Does ANY audio mag use DBT?

Does ANY audio mag use DBT?

If not, are they all worthless?

Re: Does ANY audio mag use DBT?

In article
<jennconductsREMOVETHIS-D546AB.16115505052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.n
et>,
Jenn <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac . com > wrote:

> If not, are they all worthless?

The Audio Critic assumes the results. Hey, it's the Orions!:

* theaudiocritic . com /blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=43&blog
Id=1

Evidently Linkwitz wouldn't need DBT because he "has no preconceived
engineering biases." LOL! "Monkey coffins"!

Here's how a real reviewer stands up to manufacturers:

--
My usual MLS (quasi-anechoic) loudspeaker measurements are limited in
accuracy, as Siegfried Linkwitz himself has repeatedly pointed out. I
would still perform them and publish them here if it weren¹t for
Siegfried¹s much more sophisticated and authoritative measurement data
on his website, which I trust implicitly; they are the very antithesis
of the promotional graphs hyped by the typical loudspeaker manufacturer.
--

Stephen

Re: Does ANY audio mag use DBT?

On 5 Mai, 19:31, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr . com > wrote:
> In article
> <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-D546AB.16115505052...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.n
> et>,
>
>  Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac . com > wrote:
> > If not, are they all worthless?
>
> The Audio Critic assumes the results. Hey, it's the Orions!:
>
> * theaudiocritic . com /blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=43&.=
..
> Id=1
>
> Evidently Linkwitz wouldn't need DBT because he "has no preconceived
> engineering biases." LOL! "Monkey coffins"!
>
> Here's how a real reviewer stands up to manufacturers:
>
> --
> My usual MLS (quasi-anechoic) loudspeaker measurements are limited in
> accuracy, as Siegfried Linkwitz himself has repeatedly pointed out. I
> would still perform them and publish them here if it weren¹t for
> Siegfried¹s much more sophisticated and authoritative measurement data
> on his website, which I trust implicitly; they are the very antithesis
> of the promotional graphs hyped by the typical loudspeaker manufacturer.
> --
>
> Stephen

$$$$$$ TALKS!!!

Re: Does ANY audio mag use DBT?

On May 5, 6:11 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac . com > wrote:
> If not, are they all worthless?

Magazine reviews not using DBTs as a part of their review process
include:

Automobile
Food and beverage
Travel
Movie and TV
Architectural
Photography

Not to mention specific magazines like Consumer Reports.

All reviews of anything are therefore useless and money-driven. The
best we can do is buy things we've never heard, like 2pid did with his
speakers, and then rave about how "accurate" they are, whatever that
means.

Re: Does ANY audio mag use DBT?



Jenn said:

>If not, are they all worthless?

I believe you've missed the point of Scottie's diatribes. The salient
part of the hypothetical aBxism rituals is that the "tests" reveal that
everything sounds the same. If you accept that everything sounds the
same, or at least that expensive stuff doesn't sound better than cheap
stuff, you can skip the actual DBT part of the testing and still get
duh-Scottie's Seal of Disapproval.

Re: Does ANY audio mag use DBT?

On 5 Mai, 19:35, George M. Middius <cmndr geo...@comcast . net > wrote:
> Jenn said:
>
> >If not, are they all worthless?
>
> I believe you've missed the point of Scottie's diatribes. The salient
> part of the hypothetical aBxism rituals is that the "tests" reveal that
> everything sounds the same. If you accept that everything sounds the
> same, or at least that expensive stuff doesn't sound better than cheap
> stuff, you can skip the actual DBT part of the testing and still get
> duh-Scottie's Seal of Disapproval.

But non DBT subjectiv evaluation always
reveals that everything sounds the same, too!!!!
All the manufactureres are advertisers, no one advertiser
can be treated any better than any other advertiser,
therefore all of their stuff sounds just the same

$$$$ TALKS!!!!

Re: Does ANY audio mag use DBT?

On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:11:55 -0700, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac . com > wrote:
>If not, are they all worthless?

