're wrong. Stop
putting words in the mouth of the Steinbergs, Aczels, Nousaines,...
of the world".
> On the other hand, where did you get that (rather
>unintelligible) understanding?
"unintelligible": you mean "of unmistakable simplicity"? :-D
Where did I get it? Well, I think your news-server failed you each
time The List has been posted. Unlike you, I read people's work
_before_ voicing my opinions on it. Helps eliminate the most
obvious preconceptions, so I don't look too bad when posting.
If by "unintelligible" you mean "badly articulated because of his
poor command of the English language", I'm afraid we'll have to
work with that until things improve.
> Define "negative" and distinguish it from
>"null".
Hypothesis under test (H1): a score as high as c/N is due to audible
sonic differences.
Null hypothesis (H0): a score as high as c/N is due to chance.
"c/N": "c" correct answers in "N" trials.
Results can support only one hypothesis.
> At what point does a "null" result, say a 50% result, become a
>"negative" result, and at that point, what is the significance in terms
>of interpretation of test results? E.g., at what point do the test
>results indicate a lack of audible differences existing in the DUTs
>themselves, as opposed to any particular listener's inability to provide
>a positive result in the context of any particular test setting?
H1 is supported (i.e. positive result) when the score "c/N" shows
a significance level within the (pre-established) significance
criterion (usually taken as 5%, or one chance in twenty). Otherwise,
H0 is supported (i.e. null result or, if you prefer, negative support
of H1 :) )
Of course, some real-world restrictions apply.
> And
>cite the authorities, please! We're waiting... and waiting... and
>waiting...
Sorry to keep you "waiting"...
"Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of Listening
Tests", L. Leventhal, Journal of the AES, Vol.34 No.6, June 1986,
pp.437-453. Corrections Vol. 34, Nos. 7 and 9.
Comments on "Type 1 ... Tests" from D. Shanefield, D. Clark and
T. Nousaine (with Leventhal's replies), JAES, Vol. 35, No. 7/8,
July/Aug 1987, pp. 567-572.
"A Bayesian Analysis of A-B Listening tests", M. Srednicki,
JAES, Vol.36, No.3, March 1988, pp. 143-146.
"Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample Size in ABX
testing", H. Burstein, JAES, Vol.36, No.11, Nov. 1988, pp. 879-883.
"Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for Listening Tests",
H. Burstein, JAES, Vol.37, No.5, May 1989, pp. 363-367.
"Analysing Listening Tests with the Directional Two-Tailed Test",
L. Leventhal and C. L. Huynh, JAES, Vol.44, No.10, October 1996,
pp. 850-865.
You will note that these references are directly related to
listening tests, i.e. in proper context.
Disclaimer: My posting of these citations does _not_ mean I agree
with everything printed in these papers. The wide
discrepancies in results between the different
approaches clearly show that some working hypotheses
are unrealistic. By stretching reality unduly in the
mathematical world, it is always possible to make an
8/16 score significant, i.e. to make a coin a "good"
listener... One should never forget that any score
could contain real differences heard _and_ real
guessing in quantities that will never be determined.
The best analysis of listening test results is _more_
listening tests, of course.
> Bear in mind that Nousaine, Aczel and Steinberg are fond of (in a
>variety of words and phrases, some more emphatic than others) claiming
>that ABX tests "scientifically prove" that all cables sound the same
>("wire is wire", etc.), all "properly constructed" and/or "properly
>operating" amplifiers, etc. sound the same. If that is your
>understanding as well, then this is your opportunity to accomplish
>something none of those gentlemen have accomplished to date.
If by "prove" you mean "strongly indicate", by "cables" you mean
"properly selected cables" and by "sound the same" you mean "cannot
be distinguished on sound alone", yes this is my "understanding".
this "understanding" is based on disclosed test results _and_
personal/entourage experience. Next time you cite the Nousaines,
Aczels and Steinbergs of the world, please do it properly, not
derisively.
