What you say has some truth to it, but objective testing of amplifiers shows us that truth only goes as far as differences that can be measured that we know are audible. For example the rich 3rd harmonic distortion of some tube designs, or a rolled off top end are likely intentional traits the designer intended and clearly set the amp apart from others. These amps are easy to pick out in a blind test.pinkmouse said:
But the vast majority of designers produce amps that will measure reasonable well, if for no other reason, because they know they will be measured sooner or later and don't want to be accused of making an amplifier that's intentionally distorting the signal.
So given the above, you'll find that many amplifiers, regardless of their country of origin and designer, will indeed have such things in common as measurable distortion below a few tenths of a percent, flat response from well below 20hz to well above 20khz, good matching between the channels, etc. It turns out these amplifiers also cannot be distinguished in well run blind tests when you keep them within their power limits.
As was mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm quite convinced if you put the same amp (say a gainclone) inside a Japanese enclosure, a British one and an American one and have a group of audiophiles audition them, I'm sure you'd get comments very much like the ones in your post. People would attribute the typical traits of those country's gear to the amplifiers. They would be listening the same circuitry, but they would hear very real differences that aren't really there. That's what psychological bias (and creative marketing, spreading of myth, etc.) is all about.
The fact that I replaced a Bryston with an Onkyo in the beginning of the this thread and the owner of the Bryston couldn't tell them apart is a perfect example. They were designed by very different designers, working for very different companies, in very different countries, to very different price points. Yet they sound the same! Why? Because they were both designed to measure well--as are most amplifiers.
Again, I think "voicing" is something that, for the most part, applies to speakers and has conveniently spilled over into other areas where it's more imagined than real. But, as I said at the outset, it's certainly true in some cases. There are high quality amplifiers, interconnects, CD players, etc. that intentionally and audibly distort the signal. But they're rare.
"State of the art has nothing to do with this discussion Pan."
Of course it does. Small changes/differences in electronics may be impossible to hear on low resolving speakers for example, at least for me (Vifa 80´s), while on modern high resolution speakers it is possible (Accuton, Excel 90´s -).
"Some of these systems sound great."
Did you got the chance to switch back and forth between gear and listen to the differences then?
"I wish I could come visit you and stand behind your equipment rack and make changes (or not) and have you identify things without knowing what you're listening to. This is something you clearly HAVE NOT experienced in the proper way."
Me to 🙂, would be end of argument I can assure you.
And yes, I have done that in the proper way with a friend as I did write about earlier. I did pass the test.
"But many things, like high quality amplifiers, speaker wires, interconnects and new versus burned-in components DO NOT make an audible difference in the sound once you remove the psychological bias."
Oh yes it does without the smallest doubt. Only you have to have a GOOD rig and a GOOD room. There´s no question about this.
"Instead, there is A LOT of objective evidence supporting the other side. But you choose to ignore all that or somehow believe a lot of very well educated people are wrong and publishing false information (or however you rationalize it in your mind)."
Numbers and graphs put together by someone with education way back, and tests on crappy speaker in bad rooms is not worth much with todays technology and knowledge, that is correct.
"Like I said, you've demonstrated that no matter what I or anyone else posts here or elsewhere, you're going to believe what you want to believe"
Yes, you can´t change facts.
"That's fine. Close your eyes, drink your wine, listen to your music, and stop reading this discussion. It obviously upsets you."
Nah, it doesn´t upsets me, I think it´s interesting. Also it´s good for me to practice on my english so I better can express my thoughts.
Besides, speaking the thruth can never be wrong 🙂
"I think i need to do the same thing."
I wish you a nice time in your chair/sofa 🙂
/Peter
Of course it does. Small changes/differences in electronics may be impossible to hear on low resolving speakers for example, at least for me (Vifa 80´s), while on modern high resolution speakers it is possible (Accuton, Excel 90´s -).
"Some of these systems sound great."
Did you got the chance to switch back and forth between gear and listen to the differences then?
"I wish I could come visit you and stand behind your equipment rack and make changes (or not) and have you identify things without knowing what you're listening to. This is something you clearly HAVE NOT experienced in the proper way."
Me to 🙂, would be end of argument I can assure you.
And yes, I have done that in the proper way with a friend as I did write about earlier. I did pass the test.
"But many things, like high quality amplifiers, speaker wires, interconnects and new versus burned-in components DO NOT make an audible difference in the sound once you remove the psychological bias."
Oh yes it does without the smallest doubt. Only you have to have a GOOD rig and a GOOD room. There´s no question about this.
"Instead, there is A LOT of objective evidence supporting the other side. But you choose to ignore all that or somehow believe a lot of very well educated people are wrong and publishing false information (or however you rationalize it in your mind)."
Numbers and graphs put together by someone with education way back, and tests on crappy speaker in bad rooms is not worth much with todays technology and knowledge, that is correct.
"Like I said, you've demonstrated that no matter what I or anyone else posts here or elsewhere, you're going to believe what you want to believe"
Yes, you can´t change facts.
"That's fine. Close your eyes, drink your wine, listen to your music, and stop reading this discussion. It obviously upsets you."
Nah, it doesn´t upsets me, I think it´s interesting. Also it´s good for me to practice on my english so I better can express my thoughts.
Besides, speaking the thruth can never be wrong 🙂
"I think i need to do the same thing."
I wish you a nice time in your chair/sofa 🙂
/Peter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...to continue pan,
I don´t think I missed the point, but maybe you can enlighten me for a better understanding?
I thought we were talking about audibility of distortion levels in different amps and such.. no?
/Peter
mikek said:
I don´t think I missed the point, but maybe you can enlighten me for a better understanding?
I thought we were talking about audibility of distortion levels in different amps and such.. no?
/Peter
Re: I see now
When you ask several GoldenEars to listen to two components--say two amplifiers, I think it's safe to say they're listening to the sound AND the music. Indeed, if they're expecting to hear a difference, they're going to be listening for any and all differences. When the editors of Stereophile where up against Bob Carver to distinguish the $10,000+ tube amp from the $700 Carver, I think they were listening for ANY differences they could point out to defend both their listening skills and their insistence that Bob couldn't match the much more expensive amp. They failed.
So I don't think it's valid to accuse these folks of listening to or for the wrong things. Differences are differences. You can argue about their source, their subjective value, what they mean, etc, but people can either hear them or they can't. The fascinating thing is how many things people are no longer able to hear when they don't know what they're listening to. Nobody here has yet provided a decent explanation for that.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, one of the benefits of understanding what really makes a difference in the sound and what doesn't is it allows most people to focus more on the music. But let's put that aside for now.ALW said:
When you ask several GoldenEars to listen to two components--say two amplifiers, I think it's safe to say they're listening to the sound AND the music. Indeed, if they're expecting to hear a difference, they're going to be listening for any and all differences. When the editors of Stereophile where up against Bob Carver to distinguish the $10,000+ tube amp from the $700 Carver, I think they were listening for ANY differences they could point out to defend both their listening skills and their insistence that Bob couldn't match the much more expensive amp. They failed.
So I don't think it's valid to accuse these folks of listening to or for the wrong things. Differences are differences. You can argue about their source, their subjective value, what they mean, etc, but people can either hear them or they can't. The fascinating thing is how many things people are no longer able to hear when they don't know what they're listening to. Nobody here has yet provided a decent explanation for that.
nw_avphile
"So given the above, you'll find that many amplifiers, regardless of their country of origin and designer, will indeed have such things in common as measurable distortion below a few tenths of a percent, flat response from well below 20hz to well above 20khz, good matching between the channels, etc. It turns out these amplifiers also cannot be distinguished in well run blind tests when you keep them within their power limits."
This is totally false, and only your and some other peoples experience. I could easily hear the difference listening to Patriot V100 in symmetric vs. SE mode, 0.01% THD+N vs. 0.05% THD+N at 1W. Also how do you explain I hear the difference between CDP´s and SACD`s with specs below 0.01% and flaaaat fr. response? I´ve done two blind tests on CDP´s and SACD´s (I have mentioned them earlier) and I did pass the test. Do you suggest I make this up, that I could tell the stuff apart in pure luck at 100% success, or what?
"As was mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm quite convinced if you put the same amp (say a gainclone) inside a Japanese enclosure, a British one and an American one and have a group of audiophiles audition them, I'm sure you'd get comments very much like the ones in your post. People would attribute the typical traits of those country's gear to the amplifiers. They would be listening the same circuitry, but they would hear very real differences that aren't really there. That's what psychological bias (and creative marketing, spreading of myth, etc.) is all about."
I feel really sorry for people that are so weak minded and non critical thinkers. I hope you don´t believe that all people are like that?
"Yet they sound the same! Why? Because they were both designed to measure well--as are most amplifiers."
Most likely because the speakers was highly coloured and the listening room was to lively.
/Peter
"So given the above, you'll find that many amplifiers, regardless of their country of origin and designer, will indeed have such things in common as measurable distortion below a few tenths of a percent, flat response from well below 20hz to well above 20khz, good matching between the channels, etc. It turns out these amplifiers also cannot be distinguished in well run blind tests when you keep them within their power limits."
This is totally false, and only your and some other peoples experience. I could easily hear the difference listening to Patriot V100 in symmetric vs. SE mode, 0.01% THD+N vs. 0.05% THD+N at 1W. Also how do you explain I hear the difference between CDP´s and SACD`s with specs below 0.01% and flaaaat fr. response? I´ve done two blind tests on CDP´s and SACD´s (I have mentioned them earlier) and I did pass the test. Do you suggest I make this up, that I could tell the stuff apart in pure luck at 100% success, or what?
"As was mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm quite convinced if you put the same amp (say a gainclone) inside a Japanese enclosure, a British one and an American one and have a group of audiophiles audition them, I'm sure you'd get comments very much like the ones in your post. People would attribute the typical traits of those country's gear to the amplifiers. They would be listening the same circuitry, but they would hear very real differences that aren't really there. That's what psychological bias (and creative marketing, spreading of myth, etc.) is all about."
I feel really sorry for people that are so weak minded and non critical thinkers. I hope you don´t believe that all people are like that?
"Yet they sound the same! Why? Because they were both designed to measure well--as are most amplifiers."
Most likely because the speakers was highly coloured and the listening room was to lively.
/Peter
Re: nw_avphile
I'm not familiar with those two amplifiers so I cannot comment on them. Again, it sounds like most of your amplifier comparisons are NOT level matched well run blind comparisons. So I'm not surprised you hear lots of differences.
As for CD and SACD formats those aren't amplifiers. The CD standard for digitizing music is not without flaws. These can be measured. Some examples are high frequency phase shift in the audible band, quantization errors, jitter, low level linearity, etc. SACD improves on most of these and, to my ears at least, I can hear the difference in a blind test. Of course, in this case, I'm relying on the claims that the CD and SACD versions of the same music were indeed mastered from the same source.
So yes, CD and SACD stand out in blind tests, many ampfliers don't. There's nothing wrong with that.
I'll ignore all your unkind words about weak minded people.Pan said:
I'm not familiar with those two amplifiers so I cannot comment on them. Again, it sounds like most of your amplifier comparisons are NOT level matched well run blind comparisons. So I'm not surprised you hear lots of differences.
As for CD and SACD formats those aren't amplifiers. The CD standard for digitizing music is not without flaws. These can be measured. Some examples are high frequency phase shift in the audible band, quantization errors, jitter, low level linearity, etc. SACD improves on most of these and, to my ears at least, I can hear the difference in a blind test. Of course, in this case, I'm relying on the claims that the CD and SACD versions of the same music were indeed mastered from the same source.
So yes, CD and SACD stand out in blind tests, many ampfliers don't. There's nothing wrong with that.