Oh no. They're just wonderful for rationalizing spending two thousand
dollars too much on gear that is mostly an empty box with engineering
quality like that of a high school student science fair project.

I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
clock really worked.

Tice clock


"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX . com > wrote in message
news:slrng1v7cd.dmk.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox . net ...
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:11:55 -0700, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac . com >
> wrote:
>>If not, are they all worthless?
>
> Oh no. They're just wonderful for rationalizing spending two thousand
> dollars too much on gear that is mostly an empty box with engineering
> quality like that of a high school student science fair project.
>
> I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
> clock really worked.

I seem to recall that it was finally established that Stereophile never
reviewed it.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Re: Tice clock

On May 5, 8:47 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
> "AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX . com > wrote in message
>
> news:slrng1v7cd.dmk.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox . net ...
>
> > On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:11:55 -0700, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac . com =
>
> > wrote:
> >>If not, are they all worthless?
>
> > Oh no.  They're just wonderful for rationalizing spending two thousand=

> > dollars too much on gear that is mostly an empty box with engineering
> > quality like that of a high school student science fair project.
>
> > I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
> > clock really worked.
>
> I seem to recall that it was finally established that Stereophile never
> reviewed it.

Just because something exists only in one's fantasy land does not mean
that they cannot giggle about it.

Re: Tice clock

On May 5, 9:47 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
> "AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX . com > wrote in message
> news:slrng1v7cd.dmk.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox . net ...
> > I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
> > clock really worked.
>
> I seem to recall that it was finally established that Stereophile never
> reviewed it.

Ww wrote at length about the Tice Clock. Tice canceled all its
advertising
as a result.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Re: Tice clock

"John Atkinson" <stereoeditor@earthlink . net > wrote in
message
news:415f910b-9375-4f72-84ac-3a64af5612e5@m36g2000hse.googlegroups . com
> On May 5, 9:47 pm, "Soundhaspriority"
> <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
>> "AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX . com > wrote in
>> message
>> news:slrng1v7cd.dmk.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox . net ...
>>> I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that
>>> thought the tice clock really worked.
>>
>> I seem to recall that it was finally established that
>> Stereophile never reviewed it.
>
> Ww wrote at length about the Tice Clock. Tice canceled
> all its advertising
> as a result.

Probably saved the publisher a lot of bounced checks. ;-)

Re: Tice clock

In article
<415f910b-9375-4f72-84ac-3a64af5612e5@m36g2000hse.googlegroups . com >,
John Atkinson <stereoeditor@earthlink . net > wrote:

> On May 5, 9:47 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
> > "AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX . com > wrote in message
> > news:slrng1v7cd.dmk.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox . net ...
> > > I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
> > > clock really worked.
> >
> > I seem to recall that it was finally established that Stereophile never
> > reviewed it.
>
> Ww wrote at length about the Tice Clock. Tice canceled all its
> advertising
> as a result.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Because you are corrupt, no doubt ;-)

Re: Tice clock

On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:47:30 -0400, Soundhaspriority <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX . com > wrote in message
>news:slrng1v7cd.dmk.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox . net ...
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:11:55 -0700, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac . com >
>> wrote:
>>>If not, are they all worthless?
>>
>> Oh no. They're just wonderful for rationalizing spending two thousand
>> dollars too much on gear that is mostly an empty box with engineering
>> quality like that of a high school student science fair project.
>>
>> I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
>> clock really worked.

>I seem to recall that it was finally established that Stereophile never
>reviewed it.

>Bob Morein
>(310) 237-6511

Jack English commented on the effect of the Tice Clock in February 1993 (Vol.16
No.2):

After hours and hours, the 1.2 upgrade to my Versa Model 1 turntable was
completed and the final adjustments made. The most obvious change surprised me
considerably: there was simply far less sound coming out of the Versa.
Everything was much quieter. To achieve the former volume levels, I had to
substantially increase the preamp's gain setting. What was gone was a
significant layer of very low level grundge and noise. Backgrounds had less
filler; the music was presented in stark relief. The upgrade had removed a very
significant veil from the music. While I hadn't been aware of RF in my system,
the upgrade had eliminated an entire layer of it.

