Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HE2005 Show Questions

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
February 8, 2005 3:58:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I have always wanted to attend one of these high-end audio/video shows, CES,
etc., but I have never made it to one. I may finally get my chance this
year, April 28th to May 1st (I can probably get trade passes), in Manhattan.

I want to get some tickets for Yankees games that same weekend, so I am
trying to figure out whether to go for day games or night games (miss the HE
show days or nights).

Any tips for enjoying the show, planning in advance, etc., would be
appreciated.

I grew up in New York, so I am familiar with the city, but I have only been
back once (July 2004) in the last twenty years.

Is it really best to stay at The Hilton, where the show takes place?

Thanks!
Marcus
Montpelier, Vermont

More about : he2005 show questions

Anonymous
February 8, 2005 6:07:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

There are limited evening events at HES. The Hilton may offer some
special rates for show attendees but, certainly, you can stay anywhere
in the area.

Kal (who lives in the area, sorta)

On 8 Feb 2005 00:58:40 GMT, "Marcus" <marcus153@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have always wanted to attend one of these high-end audio/video shows, CES,
>etc., but I have never made it to one. I may finally get my chance this
>year, April 28th to May 1st (I can probably get trade passes), in Manhattan.
>
>I want to get some tickets for Yankees games that same weekend, so I am
>trying to figure out whether to go for day games or night games (miss the HE
>show days or nights).
>
>Any tips for enjoying the show, planning in advance, etc., would be
>appreciated.
>
>I grew up in New York, so I am familiar with the city, but I have only been
>back once (July 2004) in the last twenty years.
>
>Is it really best to stay at The Hilton, where the show takes place?
>
>Thanks!
>Marcus
>Montpelier, Vermont
Related resources
February 9, 2005 3:59:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cu9ahp0atl@news2.newsguy.com...
> If you're a long-time rahe reader, you won't want to miss this:
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/
>
> bob

Arny Krueger in the flesh? This I gotta see.

When I was 8 years old, I appeared on a local New York children's show
called Wonderama, with Sonny Fox, on WNEW Channel 5. The guests that day
were ventriloquist Paul Winchell and his dummies, and magician The Amazing
Randi.

Maybe Randi will show up at the sub/ob debate.

Marcus
February 12, 2005 3:49:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> If you're a long-time rahe reader, you won't want to miss this:
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/
>
> bob

I would think that Arny would be in hostile territory-no wonder John
invited him to a debate. Seems like a more fair venue would have been
better. Sort of like a debate between a liberal vs. a conservative at
the National Rifle Association meeting.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 7:50:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

randy wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > If you're a long-time rahe reader, you won't want to miss this:
> >
> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/
>
> I would think that Arny would be in hostile territory-no wonder
> John invited him to a debate. Seems like a more fair venue would
> have been better.

The original suggestion to have a debate (though not the choice of
venue) was actually Mike McKelvy's.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 9:21:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"randy" <rbessinger@deloitte.com> wrote in message
news:cujjrg02rej@news1.newsguy.com...
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > If you're a long-time rahe reader, you won't want to miss this:
> >
> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/
> >
> > bob
>
> I would think that Arny would be in hostile territory-no wonder John
> invited him to a debate. Seems like a more fair venue would have been
> better. Sort of like a debate between a liberal vs. a conservative at
> the National Rifle Association meeting.

While it may not be the most neutral crowd, so long as the debate is held in
public and the transcript made available and the debate accurately reported,
it makes little difference. Arnie and the objectivist position will have
plenty of room to debate and display. Arnie is not exactly a shrinking
violet.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 8:17:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:
>"randy" <rbessinger@deloitte.com> wrote in message
>news:cujjrg02rej@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>>nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>If you're a long-time rahe reader, you won't want to miss this:
>>>
>>>http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/
>>>
>>>bob
>>
>>I would think that Arny would be in hostile territory-no wonder John
>>invited him to a debate. Seems like a more fair venue would have been
>>better. Sort of like a debate between a liberal vs. a conservative at
>>the National Rifle Association meeting.
>
>While it may not be the most neutral crowd, so long as the debate is held in
>public and the transcript made available and the debate accurately reported,
>it makes little difference. Arnie and the objectivist position will have
>plenty of room to debate and display. Arnie is not exactly a shrinking
>violet.

Nor, in my opinion, does he represent the rationalist, objective
and science-based community whose members have participated in,
have access to and, in many cases, are responsible for thousands
of person-years worth of dedicated, detailed and arduous effort
in the science and industry of hearing and sound reproduction.
With all due respects, he is an amateur, a term I do not intend to
use as an insult here, merely as a statement of observable fact.

This, then leads to what I think is the important question here:
precisely what purpose does this debate serve? What will be the
result if Mr Krueger "wins?" WHat will be the result if Mr. Atkinson
"wins?"