>(CLIP - CITE OF EXAMPLE I ASSUMED YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT - THE ONE WHICH
>INCLUDED REFERENCES TO 83%, ETC. - MY NEWS SERVER WILL NOT POST ANY POST
>WHICH CONTAINS MORE QUOTED MATERIAL THAN ORIGINAL TEXT)
After the convenient news-server, now the convenient news-reader? :-D
(next time remove the "#" in first column)
>> Any standard textbook on statistics read in __proper context__
>> (i.e. probabilities and listening tests have _no_ common ground).
>
> You've got to do better than that. QUOTE from ANY such text, and
>give us the CITATION to the quote which illustrates your point, please.
>We're waiting... and waiting... and waiting....
Since you won't (and shouldn't) take my reading of the papers above
at face value, we're awaiting your review.
>> My analysis? Two short appendices to write and my long "concept" post
>> will be ready (I still have to explain what you seem to ignore: the
>> difference between a 1-, 2- and 3-toss coin test analysis). I tried
>> to make it self-contained and readable by all but it's not easy...
>> Tentatively scheduled for Jan. 6, 1997.
>
> Well, before posting your "analysis", you still need to quote and
>cite specific statistical authority on which you rely in your claim that
>Jammer is "confused" about "statistical significance"... and it's really
>not clear yet from your post what exactly it is that Jammer has said in
>the portion of his post you reproduced here that you specifically object
>to. It would seem that it MAY be his reference to an 83% figure. If
>that's the case, then be so kind as to SAY SO up front.
What else could it be since this is the only thing that has been
quoted? If it's not clear to you, well... ("Stay quiet, you my
presumptions")
> Then,
>considering the context in which he used that figure, cite and quote
>specific statistical authority to provide us with a law of statistics you
>rely on which you claim Jammer has violated, or that he is "confused"
>about, if that is indeed your claim. Then provide your analysis of the
>application of such a statistical rule to Jammer's words in context to
>illustrate your conclusion that he is "confused" about "statistical
>significance".
I will do better than this. I will quote you to make sure you
understand. I will quote your answers to these questions: "How
would you like it if your weekly paycheck was bogus 1 week out of
five (20%)? Would 1 week out of twenty (5%) be more acceptable?
Or would you want it to be cashable each time (0%)?" :-D
> It is in this analysis that you can add any commentary
>about coin tosses, etc., you feel will illustrate your point further.
Not "illustrate (my) point further", state what you should know/have
figured out already (in view of your participation to this discussion
on statistics since June).
> Then maybe Jammer can respond with his own authorities to explain
>to you why he chose that particular figure of 83% or said whatever else
>it is you are objecting to in his quoted passage.
"JMR" either is confused or has an agenda. Or both, IMO. From the
context, I interpret "JMR"'s 60-65% and 83% as _raw test results_
(or scores), not confidence levels since a 60-65% confidence level
is so close to perfect randomness that it is worthless, I mean
__cannot__ be taken as a support for audible differences. Not even
83% (which, strange coincidence, requires exactly 7/10...).
I remember reading this summer that a 95% confidence level meant a
score of 19/20 (=95%), not 14/20. Do you remember reading the same?
Or should I say, writing this... >>>:->
> I notice he hasn't
>posted on RAO for some time (he's been spending time on RAHE, however) so
>to get his attention you may have to e-mail him your analysis, inviting a
>response on RAO.
Not long ago "JMR" replied to Greg Pavlov's "Mr. Anonymous", so I'm
confident "JMR" is reading RAO. I'm sure when he/she has cleared
an imposing backlog in RAHE, we will have answers/replies to our
questions/comments...
> Then and only then will any further discussion of this issue be
>of any value to anyone on this newsgroup.
>
> If you're really able to accomplish all of the above, then I will
>tip my hat to you. And I will probably in that case have some questions
>for Jammer myself.
For these discussions to have some value, one must first read the
pertinent work already available in the open literature. Once the
horse is placed before the cart, then it's always easier to lead it
to a place it's worthy of going. If you take (and keep) only one
resolution for the coming new year, it oughtta be this one.
