Product comparisons - Page 2

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> > >> No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
> > >> tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
> > >> connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
> > >> extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.
> > >
> > >I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
> > >the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
> > >my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
> > >possibility of halucination is remote.
> >
> > The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
> > in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
> > case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
> > possibility.

> There has to be something to reinforce, no?

Yes, but the 'something' can easily be an erroneous first impression. How do you
demonstrate that it wasn't?


> > >> You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
> > >> that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.
> > >
> > >Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.
> >
> > It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
> > hearing.

> "We"? What do you mean, "we"?

Oh, engineers, physicists, psychologists, those sorts of people.

> > *Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
> > denial will not alter this most obvious fact.

> What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart
> Pinkerton. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have
> discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to
> hear differences among ampas, CD players, and cables, is not an
> 'extraordinary claim'.

Are these particular philosophers and scientists knowledgeable about
what the engineers, physicists, and psychologists have learned?

> > Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
> > Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
> > stepped up to the plate.

> You're beginning to bore me.

Might we then anticipate your retirement from your misguided and
often flat-out erroneous (e.g. resolution) attempts at argument, soon?


> > >I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
> > >because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
> > >blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
> > >convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
> > >conducted.
> >
> > Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.

> I don't remember you...sitting next to me.

Alas, your own description reveals its inherent flaws.

You can, of course, continue to claim
that resolution means frequency extension, that what you hear
must be real because you really believe it is, or other
such black-is-white assertions from what seems to be a profound
urge to wish-fulfillment rather than reason,
but from here on I intend to do no more than
just continue to watch Mssrs. Pinkerton,
Pierce, et al. eviscerate your arguments.
Your posts will be filed accordingly.



--

-S

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsgap85029h0@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 14 Sep 2005 02:53:36 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>newsg5i2u01k6h@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
>>>>>> specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to
>>>>>> codecs
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and
>>>>>> psychological
>>>>>> comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of
>>>>>> comparative-monadic,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> have found they can validate differences when a conventional
>>>>>> short-snippet
>>>>>> test resulted in a "null".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Please list them.
>>>>
>>>>Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura,
>>>>Yoshitaka
>>>>Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao
>>>>Fukuyama,
>>>>and Hiroshi Shibasaki
>>>
>>> Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really
>>> need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans?
>>
>>Actually, Stewart, if you looked further you would find that Oohashi and
>>many of his team have been doing work in psychoacoustics and
>>neurophysiology
>>for many years and are well published. Put you chauvinism aside, why
>>don't
>>you.
>
> Not chauvinism, simply that you are reeling off one single team whose
> commecially sponsored work remains uncorroborated. Hardly 'movers and
> shakers'.
>
>>Moreover, your assertion that Pioneer funded the research is just that, an
>>assertion. No proof has ever been offered or cited. It may or may not have
>>been funded by a consortium...but if so, that is common practice in many
>>contries, including Great Britain and the United States.
>
> Nice sidestep, Harry...........
>
>>Was JJ's work at
>>AT&T invalid because it was privately funded? The validity depends on how
>>well the study was done and the results, peer-reviewed.
>
> Quite so - and the Oohashi results remain uncorroborated.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Peer-reviewed and accepted as sound research is one thing, Stewart.
Coorroborated is another. I said the research was reviewed and accepted for
publication. I didn't say it had yet been corroborated. The corroboration
work is proceeding as we write, I believe. Corroboration of complex
research requiring special facilities and equipment is not a "quick and
easy" job. I have posted this fact several times on various forums. Your
reply is simply so much smoke.

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

On 15 Sep 2005 02:59:18 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> >> No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
>> >> tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
>> >> connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
>> >> extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.
>> >
>> >I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
>> >the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
>> >my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
>> >possibility of halucination is remote.
>>
>> The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
>> in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
>> case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
>> possibility.
>
>There has to be something to reinforce, no?

That would be your first impression, likely formed bedfore the music
starts. I think you've been around here long enough that we know this
will be directly related to the prestige of the badge.

>> >> You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
>> >> that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.
>> >
>> >Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.
>>
>> It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
>> hearing.
>
>"We"? What do you mean, "we"?

The accumulated body of human knowledge. Scientists and engineers, if
you like.

>> *Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
>> denial will not alter this most obvious fact.
>
>What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart
>Pinkerton.

Nor indeed by you - despite your vigorous assertiuons.

> We have many good philosophers and scientists who have
>discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to
>hear differences among ampas, CD players, and cables, is not an
>'extraordinary claim'.

You say *everything* with great confidence. Little of it is actually
true, however...............

> I have posted links to discussions of what an
>'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them.

Actually, you are the one who has used 'edited highlights' in
evidence, while ignoring the basic fact that an extraordinary claim is
simply one which requires a suspension of acceptance of the body of
human knowledge. In this regard, hearing differences among cables is
right up there with alien abduction. After all, we can't *prove* that
aliens don't exist, can we?

>(Moderator: how does this post get through?)
>
>[Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ]

LOL! :-)

Isn't it interesting that it's *always* the confidently asserting
'subjectivists' who want to silence the voice of reason? :-)

>> >> You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
>> >> that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.
>> >
>> >False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and
>> >you know it.
>>
>> Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
>> Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
>> stepped up to the plate.
>
>You're beginning to bore me.

Lack of response noted. Also, you're assuming that I care.

>> >> >> It's pretty hard to
>> >> >> find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
>> >> >> player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
>> >> >> errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
>> >> >> players.
>> >> >
>> >> >Mark Levinson?
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege
>> >> of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity
>> >> from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear
>> >> differences among transports with that dog!
>> >
>> >I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded
>> >quite beautiful.
>>
>> So what? Any decent CD player sounds quite beautiful - depending on
>> the CD, of course! To pay more than $20,000 for such a device is a
>> pretty foolish indulgence, unless you already own the world's best
>> speakers and have them installed in an acoustically perfect room.
>
>So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are
>permitted to spend on their equipment?

I'm doing no such thing, I'm simply pointing out that it's a foolish
indulgence - much like buying Leica gear. I will graciously permit you
to continue demonstrating such foolishness as long as you like.

>> >> Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits
>> >> of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream'
>> >> Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'.....................
>> >
>> >Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original
>> >designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance,
>> >and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but
>> >redesigns.
>>
>> Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since
>> Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and
>> Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house.
>
>They were not capable of designing them in-house until they had more
>time to study the various problems of retro-focus wide-angle designs.
>Remember, this was 1968! Leitz's experience did not include retro-focus
>lens design. In the meantime, they needed product to sell. Lots of
>companies do this. I remember testing the 21mm Super-Angulon-R f/4
>(Leitz-made, Scheider design) against the 20mm Nikkor f/3,5. There was
>no contest. The SA trounced the Nikkor. Seven years later, in about
>1975, Leitz Canada came out with a 19mm f/2,8 design that represented
>an advance over the 21mm SA. It was one stop faster and had higher
>contrast. Fifteen years later (1990) and improved second-generation
>19mm was introduced. It is superb and represents state-of-the-art
>performance in the 18-21mm focal length range. There is no equal made
>by anyone.

I doubt that Zeiss, Canon or Nikon would agree with you, especially
given the outstanding quality of the 1978 Nikon 20mm f4 - but thanks
for finally admitting that Leitz bought in lens designs because they
had less design ability than Zeiss or Schneider.

>But all this took time.

>> >> Bascically, you know
>> >> that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
>> >> there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
>> >> each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
>> >> Why do you not trust your ears alone?
>> >
>> >I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
>> >because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
>> >blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
>> >convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
>> >conducted.
>>
>> Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.
>
>I don't remember you...sitting next to me.

No need - since you already admitted that was a *sighted* test, and
hence worthless.

>> >I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what
>> >I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the
>> >change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any
>> >kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told.
>>
>> You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that
>> this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your
>> belief.
>
>Oh, is that so?

Yes, it is so.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> > After all, we can't *prove* that
> > aliens don't exist, can we?
>
> But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case
> with audio products.

Yes it is. Every audible difference must have a physical cause, and
there is no known (or even seriously hypothesized) physical cause for
an audible difference between two wires with similar electrical
characteristics. Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean
the science doesn't exist.

> There are many people who can hear differences
> between products. I am one of them.

No, you just one of those who still THINKS he can, because he's never
made a comparison that follows standard scientific research practice.
Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean the science
doesn't exist.

bob

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

On 25 Sep 2005 20:51:29 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>[Moderator note: No more camera lens discussion please. -- deb ]
>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> > I have posted links to discussions of what an
>> >'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them.
>>
>> Actually, you are the one who has used 'edited highlights' in
>> evidence, while ignoring the basic fact that an extraordinary claim is
>> simply one which requires a suspension of acceptance of the body of
>> human knowledge. In this regard, hearing differences among cables is
>> right up there with alien abduction. After all, we can't *prove* that
>> aliens don't exist, can we?
>
>But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case
>with audio products. There are many people who can hear differences
>between products. I am one of them.