For that matter, what constitutes "winning?" Who decides? Who
really cares?

How will this debate in any way elucidate either position? How
will it advance the state of the art (something of an ironic
question, given how far, really, the "high-end" biz is from the
true state of the art)?

In my opinion, this debate is little more than an inconsequential
p*ssing match whose outcome, at best, will be ambiguous, which
will have no effect on the factious "war" that exists between the
proponents of each camp, will convince no one of anything and
will simply provide empty bragging rights for each side's spin-
meisters. Most assuredly, it will do nothing whatsoever to clear
the air and, most importantly, won't push the industry one iota
closer to satisfying peoples' desire of the enjoyment of music
in their homes.

If John Atkinson or someone other serious player in this industry
were to challenge me to a debate, I'd flatly refuse. I would
instead invite him and others to an ongoing public forum to identify
where the weaknesses in the industry were and propose solutions
to them. No debate, but instead a constructive discussion.

This debate is going to be a collosal waste of time
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 10:40:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> >"randy" <rbessinger@deloitte.com> wrote in message
> >news:cujjrg02rej@news1.newsguy.com...
> >
> >>nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>If you're a long-time rahe reader, you won't want to miss this:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/
> >>>
> >>>bob
> >>
> >>I would think that Arny would be in hostile territory-no wonder
John
> >>invited him to a debate. Seems like a more fair venue would have
been
> >>better. Sort of like a debate between a liberal vs. a conservative
at
> >>the National Rifle Association meeting.
> >
> >While it may not be the most neutral crowd, so long as the debate is
held in
> >public and the transcript made available and the debate accurately
reported,
> >it makes little difference. Arnie and the objectivist position will
have
> >plenty of room to debate and display. Arnie is not exactly a
shrinking
> >violet.
>
> Nor, in my opinion, does he represent the rationalist, objective
> and science-based community whose members have participated in,
> have access to and, in many cases, are responsible for thousands
> of person-years worth of dedicated, detailed and arduous effort
> in the science and industry of hearing and sound reproduction.
> With all due respects, he is an amateur, a term I do not intend to
> use as an insult here, merely as a statement of observable fact.
>
> This, then leads to what I think is the important question here:
> precisely what purpose does this debate serve?


Given the venue, it's primary purpose is to give people at the show one
more thing to do.



> What will be the
> result if Mr Krueger "wins?" WHat will be the result if Mr. Atkinson
> "wins?"


Aside from some personal satisfaction, not much.




>
> For that matter, what constitutes "winning?"


Peoples' opinion.



> Who decides?



Whoever observes a debate decides for themselves who wins. That is
nothing new.



> Who
> really cares?


Whoever decides to care.




>
> How will this debate in any way elucidate either position?



That depends on what is said don't you think?



> How
> will it advance the state of the art (something of an ironic
> question, given how far, really, the "high-end" biz is from the
> true state of the art)?



It certainly won't. Why even ask this question? But do tell how high
end is far from the state of the art. What is state of the art in sound
recording and playback and how is it so far beyond anything in the high
end? What are we missing?




>
> In my opinion, this debate is little more than an inconsequential
> p*ssing match whose outcome, at best, will be ambiguous, which
> will have no effect on the factious "war" that exists between the
> proponents of each camp, will convince no one of anything and
> will simply provide empty bragging rights for each side's spin-
> meisters.



I agree. If it happens it will be no different than just about every
other debate on the subject in the past. It won't be any different in
it's effect than the thousands of such debates that have transpired
here on RAHE.




>Most assuredly, it will do nothing whatsoever to clear
> the air and, most importantly, won't push the industry one iota
> closer to satisfying peoples' desire of the enjoyment of music
> in their homes.


Yep just like most of the debates on RAHE it will not likely make
anyone think or act differently. It certainly won't have any affect on
the design and production of high end equipment or recordings.



>
> If John Atkinson or someone other serious player in this industry
> were to challenge me to a debate, I'd flatly refuse. I would
> instead invite him and others to an ongoing public forum to identify
> where the weaknesses in the industry were and propose solutions
> to them. No debate, but instead a constructive discussion.


How will that advance the state of the art? Really? Talk is cheap. It's
up to the people making high end equipment and producing recordings to
advance the state of the art.



>
> This debate is going to be a collosal waste of time


Do you think RAHE is also a collosal waste of time? How would the
debates here differ in value?




Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 11:53:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> >
> >While it may not be the most neutral crowd, so long as the debate is
held in
> >public and the transcript made available and the debate accurately
reported,
> >it makes little difference. Arnie and the objectivist position will
have
> >plenty of room to debate and display. Arnie is not exactly a
shrinking
> >violet.
>
> Nor, in my opinion, does he represent the rationalist, objective
> and science-based community whose members have participated in,
> have access to and, in many cases, are responsible for thousands
> of person-years worth of dedicated, detailed and arduous effort
> in the science and industry of hearing and sound reproduction.
> With all due respects, he is an amateur, a term I do not intend to
> use as an insult here,

Well, it sure doesn't sound like you meant it as a compliment. As
amateurs go, Arny not only is pretty knowledgeable, but he also can lay
claim to playing a small but real role in exposing at least some
audiophiles to the scientific fraud at the core of the Stereophile
worldview. For that, he deserves more respect than you seem willing to
give him.