But as the hours rolled on, I became more and more aware of a slight new
harshness. My system, while not sounding harsh per se, did sound harsher than
before the upgrade, record after record confirming my suspicions. Two possible
explanations came to mind: the upgrade might have introduced the added
harshness, or was now allowing me to hear for the first time something that had
been in my system all along. Hoping for the latter, I made a number of changes,
including interconnects, speaker cables, and cleaning all my contact surfaces.
With each change, the new harshness remained.

Retracing all the power connections I'd made in solving the hum problem, I
flip-flopped my power connections. No change. I went over every detail of my
setup before and after the change, including what was and wasn't connected to my
dual Tice Power Blocks and Titans. No change. I even went so far as to ensure
that each component was plugged into the same outlet it had been originally,
with the same plug orientation. No change.

Then it hit me\u2014one formerly filled plug was empty. At John Bicht's
insistence, I'd plugged the control unit directly into one of my dedicated wall
sockets, which left vacant a socket in the Power Block. But that wall socket
hadn't been empty when I started: a Tice TPT clock used to be plugged in there.
In fact, it had been there for a long time. Though I hadn't heard any change
when I put it in, I'd simply left it there. I reconnected the control unit to
the Power Block and plugged the clock back into the wall. After a half hour or
so, the harshness vanished.

When I'd first done a series of A/B tests with and without the clock, I hadn't
heard any differences. However, I'd left the clock plugged in for a long time.
Obviously I'd become accustomed to what the clock did, but remained consciously
unaware of its effects, never noticing them until the clock was removed and the
modified Versa's lowered noise floor made the disappearance of the clock's
relatively modest improvements more audible. Once this improvement was taken
away, a very slight harshness crept back into my system. Reinstating the clock
removed the harshness. Much to my surprise, the TPT-treated clock did have a
positive effect in my system. It's back in and staying in.\u2014Jack English

Re: Tice clock

On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:47:30 -0400, Soundhaspriority <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX . com > wrote in message
>news:slrng1v7cd.dmk.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox . net ...
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:11:55 -0700, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac . com >
>> wrote:
>>>If not, are they all worthless?
>>
>> Oh no. They're just wonderful for rationalizing spending two thousand
>> dollars too much on gear that is mostly an empty box with engineering
>> quality like that of a high school student science fair project.
>>
>> I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
>> clock really worked.

>I seem to recall that it was finally established that Stereophile never
>reviewed it.

>Bob Morein
>(310) 237-6511


More stereophile rubbish:
* w w w .stereophile . com /digitalprocessors/990meridian/
...
> I helped things along with a few tweaks. First, I substituted a better-quality
> optical cable (from Onkyo) for the very thin optical cable supplied with my
> Philips CD60. The thin optical cable was strangling the sound! I also
> substituted a Music & Sound power cord for the one which came standard with the
> unit\u2014a further improvement. And I changed my interconnects from Cardas
> Quadlink to Purist Audio Designs\u2014a very substantial improvement,
> particularly in detail and overall resolution.

Of course it is a well known phenomena that expensive digital cables are
capable of modifying the digital data and fixing the accompanying checksums
all in an effort to sound fuller.

Re: Tice clock

On May 7, 2:48 am, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX . com > wrote:
> Of course it is a well known phenomena that expensive digital cables are
> capable of modifying the digital data and fixing the accompanying checksums
> all in an effort to sound fuller.

Really. I did not know that, nor has it ever been claimed in
Stereophile. (In fact, the opposite has frequenfty been written,
that the digital cable, unless grossly flawed, has no effect
whatsoever on the values represented by the data themselve.)
However, I bow to your apparently superior knowledge of
digital technology, my anonymous friend. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile