|   DBT Question for you folks... | KeithR
Apr 16, 2001 9:00 AM | | thinkin about the Norm Strong challenge, and why Jon Risch won't do it. It would seem that Mr. Strong's bias toward the naysayers would impact his DBT listening, no? I mean, if you come in saying cables don't sound different, and expect that during the test....are you actually gonna even try to hear a difference---subconsciously, it wouldn't seem that way. So, the only way for a true DBT to be done, would to be using subjects completely oblivious to electronics, cables, and the like. Any flaws in my logic? BTW, this works vice versa for Mr. Risch and his followers.
Just curious... |
| re: DBT Question for you folks... | HTguy
Apr 16, 2001 11:27 AM | | Cable debates will always be there, kinda like the Ford vs. Chevy debate. Non-believes only want to talk about DBT. Believers all claim DBT to be a poorly designed test. Until a test comes out that all agree to this will be highly debated. To me it's a mute point. I know what I hear, but feel no need to convince anyone. |
| re: DBT Question for you folks... | DulceBuzz
Apr 16, 2001 11:33 AM | | Haven't been here long enough to get that envolved. So naysayers are quesioning peoples sense of hearing? If so, why not question, all the human senses then. What are these DBT tests, can I see a link?
thanks |
| re: DBT Question for you folks... | mtrycrafts
Apr 16, 2001 8:17 PM | | Start here, then the periodical section and check out the publications. Start with the JAES ones along with some of the JASA ones:
|
| re: DBT Question for you folks... | DulceBuzz
Apr 17, 2001 6:47 PM | | thanks |
| By the way | mtrycrafts
Apr 16, 2001 8:20 PM | | >>>So naysayers are quesioning peoples sense of hearing?<<<<
No, their claims that can be tested.
>>>>>If so, why not question, all the human senses then. <<<<<
Oh, these are also questioned, especially when you attend the David Copperfield show and such. All your senses can be fooled, you disagree? |
| By the way | Rockwell
Apr 16, 2001 9:51 PM | | I saw a story on Dateline tonight about Eyewitnesses. Their memory about what the accused looked like was often completely wrong, but they were so positive about what they saw that they would testify under oath. When confronted with what the person really looked like, they would make up fabricate reasons as to why they remembered what they did. Seemed very familiar somehow. |
| By the way | mtrycrafts
Apr 17, 2001 9:17 PM | | Sorry I missed it though ai was going to catch it. I have heard of similar examples though in the past. Not very reliable at all and people get convicted on such poor data.
>>>Seemed very familiar somehow.<<<
Gee, let me think where I have heard this before, recently:-) |
| By the way | DulceBuzz
Apr 17, 2001 9:33 PM | | All that I can say, anyone that has never fabricated a story in their life, throw the first stone. |
| By the way | Rockwell
Apr 18, 2001 1:48 PM | | That is not the point. The point is that these people believe so strongly in what they saw that they can't reconsile the truth with their perception of it, or they can't back or down from the strong statement that they made previously. |
| By the way | DulceBuzz
Apr 17, 2001 6:46 PM | | I have no doubt the senses can be fooled if you are naive, or gullible. Just as some people cannot be hypnotized, and some can, or believe they can. I cannot be hypnotized, probably because I don't believe it. So I guess its just a question if you can be fooled or not. And in the case of this debate, that can go both ways. I give a certain percentage of the population more credit than others as far as this goes. There are Lemmings who of course follow, and Individuals who think for themselves. I'll take a look at that site. |
| By the way | mtrycrafts
Apr 17, 2001 9:23 PM | | Unfortunately being gullible is uncontrollable. Some professionals who would never accept uncontrolled results in their professional work would think nothing of doing so in audio. Happens all the time. And, many have no control over being fooled, biased or for the placebo to appear. People are so gullible, in fact, that 75% will identifie a difference even when the same component is presented twice. So, no, it is very simple and easy to be an unwitting participant of gullibility. One reason the consumer marketplace is so huge. Half the products would be off the market if they had to have credible proof. |
| By the way | DulceBuzz
Apr 18, 2001 6:16 PM | | I had time to visit the ABX website. One thing that bothered me right away was, this is the company that sells the testing equipment. Second, the number of listeners is very small. Not a very good sample rate. One test even had just 1 listener, with most of them having 7. Third, I believe that if people know they are being tested, and are pressured for an answer, it can slew the results either way. Forth, Tom Nousaine submitted test results. Well he is an avid speaker against cables being different, so, I believe his tests can be disqualified, because, who witnessed his tests? Anyone that would keep him honest? Who knows? There is one very big element that I didn't see on the site anywhere, I will go back and look again. But if this element is not in the tests, the tests are not valid. I will have to take a good look. Another thing they could of done is seperate the tests into listner A, B, C, etc... that way people could see any consistency of each listner. Just seemed like very poorly run tests. Almost like it was put together rather quickly, instead of trying to get the most convincing statistics. I'm not convinced by these tests at all. Lots of questions left open.
I am almost sure this company, ABX, that specializes in testing equipment can come up with testing equipment, where you don't need a human ear to A/B test components. But it would be very expensive, and probably wouldn't be able to sell. This is a posiblity and an opinion, but ABX could of came up with this type of equipment and statistics to sell. Showing no definite results would only add to the debate if you ask me. Maybe spur sales. You don't think ABX has a marketing strategy.? If ABX wasn't out to make money, how long would they survive? Companies do it all the time. Remember that is just a posiblity, and my opinion.
I have seen some naysayers talking about no difference between cables, well the ABX site states:
Note that no matter what score is achieved, A = B cannot be proven. That is the ABX Double Blind Comparison can never be used to prove two audio components sound the same. The notion that ABX can prove components sound the same is a common misconception about ABX.
So anyone that gives advise that there are no differences in cables based on these tests, are wrong. And if you base any or part of your opinion on these ABX tests, very, very sketchy.
As for Jon Risch being able to hear different lengths of cable, materials, etc..., pretty lofty statements, and hard to believe. But I think he has alot of experience, and maybe his pride gets in the way sometimes. I think he has some good things to say once you get past his pride. |
| By the way | mtrycrafts
Apr 20, 2001 12:15 PM | | A few things about the company. Yes, they started out trying to do listening tests to show audible differences, in an objective manner. Over time, they devised the comparator, a computer based random generator that keeps the score automatically and cannot be altered.