> merely as a statement of observable fact.
>
> This, then leads to what I think is the important question here:
> precisely what purpose does this debate serve? What will be the
> result if Mr Krueger "wins?" WHat will be the result if Mr. Atkinson
> "wins?"

Well, I don't see any way that Arny can "win," if by "win"" you mean
change the minds of a majority of an audience that will probably be
united against him. What he can do, if he's clever, is challenge their
assumptions, and perhaps sow the first seeds of skepticism.
>
> For that matter, what constitutes "winning?" Who decides? Who
> really cares?
>
> How will this debate in any way elucidate either position? How
> will it advance the state of the art (something of an ironic
> question, given how far, really, the "high-end" biz is from the
> true state of the art)?

Oh, come on. This isn't the National Academy of Sciences we're talking
about. It's a panel discussion at a trade show. Most of the attendees
are there to gape at speaker cables the size of garden hoses. When
Arny's done, they will still gape at cables the size of garden hoses.
And con artists will continue to produce those hoses as long as the
markups remain as astronomical as they are. You could put 10 Nobel
physicists on the panel, and that wouldn't change.
>
> In my opinion, this debate is little more than an inconsequential
> p*ssing match whose outcome, at best, will be ambiguous, which
> will have no effect on the factious "war" that exists between the
> proponents of each camp, will convince no one of anything and
> will simply provide empty bragging rights for each side's spin-
> meisters. Most assuredly, it will do nothing whatsoever to clear
> the air and, most importantly, won't push the industry one iota
> closer to satisfying peoples' desire of the enjoyment of music
> in their homes.

All true.
>
> If John Atkinson or someone other serious player in this industry
> were to challenge me to a debate, I'd flatly refuse. I would
> instead invite him and others to an ongoing public forum to identify
> where the weaknesses in the industry were and propose solutions
> to them. No debate, but instead a constructive discussion.

Yes, well, that would be nice, wouldn't it? But neither the producers
nor the consumers of Stereophile want to know where the weaknesses of
the industry are. For the consumers, recognizing the truth as you and I
understand it would mean giving up their inflated belief in their own
superior hearing, something their egos will not allow. And as long as
those inflated egos are out there, the producers are going to try to
cash in on it.

In other words, they're not going to come to you. You have to go to
them. And that's what Arny, to his credit, is doing.
>
> This debate is going to be a collosal waste of time

Ninety minutes is hardly colossal. But let's think about what we could
do that wouldn't be a waste of time. Here's one idea: What if a group
of dedicated objectivists were to take a room at one of these shindigs
and set up the Mother of All DBTs? Trick out a system with components
off the Class A list, plus tweaks galore, and compare it to a competent
bargain system--both driving the same speakers. Then take all comers.

No, this wouldn't advance science, but that's not the point, since the
science is already settled. The point is public education. Most
audiophiles have never participated in such an experiment. And yes,
many would explain away their inevitable failure with appeals to
stress, insufficiently resolving speakers, bad room acoustics, or
perfidy on the part of the test administrators. But a few minds would
be changed, and a larger number would at least be opened to the
possibility of change. That would be progress.

bob
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:27:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:

> All true.
> >
> > If John Atkinson or someone other serious player in this industry
> > were to challenge me to a debate, I'd flatly refuse. I would
> > instead invite him and others to an ongoing public forum to identify
> > where the weaknesses in the industry were and propose solutions
> > to them. No debate, but instead a constructive discussion.

> Yes, well, that would be nice, wouldn't it? But neither the producers
> nor the consumers of Stereophile want to know where the weaknesses of
> the industry are. For the consumers, recognizing the truth as you and I
> understand it would mean giving up their inflated belief in their own
> superior hearing, something their egos will not allow. And as long as
> those inflated egos are out there, the producers are going to try to
> cash in on it.

One of the weaknesses of the industry is the way its
tendency towards, shall we say, *overstatement* is 'enabled'
by audiophile culture, whose attitude towards scientific
objectivity is at best conflicted and at worst hostile.

> In other words, they're not going to come to you. You have to go to
> them. And that's what Arny, to his credit, is doing.

It can be brave and foolhardy at the same time.

I do hope there's a recording or some other accurate record
available, after the fact. (I'm also looking into attending.)

