"I. Care" wrote in message
.net

There is an interesting discussion which might relate to
one of the threads that was/has been going on here. It
is on rec.audio.high-end and titled "The long term
listening myth"

It's only interesting to people who don't already know the punch line.

Long term listening is a great way to find musical passages and
circumstances where there is audible distortion. In some sense, its the only
way.

But long term listening is a very poor methodolgy if you goal is the most
sensitive possible results.

The orgional ABX Comparator had a standard battery backup feature that
supported long term listening tests. 4 AA cells on the back panel would
maintain the storage of unknowns and test results for days, even when there
was an interruption of power. Frankly, it was one of the least important
features of the product and was almost never used.

Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.


They sure do a lousy job of teaching science in schools anymore.

Karl Uppiano wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.


They sure do a lousy job of teaching science in schools anymore.


http://solomonsmusic.net/postmod.htm

wrote in message
...

They sure do a lousy job of teaching science in schools anymore.

http://solomonsmusic.net/postmod.htm

I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Subjectivist audio is a
manifestation of postmodernism, the notion that nothing is objectively known
and that whenever you say anything is better than anything else, you are
expressing no more than a personal taste. (BTW, is there such a thing as
"feminist audio" yet?)

If postmodernism wins, it will be the end of science - a new Dark Age.

In a recent book Michael Novak points out that business (in a market
economy) is a potent defense against postmodernism because you can't be a
postmodernist entrepreneur. Things either sell or don't, and playing
mind-tricks on yourself won't change that.

That does not keep businesses from marketing things *to* the postmodernists,
who might be unusually easy to manipulate!

P.S. I think there's *some* good in postmodernism. It's an overreaction to
some of the excesses of rationalist "scientism" in the mid-20th-century and
earlier (e.g., antimentalist psychology). But it's an *over*reaction.

mc wrote:
wrote

They sure do a lousy job of teaching science in schools anymore.

http://solomonsmusic.net/postmod.htm

I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Subjectivist audio is a
manifestation of postmodernism, the notion that nothing is objectively known
and that whenever you say anything is better than anything else, you are
expressing no more than a personal taste. (BTW, is there such a thing as
"feminist audio" yet?)

I disagree completely. The subjectivist approach to audio is mostly a
throwback to pre-rationalist, pre-scientific superstitious behavior,
coupled with some clever PT Barnum style marketing. It has little or
nothing to do with postmodernism, beyond the propensity to use
impenetrable jargon as a smoke screen to mask the fact that there's no
"there" there.

Moreover, postmodernism is a fad confined mostly to obscure academic
corners in universities; it has not infected the primary and secondary
school systems to my knowlege.

I do agree that the schools are failing to do a good job of teaching
science, but the reason is more plain old ignorance and superstition,
not a fancy erudite academic ofuscatory fad.

BTW, the classic rationalist take on postmodernism is he
http://www2.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html
You might enjoy it.

And, of course, this is a lot of fun:
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

//Walt

mc wrote:
wrote in message
...

They sure do a lousy job of teaching science in schools anymore.

http://solomonsmusic.net/postmod.htm

I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Subjectivist audio is a
manifestation of postmodernism, the notion that nothing is objectively known
and that whenever you say anything is better than anything else, you are
expressing no more than a personal taste. (BTW, is there such a thing as
"feminist audio" yet?)

If postmodernism wins, it will be the end of science - a new Dark Age.

In a recent book Michael Novak points out that business (in a market
economy) is a potent defense against postmodernism because you can't be a
postmodernist entrepreneur. Things either sell or don't, and playing
mind-tricks on yourself won't change that.

That does not keep businesses from marketing things *to* the postmodernists,
who might be unusually easy to manipulate!

P.S. I think there's *some* good in postmodernism. It's an overreaction to
some of the excesses of rationalist "scientism" in the mid-20th-century and
earlier (e.g., antimentalist psychology). But it's an *over*reaction.

I do believe there is feminist audio/artists, audience size varies by
venue :-)
Not being an economist, I would think that a postmodernist entrepreneur
would fail regardless of the economy.
In contrast though, look at what some will pay for "Art"
Is postmodern defined as the fall of civilization or a Utopian society?

"Walt" wrote in message
...

I disagree completely. The subjectivist approach to audio is mostly a
throwback to pre-rationalist, pre-scientific superstitious behavior,

Which there is plenty of in postmodernism...

coupled with some clever PT Barnum style marketing. It has little or
nothing to do with postmodernism, beyond the propensity to use
impenetrable jargon as a smoke screen to mask the fact that there's no
"there" there.

It may have converged with postmodernism, but as you indicate, it probably
started separately.

I do agree that the schools are failing to do a good job of teaching
science, but the reason is more plain old ignorance and superstition, not
a fancy erudite academic ofuscatory fad.

I don't think it's "ignorance and superstition" (on the part of the
populace) so much as shallowness on the part of the teachers. To teach
science well, you have to *know* a lot. It's much easier if you don't
teach people to think, but merely give them facts to regurgitate.

BTW, the classic rationalist take on postmodernism is he
http://www2.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html
You might enjoy it.

*Chuckle*

mc a écrit :

wrote in message
...



I think you've hit the nail right on the head.


Judging by your ignorant dumbass response, I'd say he missed by a few
inches.


Subjectivist audio is a
manifestation of postmodernism, the notion that nothing is objectively known
and that whenever you say anything is better than anything else


Blah blah blah... prove it already, or shut your dumb yap.

, you are
expressing no more than a personal taste. (BTW, is there such a thing as
"feminist audio" yet?)

There is such a thing as a misogynist and a chauvinist. You're both.

mc a écrit :

"Walt" wrote in message
...

I disagree completely. The subjectivist approach to audio is mostly a
throwback to pre-rationalist, pre-scientific superstitious behavior,

Which there is plenty of in postmodernism...

coupled with some clever PT Barnum style marketing. It has little or
nothing to do with postmodernism, beyond the propensity to use
impenetrable jargon as a smoke screen to mask the fact that there's no
"there" there.

It may have converged with postmodernism, but as you indicate, it probably
started separately.

I do agree that the schools are failing to do a good job of teaching
science, but the reason is more plain old ignorance and superstition, not
a fancy erudite academic ofuscatory fad.

I don't think it's "ignorance and superstition" (on the part of the
populace) so much as shallowness on the part of the teachers. To teach
science well, you have to *know* a lot. It's much easier if you don't
teach people to think, but merely give them facts to regurgitate.


Wow. You just won the Usenet Irony Award for 2006 with this one
paragraph alone. Its what I've been saying all along about the
technofools on this group who tried and failed to debate me in my
recent thread: all you can ever do is regurgitate the facts you were
taught, when you talk about audio. You are limited by your endless
ignorance about the world of audio and music reproduction, and your own
special brand of "superstition". You've ALL proven yourselves here to
be extremely shallow and ignorant folk, on matters of audio (and I'm
guessing, everything else....). So ignorant, that I spent the last few
weeks laughing my ass off at the depths of shallowness and ignorance
that I've seen from the technofool RATs.

BTW, the classic rationalist take on postmodernism is he
http://www2.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html
You might enjoy it.

*Chuckle*

wrote in message
oups.com...

Karl Uppiano wrote :

wrote in message
oups.com...
Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.


They sure do a lousy job of teaching science in schools anymore.


They do an even worse job of teaching grammar, obviously.

Ha ha! I was wondering if you were going to take that bait. That was a
colloquialism; nothing more. Since you seem to have understood the sentence,
it got the job done. But I will agree with you that they do a lousy job of
teaching grammar as well.