Not all their tests are published. The two audio clubs mentined at the site has done hundreds over the years. Others have published DBT listening in other magazines that have been duplicated with similar outcome. When differences have been heard, it was well know why they happened, not magic but equipment related and measuredable, not mystical.
Tomn Nousanes has all the paperwork from all his tests, signed by the participants. Anyone can challangehis work and try to duplicate it. No one has been able to discredit him in over 20 years although many have tried. Be my guest.
We are not claiming that ABX proves A=B, just that no audible differences were heard, ever. And, when the few times they were, 24ga against a 16ga, levels not matched, we know why this is and we don't recommend 24 ga wire for that reason.
We are all still waiting for the data to show audible differences in cables. Do you know of any that will stand up to the least amount of scrutiny? Jon keeps using Ht magazines. Don't need scrutiny as it cannot be analized, no data there. |
| By the way | DulceBuzz
Apr 20, 2001 1:54 PM | | You did not address my points on the pitfalls of the tests. And by the way, before I had a chance to go back and look at the site, someone in an earlier thread posted exactly what I was going back to look for. No hearing test for hearing loss were done in any of the tests that are published that he or I can find. I agree with Mr. Steve H. Tests are not valid. And it seems from responses, that the naysayers want to make that out to be people with golden ears. That is not the point at all. The point is to ensure that people with no significant hearing loss across the frequency range. The DBT tests are not good data to be basing an opinion on in my mind. |
| By the way | mtrycrafts
Apr 20, 2001 6:33 PM | | Ok, what are positive claims based on? Anything?
The point is that most of the subjects tested claimed to be able to hear differences but were unable to do so under controlled conditions. That simple, regardless they had a hearing loss or not. They claimed to hear just fine.
>>>The DBT tests are not good data to be basing an opinion on in my mind.<<<
What is then? Whose claims are you basing your knowledge on? How are you conducting your listening tests?
>>>You did not address my points on the pitfalls of the tests. <<<<
What would these be? I am not sure which ones you refering to. DBT is an integral tool in determining audible differences. This is incontrovertible. |
| By the way | DulceBuzz
Apr 21, 2001 7:20 AM | | I wouldn't back the test's even if they showed 100% people being able to hear a difference. It's not only the cable DBT tests I don't support, its all the tests. It doesn't matter what people claim they can hear. It only matters what they are capable of hearing as far as these tests go. If you don't determine this before the tests, what good are they? All these tests proved is that some of the participants couldn't hear the difference that they claimed they could. Wait, but then how would we know that? You could not know from the data. Which listener heard all of the time, part of the time, or none of the time. Maybe they didn't do this because it would blow peoples theory out of the water. I am not argueing one side or another, its just the flaws in the test. Just as there are flaws in sighted listenings. But those flaws are of a different nature. Such as being gullible, naive, or trying to keep up with the Jones'. But not everyone is like this.
I wouldn't even consider the tests until they had listener samples at least into the hundreds. And that doesn't mean seven participants listening one hundred times. I am talking hundreds of participants.
And ABX being a company trying to sell a product is not something to look over. If you can site all these cable companies doing that, and I don't doubt that some of them do, why can't I say this about ABX? They haven't proven anything to me with these tests. |
| also | DulceBuzz
Apr 21, 2001 9:11 PM | | I am not arguing that DBT is not a great tool. But the proceedure has to be so that no doubts are left. The test data I have seen does not do this. |
| By the way | mtrycrafts
Apr 21, 2001 9:11 PM | | >>>And ABX being a company trying to sell a product is not something to look over. If you can site all these cable companies doing that, and I don't doubt that some of them do, why can't I say this about ABX? <<<<<
Easy. For one, they no longer sell the gear. Second, it is only a measuring tool that no one has been able to disqualify through credible data, by showing that the tool is biased. Cable companies have an interest in selling their cables. ABX sold a tool not the outcome it produced.
>>>I wouldn't even consider the tests until they had listener samples at least into the hundreds. And that doesn't mean seven participants listening one hundred times<<<<
Why not. Statistics allow for this very well. You may not like it.
Besides, there have been that many. You just have to look all over, not just there. Read all their published bibliography, for a starter.
>>>Just as there are flaws in sighted listenings. But those flaws are of a different nature. Such as being gullible, naive, or trying to keep up with the Jones'. But not everyone is like this. <<<
You just don't get it then. You cannot will your bias away in a sighted test. Useless, unreliable. That simple.
>>>Which listener heard all of the time, part of the time, or none of the time. <<<
Don't think so. If one heard a difference well enough, the data would support him. Couldn't be simpler.
>>>If you don't determine this before the tests, what good are they? <<<
Plenty. IN a hearing test you measure the thresholds, with tones, not ones JND threshold. Big difference. IN a listening test for component differences you use music, and usually no headphones. A big difference. Yopur premis has not been supported that it makes so much difference. Training makes more of a difference. |
| By the way | DulceBuzz
Apr 23, 2001 6:40 PM | | At the time they WERE trying to sell the equipment. Thats the point.
Sure statistics allow for it, but not at such a small listener sample rate.
Did you ever think that you don't get it? That people can be nonbiased? Just as in life. Some are biased toward things that others are not. You can not make general statements lumping everyone into being biased. That is bias in itself.
How do you figure if that if 1 or 2 listeners were able to score significantly more in the possitive for hearing differences than the other 5, then all the scores are put together, as an average that that would show in the end result? In a large listener sample that could be true, not in a small listener sample. Just better statistics showing each listener in a small sample. Why argue this? What would it hurt to do this? Could only give the person looking at the data a better picture.