> > This debate is going to be a collosal waste of time

> Ninety minutes is hardly colossal. But let's think about what we could
> do that wouldn't be a waste of time. Here's one idea: What if a group
> of dedicated objectivists were to take a room at one of these shindigs
> and set up the Mother of All DBTs? Trick out a system with components
> off the Class A list, plus tweaks galore, and compare it to a competent
> bargain system--both driving the same speakers. Then take all comers.

Wasn't this done at one of the conventions in the past?
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:30:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:cuo22m0141s@news1.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>>"randy" <rbessinger@deloitte.com> wrote in message
>>news:cujjrg02rej@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you're a long-time rahe reader, you won't want to miss this:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/
>>>>
>>>>bob
>>>
>>>I would think that Arny would be in hostile territory-no wonder John
>>>invited him to a debate. Seems like a more fair venue would have been
>>>better. Sort of like a debate between a liberal vs. a conservative at
>>>the National Rifle Association meeting.
>>
>>While it may not be the most neutral crowd, so long as the debate is held
>>in
>>public and the transcript made available and the debate accurately
>>reported,
>>it makes little difference. Arnie and the objectivist position will have
>>plenty of room to debate and display. Arnie is not exactly a shrinking
>>violet.
>
> Nor, in my opinion, does he represent the rationalist, objective
> and science-based community whose members have participated in,
> have access to and, in many cases, are responsible for thousands
> of person-years worth of dedicated, detailed and arduous effort
> in the science and industry of hearing and sound reproduction.
> With all due respects, he is an amateur, a term I do not intend to
> use as an insult here, merely as a statement of observable fact.
>

I think he's better qualified than most of the SP people who have been
misleading the public for years.

> This, then leads to what I think is the important question here:
> precisely what purpose does this debate serve? What will be the
> result if Mr Krueger "wins?" WHat will be the result if Mr. Atkinson
> "wins?"
>
> For that matter, what constitutes "winning?" Who decides? Who
> really cares?
>
> How will this debate in any way elucidate either position? How
> will it advance the state of the art (something of an ironic
> question, given how far, really, the "high-end" biz is from the
> true state of the art)?
>
> In my opinion, this debate is little more than an inconsequential
> p*ssing match whose outcome, at best, will be ambiguous, which
> will have no effect on the factious "war" that exists between the
> proponents of each camp, will convince no one of anything and
> will simply provide empty bragging rights for each side's spin-
> meisters. Most assuredly, it will do nothing whatsoever to clear
> the air and, most importantly, won't push the industry one iota
> closer to satisfying peoples' desire of the enjoyment of music
> in their homes.
>
Both sides seem to ber firmly entrenched, but there is some history behind
all this that has been simmering for a few years. I thought it best for it
to come to a head.


> If John Atkinson or someone other serious player in this industry
> were to challenge me to a debate, I'd flatly refuse. I would
> instead invite him and others to an ongoing public forum to identify
> where the weaknesses in the industry were and propose solutions
> to them. No debate, but instead a constructive discussion.
>
What do you believe Mr. Atkinson would bring to such a discussion?

> This debate is going to be a collosal waste of time

I hope in the end it will at least expose more people to some sound science
regarding some of the nonsense that seems to be pervasive in audio.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 6:49:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:curfrd02qrg@news2.newsguy.com...
> <dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
> news:cuo22m0141s@news1.newsguy.com...
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >>"randy" <rbessinger@deloitte.com> wrote in message

>snip, to focus on the most relevant part to my comment<

> > If John Atkinson or someone other serious player in this industry
> > were to challenge me to a debate, I'd flatly refuse. I would
> > instead invite him and others to an ongoing public forum to identify
> > where the weaknesses in the industry were and propose solutions
> > to them. No debate, but instead a constructive discussion.
> >
> What do you believe Mr. Atkinson would bring to such a discussion?
>
> > This debate is going to be a collosal waste of time
>
> I hope in the end it will at least expose more people to some sound
science
> regarding some of the nonsense that seems to be pervasive in audio.
>

And I think you will be surprised to find that a good chunk of it comes from
Mr. Atkinson, himself.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 6:50:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:culc5702vam@news1.newsguy.com...
> randy wrote:
>> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > If you're a long-time rahe reader, you won't want to miss this:
>> >
>> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/020705debate/
>>
>> I would think that Arny would be in hostile territory-no wonder
>> John invited him to a debate. Seems like a more fair venue would
>> have been better.
>
> The original suggestion to have a debate (though not the choice of
> venue) was actually Mike McKelvy's.
>
True, because accusations of who skipped out on what debate had been going
for too long IMO, I wanted it closed.

Hopefully, some people will get an earful of what's wrong with the way audio
equipment is reviewed and what can help in the process.

It would be wonderful if more people were exposed to a DBT for example or if
more people were educated on what is the best way to spend one's money when
deciding on upgrades, something they don't seem to get from SP and other
similar magazines.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 6:50:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > What if a group
> > of dedicated objectivists were to take a room at one of these
shindigs
> > and set up the Mother of All DBTs? Trick out a system with
components
> > off the Class A list, plus tweaks galore, and compare it to a
competent
> > bargain system--both driving the same speakers. Then take all
comers.
>
> Wasn't this done at one of the conventions in the past?

