jj@alice.UUCP (04/24/85)
(eat hot phase, O nonexistant bug) I am bloody well amazed at the commotion I find in net.audio 1) Ark and SMB post the results of a comparison. 2) Several folks take up the cry of "You stooopid idiot". 3) Mayhem ensues. (I'm NOT going to try to bother to chart the path.) Anyhow... In ONE CORNER we have ARK, saying "This is the test we did. We think it's valid." In the other corner we have "Your test is no good. You are an idiot, and you will remain an idiot until you agree with me." (The inherent paradox in this position seems to escape most folks...) I have yet to see that ARK has claimed universality for his (and SMB's and my, and llfe's and bem's) test. I DO think that the test has one very important outcome, and that is that given any modest stereo system, (no, I don't mean K-Mart, either) one is unlikely to hear differences between the two players. This in itself is a useful bit of information. If Herbie, Craig, and others (George? Hello! George) would see fit to read the results as written (with no claims of universality) I don't see where one can find fault. It is clear that, for the BOSE 901's <new style> and the five participants, there is no perceptable difference in the players, given that MUCH care is taken in setup to remove time alignment and level problems. I do not claim (and I suspect that I may include the other participants in this) that this is a conclusive test over all speakers, discs, etc, etc. It seems to be that the real proof encumbent on those who are complaining must come from another A/B test, staged under similarly careful conditions (regarding neutrality), with equipment acceptable to them. If, after this series of tests, a repeatable and demonstrable difference is shown to exist, information has been gained, and a threshold for such differences will have been established. Any negative result can ALWAYS be explained by defects in design or equipment, and ALL such negative results should be so noted, ours or anyone else's. There are several kinds of differences that can be tested for: 1) Do A/B testing, with the subject being asked if there is a difference between A and B. Use a careful confusion of all conditions, i.e. comparing A to A, A to B, B to A, and B to B, in all 12 orderings. If a difference exists (in the perceptual domain), this test will find it, even if the KIND of difference cannot be described. 2) Do A/B testing, asking which of A or B is better. Use the same confusion and ordering, and see which is preferred, and by whom. (i.e. do listeners have strong preferences, are the preferences the SAME, etc...) Frankly, I don't have the facilities to do this with other speakers at MY home, neither does ARK, and neither do most people. None the less, I think the results would be interesting. The arguments about Bose speakers are a secondary, and completely meaningless issue, since that's what the test was done with. For those of you who cannot accept that set of conditions, tough, ARK volunteered, HE PREFERS Bose 901's (and I don't think that anyone has any right to argue with a person's preference, let alone ridicule it), and his living room is bigger. If you want to do your own test, please do. I think lots of people would be interested in the results. Please DO take care to eliminate all forms of bias due to mismatched levels, time alignment, etc. The personal attacks, the belittling of Bose speakers (which do have their problems, although not in general the ones that have been cited), and the rest have no place in any nutnews newsgroup. It is certainly reasonable to say "I don't think that this test is conclusive by my standards, I would prefer ...". It is NOT reasonable, and in fact unforgivably offensive, rude, and unethical, to say "This is stupid. You are stupid." The articles urging ARK (and by implication the rest of us) to go out and listen to some "good" speakers is an ad-hominem attack bordering on slander. George's and ?was it Herbie or someone else?'s presumption that "you don't understand anything, or you wouldn't argue with me" <and then on to why the design of Bose's is being questioned, etc, etc...> is much worse, since it accuses an individual of incompetence. This, when followed by transparently biased arguments intended to "prove" that individual's incompetence, is a serious attack on a person's reputation, etc, which could be construed as attacking the individual's professional reputation. I think that this sort of posting is unforgivable (I do NOT exclude mail of the sort, merely public posting), and should never occur. I do not read nut.audio on a steady basis, and I generally do not discuss my own discoveries/etc in this forum because of the problems above. I have not participated actively in the discussion, in fact, I have only read it when others have suggested I do so, for the same reason. I should note in passing that most older net participants believe that the net is about to collapse under its own weight. I think that the recent events in nut.audio support this claim. ONLY more moderate behavior by all participants can avoid the demise of this forum, and the others associated with nutnews. My recent experience has been that extremism, rather than the necessary moderation, is the trend. This is unfortunate. -- DO TEDDY BEARS HAVE OPINIONS? ASK YOURS TODAY! "My mind is clearer now, at last, all too well, I can see, where we all, soon will be.." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (04/25/85)
As ark and jj have pointed out, we've made no claims for the universality of our results; we merely claimed that on ark's substantially-better-than- average system -- and I trust that even those who don't like the 901s will agree that they're still far better than most -- none of the five of us could hear any difference between the two units tested. (Incidentally, it's worth noting that I (and I believe jj) *did* expect to hear some differences, albeit not necessarily a significant one, or one where A was clearly better than B.) Some people have claimed, though, that the specific failings of the Bose 901 will mask the precise differences that do exist. That's certainly conceivable; nothing we did excludes that possibility. We're willing to repeat the test (time permitting); before we do, though, let me ask in advance about the equipment we can use. I have a Carver Receiver and a pair of DCM Time Windows, speakers with excellent imaging. Are these suitable? (Note that I have only one cat; however, she's a double-wide...) jj's speakers are home-built; I'll leave it to him to describe their salient characteristics. (For those who question his ability to design speakers, I'll merely note that he does acoustic engineering for a living here at Bell Labs.) Does anyone on the net think that these test conditions will add to their knowledge of the subject? Does anyone have any reasonable suggestions to improve the test? (I exclude the possibility of us going out and buying new speakers....) Is it worth our while to spend another evening at this?