Nevertheless, your complete rejection of ABX would surprise anyone with much
scientific training. It is used anywhere scientists and technologists want
to reduce the amount of human bias and placebo effect from their research.
The pharmaceutical industry uses it, the cosmetic industry uses it, the
audio industry uses it. The truth takes a beating whenever there is an
agenda to be sold. It is really hard for people to be unbiased. ABX is an
attempt to reduce the built-in bias. Like everything else man-made, it isn't
perfect, but it is a useful tool. And it is so effective on audio snake oil,
it really ****es people off.

wrote in message
...
Karl Uppiano wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.


They sure do a lousy job of teaching science in schools anymore.


http://solomonsmusic.net/postmod.htm

That is just scary. In that paradigm, "evil" is just another point of view.

On 13 Feb 2006 20:58:02 -0800, wrote:

Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.

Actually, it's not *his* ABX, it's what the entire audio industry
uses, because it works. Of course, it won't allow you to hear
*imaginary* differences due to such things as cables and 'high end'
amplifiers, which is likely why you have a problem with it.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:sPxIf.33589$Eq.17607@trnddc02...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Karl Uppiano wrote :

wrote in message
oups.com...
Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is
to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the
audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.


They sure do a lousy job of teaching science in schools anymore.


They do an even worse job of teaching grammar, obviously.

Ha ha! I was wondering if you were going to take that bait. That was a
colloquialism; nothing more. Since you seem to have understood the
sentence, it got the job done. But I will agree with you that they do a
lousy job of teaching grammar as well.

Nevertheless, your complete rejection of ABX would surprise anyone with
much scientific training. It is used anywhere scientists and technologists
want to reduce the amount of human bias and placebo effect from their
research. The pharmaceutical industry uses it, the cosmetic industry uses
it, the audio industry uses it. The truth takes a beating whenever there
is an agenda to be sold. It is really hard for people to be unbiased. ABX
is an attempt to reduce the built-in bias. Like everything else man-made,
it isn't perfect, but it is a useful tool. And it is so effective on audio
snake oil, it really ****es people off.

It would help if you realized the difference between ABX and DBT's in
general.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 13 Feb 2006 20:58:02 -0800, wrote:

Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.

Actually, it's not *his* ABX, it's what the entire audio industry
uses, because it works. Of course, it won't allow you to hear
*imaginary* differences due to such things as cables and 'high end'
amplifiers, which is likely why you have a problem with it.


However, it has also never been shown to reveal real but subtle differences
in areas such as transparency, soundstaging, dynamic response, or even
smallish volume differences when playing music, especially when attempting
to use it as an open ended evaluation tool (i.e. you are looking for
differences but don't know "what" differences, so there can be no training).
There is a big difference between its use as an audio research tool and a
general tool for making audio component choices.

wrote in message
oups.com

"Walt" wrote in message
...

I don't think it's "ignorance and superstition" (on the
part of the populace) so much as shallowness on the part
of the teachers. To teach science well, you have to
*know* a lot. It's much easier if you don't teach
people to think, but merely give them facts to
regurgitate.

I remember what happened to the people who washed out of the program at my
engineering school. Many went into the so-called Liberal Arts and often did
very well. Some became philosophy students. AFAIK this is typical of schools
across the world, to this day.

Wow. You just won the Usenet Irony Award for 2006 with
this one paragraph alone. Its what I've been saying all
along about the technofools on this group who tried and
failed to debate me in my recent thread: all you can ever
do is regurgitate the facts you were taught, when you
talk about audio.

I can only speak for myself, but when I talk about audio, I primarily talk
about things I've witnessed for myself, up front and personal.

Over the past 50 years I've built and modified dozens of audio-related
pieces of equipment, sold more audio gear than most people have ever seen in
one place, assembled more audio systems than I can count, tested tons of
audio gera with just about every known test, built the first ABX comparator
and did the first ABX test, and pulled 100's of live sound and live
recording gigs.

Orthodox audio science basically works. High end audio pseudo-science
doesn't.

How screwed up is high end audio? It's so screwed up that it can even give
proper definiations and make proper use of simple terms like objective and
subjective. As they tell it, there's some kind of cosmic conflict between
the two, when in fact they are complementary.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:sPxIf.33589$Eq.17607@trnddc02...