You keep repeating this assertion, but that's all it is, until such
time as you try it when you don't *know* what's connected. No one else
has yet passed this crucial test. Of course, if you're actually an
alien or a typing dog, that might be different.

>> >(Moderator: how does this post get through?)
>> >
>> >[Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ]
>>
>> LOL! :-)
>>
>> Isn't it interesting that it's *always* the confidently asserting
>> 'subjectivists' who want to silence the voice of reason? :-)
>
>Not so. It's just that you seem to be a broken record. Your arguments
>carry no weight and fly in the face of experience.

If I seem to be a broken record, that's because nothing has changed.
People like you come along, make wild claims about hearing 'cable
sound', and then magically disappear when challenged to demonstrate
that they can hear such differences when they don't *know* which cable
is connected.

Those arguments carrry the weight of all current scientific knowledge,
and the experience has been unchanging for six years or so. Where's
the beef? Where's the one single person in the world who *really*
trusts their ears and can *really* hear 'cable sound'?

<photographic bit snipped at moderator insistence>

>> I will graciously permit you
>> to continue demonstrating such foolishness as long as you like.
>
>I liked the term 'indulgence' better. The problem, as I see it, is
>simply that you're cheap.

No, I always buy the best. Just not always the most expensive. That
leaves more money for buying the best of something else.

>> >I don't remember you...sitting next to me.
>>
>> No need - since you already admitted that was a *sighted* test, and
>> hence worthless.
>
>I'll not dignify this with a response.

What a surprise..........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>
> If I seem to be a broken record, that's because nothing has changed.
> People like you come along, make wild claims about hearing 'cable
> sound', and then magically disappear when challenged to demonstrate
> that they can hear such differences when they don't *know* which cable
> is connected.


The only conditions that matter are listening in my own familiar room
to my own system. If anyone can manage to make this unsighted, fine.

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

Stewart:

Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically
identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is
that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values. I
presume that some small electrical differences exist between the $100
Monster interconnect cables and the $50 Monster interconnect cables.

It could be something as simple as better connections......

I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2005 02:10:22 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>
> >> > > After all, we can't *prove* that
> >> > > aliens don't exist, can we?
> >> >
> >> > But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case
> >> > with audio products.
> >>
> >> Yes it is. Every audible difference must have a physical cause, and
> >> there is no known (or even seriously hypothesized) physical cause for
> >> an audible difference between two wires with similar electrical
> >> characteristics.
> >
> >Who says they have 'similar electrical characteristics'? I presume they
> >certainly do not.
>
> You presume without knowledge. Aside from resistance, which is purely
> a function of wire gauge, there's not much variation in electrical
> paremeters, despite what slick salesmen like George Cardas will try to
> tell you. The extreme ends of the reactance scale are represented by
> Kimber 8TC and Alpha-Core 'Goertz' MI at the low-inductance end, and
> Naim NACA5 at the high-inductance end.
>
> I've compared ten-foot lengths of the Kimber and Naim cables into a 3
> ohm load, and there's less than 1dB difference at 20kHz, and of course
> less as frequency reduces. Since this is significantly less than the
> variation common between two tweeters in the same pair of speakers, I
> doubt that it's audible.
>
> Note that the standard entry criterion for a DBT comparison is a
> requirement of matching to less than 0.2dB at 10kHz, which would mean
> that the cables actually do have pretty similar basic LCR electrical
> characteristics. If someone wants to bring a ludicrously extreme cable
> to the party, I can simulate any 'audiophile' cable, including the
> $1,000 a foot guys, for less than a buck a foot.
>
> >> Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean
> >> the science doesn't exist.
> >>
> >> > There are many people who can hear differences
> >> > between products. I am one of them.
> >>
> >> No, you just one of those who still THINKS he can, because he's never
> >> made a comparison that follows standard scientific research practice.
> >> Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean the science
> >> doesn't exist.
>
> Quite so.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> Stewart:

> Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically
> identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is
> that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values.


Which electrical values might we not be able to measure? (I mean
real ones, now imaginary ones.)


--

-S