Re: Re: nw_avphile
Unkind words... I´m just honest. I feel sorry for people that thinks or believe what some other has told them, that´s all.
The amp I mention is ONE amp and has a setting between symmetrical mode and SE. 0.01% vs 0.05% at 1W.
The amps I´ve tested I can pick out at different levels, not just tell there are a difference but what amp. Really big differences in tonality and resolution. Nothing about level. I now what a dB or two up and down does to sound after these years in this hobby and building speakers.
CDP´s are not amps, so therfore they should be even closer in sound because they drive a easier load and they have at least a magnitude lower THD than most amps.
PLease note that I do not talk about comparing RBCD to DSD/SACD as that differnce is veeery obvious on the same machine. I am talking about comparing different RBCD. Off course there is a big difference between SACD vs. CD that´s not even anything we need to talk about. I have done several blind tests (which I have told about in this thread) with CD´s and also DAT (16/44.1 digital copy of course) and I did pass the test these times.
In stock mode my SACD player (SCD-XB940) was better sounding on SACD then on RBCD, but still sounded very poor. The player was introduced at $900 but at sale later for $400. I have a top notch DAC from LC Audio (PCM1702K, AD811, BUF634) and I used it with the Sony as transport until I did my upgrades. The reason was the Sony was so bad sounding, totally uninvolving compared to the LC "Zapdac". Both these units measured loooow in THD.
I have some records on HDCD (the Zapdac is HDCD) and also on hybrid disc (dual layer DSD/SBM) and One could think that the SACD track should be superior to the HDCD and CD layer.
Not so. Of course on the sony the SACD track was better than the RBCD but at that time (before upgrade) the track that sounded superior was the RBCD on the SACD dual layer via the outboard DAC, which is mastered with the Sony SBM technicue from the DSD track.
So on this outboard DAC the SBM layer was clearly the best of these three tracks BEFORE mod. After mod the Sony became
really good and the SACD track via Sony´s own "dac" stage is clearly superior to anyhting I´ve heard.
Since I can pick out CDP´s with flat fr. resonse and less than 0.01% THD+N in blind tests (which I have done several times with several (6 or so) different players), than it sems very obvious that it is perfectly possible to pick out amps from eachother... no?
/Peter
nw_avphile said:
Unkind words... I´m just honest. I feel sorry for people that thinks or believe what some other has told them, that´s all.
The amp I mention is ONE amp and has a setting between symmetrical mode and SE. 0.01% vs 0.05% at 1W.
The amps I´ve tested I can pick out at different levels, not just tell there are a difference but what amp. Really big differences in tonality and resolution. Nothing about level. I now what a dB or two up and down does to sound after these years in this hobby and building speakers.
CDP´s are not amps, so therfore they should be even closer in sound because they drive a easier load and they have at least a magnitude lower THD than most amps.
PLease note that I do not talk about comparing RBCD to DSD/SACD as that differnce is veeery obvious on the same machine. I am talking about comparing different RBCD. Off course there is a big difference between SACD vs. CD that´s not even anything we need to talk about. I have done several blind tests (which I have told about in this thread) with CD´s and also DAT (16/44.1 digital copy of course) and I did pass the test these times.
In stock mode my SACD player (SCD-XB940) was better sounding on SACD then on RBCD, but still sounded very poor. The player was introduced at $900 but at sale later for $400. I have a top notch DAC from LC Audio (PCM1702K, AD811, BUF634) and I used it with the Sony as transport until I did my upgrades. The reason was the Sony was so bad sounding, totally uninvolving compared to the LC "Zapdac". Both these units measured loooow in THD.
I have some records on HDCD (the Zapdac is HDCD) and also on hybrid disc (dual layer DSD/SBM) and One could think that the SACD track should be superior to the HDCD and CD layer.
Not so. Of course on the sony the SACD track was better than the RBCD but at that time (before upgrade) the track that sounded superior was the RBCD on the SACD dual layer via the outboard DAC, which is mastered with the Sony SBM technicue from the DSD track.
So on this outboard DAC the SBM layer was clearly the best of these three tracks BEFORE mod. After mod the Sony became
really good and the SACD track via Sony´s own "dac" stage is clearly superior to anyhting I´ve heard.
Since I can pick out CDP´s with flat fr. resonse and less than 0.01% THD+N in blind tests (which I have done several times with several (6 or so) different players), than it sems very obvious that it is perfectly possible to pick out amps from eachother... no?
/Peter
Re: Re: Re: nw_avphile
When amplifiers are involved in blind tests, it's much less common people can tell them apart--especially if they measure similarly. I'm not surprised you can hear the difference between an amp running in single ended mode and in push-pull (if I understand your comments correctly). I have said many times single-ended amps are usually easy to pick out in blind tests because they have obvious distortion characteristics.
No... different distortion mechanisms are in place with a digital device. There are some blind tests where CD players can be indentified and others where they cannot--it depends on the players being compared. Like I said, for a CD player, there is more to it than just flat frequency response and low THD. There are many forms of (measurable) distortion that are not present at all in an analog amplifier.. You're either not reading what I write, not understanding it (perhaps due to the language issue), or choosing to ignore it.Pan said:
When amplifiers are involved in blind tests, it's much less common people can tell them apart--especially if they measure similarly. I'm not surprised you can hear the difference between an amp running in single ended mode and in push-pull (if I understand your comments correctly). I have said many times single-ended amps are usually easy to pick out in blind tests because they have obvious distortion characteristics.
Re: Re: Re: Re: nw_avphile
Man you are saint.
How can you keep it so cool ? I wish I had your self control.
When my wife saw me typing some of the responses she asked me "what for ?" and I tried to explain (not very convincingly).
Now I see her point.
Go and have a glass of good wine - talking to a wall would have much more effect.
Bratislav
(I guess not having a 'good system' in a 'good room'
Audio Reserach LS7
Krell KSA 100
VAF i66 (Seas Excell drivers, see
http://www.vaf.com.au/new_home.htm?...atalog/sig_title.htm&catalog/products/i66.htm )
1.5" thick Persian Gabbeh on the floor, woolen rugs on the walls behing speakers
but I'm happy, and still can tell Rostropovich from Pandolfo or Maisky or YoYo Ma or Savall
nw_avphile said:
Man you are saint.
How can you keep it so cool ? I wish I had your self control.
When my wife saw me typing some of the responses she asked me "what for ?" and I tried to explain (not very convincingly).
Now I see her point.
Go and have a glass of good wine - talking to a wall would have much more effect.
Bratislav
(I guess not having a 'good system' in a 'good room'
Audio Reserach LS7
Krell KSA 100
VAF i66 (Seas Excell drivers, see
http://www.vaf.com.au/new_home.htm?...atalog/sig_title.htm&catalog/products/i66.htm )
1.5" thick Persian Gabbeh on the floor, woolen rugs on the walls behing speakers
but I'm happy, and still can tell Rostropovich from Pandolfo or Maisky or YoYo Ma or Savall
The Freeway Effect.
Regarding listening tests, I have always found it valueable to periodically go outside for a while a re-reference my ears to natural outdoor ambient sounds - by this I mean natural leaf rustling, insects, wind etc and NOT man made city sounds.
On re-entering the room, different amplifiers or other equipment can be more easily distiguished wrt the outdoor sounds.
Also leaving a door or window open, whilst reducing the in room signal/noise ratio does provide an outside natural sound reference.
Under these conditions I have found some systems to sound discordant, and others to sound rather more natural.
If listening in a sealed room, one's ears can adjust to the in-room sound, and after a while one's natural sound reference is lost, and then just about any (reasonably decent) gear can sound fairly good.
Once one's natural sound reference is (temporarily) lost, changes in amplifiers, cables etc are indeed more difficult to distinguish.
This explains much of why a spouse can walk into the house and comment on a different sound without direct knowledge of any system changes.
Another valuable test I find is to go outside and take a listen to the sound that is going over the back fence - this is quite revealing of minor changes too.