--
,
Sebastien
Gene Steinberg
In article <32C7F4...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)"
<z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>Don't you get it? Gene Steinberg and Peter Aczel are the same person!
>Have you ever seen them together in the same place? See! I told ya!
>
Mrs. Aczel and their two sons have seen us both together in the same
location. :)
--
Peace,
Gene
Gene Steinberg
In article <ckross-3012...@belial-44.d.enteract.com>,
ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>In other words, you're really saying that Sanders and Jammer are one and the
>same, PROBABLY, because "you haven't seen any evidence to the contrary".
>Sounds a little like 16th century witch-hunting, doesn't it?
>
>Does this logic sound familiar at all? Isn't it sort of like your ABX-er
>logic: "All amplifiers sound the same because I haven't seen any evidence
>to the contrary"?
>
I have never made a statement that all amps sound the same. I have said
that ABX tests have failed to provide evidence for most claims of audible
differences--and that's not the same thing.
As to Sanders and Jammer, well, if you look at some of the Jammer messages
posted in rec.audio.high-end, you'll see a strong similarity in writing
style (probably unconscious). Also, Jammer's existence in these newsgroups
doesn't predate Sanders, and Sanders is the only existing sponsor of Jammer
and implies knowledge of Jammer that is not apparent to anyone reading the
messages that originate from that source.
Since there is a long history in this newsgroup of folks using multiple
e-mail addresses and pretending to be different people (Derrida/Doolittle,
for example), there is precedent for this.
In any case, Jammer could easily resolve it all for us if he told us who he
really is and what his published works are (so we could look them up). He
seems to have disappeared since folks began to question his identity.
Or Sanders (who seems to be known variously as Jerry or Don and is either a
lawyer or gym instructor, depending on his mood) tells us who HE really is.
I would imagine all this nonsense is some sort of role-playing game on
their part, the kind of stuff you find on AOL in the Games channel. But the
game would be more enjoyable if they/he let us in on their intentions here.
Anyway, happy holidays, Chuck, and I hope 1997 finds you healthy and hearty
and prosperous.
--
Peace,
Gene
Gene Steinberg
In article <32C80D...@inreach.com>, "J. Sanders" <jsan...@inreach.com>
wrote:
> 3. I never had an AOL account. I used my wife's last spring
>before she switched to Inreach. I also never had an "AOL biography" as a
>result. My wife's AOL e-mail handle was quite distinct from
>"Jamm...@aol.com". It began, I think (without checking) "Jsand#### -
>four numbers after the letters.
Don't play this game, Sanders/Jammer. Anyone who has any experience on AOL
knows you can create up to 5 screen names for each account and call
yourself anything you want so long as it fits within AOL's Terms of Service
and doesn't duplicate an existing screen name..
> 4. Jammer has his own AOL account and AOL e-mail handle to
>this date, the same one he had on AOL last spring where I first observed
>him in a debate with Nousaine. Jammer presumably has his own "AOL
>biography" to this date, which undoubtedly is entirely different from my
>wife's erstwhile "AOL biography".
>
See the above. Jammer has not created an online profile (and, nope, one
doesn't have to).
> 7. Jammer is an engineer, I am not.
He claims to be one. We do not know that he/you is/are.
> 9. I'm a licensed practicing attorney, Jammer is not.
You claim to be one. If you wish to privately send me your real name and
the states in which you are licensed to practice, I can check this out for
real and confirm it.
No more excuses, whoever you are, whether it's Jerry Sanders, Don Sanders
or Jam...@aol.com. If you want to engage in a roll-playing game, fine with
me. Just tell us the score, that's all.
--
Gene
Armand
In article <Gene-ya02408000R...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Ge...@worldnet.att.net says...
Two people can't occupy the same location at the same time. Hmmm......
Unless, of course you are the "Bizarro Aczel"! {;-}D
Armand