"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.
[snip]

Interestingly the way some people interpreted the F-M results was
found to be wildly optimistic by a number of scientists about 10
years ago, guys like Zwicker and Fastl. Bottom line, in actual use
the ear often disregards far higher levels of sound than might be
predicted by a naive reading of F-M.

The bottom line is that you apparently have hearing acuity which is
substantially below average for a person who is interested in
listening to music.

Troll? Gratuitous personal attack? Manic defensiveness?

My hearing is irrelevant. Too many people have done the relevant listening
tests and produced results that support my claims about the Halcro.

The Halcro is overkill. Heck, even the power amp in a Pioneer receiver is
overkill. The audio CD format is overkill. As long as people spin their
wheels overkilling the easy parts of audio we'll take way to long solving
the hard parts that remain unsolved.

This, combined with a highly self-centric point
of view, has tainted your point of view.

Gee Bob why am I sure that you've never done any serious reading in the
archives of the AES or ASA?

Why am I sure that you've never given yourself a practical education in
the
properties of the ear at www.pcabx.com? I think you're just afraid to find
that you've got flesh-and-blood ears like the rest of us. Chicken. Coward.
bwauk-bwauk-bwauk!

It is indeed possible that the Halcro is excessively perfect.

It's certain.

Unfortunately, you use results like Fletcher Munson in an
extrapolative way.

I do think that logical induction can lead to valid conclusions. If going
from 16/44 to 24/96 doesn't make any reliably audible difference, then
some
understanding of the ear and logical induction makes me suspect that going
from 16/44 to 24/192 isn't going to do much either. Then there's all those
well-known authorities and refereed papers that agree with me.

Extrapolation is bad science; it is a form of
prediction, not a form of proof.

Then I actually made some 24/192 recordings and darn if science and
logical
induction didn't strike again.

The empirical world does have some relevance to this discussion!

Your lack of comprehension of this
simple fact exacerbates whatever other attitude problems you have
that infect your so-called science.

Hey, let Halcro do their DBTs in accordance with ITU document BS 1116 and
publish the results. Or anybody else.

Your problem Bob is that you only see the arguments against, not the facts
for.

Research on perceptual encoding has been used to predict what methods
work; however, they did not prove the methods would work. "Proof" is a
mathematical concept which cannot be used to study complexes of
electronics, biology, and information theory.

This stuff works, Bob. That you keep your head in the sand and deny all
the
evidence is not my problem.

You persistently think that axiomatic systems exist for human
perception. They do not.

Irrelevant. I've done enough DBTs of power amps to know which way the wind
blows. Tell us about your power amp DBTs conforming to ITU document BS
1116,
Bob. Let's cut to the chase Bob - you don't have any, do you?

The empirical world does have some relevance to this discussion!
The acryonym does rather appropriately contain "BS".
I'm not interested in phony paper trails either. You can stamp it with
"official" all you want, but it's just a cover for:
BAD SCIENCE.

An observational science can never prove
anything. Axiomatic systems belong to mathematics. Even in physics,
the one thing which is known is that nothing is proven. Fortunately,
physics is in the custody of greater minds than yours.

Your problem Bob is that you only see the arguments against, not the facts
for.
The facts you cite are merely flawed arguments when they are used in an
extrapolative manner.


But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either directly
or
by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They rather obviously think
they are really smart. They are about as smart as you calling me deaf.

I condemn anything like that, or the mention of family tragedies.