What your saying, is good hearing is not important in a test that requires hearing then? So someone with hearing loss can be trained to listen for the right things? How so? I know the hearing tests out there will give you a breakdown of the frequency ranges and the score in each range. And those ranges are audible lows to audible highs. I can't see how someone with significant hearing loss can be trained to hear something that is physically impossible for that person to hear well. If you can, then you should market your technique, and become a millionaire. |
| Another link | A
Apr 18, 2001 9:34 AM | | See:
http://www.audioreview.com/message/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=5&om=8991&forum=DCForumID6 |
| re: DBT Question for you folks... | Rockwell
Apr 16, 2001 12:17 PM | | Ford! |
| re: DBT Question for you folks... | mtrycrafts
Apr 16, 2001 8:15 PM | | >>>I know what I hear, <<<
Sure you do, with the help of crutch, your eyes. |
| "To me it's a mute point." | Norm Strong
Apr 18, 2001 3:30 PM | | Please tell me that was a clever pun. |
| You caught me! you guys are just too clever! (nt) | HTguy
Apr 18, 2001 4:35 PM | | |
| re: DBT Question for you folks... | Rockwell
Apr 16, 2001 12:12 PM | | Norm wont be listening, John Risch will. Using his own equipment and protocol. |
| re: DBT Question for you folks... | dank
Apr 16, 2001 1:56 PM | | Right. But his question brings up one of my own. Have you or any of the objectivists ever thought you heard a difference in a cable (CDP, Dac, amp, whatever) and wrote it off to bias, placebo, etc? In other words, have YOUR ears ever been fooled? Or did you DBT it? Just curious. |
| re: DBT Question for you folks... | mtrycrafts
Apr 16, 2001 8:23 PM | | >>>In other words, have YOUR ears ever been fooled? <<<<
Happens all the time, in a sighted test. |
| Really? | dank
Apr 17, 2001 8:26 AM | | Very interesting. I guess that means that whatever "anti-bias" you might have on audio equipment doesn't hold water. What I mean is that you would probably have a preconception that a different amp or whatever would NOT produce a different sound, yet you thought you heard one? When has this happened and with what types of components? More info, Mtry! Thanks. |
| By the way... | dank
Apr 17, 2001 8:31 AM | | I would hope you know me well enough by now to know that I'm not trying to trap you into any admission of any kind. I'm fascinated by the subjective/objective POV's and how they differ so dramatically. Having done DBT's, SBT's and also sighted listening comparisons, I guess you could say I'm becoming a student of this stuff. I'm not challenging your beliefs in any way - at least not in your right to believe in them. Cheers! |
| By the way... | mtrycrafts
Apr 17, 2001 9:34 PM | | Of course I know you pretty well and this is not your objective. But a little clarification here
>>>>. Have you or any of the objectivists <<<<
I was more or less replying on the second half of that. I see no real reason to compare all the time as I know what is the proper way to a meaningful result and the most likely outcome from such a listening. So, I rather not even waste my time duplicating what has already beeen well demonstrated. I don't expect a different outcome especially since I don't have a demonstrated 'golden ear.'
But, I have heard differences when the conditions were such that there was no real good control on the comparison, none. So, it can be easy, especially when the levels are haphazardly set, etc. Nothing in recent time. |
| Thanks! | dank
Apr 18, 2001 5:51 AM | | Testing isn't enjoyable, I assure you! :) |
| Really? | Rockwell
Apr 17, 2001 9:21 AM | | Mtry will not tell you what equipment he has or any anecdotes about his audio experiences. Why? It's not relevant to his position, and anything he says would simply be turned around on him by subjectivists.
I don't imagine objectivists spend a lot of time trying to figure out what wire sounds like, or comparing components that shouldn't have a unique signature. Just about any sort of informal attempt will produce worthless results. Enjoy the music. |
| Monsters from Id | Rupert
Apr 16, 2001 6:12 PM | | One flaw would be the use of "oblivious" test subjects. I'm sure the cable types would cry foul if the DBT didn't go their way; statements have been made in the past concerning "knowing what to listen for". So I doubt that strategy would work.
You cannot remove all bias from either side of the debate. The subconcious is very powerful. (It killed the Krell! :)
The gist of the offer appeared that Risch's cable selection ability would be tested, if he identified a high buck cable over zip cord at a high enough percentage for it not to be guessing or chance, then his assertions would be validated. If the results were in the realm of guessing or reasonable chance, then the nay-sayer claims would be validated. I'll leave the exact ratio to the statiticians out there.
Fair play would be to test the nay-sayers also, insert an inductance that measureably rolls-off the high freqs and ask them to identify cable types. If the difference is clearly within the capacity of human hearing; and they don't hear a difference from Radio Shack's (with the inductor) and Home Depot's (without) zip cord then either their bias prevents them from being objective, or their hearing's freq response may be the cause.
Just an idea.... |
| Yes, there is a severe flaw in your logic | Eyespy
Apr 16, 2001 11:50 PM | | If Jon Risch were to accept this challange, Jon would employ his very own DBT listening procedures (that he has developed and wrote about in his AES paper, no less, and that he cites when he claims the hearing abilities he does on internet audio forums like this one), on his very own audio equipment, listening to his own choice of music selections, and did I mention it would be on his very own system. So you see, there is absolutely NO WAY that Norm's biases, regardless of what they might be, could skew the results in any. Now, perhaps you would care to think some more about why Jon would so ADAMANTLY refuse to accept the challange. The answer is obvious, no? |
| Not a flaw in my logic... | KeithR
Apr 17, 2001 6:56 AM | | i misunderstood the challenge, and I apologize...however, the logic still extends to Jon's ears, in that since he truly believes that differences exist, than he may hear things because of subconscious belief, not out of shear audible existence. and with Norm there, that really doesn't help, because of his objectionist standpoint, which subconsciously will effect his listening, and render whatever Jon says false...
that is why, i think the only fair way to test is with two subjects who aren't on either side, or oblivious to the test (with a moderator of course). i don't care about the "learning how to listen" claim that yeasayers make...if it is audible, and noticably different, than any test subject should be able to discern. |
| Yes, there is,. | Markw*
Apr 17, 2001 9:22 AM | | You see, it is Jon who is making the claim so it is Jon who should prove it. Norm is simply giving Jon a chance to put his money whare his mouth is.
Unless you are calling Norm a liar and a cheat, there is no reason to believe that he would "skew" the results to suit him. And I'm sure that Norm would not have a problem if others viewes the test if Jon didn't.
And you ahve to admit, it would put a lot of this name calling to rest when the results were made public, wouldn't it? |
| Not a flaw in my logic... | mtrycrafts
Apr 17, 2001 9:49 PM | | How would Norm influence Jon's choices? Just by his presense, in a DBT? That is silly. Jon would write his guesses down on a score card and sign it. The answer sheet would then be compared and graded. Jon could have his observer there as well, I am sure that would be agreed upon. Only the flaws in his protocol would be changed as he has some. And, yes, forced choice would be applied that Jon objects to; too bad.
No, Jon will never submit to a listening test conducted/observed by outside sources, never. |
| My Response | Jon Risch
Apr 17, 2001 5:55 PM | | I have many reasons for refusing, not the least of which is the very attitude and outlook that you illustrate in your post.