Nevertheless, your complete rejection of ABX would
surprise anyone with much scientific training. It is
used anywhere scientists and technologists want to
reduce the amount of human bias and placebo effect from
their research. The pharmaceutical industry uses it, the
cosmetic industry uses it, the audio industry uses it.
The truth takes a beating whenever there is an agenda to
be sold. It is really hard for people to be unbiased.
ABX is an attempt to reduce the built-in bias. Like
everything else man-made, it isn't perfect, but it is a
useful tool. And it is so effective on audio snake oil,
it really ****es people off.

It would help if you realized the difference between ABX
and DBT's in general.

I guess I've corrected you enough by now that even you know the difference,
Harry. Could you help out your brothers in darkness?

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message ...
On 13 Feb 2006 20:58:02 -0800,
wrote:
Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a
joke. ABX is to audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom
microchip production. In other words, your ABX myth is
about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life,
I'm sorry to say.

Actually, it's not *his* ABX, it's what the entire audio
industry uses, because it works. Of course, it won't
allow you to hear *imaginary* differences due to such
things as cables and 'high end' amplifiers, which is
likely why you have a problem with it.

However, it has also never been shown to reveal real but
subtle differences in areas such as transparency,
soundstaging, dynamic response, or even smallish volume
differences when playing music,

Sure it does. ABX tests relating to established thresholds of audibility
either confirm them or set them at more sensitive points.

The only problems at hand are the goofy ways that audio's high end defines
these terms and the compeltely bogus ways that it tries to show that they
exist. The goofiness is shown by the lack of consistency, and the bogosity
is in their continued religous belief in sighted evaluations.

wrote:
Walt wrote:

http://www2.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html

The term 'epistemologically challenged' in the nice link you posted was
particularly apt.


Yes, it's probably my favorite part of the whole piece. Worth repeating:

The Pseudo Politically Correct term that I would use to describe
the mind set of postmodernism is "epistemologically challenged":
a constitutional inability to adopt a reasonable way to tell the
good stuff from the bad stuff.... Intellectual tools that might
help prune the thicket are systematically ignored or discredited.

Applying the above to the field of audio is left as an exercise for the
reader.

//Walt

The Pseudo Politically Correct term that I would use to describe
the mind set of postmodernism is "epistemologically challenged":
a constitutional inability to adopt a reasonable way to tell the
good stuff from the bad stuff.... Intellectual tools that might
help prune the thicket are systematically ignored or discredited.

Applying the above to the field of audio is left as an exercise for the
reader.

Right. There's lots of stuff here (and in subjectivist audio generally)
that would make good discussion material in an epistemology class.

On 14 Feb 2006 19:02:16 -0800, wrote:

There is such a thing as a misogynist and a chauvinist. You're both.

There's also such a thing as a mindless ranter. That would be you.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"mc" wrote in message

The Pseudo Politically Correct term that I would use
to describe the mind set of postmodernism is
"epistemologically challenged": a constitutional
inability to adopt a reasonable way to tell the good
stuff from the bad stuff.... Intellectual tools that
might help prune the thicket are systematically ignored
or discredited. Applying the above to the field of audio is left as an
exercise for the reader.

Right. There's lots of stuff here (and in subjectivist
audio generally) that would make good discussion material
in an epistemology class.

Subjectivist epistemology can often be summed up as follows:

"It is true because I think it is true".

Stewart Pinkerton dribbled:

On 14 Feb 2006 19:02:16 -0800, wrote:

There is such a thing as a misogynist and a chauvinist. You're both.

There's also such a thing as a mindless ranter. That would be you.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Now surely you can come up with something better than a lame IKYABWAI?
On second thought, I guess you can't, you dumb drunken bitch. Go back
to licking KKKrueger's balls, and when I want to hear from you, I'll
let you know by farting in your general direction.

On 15 Feb 2006 09:31:28 -0800, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton dribbled:

On 14 Feb 2006 19:02:16 -0800, wrote:

There is such a thing as a misogynist and a chauvinist. You're both.

There's also such a thing as a mindless ranter. That would be you.

Now surely you can come up with something better than a lame IKYABWAI?

Yes, but you seem unable to follow a logical debate.

On second thought, I guess you can't, you dumb drunken bitch. Go back
to licking KKKrueger's balls, and when I want to hear from you, I'll
let you know by farting in your general direction.

Thanks for proving the point.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Orthodox audio science basically works. High end audio
pseudo-science doesn't.

Sure it does. It makes a *LOT* more money per unit for the
manufacturer/marketeer than the "value for money" stuff.
It creates employment for some, and adds to the economic
statistics.

OK ;-)

Pardon me for speaking about technical merits and performance.

There is nothing wrong with giving people what they want,
especially when they seem to be more than happy with
their purchases, regardless of technical merit.

Right, but there is something wrong with promising something and providing
nothing.


How screwed up is high end audio? It's so screwed up
that it can even give proper definiations and make
proper use of simple terms like objective and subjective.

I assume you mean "it can't".

Right. My error. Typo.

As they tell it, there's some kind of cosmic conflict
between
the two, when in fact they are complementary.

Sure, what the two camps seem to forget is that each
individuals auditory system, listening environment, and
personal preferences are different. Obviously laboratory
measurements are only half the story.

Only insofar as equipment can be good enough that no known or possible human
can hear the difference. Measurement technology exceeds that limit.

What the subjectivists forget though, is that there is
*NO* point at all debating a singular personal
preference. They have one, *SO WHAT*????

Exactly.

Audio stores don't bill themselves as purveyers of a state of mind. They
represent themselves as purveyers of audio equipment.

And just how they sell a magazine based on the personal
preference of a single reviewer in a single listening
room staggers belief.

Especially, when that reviewer behaves in public like a madman. Fremer comes
to mind.

Then again, I guess not when you read some of the drivel
being written here!

The amazing part is how much people swallow and even defend this crap.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On 15 Feb 2006 09:31:28 -0800,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton dribbled:

On 14 Feb 2006 19:02:16 -0800,
wrote:

There is such a thing as a misogynist and a
chauvinist. You're both.

There's also such a thing as a mindless ranter. That
would be you.

Now surely you can come up with something better than a
lame IKYABWAI?

Yes, but you seem unable to follow a logical debate.

On second thought, I guess you can't, you dumb drunken
bitch. Go back to licking KKKrueger's balls, and when I
want to hear from you, I'll let you know by farting in
your general direction.

Thanks for proving the point.

Ladbury has long since gone off the deep end with his irrational ranting.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On 15 Feb 2006 09:31:28 -0800,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton dribbled:

On 14 Feb 2006 19:02:16 -0800,
wrote:

There is such a thing as a misogynist and a
chauvinist. You're both.

There's also such a thing as a mindless ranter. That
would be you.

Now surely you can come up with something better than a
lame IKYABWAI?

Yes, but you seem unable to follow a logical debate.

On second thought, I guess you can't, you dumb drunken
bitch. Go back to licking KKKrueger's balls, and when I
want to hear from you, I'll let you know by farting in
your general direction.

Thanks for proving the point.

Ladbury has long since gone off the deep end with his irrational ranting.

He obviously has spent too much time alone with his cats.

Mr.T wrote:

Sure, what the two camps seem to forget is that each individuals auditory
system, listening environment, and personal preferences are different.
Obviously laboratory measurements are only half the story.
What the subjectivists forget though, is that there is *NO* point at all
debating a singular personal preference. They have one, *SO WHAT*????

If it were just a matter of personal preferences it wouldn't be much of
a debate. You like apples, I like oranges, not much more to say about
that. (in what follows, "you" is a generic pronoun, not you personally
Mr. T)

To extend the analogy, the problem comes when someone insists on only
eating apples that have been picked on the night of a full moon by a one
armed man from Peoria. Then after loudly proclaiming the vast
superiority of such apples and insulting everone who can't taste the
difference, that certain someone can't tell the "special" apple from a
common one. That's the situation we're in with the subjectivist crowd -
it's not a matter of which you prefer, it's a question of whether
anybody can tell the difference at all.

If you think vinyl sounds better than CD, fine. There's a difference
that most people can hear, and if you like one better than the other I
can't argue with you. OTOH, if you claim that the magic bricks make a
difference, you should be able to tell whether they're there or not just
by listening. If you can't detect the difference by listening, they
don't make a difference.


And just how they sell a magazine based on the personal preference of a
single reviewer in a single listening room staggers belief.

Pretty pictures. Lots of glossy purty pictures of unattainable shiny
expensive thingees. Look at the other magazines on the rack - you might
not be able to afford a Lamborgini or a 55' yacht or a vacation at
Aspen, but you can buy magazines with the pictures. It's the same
business model. Can't blame them for imitating success.

//Walt

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Orthodox audio science basically works. High end audio
pseudo-science doesn't.

Sure it does. It makes a *LOT* more money per unit for the
manufacturer/marketeer than the "value for money" stuff.
It creates employment for some, and adds to the economic
statistics.

OK ;-)

Pardon me for speaking about technical merits and performance.

Which many people are not interested in obviously.


There is nothing wrong with giving people what they want,
especially when they seem to be more than happy with
their purchases, regardless of technical merit.

Right, but there is something wrong with promising something and providing
nothing.

Sure they do. And as I said, many people are not only happy with their
purchase, they are ardent evangelists. You can't do much better than that in
this consumer world we live in.


As they tell it, there's some kind of cosmic conflict
between
the two, when in fact they are complementary.

Sure, what the two camps seem to forget is that each
individuals auditory system, listening environment, and
personal preferences are different. Obviously laboratory
measurements are only half the story.

Only insofar as equipment can be good enough that no known or possible
human
can hear the difference. Measurement technology exceeds that limit.

Sure, but that does not take into account personal auditory performance or
personal preference. Obviously more important to many than technical
perfection.


Audio stores don't bill themselves as purveyers of a state of mind. They
represent themselves as purveyers of audio equipment.

Which they do in whatever way they think will make the most money. That is
what a capitalist society is all about, surely you realise that?

MrT.

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Sure, what the two camps seem to forget is that each individuals
auditory
system, listening environment, and personal preferences are different.
Obviously laboratory measurements are only half the story.
What the subjectivists forget though, is that there is *NO* point at all
debating a singular personal preference. They have one, *SO WHAT*????

If it were just a matter of personal preferences it wouldn't be much of
a debate. You like apples, I like oranges, not much more to say about
that.

Exactly.

(in what follows, "you" is a generic pronoun, not you personally Mr. T)

Understood, but I would probably have assumed that.

To extend the analogy, the problem comes when someone insists on only
eating apples that have been picked on the night of a full moon by a one
armed man from Peoria.

That is their right, (if they are willing to spend their own money) surely?


Then after loudly proclaiming the vast
superiority of such apples and insulting everone who can't taste the
difference, that certain someone can't tell the "special" apple from a
common one. That's the situation we're in with the subjectivist crowd -
it's not a matter of which you prefer, it's a question of whether
anybody can tell the difference at all.

Agreed, and I have been saying that for years. I have been personally
attacked for challenging their "opinion stated as fact" attitude, (always
followed by their ad hominem attacks), as many times as most on usenet
(maybe a little behind Arny :-)
However I still support their right to whatever self delusions they may
choose.


If you think vinyl sounds better than CD, fine.

Not Me! :-)
(yes I know what you meant)


There's a difference
that most people can hear, and if you like one better than the other I
can't argue with you.

If only they would say, "they *like* one better than the other" rather than
stating vinyl is unequivocably better than CD, (or valve *is* better than
solid state) we would have no arguments at all.