I'd be interested in hearing about it. If so, it's one of those things
that should be done periodically, if only to expose subsequent
generations of audiophiles to the idea that there are worldviews other
than S-phile's.

bob
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 6:51:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
> I hope in the end it will at least expose more people to some sound
science
> regarding some of the nonsense that seems to be pervasive in audio.

Exactly. Most audiophiles know nothing more about the "objectivist"
viewpoint than what Harley and Atkinson deign to tell them. At least
they'll get to hear it from someone who believes it, rather than from
editorial hatchetmen whose agenda is to discredit via distortion.

bob
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 3:27:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > What if a group
> > > of dedicated objectivists were to take a room at one of these
> shindigs
> > > and set up the Mother of All DBTs? Trick out a system with
> components
> > > off the Class A list, plus tweaks galore, and compare it to a
> competent
> > > bargain system--both driving the same speakers. Then take all
> comers.
> >
> > Wasn't this done at one of the conventions in the past?

> I'd be interested in hearing about it. If so, it's one of those things
> that should be done periodically, if only to expose subsequent
> generations of audiophiles to the idea that there are worldviews other
> than S-phile's.

I might be thinkking of Tom Nousaine's old 'tweaked' versus mass market
trial. But I could swear I've also read recently about someone leading
folks to believe at a convention demo that they were listening to a
high-end tweak rig, only to reveal that it was an I-pod playing through
standard electronics.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 3:36:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:currfm01lk0@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:curfrd02qrg@news2.newsguy.com...
>> <dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
>> news:cuo22m0141s@news1.newsguy.com...
>> > Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >>"randy" <rbessinger@deloitte.com> wrote in message
>
>>snip, to focus on the most relevant part to my comment<
>
>> > If John Atkinson or someone other serious player in this industry
>> > were to challenge me to a debate, I'd flatly refuse. I would
>> > instead invite him and others to an ongoing public forum to identify
>> > where the weaknesses in the industry were and propose solutions
>> > to them. No debate, but instead a constructive discussion.
>> >
>> What do you believe Mr. Atkinson would bring to such a discussion?
>>
>> > This debate is going to be a collosal waste of time
>>
>> I hope in the end it will at least expose more people to some sound
> science
>> regarding some of the nonsense that seems to be pervasive in audio.
>>
>
> And I think you will be surprised to find that a good chunk of it comes
> from
> Mr. Atkinson, himself.
>
As long as he has the power but not the will to debunk things like Shakti
Stones, magic wire, clarifiers et al. I fear you are correct.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 4:52:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > What if a group
> > > > of dedicated objectivists were to take a room at one of these
> > shindigs
> > > > and set up the Mother of All DBTs? Trick out a system with
> > components
> > > > off the Class A list, plus tweaks galore, and compare it to a
> > competent
> > > > bargain system--both driving the same speakers. Then take all
> > comers.
> > >
> > > Wasn't this done at one of the conventions in the past?
>
> > I'd be interested in hearing about it. If so, it's one of those
things
> > that should be done periodically, if only to expose subsequent
> > generations of audiophiles to the idea that there are worldviews
other
> > than S-phile's.
>
> I might be thinkking of Tom Nousaine's old 'tweaked' versus mass
market
> trial. But I could swear I've also read recently about someone
leading
> folks to believe at a convention demo that they were listening to a
> high-end tweak rig, only to reveal that it was an I-pod playing
through
> standard electronics.

Ah, but that's not what I'm talking about at all. The fact that you can
fool people into thinking they're listening to a high-end rig when
they're not proves nothing about audible differences; it only proves
that people can be fooled. I'm talking about a direct comparison
between high-end and mid-fi systems.

bob
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 3:41:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 15 Feb 2005 03:50:17 GMT, "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com>
wrote:

>True, because accusations of who skipped out on what debate had been going
>for too long IMO, I wanted it closed.

Good idea.

>Hopefully, some people will get an earful of what's wrong with the way audio
>equipment is reviewed and what can help in the process.

I quit reading audio equipment reviews, AND (classical) music reviews,
a long time ago. There are so many aspects involved in audio
equipment, and so many details make a difference, that it is virtually
impossible to do a serieus review of some component.

The same holds true for music reviews.
I have read many articles claiming that this or that cd is suberb,
suberb interpretation, suberb recording, etc. And when I order the cd,
it turns out to be a huge disappointment, because the recording is not
good at all and the interpretation is bizarre.

So you have to do the listening yourself.

>It would be wonderful if more people were exposed to a DBT for example or if

Given the fact that nobody who is involved with dbt's will ever
explains what he means by "hearing", the dbt's as they are executed
are no more than hobby work, nice try.

For a scientist, a physicist, words like "work" and "energy" mean
something completely different than for the lay man. So the SCIENTIFIC
meaning of certain words is many times very different from the NAIVE
meaning.

But when it comes to hearing, it seems that nobody is this newsgroup
is interested in the SCIENTIFIC meaning of the word "hearing", in
contrast to the NAIVE meaning. People always talk about "you can hear
this" or "you cannot hear this", but how hearing goes, is never
explained.

So we get lay man's discussions about "hearing" in contrast to
"thinking what you hear", because the lay man doesn't grasp the fact
that ALL hearing is "thinking what you hear". There is no difference.

On the technical side people tend to forget that all equipment parts
work together, because they form one circuit. So it is possible that
one piece works beautifully in this context, but not in that.

The extremely naive view is that if you follow "good standards" every
piece of "good" equipment may be connected to every other piece of
"good" equipment.

But that is not true. We all know that EVERY piece of equipment is a
compromise. And sometimes the compromise works well, at others it
doesn't.

Some people like horn speakers for their clarity in the mid range.
Others hate them for their colourations, their narrow field, their
awful bass, etc.

Some people like electrostats, others hate their unrealistic windy
performance.

If you work with a better OTL amplifier, as I do, you get a sound that
resembles the sound of a transistor amp to a great extend. Only you
get this incredible speed, this sense of immediacy and naturalness
that is unsurpassed. I have heard, and have had at home, many
transistor amps. The better ones all start out with a huge sense of
clarity, but after some time, a few days, a few weeks, you start to
realize that you are listening through a tunnel.

You may get used to that and make yourself BELIEVE that this sound is
natural, or good, or perfect, but it isn't. One visit to the concert
hall and all your dreams are shattered.
You may read stories about "tight bass" and the like, but one visit to
the concert hall will tell you that the REAL bass, the contrabass in
the orchestra, is not so "tight" at all. So the "tight bass" is a
fake.
The "huge soundstage" that some speakers produce is also a fake. The
"pinpointing of every instrument" (the darling pet of every reviewer)
is also a fake. Even the best seats in the centre of the Concertgebouw
in Amsterdam, one of the truly great concert halls, will tell you that
in reality you cannot "pinpoint" all the instruments.

You may SEE a clarinet in the middle of the orchestra, but the SOUND
may come from the right, through early reflections, Haas-effect and
what not. It depends on the note the musician is playing, the
positioning of the instrument (where is the bell pointed), etc.

Going for the better OTL gives you a realism that is very hard to
achieve with a transistor amp. Perhaps a mosfet amp comes in the
direction, but they have their problems.

The OTL also has its problems. You get noise. Sometimes you have to
change tubes (once every 5 years). Sometimes you have to correct this
or that. The OTL may be extremely sensitive to dirty mains.

Some people say: "all good amps sound the same".
That is a ridiculous statement.

When my amp was modified, I asked for a variable negative feedback.
Optimal neg feedback depends not only on the amp itself, but also on
the amp + speaker combination. This means that a fixed amount of
overall neg feedback is always a compromise. Therefore I wanted it to
be variable.

Can you hear the difference between slightly more and slightly less
feedback (talking about 0.5 dB to 1 dB difference)? Yes, of course.
Less feedback means two things: louder sound and different sound.

What position is "the best"?
Depends on measurements and taste. The modern western ear likes a bit
of harmonic distortion. When we listen to well-tempered instruments,
like the piano and the guitar, we always listen to beats & wow and
harmonic thirds that are not really thirds etc.
Furthermore the ear itself distorts. So a bit of distortion makes the
sound "interesting".

Personally, however, I hate the sound of a piano. I hate it that the
strings are always tuned a bit off, that the things is ALWAYS out of
tune, by physical necessity.

>more people were educated on what is the best way to spend one's money when
>deciding on upgrades, something they don't seem to get from SP and other
>similar magazines.

I am doing at the moment some interesting tests with new interlinks
between cd player and pre amp. It turns out that there are REALLY huge
differences between this cable and that, irrespective from price.
It also turns out to be an empirical, observed FACT, that some
interlinks work better in my system than others. That is: huge
difference in detail, huge difference in realism, huge difference in
performance.

ALL these differences are related to electrical properties of the
cable, properties that depend on the copper or silver, the coating,
the dielectricum, the topology of the cable. All these aspects of a
cable have electrical effects, all these aspects make a difference.
There is NO magic involved. I do not believe in magic.

It is amazing how many of those differences you can hear, if your
audio equipment is sensitive enough, and how HUGE those differences
are. Coating, dielectricum and topology REALLY make an audible
difference.

It is also amazing how difficult it is to MEASURE those differences.
How difficult it is to measure what goes on during a transient.
Measuring the behaviour during a steady 998 Hz sinus is NOT so
difficult. But what goes on during a multi-tone impulse-like sound, is
not easy at all.