Listening tests are difficult, stressful, time consuming, uncertain, and not the ultimate proof or dis-proof of what we hear. An outcome one way or the other would not prove anything, and yet, would very probably be used to promote more confusion and generate more complex issues to be sorted out.
1. Regardless of the outcome, the results would still be anecdotal, not to the golden standard of scientific evidence. Since Norm (or whomever, lets refer to him as the naysayer REFEREE), would be the only witness, this experience would not count toward making my results any more acceptable to strict scientific standards, and nay-sayers such as mtrycrafts would still be able, and more than willing, to dismiss and call for golden standard results.
The grand result of all the effort? Nothing would have been changed, nothing would have been 'proved', just another chapter in the ongoing debate and silliness.
2. I do not believe that there is common ground for what constitutes a valid positive. I could perform such a listening test, and by my own (previously posted) criteria, generate statistically significant results, yet have the REFEREE feel otherwise. Even if the REFEREE respectfully disagreed with my conclusions, others would take the results and put their own spin on things.
Then, despite the raw data, it could be claimed and posted as a failure to achieve significance/validity, and no amount of posting explanations would suffice to erase the mis-information that would result from multiple half-truth posts by nay-sayers, whether the REFEREE was the one posting or not.
To say that this would not be the case is wishful thinking, as similar things have been done before, posts taken out of context by mtry and others, so I do not consider this to be an excercise in paranoia, but an inevitable occurence.
3. There is the possibility that the REFEREE would try to further confuse the issue with methods or procedures that would only result in more false ammunition, and any refusal on my part to go along or to participate would be seen as backing out, or giving up, etc. Once one is 'playing the game', there is no saving grace from logic or reason, any type of trickery or false representation would be swept under the rug, and glossed over, all that would matter is the desired end result.
As an example, if the REFEREE were swapping cables, and instead of following my procedures, were to go for the old gambit of not making any cable swaps, while he was claiming that he had, then this would be some of the so-called "audiophiles claiming differences where there are none" type of result. Despite the fact that the method calls for a forced choice, and one would not have the option to state they heard no differences, this would be taken as yet more 'evidence' of placebo and so on. Somthing like this could easily overshadow significant positive results for other runs.
If I used another cable swapper instead of the REFEREE, then this would call into question not only my own integrity (which is already under attack here), but that of the cable swapper. I personally would not submit anyone else to this sort of degrading scrutiny, or ask them to be faced with such obvious doubts of their honesty, after they were doing me the favor of helping out, and performing a totally thankless task for hours over a period of days.
If I can not trust the REFEREE, and he can not trust me or my helpers, the we have yet another impasse, and one which can only lead to further problems and questionable results.
4. There is the very real possibility that for any given weekend, I would be unable to demonstrate a significant positive, after all, one can only conduct approx. 3 or 4 short sessions WITHOUT LISTENING FATIGUE before the weekend is over, and there is no guarantee that under the stressful situati |
| My Response. part 2 | Jon Risch
Apr 17, 2001 5:56 PM | | Preview your Message
If you would like to post your message please click on OK.
Otherwise, to change your message, please click on Edit now.
Your message appears as follows:
Jon Risch - 05:55pm Apr 17, 2001
My Response
I have many reasons for refusing, not the least of which is the very attitude and outlook that you illustrate in
your post.
Listening tests are difficult, stressful, time consuming, uncertain, and not the ultimate proof or dis-proof of
what we hear. An outcome one way or the other would not prove anything, and yet, would very probably be
used to promote more confusion and generate more complex issues to be sorted out.
1. Regardless of the outcome, the results would still be anecdotal, not to the golden standard of scientific
evidence. Since Norm (or whomever, lets refer to him as the naysayer REFEREE), would be the only
witness, this experience would not count toward making my results any more acceptable to strict scientific
standards, and nay-sayers such as mtrycrafts would still be able, and more than willing, to dismiss and
call for golden standard results.
The grand result of all the effort? Nothing would have been changed, nothing would have been 'proved', just
another chapter in the ongoing debate and silliness.
2. I do not believe that there is common ground for what constitutes a valid positive. I could perform such a
listening test, and by my own (previously posted) criteria, generate statistically significant results, yet have
the REFEREE feel otherwise. Even if the REFEREE respectfully disagreed with my conclusions, others
would take the results and put their own spin on things.
Then, despite the raw data, it could be claimed and posted as a failure to achieve significance/validity, and
no amount of posting explanations would suffice to erase the mis-information that would result from
multiple half-truth posts by nay-sayers, whether the REFEREE was the one posting or not.
To say that this would not be the case is wishful thinking, as similar things have been done before, posts
taken out of context by mtry and others, so I do not consider this to be an excercise in paranoia, but an
inevitable occurence.
3. There is the possibility that the REFEREE would try to further confuse the issue with methods or
procedures that would only result in more false ammunition, and any refusal on my part to go along or to
participate would be seen as backing out, or giving up, etc. Once one is 'playing the game', there is no
saving grace from logic or reason, any type of trickery or false representation would be swept under the
rug, and glossed over, all that would matter is the desired end result.
As an example, if the REFEREE were swapping cables, and instead of following my procedures, were to
go for the old gambit of not making any cable swaps, while he was claiming that he had, then this would be
some of the so-called "audiophiles claiming differences where there are none" type of result. Despite the
fact that the method calls for a forced choice, and one would not have the option to state they heard no
differences, this would be taken as yet more 'evidence' of placebo and so on. Somthing like this could
easily overshadow significant positive results for other runs.
If I used another cable swapper instead of the REFEREE, then this would call into question not only my
own integrity (which is already under attack here), but that of the cable swapper. I personally would not
submit anyone else to this sort of degrading scrutiny, or ask them to be faced with such obvious doubts of
their honesty, after they were doing me the favor of helping out, and performing a totally thankless task for
hours over a period of days.
If I can not trust the REFEREE, and he can not trust me or my helpers, the we have yet another impasse,
and one which can only lead to further problems and questionable results.
|
| My Response. part 2 | Jon Risch
Apr 17, 2001 5:58 PM | | Prt2
4. There is the very real possibility that for any given weekend, I would be unable to demonstrate a
significant positive, after all, one can only conduct approx. 3 or 4 short sessions WITHOUT LISTENING
FATIGUE before the weekend is over, and there is no guarantee that under the stressful situation, that I
might not choke. This of course, would prove nothing, yet, as intimated in your post, this would take on the
aspect of a childish 'contest', with only 'winners' and 'losers', no room for science or sense here. Once
again, even though such an event would be inconclusive, the end result would be a veritable flood of
nay-sayer posts claiming negatives that do not exist.