Eric.
PS - To REALLY reference one's ears, go spend a week in a rain forrest without man made sound sources.
Towards the end of this week, take a listen to reproduced sound (portable R/C or car audio), and I guarantee that it will then sound rotten.
Regarding listening tests, I have always found it valueable to periodically go outside for a while a re-reference my ears to natural outdoor ambient sounds - by this I mean natural leaf rustling, insects, wind etc and NOT man made city sounds.
On re-entering the room, different amplifiers or other equipment can be more easily distiguished wrt the outdoor sounds.
Also leaving a door or window open, whilst reducing the in room signal/noise ratio does provide an outside natural sound reference.
Under these conditions I have found some systems to sound discordant, and others to sound rather more natural.
If listening in a sealed room, one's ears can adjust to the in-room sound, and after a while one's natural sound reference is lost, and then just about any (reasonably decent) gear can sound fairly good.
Once one's natural sound reference is (temporarily) lost, changes in amplifiers, cables etc are indeed more difficult to distinguish.
This explains much of why a spouse can walk into the house and comment on a different sound without direct knowledge of any system changes.
Another valuable test I find is to go outside and take a listen to the sound that is going over the back fence - this is quite revealing of minor changes too.
Eric.
PS - To REALLY reference one's ears, go spend a week in a rain forrest without man made sound sources.
Towards the end of this week, take a listen to reproduced sound (portable R/C or car audio), and I guarantee that it will then sound rotten.
The Blind Misleading The Blind ?.
Nw_avphile (why do you refuse to sign off using a proper name - something to hide ?)
You keep harping on this Carver test.
This is ONE VERY SPECIAL CASE case where Bob Carver spent a couple of days modifying his amp so as to very closely match the 'reference' amplifier, and as such cannot be used to defend your stance that all same measuring amplifiers will sound the same (standard FR, THD, noise etc testing).
By definition, it is to be expected that the Carver and the 'reference' amplifiers, after null matching would measure the same.
HOWEVER, this is absoloutely NOT the same as any two particular amplifiers that measure the same using standard testing, to be expected to sound the same.
I believe that your evengelical stance here is erroneous, and misguided.
Eric / - I believe not to believe in any fixed belief system.
Nw_avphile (why do you refuse to sign off using a proper name - something to hide ?)
You keep harping on this Carver test.
This is ONE VERY SPECIAL CASE case where Bob Carver spent a couple of days modifying his amp so as to very closely match the 'reference' amplifier, and as such cannot be used to defend your stance that all same measuring amplifiers will sound the same (standard FR, THD, noise etc testing).
By definition, it is to be expected that the Carver and the 'reference' amplifiers, after null matching would measure the same.
HOWEVER, this is absoloutely NOT the same as any two particular amplifiers that measure the same using standard testing, to be expected to sound the same.
I believe that your evengelical stance here is erroneous, and misguided.
Eric / - I believe not to believe in any fixed belief system.
FOLLOW THE LEADER.
Hi,
Careful...he's going to ask for proof.
That he's not providing any doesn't really matter.
This is by far the most pathetic attempt at deafness and closed mindedness I've ever seen in twenty years.
The notion that two amps that measure the same or say close enough but still sound different may be a clue to the fact that measurements don't tell the whole story?
I wonder why this thread has spun out over more than 2.000 posts?
Not to mention the way it is argumented.
I, for one, admire PAN to put up with all this...
Anyways, I still trust my ears and feeling...never needed much of measurements to know what's right or wrong.
Ciao,😉
Hi,
Careful...he's going to ask for proof.
That he's not providing any doesn't really matter.
This is by far the most pathetic attempt at deafness and closed mindedness I've ever seen in twenty years.
The notion that two amps that measure the same or say close enough but still sound different may be a clue to the fact that measurements don't tell the whole story?
I wonder why this thread has spun out over more than 2.000 posts?
Not to mention the way it is argumented.
I, for one, admire PAN to put up with all this...
Anyways, I still trust my ears and feeling...never needed much of measurements to know what's right or wrong.
Ciao,😉
Re: The Blind Misleading The Blind ?.
http://www.svconline.com/ar/avinsta...ables_critical/
And you keep ignoring all the other references I've mentioned and posted. If you don't like the Carver test, consider the Nousaine trials, or the Sunshine Audio challenge, or the ones done by the ABX folks, or even the ones I've done. If you want some more info on blind testing of cables, check out this link:mrfeedback said:
http://www.svconline.com/ar/avinsta...ables_critical/
nw_avphile:
>There are only a few components in a typical power amp where precision really matters much. I mean if the input impedance drifts by 2%, what's that going to do to the sound? NOTHING. Ditto the output bias current. Ditto the diff pair current.<
Perhaps _absolute_precision_ may not be super-critical in most applications, but drift and modulation in the input differential pair current are best avoided. When I compared a resistor against an active current source to feed the input different pair, the active current source provided an improvement in supply voltage rejection ratios on the order of 14dB.
Not earthshaking, but not trivial, either.
If anyone is interested, I can provide more results from my tests on supply voltage rejection ratios.
regards, jonathan carr
>There are only a few components in a typical power amp where precision really matters much. I mean if the input impedance drifts by 2%, what's that going to do to the sound? NOTHING. Ditto the output bias current. Ditto the diff pair current.<
Perhaps _absolute_precision_ may not be super-critical in most applications, but drift and modulation in the input differential pair current are best avoided. When I compared a resistor against an active current source to feed the input different pair, the active current source provided an improvement in supply voltage rejection ratios on the order of 14dB.
Not earthshaking, but not trivial, either.
If anyone is interested, I can provide more results from my tests on supply voltage rejection ratios.
regards, jonathan carr
"There Arec None So deaf As Those Who Will Not Listen"
Hi Frank,
Ever tried to discuss with an evangelist knocking at your front door ? - Don't bother because it is pointless.
Eric.
My neighbour has a sign on his letter box saying 'No Junk Mail', and one on his front door saying 'No Evangelists' - he informs me that they both work.
Hi Frank,
Oh, I thought that he is doing this perfectly.
Yes me too, and absolutely more so than any list of references where ALL the test conditions are not stated.
Ever tried to discuss with an evangelist knocking at your front door ? - Don't bother because it is pointless.
Eric.
My neighbour has a sign on his letter box saying 'No Junk Mail', and one on his front door saying 'No Evangelists' - he informs me that they both work.
RE:"There Are None So deaf As Those Who Will Not Listen"
Hi,
The old Flemish version of that wise saying:
"Wat helpen kaers en bril als den uyl niet sienen wil"
In Half-English:
What's the point in handing candle and glasses to someone not wanting to see anyway.
Oh dear, oh dear...😉
Hi,
The old Flemish version of that wise saying:
"Wat helpen kaers en bril als den uyl niet sienen wil"
In Half-English:
What's the point in handing candle and glasses to someone not wanting to see anyway.
Oh dear, oh dear...😉
Re: RE:"There Are None So deaf As Those Who Will Not Listen"
...refering to your good self then my fine friend?😀
fdegrove said:
...refering to your good self then my fine friend?😀
Frank, Feel Free To Join In !.
I am ignoring your references because they are pap.
Please also inform me any real relevence of the Carver test.
I can go searching on the net right now and come back with a list of references longer than your arms, supporting assertions that man and all animals were made in one day, and others showing evidence of genetic evoloution over hundred of millions of years.
Good science is good science, and bad science is bad science.
Standard Blind Listening Tests are bad science.
Eric.
nw_avphile said:
I am ignoring your references because they are pap.
Please also inform me any real relevence of the Carver test.
I can go searching on the net right now and come back with a list of references longer than your arms, supporting assertions that man and all animals were made in one day, and others showing evidence of genetic evoloution over hundred of millions of years.
Good science is good science, and bad science is bad science.
Standard Blind Listening Tests are bad science.
Eric.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.