I always listen to acoustic music, that is music without stage
amplification. If you listen to pop music that is constructed in the
studio, there is no reference possible to how it "should" sound in
reality, because there is no reality outside the studio.

------------

If you have difficulty to BELIEVE what I am telling you here, you are
herewith invited to my home to listen for yourself. You may bring with
you all the cds you like, preferably with acoustical music, for the
said reasons.

If you like, we will bring in a third and fourth person and do some
blind or double blind tests. You may bring Randi with you if you like,
or Santa Claus. I don't mind.

You may also bring with you an ABX box of some kind and we could try
to do some tests with it.

BUT as in a simple cable topology etc is already of huge importance,
and as such an ABX box introduces an extra circuit with extra cabling
and the like, it is quite possible that the ABX box influences the
electrical behaviour of the cables so much that it cannot function
anymore as a neutral measuring device.

You should ALSO realize that as all parts of the audio system form ONE
CIRCUIT, a certain cable HERE may, and will, influence the sound of
another cable THERE.

I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that not only ***I*** will
hear differences between this interlink and that, but that ***you***
will hear those differences too. And that ***you*** as well as ***I***
will be able to say: "this cable is better than that", at least in
this system of mine.

So herewith you are invited to Amsterdam to do some listening for
yourself. I cannot pay all your traveling costs, but some 100 Euro or
200 I am prepared pay, if you are sorely in need of money.

-------------------

If however you do NOT want to accept this my offer, then it is clear
that you do NOT want to put yourself to the test.

If THAT is the case, then I suppose it would be better that you
refrain from the kind of statements that you make all the time in this
newsgroup, about what is and is not relevant to audio equipment, and
about the supposedly inaudibility of cable differences and the like.

If you would not want to listen at all, then you should not pass
judgements on what is audible and what not.

Ernst Raedecker
Anjeliersstraat 109 B
1015 NE Amsterdam
Holland
ernstr@xs4all.nl

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."

Richard Feynman
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 7:31:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Ernst Raedecker <ernstr@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2005 03:50:17 GMT, "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com>
> wrote:

> >True, because accusations of who skipped out on what debate had been going
> >for too long IMO, I wanted it closed.

> Good idea.

> >Hopefully, some people will get an earful of what's wrong with the way audio
> >equipment is reviewed and what can help in the process.

> I quit reading audio equipment reviews, AND (classical) music reviews,
> a long time ago. There are so many aspects involved in audio
> equipment, and so many details make a difference, that it is virtually
> impossible to do a serieus review of some component.

> The same holds true for music reviews.
> I have read many articles claiming that this or that cd is suberb,
> suberb interpretation, suberb recording, etc. And when I order the cd,
> it turns out to be a huge disappointment, because the recording is not
> good at all and the interpretation is bizarre.

> So you have to do the listening yourself.

> >It would be wonderful if more people were exposed to a DBT for example or if

> Given the fact that nobody who is involved with dbt's will ever
> explains what he means by "hearing", the dbt's as they are executed
> are no more than hobby work, nice try.

Indeed? Researchers in psychoacoustics, who certainly employ double-blind
protocols, might disagree with you on that one.

> For a scientist, a physicist, words like "work" and "energy" mean
> something completely different than for the lay man. So the SCIENTIFIC
> meaning of certain words is many times very different from the NAIVE
> meaning.

Indeed. And scientists researching *hearing* use double blind trials
too. As do designers and developers of audio components and software.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 1:29:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

> I would think that Arny would be in hostile territory-no wonder John
> invited him to a debate. Seems like a more fair venue would have been
> better. Sort of like a debate between a liberal vs. a conservative at
> the National Rifle Association meeting.

Heaven forbid there should be a debate on audio issues when there are
actually audiophiles around!

Vade Forrester
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 4:05:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Theporkygeorge@aol.com writes:
> dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, this debate is little more than an inconsequential
> > p*ssing match whose outcome, at best, will be ambiguous, which
> > will have no effect on the factious "war" that exists between the
> > proponents of each camp, will convince no one of anything and
> > will simply provide empty bragging rights for each side's spin-
> > meisters.

If just a few people hear a different opinion and say to themselves
"yes, that makes sense; I hadn't thought of that" then a debate is
worthwhile.

> I agree. If it happens it will be no different than just about every
> other debate on the subject in the past. It won't be any different in
> it's effect than the thousands of such debates that have transpired
> here on RAHE.
>
> > Most assuredly, it will do nothing whatsoever to clear the air
> > and, most importantly, won't push the industry one iota closer to
> > satisfying peoples' desire of the enjoyment of music in their
> > homes.
>
> Yep just like most of the debates on RAHE it will not likely make
> anyone think or act differently. It certainly won't have any affect
> on the design and production of high end equipment or recordings.

I think you're underestimating the effect that reading forums like this
one has on people.

Please don't assume that writing here is a waste of time and
influences no-one. This group has a huge readership -- probably
bigger than any Hi-Fi magazine, although it's impossible to know for
sure.

The Hi-Fi press is remarkably uniform in its opinions, and the only
place you'll see any real debate is on the net, especially in this
forum. When someone posts here, they don't get special respect
because of their job or their paper qualifications or how many
advertisers they have. They have to establish their credibility by
the quality of their posts.

If it were not for RAHE and similar forums I would not have had the
opportunity to hear opinions that differ from those in the Hi-Fi
press, and would not have been prompted to read psychoacoustics texts
to find out some more.

Andrew.
April 22, 2005 3:57:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

arahe@littlepinkcloud.com wrote:
>>
>> Yep just like most of the debates on RAHE it will not likely make
>> anyone think or act differently. It certainly won't have any affect
>> on the design and production of high end equipment or recordings.
>
> I think you're underestimating the effect that reading forums like
> this one has on people.
>
> Please don't assume that writing here is a waste of time and
> influences no-one. This group has a huge readership -- probably
> bigger than any Hi-Fi magazine, although it's impossible to know for
> sure.
>

I second that from my own experience. I had been believing in a lot of
imaginative things, and I was happy to find so well informed and educated
people here like Stewart Pinkerton(I see him now also on ABSE) or Chung.
Now I don't repeat parrotlike what others have said, but I do my own tests
and comparisons. Not always to the DBT standard, but with the intention to
find out the truth.
I could eliminate a lot of garbage believes that I had collected. And yes, I
am an electronic engineer and I worked in the recording studio business and
I play musical instruments. So all this doesn't make you immune to
imagination.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 6:36:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Ban wrote:
> arahe@littlepinkcloud.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Yep just like most of the debates on RAHE it will not likely make
> >> anyone think or act differently. It certainly won't have any
affect
> >> on the design and production of high end equipment or recordings.
> >
> > I think you're underestimating the effect that reading forums like
> > this one has on people.
> >
> > Please don't assume that writing here is a waste of time and
> > influences no-one. This group has a huge readership -- probably
> > bigger than any Hi-Fi magazine, although it's impossible to know
for
> > sure.
> >
>
> I second that from my own experience.

As will I. I first started reading RAHE (long before I began posting
here), because I was hoping for some enlightenment about what to listen
for when comparing, say, amps, which just didn't sound all that
different to me.

bob
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:50:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

arahe@littlepinkcloud.com wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com writes:
> > dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
> >
> > > In my opinion, this debate is little more than an
inconsequential
> > > p*ssing match whose outcome, at best, will be ambiguous, which
> > > will have no effect on the factious "war" that exists between
the
> > > proponents of each camp, will convince no one of anything and
> > > will simply provide empty bragging rights for each side's spin-
> > > meisters.
>
> If just a few people hear a different opinion and say to themselves
> "yes, that makes sense; I hadn't thought of that" then a debate is
> worthwhile.

I suppoose there is some outside chance that someone who has never been
aware of the different POV held by objectvisist and subjectivists might
stumble into this event. I think it is unlikely that anyone there will
hear anything they haven't heard beofre on the subject.



>
> > I agree. If it happens it will be no different than just about
every
> > other debate on the subject in the past. It won't be any different
in
> > it's effect than the thousands of such debates that have
transpired
> > here on RAHE.
> >
> > > Most assuredly, it will do nothing whatsoever to clear the air
> > > and, most importantly, won't push the industry one iota closer
to
> > > satisfying peoples' desire of the enjoyment of music in their
> > > homes.
> >
> > Yep just like most of the debates on RAHE it will not likely make
> > anyone think or act differently. It certainly won't have any
affect
> > on the design and production of high end equipment or recordings.
>
> I think you're underestimating the effect that reading forums like
this
> one has on people.

Possibly.



>
> Please don't assume that writing here is a waste of time and
> influences no-one. This group has a huge readership -- probably
> bigger than any Hi-Fi magazine, although it's impossible to know for
> sure.


I doubt that very very much.




>
> The Hi-Fi press is remarkably uniform in its opinions,



No.



and the only
> place you'll see any real debate is on the net, especially in this
> forum.


I quite disagree again.



When someone posts here, they don't get special respect
> because of their job or their paper qualifications or how many
> advertisers they have. They have to establish their credibility by
> the quality of their posts.



One can read a great deal into that. I wonder what affect false claims
that an industry pro has been fired from his job will have on that
poster's credibility?



>
> If it were not for RAHE and similar forums I would not have had the
> opportunity to hear opinions that differ from those in the Hi-Fi
> press, and would not have been prompted to read psychoacoustics texts
> to find out some more.


You mean you have never read Stereo Review or other objectivist audio
magazines?

Scott Wheeler
!