No allowance would exist for situations outside of my control, or the control of any witness/es, such as if I
had a head cold (which I am currently suffering from) or was ill, etc. Any such thing would be construed as
an excuse, do you deny that such would occur?
5. While the amount of the wager would seem to be enough to induce me to 'take the easy money' as
some of the nay-sayer's put it, this would be poor recompensation for an entire lost weekend, nor would
there be any guarantee that any such offers would be honored. Something as simple as item #1 is all it
would take for someone to renege on the wager due to their take on the results. Outlandish claims of
higher sums would certainly make one take pause, as it becomes even more unbelievable that they would
actually pay up. Money is not the real issue here, but the nay-sayers want to make it into a side show,
and hype the 'easy money' aspect to the hilt. They certainly seem interested in something other than the
truth, or scientific results.
6. The basic issue is trust, and what various nay-sayers have done in the past concerning mis-quoting me,
taking things out of context, posting only a portion of the facts or truth, and on and on are concrete
examples of what can and will go on concerning these types of issues. No matter if all of these things were
claimed to be worked out, how could I trust someone who has (and essentially is) calling me a liar? How
could I even begin to believe that, despite the actual outcome, a horde of half-truthful posts would not
result, causing even more confusion, and smearing my name?
7. I have already done this to my own satifaction, and have nothing to prove. Of all the vast array of
probable outcomes, there are far more where the end result would be that I am denigrated or smeared, than
actual and real vindication or acceptance, regardless of the actual outcome of the tests. I have absolutely
no compelling reasons to participate in such an immature and ill-thought out 'contest'.
It is really quite simple, I have no desire, nor any need to participate.
Interestingly, it is not uncommon for those who naysay to refuse to conduct their own informal tests, or to
dismiss what they themselves hear as if it were placebo and wishful thinking. So many absolutely refuse to
discuss component differences, and tend to believe that not only do audio cables not have a sound, but
that just about all other audio components tend to sound the same.
Yes, I know this will cause the usual reaction: we do not say that. yet when questined closely, they back
off and refuse to commit to a solid POV on these other subjects, probably becuase it would damage their
POV in the eyes of others who do routinely hear the difference in CD players, amps, etc. It is hard to talk
about cable sonics when the other person absolutely refuses to believe that other audio components also
have a sound of their own.
Although it is certain that enough of a bias would exist for most of the nay-sayers to cause them to
become unable to hear what may really be there, they would latch on to any failure to notice things as yet
more 'evidence' for their POV. Sort of a re-affirming self-perpetuation of their belief system |
| My Response. part 3 | Jon Risch
Apr 17, 2001 5:59 PM | | Part 3
Although it is certain that enough of a bias would exist for most of the nay-sayers to cause them to
become unable to hear what may really be there, they would latch on to any failure to notice things as yet
more 'evidence' for their POV. Sort of a re-affirming self-perpetuation of their belief system.
Eyespy's himself has reported a "null" result when listening to his own Nordost bi-wire set-up, and Recoton
12 ga. zip cords, and has in the past, tended to add this to the list of 'evidence' for nulls, and even
negatives. Yet, we have no details of his tests, how they were executed, what methodology was used, and
so on. How hard did he try? What would his listening test been capable of detecting? We have no idea of
the level of sensitivity he achieved.
Regarding absence of evidence equalling a null, or a negative, and the subject of burden of proof, see my
post up above re statistics and proof.
Jon Risch |
| I see. So put it simply... | Markw*
Apr 18, 2001 2:03 AM | | ...since, with witnesss, you cannot be assured of getting the results you have been claiming you did get all this time you will not give it a shot.
In the future, please understand when some are skeptical of some of your claims of your feats requiring superhuman hearing abilities. |
| I see. So put it simply... | Jon Risch
Apr 18, 2001 10:31 AM | | Markw,
As with any endeavor, listening tests have their problems, some just don't turn out, others end up providing lots of results.
Over the years, I have had many positives, I have been able to statistically discern many things. However, I never said that I did it all the time, each and every time. Anyone who has ever done real world listening tests would know that you hardly ever get straight runs of positives all the time with subtle sonic issues.
I had a lot of failures early on, and this forced me to look at the then traditional methods, to see why the listening test were performing so poorly.
Thinking back, after the methods and techniques were refined, I got positive results more often than not, but hardly every time.
I do not understand why this is such a mystery, or why you seem to think that positives have to flow like water from an endless pool.
According to science, if I perform a dozen different trials, and they came up with nulls, and then perform one more, and it comes up with statistically significant positive results, and then can verify this with another positive result, not necessarily immediately or sequentially, all the nulls are overturned, and considered a moot point. One does not have to churn out only positive results time after time in order for their to be valid positive results.
The witnesses have nothing to do with it, I have had others present before, aside from the cable swapper behind the opaque screen, and had others participate and achieve positive results. It has a lot more to do with the stress factor, and whether I would get a positive on any given trial.
Even jj recognizes that trying ot operate under stress during a listening test will skew the results, and often cause failures.
See:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/general/messages/116165.html
So I guess jj must be 'chicken' too?
Nothing like an immutable POV based on faith, and there seems to be nothing like the faith of the nay-sayer.
Jon Risch |
| Riddle me this Jon | GCM
Apr 18, 2001 11:24 AM | | Why is it that whenever the talk turns to DBT, differences become "subtle sonic issues", yet whenever anecdotal evidence is presented, differences are usually presented as very dramatic? "You'd have to be deaf not to notice" is a fairly commonly used phrase. |
| Riddle me this Jon | Jon Risch
Apr 18, 2001 7:29 PM | | I remind you that I have never posted about huge differences, and have always insisted that the absolute sonic difference were small and subtle.
However, in is all a matter of perspective and comparing by end results.
As an example, lets say that a certain interconnect allows the sound to seem as if it is no longer "stuck" to the speakers, that a more fully developed sound field occurs, and this significantly heightens the sense of realism for the listener. In simplistic terms, the differences in the total sound are very small, perhaps even very hard to measure or to discern under forced choice controlled listening situations. However, with the sense that the sound is spread through out the room, instead of located AT the speakers, the listener is transported to a much more realistic portrayal of a musical event, and can suspend his disbelief that the music is canned a biut more readily.
In this case, TO THAT LISTENER, the differences ARE night and day, it is the difference between a believably realistic musical event, and obviously canned music. Yet, in absolute terms, the sonic differences were minute and very small on an absolute scale.
So who is right? Are the differences actually small, or do they make all the difference to the enjoyment of the music? Well, it's both actually.
BTW, this is a real world kind fo example, as this is what is frequently noticed with decent cables, a very small thing like this minute alteration of the soundfield presentation, and yet, it can be VERY satifying.
Given that different 'decent' cables do this kind of thing slightly differently, and each imparts it's own charater to how this occurs, it can become a matter of personal preference for which cable has the most satisfying musical presenation, and then even the most subtle differences are touted as being 'huge'. Once you get into very expensive cables, they tend to do these things more reliably, and with less of their own character involved. They also cost a LOT more. It's all relative to the listener.
Jon Risch |
| Riddle me this Jon | Dupper
Apr 18, 2001 8:31 PM | | Face it Jon, the naysayers like their music canned. |
| Riddle me this Jon | mtrycrafts
Apr 20, 2001 12:25 PM | | Face it Dupper, Jon just cannot demonstrate his claims. Cold fussion kind of story. |
| I see. So put it simply... | Markw*
Apr 18, 2001 12:16 PM | | Perhaps your positive results were a fluke?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the obviously mistaken assumption that for a test to be accepted as meaningful it had to be repeatable. Just because I got the hoop on the peg once does not mean that I will always get it on the peg.
I mean, if you got VALID results once, you should be able to get them more often than not, correct?
If not, then I doubt the validity of the test. |
| I see. So put it simply... | Jon Risch
Apr 18, 2001 7:16 PM | | I used to be able to run about 4 or 5 full bore listening runs on a weekend, and might get 2 or 3 positive. Some weekends, I might only get one, or none.
Ultimately, once I refined my methods and techniques, I also learned that it was pointless to go into a listening session if my heart wasn't in it. If you are not really wanting to do it, and go through the motions, guess what.
So I took the extraordinary step of: not attempting listening tests, unless I felt good about going through the work to do them.
This means not performing a test when you are feeling bad/sick/poorly, when you feel fatigued, down or listless, or distracted by other issues or problems, or just plain feel burnt out. After the sheer number of listening tests I have performed, there is a very real sense of being fed up with doing this at times, go figure!
Tests on demand can not allow for this, and hence, more often than not, will come up empty. What a surprise!
You seem to think that if one can get statistically significant positive results, that this should somehow also imply that such results should then ALSO occur more frequently than half the time. WHY?
Where is this written? I have NEVER seen any kind of scientific reference to this concept. It sounds more like what you expect should be occuring, which has little to do with the science of it.
First, we should differentiate between the various kinds of tests I have performed.
There is the straight "one whole cable vs. another cable" type of test, where there is more than one variable involved, that is, the conductors, insulation, geometry and so on are all different for each cable.
These are easier to get results on than testing for just one variable, say insulation, at a time. However, even still, despite a total percentage of acheiving statistically significant positives (to approx. 90% confidence levels or better) better than half the time, there are still instances where I can fail to discriminate, despite having done so many times, and even getting 3 or 4 weekends sessions in a row positive sometimes. Since I would typically not be testing the SAME two cables over and over endlessly, but would change them out periodically, (why beat a dead positive horse after 3 or 4 separate solid results?), so as to see what else was discernable.
Then there were the single variable cable listening tests. These are much harder to do, and involve the utmost in concentration, training, and discipline. Listening fatique sets in easier and earlier. Two, maybe three listening sessions on a good weekend, after that forget it.
For any given combo of variables, lets say foamed teflon vs. foamed PE, it might take several separate sessions of acheiving statistically significant positive results, after running a half dozen total sessions. Since these are so much harder and a lot more work, I did not perform an endless series of these, but supplemented my blind listening sessions after two or three positives for one variable, with formal sighted listening sessions, and long term listening. Lots and lots of time spent, lots of effort and research.
So to answer your question: "Perhaps your positive results were a fluke?"
Well, to be an honest scientist, there is a remote possibility that even allowing for all the statistiaclly significant positive results, that they were just coincidence.
However, when you consider that 10 out of 10 is at the 99.9% confidence level, and even 9 out of 10 is 98.9% confidence level, then it is not that likely that I was having such 'flukes' occur, when I had results like this more than once. Later, when I converted to 6 or 9 trials per run, I ocassionally would get 9 out of 9, or 6 out of 6, these are 99.8% and 98.4% confidence levels respectively.
Not exactly random guesses at these levels.
Jon Risch |
| I see. So put it simply... | CE
Apr 18, 2001 8:02 PM | | Do your fingers ever get TIRED? |
| I see. So put it simply... | Dupper
Apr 18, 2001 8:35 PM | | The naysayers are not going to buy into the feeling pressured in a listening test comes up with bad results because they have no faith in senses anyway. |
| I"bad results" | Markw*
Apr 19, 2001 5:39 PM | | So, if they don't support your beliefs they are "bad results"?
I think you just made a very good point for the naysayers. Thank you. Think about it. |
| I"bad results" | Dupper
Apr 21, 2001 9:51 AM | | Let me reword it then so you can understand. Bad=unreliable. |
| Perhaps "think about it" was beyond you. | Markw*
Apr 21, 2001 10:25 AM | | Call it whatever you want, bad or unreliable, but if you cannot hear a difference, then there IS no difference.
If you have to keep on trying until you get lucky, then there are no reliable results. It seems that what you call "reliable" results are only those that support your misguided beliefs.
Best 2 out of 3? Damn! Well, howsa bout the best 3 outta 5? Damn!
That's ok. Throw away any results you don't like. We'll keep on trying until you get the results you want. I'm sure they test drugs using this procedure.
Duh! Perhaps you should change your moniker to "Duped"? |
| sidesteppers | Dupper
Apr 21, 2001 2:54 PM | | I guess all the naysayers are ignoring why these coveted DBT tests are unreliable. I think you have been duped. You one of the mtrycrafts Lemmings? Because after all, not a single one of you have ever done any of this work yourself, yet you bad mouth Jon Risch that has. And you call his results unreliable because you don't agree with the results and the way he got them, based on someone elses view on how they think you should get them. I have more respect for Jon even if I don't agree with everything he says. The DBT tests are flawed and are not something that should be trusted. And you need to read again what is said at the ABX site. Its a misconception that the tests can prove cables sound the same. Find another arguement. So keep ignoring the flaws in the tests that are very important, and you will continue to show how duped you are. Until reliable proven test are established and certified, I will trust my ears. It all comes down to this. Naysayers are trusting someone elses opinion on what you should be hearing. I can only speak for myself, but I will not let someone else tell me what I should be hearing... yaysayers or naysayers. So how am I duped? I am duped because I don't agree with you, flawed tests, and some opinions of others that are written in journals and websites? Think about that one. |
| Yes, you are sidestepping the major issue here.. | Markw*
Apr 21, 2001 7:39 PM | | Been there, done that.
If these differences are as glaringly obvious as you imply, then why is there no common accord that there ARE differences?
I don't see anyone disputing that speakers sound different, do you? If the "naysayers" were that bad, they would simply judge them on specs. Try to find anyone that would.
If I had to concentrate really, really hard and go thru all sorts of contortions to convince myself that maybe, just maybe, there is a difference, why bother? If the difference is that subtle then simply moving my head or repositioning speakers or furniture would make more of a difference. |
| Yes, you are sidestepping the major issue here.. | Dupper
Apr 21, 2001 8:36 PM | | Excuse me... did I say anything about glaring differences? Please show me anywhere in any forum where I said anything about glaring differences. Still sidestepping what my post is saying. |
| Well then | Markw*
Apr 21, 2001 10:34 PM | | What kind of differences are you refering to? The inaudiable ones or the imperceptable ones? Those are the ones that your idol is refering to. In that case, please re-read my initial post.
You are more and more making my point for me, ya know. Thanks! |
| Well then | Dupper
Apr 22, 2001 12:37 AM | | I haven't made any claims, so how can I be making a case for you? As for Jon being my idol... not hardly. I said I respect him and don't agree with everything he says. And if you read my whole response you will see why I respect him and not you and others here. Just as I respect people that do the work on the naysayers side. I don't agree with everything they write, but I respect them. If you perceive that as idolizing, then you have a warped perception. So my opinion on cables may be just as worthless to you as yours is to me until a true tests proves either case. Until then I will trust my judgement, and you will trust yours. But it still remains that you have sidestepped the issues that I pointed out. |
| Well then, what are your issues? | Markw*
Apr 22, 2001 4:34 AM | | I don't see that you HAVE pointed out any issues. You just seem to make cutsey one line posts that denigrate naysayers who have da noive to call Jon on his verbose UNSUBSTANTIATED propoganda. Any child can (and does) do that. |
| You stumped him on that one (nt) | GCM
Apr 23, 2001 1:01 PM | | |
| Well then, what are your issues? | Dupper
Apr 23, 2001 6:45 PM | | If you read some of my posts, you would know what my issues are. |
| *Yawn* Another one liner, eh? | Markw*
Apr 24, 2001 9:21 AM | | Oh, you newbies...
If you check the archives or even read my posts to others you will see my positions laid out quite plainly.
If you ain't got it yet, you ain't worth the effort to try to explain to again. Pearls before swine. Root a little.
AFAICT, you are simply another poor attempt at a one line jokester but you ain't got it, lightweight. Keep yer day job. |
| *Yawn* Another one liner, eh? | Dupper
Apr 24, 2001 9:40 AM | | I have more important things to do than to keep typing things that I have already typed, and you haven't read. Keep my day job? Thats original of you. |
| Is there an echo in here? | Markw*
Apr 24, 2001 11:52 AM | | "I have more important things to do than to keep typing things that I have already typed, and you haven't read."
I do believe I just said that.
Chow, chump. Thread over. enjoy... |
| Is there an echo in here? | Dupper
Apr 24, 2001 1:41 PM | | chump ???? LOL!!! getting a little worked up are we? heeheheh |
| *Yawn* Another one liner, eh? | Dupper
Apr 24, 2001 5:19 PM | | I find it very funny how people can find it very easy to call someone names over the internet. Lightweight and chump are good ones too. |
| *Yawn* Another one liner, eh? | Dupper
Apr 24, 2001 5:35 PM | | Oh and BTW, I know your position, your a mtrycrafts Lemming. And nice sidestep again!!!! |
| sidesteppers | mtrycrafts
Apr 21, 2001 9:28 PM | | >>>I guess all the naysayers are ignoring why these coveted DBT tests are unreliable. <<<<
This is your unsupported claim since I don't see any facts behind this.
>>>>yet you bad mouth Jon Risch that has. And you call his results unreliable because you don't agree with the results and the way he got them, <<<<
You are the one who has been badly >>>. I think you have been duped.<<<
YOu have no idea what is going on, do you? What has Jon Done? He makes lots of claims that he cannot support, no one has been able to duplicate. Would that concern you? A little? Cold fussion claims?
>>>The DBT tests are flawed and are not something that should be trusted. And you need to read again what is said at the ABX site. Its a misconception that the tests can prove cables sound the same. <<<
You are the one who is confued and "duped." What the tests show is no audible difference is heard. Perhpas you can show us credible tests that do show audible differences? Jon only claims them. Far from demonstrating this. And he won't. He has too much to loose and nothing to gain. That simple. So he makes excuses, not demonsrations. You can have all the respect for him as you see fit. That is a personal perogative, you think?
>>>Until reliable proven test are established and certified, I will trust my ears. <<<<
Now you are really "duped." You are not paying attention because it may not support your beliefs.Your sighted listening has no meaning; useless, unreliable, grossly flawed. That simple. Trust away. I suppose you trust your eyes as well, right? You missed the show how reliable eye witnesses are, right? They would not accept their failure even after the fact. Same in audio. Trust away. Your loss.
>>>So how am I duped? <<<
Another easy one. Your false and blind premis will dupe you. That you can trust your ears. Trust away. |
| sidesteppers | Dupper
Apr 23, 2001 9:29 PM | | As I said, until reliable proven tests are established and certified, I will trust my ears.
And the funny thing is about this exchange. I have still made no claims. I don't agree with what you base your opinion on... uncertified test results, that mean nothing to me because they are flawed and uncertified, and other peoples written opinions, that are just more opinions. At least I am making my own call, which you don't even know what it is, but still argue with me.
And of course never trust your eyes either. When your driving down the road, its not what you really see. Matter of fact, don't trust any of your senses ever. Let someone tell you what you should be seeing, feeling, hearing, etc... based on their data. As it seems you have no faith in your senses, and you will trust someone to tell you what you should sense. Let my own senses dupe me, fine, let someone else dupe you, then your theirs. Jim Jones ring a bell? |
| sidesteppers | Eyespy
Apr 25, 2001 12:43 AM | | I was wondering. Where do you suppose Copperfield put the Statue of Liberty? |
| sidesteppers | Dupper
Apr 25, 2001 8:25 AM | | Up his sleeve of course :) |
| no faith | mtrycrafts
Apr 20, 2001 12:29 PM | | So, it comes down to this, faith? Must be a religion to some then, right? |
| no faith | Dupper
Apr 21, 2001 9:52 AM | | I don't know, I'm not a religious person. |
| no faith | Eyespy
Apr 25, 2001 12:45 AM | | So not being one yourself, you are unable to recognize when another is? |
| no faith | Dupper
Apr 25, 2001 8:27 AM | | Oh yes, I call them Lemmings. |
| I see. So put it simply... | mtrycrafts
Apr 20, 2001 12:22 PM | | >>>Over the years, I have had many positives, I have been able to statistically discern many things<<<<
You just don't get it, Jon. If you cannot demonstrate any of it, why should anyone believe any of this? Just by claiming many, sheer numbers are not convincing without proof, Jon. You have zero such data. |
| I see. So put it simply... | Jon Risch
Apr 21, 2001 8:05 AM | | There is still a difference between never having performed any such testing, as in YOUR case, and having done so, whether or not the testing was 'validated' by golden standard publishing.
Since I DID perform many such tests, there is AT THE LEAST, anecdotal evidence. This is a far cry from nothing, or no testing.
I know that you would like to 'erase' my personal experiences, or claim that they are not in existence, but no matter how convoluted the reasoning or bizarre ways of stating scientific practice, you can not legitimately do so.
I find it quite telling that you are not only willing to accept a mere handful of anecdotal nulls as solid negative evidence, and to even try and incorrectly promote that same POV as scientifically correct (when it is not), but are also selectively dismissing/ignoring all the positive anecdotal evidence.
All of this, whle you KNOW there is no gold standard data either way, which means you have no backup for your claims. Yes, they are claims.
This says more about your mind set and lack of open-mindedness than any posts I could make.
Jon Risch |
| I see. So put it simply... | mtrycrafts
Apr 21, 2001 9:51 PM | | >>>the testing was 'validated' by golden standard publishing. <<<<
Youi have not validated with any standards, Jon, let alone as you indicate.
>>>never having performed any such testing, as in YOUR case,<<<<
Another empty claim.
>>>there is AT THE LEAST, anecdotal evidence. This is a far cry from nothing, or no testing. <<<<
Not at all. An unreliable report is not a 'far cry' from anything. Might as well not have done them, Jon. Cannot be duplicated. Just another bedtime story, Jon.
>>>I know that you would like to 'erase' my personal experiences, or claim that they are not in existence, but no matter how convoluted the reasoning or bizarre ways of stating scientific practice, you can not legitimately do so. <<<<
No erasure is intended, Jon, just to point out that not all experiences are valid as some are unreliable. Alien abduction experience? Psychic reading? vanPraags reading of the dead spirits? Big Foot? Some experiences. Best to be forgotten.
>>>dismissing/ignoring all the positive anecdotal evidence. <<<
Yours? Cannot be demonstrated or duplicated? Your favorite Home Theater articles? That doesn't even qualify for an anecdote of a positive outcome, Jon. Which two cables were compared? What were the listening results, from that single blind bs session? Is that your anecdote? Is that the best you can do? At least Vandy, remember him, had posted his cable pair comparisons and his statistical results but would not take up a challenge for a demonstration to verify his claim. What is there to embrace and accept there, Jon? Anopther bedtime story?
>>>All of this, whle you KNOW there is no gold standard data either way, which means you have no backup for your claims. <<<<
The only thing you need to worry about is that there is no support for your positive outcomes. You have the burden. That simple. Stop claiming them.
You talk of open mindedness? Unfortunate. You seem to have it way too open, everything makes sense to you, hence nothing has meaning. Carl Sagan had a good one on this, being too open. You should check it out. You have not given cause for one to change ones mind, not even a micron. You keep claiming, yet you never demonstrate. Obvious why. You have everything to loose, nothing to gain. |
| This form of attack is getting boring | GCM
Apr 23, 2001 1:05 PM | | You seem to like to avoid direct questions and direct an attack to your questioner. You've done it to me enough. Mtrycrafts has a legitimate point. If you went to the trouble of performing the tests, how about publishing the results so we can all learn from them. If you won't, can't, don't backup your claim, it really doesn't mean much, no matter how much misdirection you engage in. |
| If you are really interested, learn from the professionals | Adi
Apr 17, 2001 6:18 PM | | Listen to Jon Risch said below, then comeover to AA and listen to jj. Both these gentlemen are knowledgable professionals from opposing povs.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/116165.html
Ignore the internet mad dogs.
Adi |
| If you are really interested, learn from the professionals | Pam
Apr 17, 2001 8:09 PM | | Hi Adi,
>Ignore the internet mad dogs.
Ha ha, dogs and cats hear better than we do =^-^=
People just can't resist feeding the animals... that's why this little discussion comes up at least every week or so. Now if someone came up with a test on say 100 different combinations of equipment and cables with a thousand trials on each and ran a multivariate analysis on the results, I might bother to pay attention. |
| Hi Pam | Adi
Apr 17, 2001 8:32 PM | | where have you been?
Long time no see. |
| Hi Pam | Pam
Apr 17, 2001 10:11 PM | | Oh, I've been watching part of my DVD collection over again, trying to catch up with my reading, babbling with my pen-pals, watching the Odyssey/Alex assasinations over in the amp forum, hanging out in the planar speaker & vinyl asylum and a couple of anime/manga boards (BTW, was babbling with jj for a couple of weeks about audio and then ran into his wife on one of the anime boards... she's a manga nut too. Too bad they don't live anywhere near me ^0^).
What you been up to? |
| Hi Pam | Adi
Apr 18, 2001 8:49 PM | | Me? I am starving for music. Sent out the entire system for upgrades. Gotta wait for few more weeks. Other than that, became a SACD fan and hanging around in hi-rez hwy.
Where are these anime/manga boards?
Adi |
| If you are really interested, learn from the professionals | DulceBuzz
Apr 18, 2001 8:12 PM | | I made a statement like this in an earlier post, Posers. Seemed to hit a nerve. |
| |