OTOH, if you claim that the magic bricks make a
difference, you should be able to tell whether they're there or not just
by listening. If you can't detect the difference by listening, they
don't make a difference.

Of course they *claim* to be able to tell a difference by listening, they
just don't want to *prove* it in *any manner* whatsoever.
That pretty much eliminates any further discussion AFAIC.


And just how they sell a magazine based on the personal preference of a
single reviewer in a single listening room staggers belief.

Pretty pictures. Lots of glossy purty pictures of unattainable shiny
expensive thingees. Look at the other magazines on the rack - you might
not be able to afford a Lamborgini or a 55' yacht or a vacation at
Aspen, but you can buy magazines with the pictures. It's the same
business model. Can't blame them for imitating success.

Fair point, but surely they would be better off looking at a copy of Playboy
(or whatever) while actually listening to the HiFi they do own.

MrT.

Stewart Pinkerton puked out :

On 13 Feb 2006 20:58:02 -0800, wrote:

Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.

Actually, it's not *his* ABX, it's what the entire audio industry
uses, because it works.

If by the "entire audio industry" you mean your fat faggot friend
KKKrueger's PC audio site, then you're right. If you're implying
anything else, then you're the stupid drunk ****head everyone knows you
to be.

Of course, it won't allow you to hear
*imaginary* differences due to such things as cables and 'high end'
amplifiers, which is likely why you have a problem with it.

The only thing imaginary here is your notion that you,re not a
dimwitted drunken ignorant asswipe. Why don't you just shut up and go
have a drink now, Drunkie.

Stewart Pinkerton spewed out:

On 15 Feb 2006 09:31:28 -0800, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton dribbled:

On 14 Feb 2006 19:02:16 -0800, wrote:

There is such a thing as a misogynist and a chauvinist. You're both.

There's also such a thing as a mindless ranter. That would be you.

Now surely you can come up with something better than a lame IKYABWAI?

Yes, but you seem unable to follow a logical debate.


You wouldn't know a logical debate if it bit you in the ass, you stupid
drunk limey piece of ****. And considering that you've spent half your
life on your ass as KKKrueger's lapdog, trolling audio newsgroups
looking to attack anyone who doesn't believe in your foolish audio
religion, that's saying something. Your usual modus operandi is to
demand proof of your subject, while ignoring their demands of proof.
The rest of the time, the amount of pure bull**** that comes out of
you, could fertilize half of Korea on any given day.

Pinkerton, go back to licking KKKrueger's balls, you gormless ****.

Arny Krueger, sitting on his fat nazi ass, wrote :

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On 15 Feb 2006 09:31:28 -0800,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton dribbled:

On 14 Feb 2006 19:02:16 -0800,
wrote:

There is such a thing as a misogynist and a
chauvinist. You're both.

There's also such a thing as a mindless ranter. That
would be you.

Now surely you can come up with something better than a
lame IKYABWAI?

Yes, but you seem unable to follow a logical debate.

On second thought, I guess you can't, you dumb drunken
bitch. Go back to licking KKKrueger's balls, and when I
want to hear from you, I'll let you know by farting in
your general direction.

Thanks for proving the point.

Ladbury has long since gone off the deep end with his irrational ranting.

This from a guy who accused the editor of Stereophile, reputed widely
to be a super nice guy, as having sent him pictures of child
pornography, and mocked his dead son.

KKKruger, you ****ing sick anti-semitic scumbag. The only thing worse
than a deceitful, lying, fat, trolling, anti-audio pedophile faggot
like you, is a deceitful, lying, fat, trolling, anti-audio NAZI
pedophile faggot. Yeah, "Heil Hitler", you German piece of ****. You
and your Nazi parents are the ones that should have all been burned in
the gas chambers.

wrote in message
ups.com...

You wouldn't know a logical debate if it bit you in the ass, you stupid
drunk limey piece of ****.

Is that supposed to be a specimen of logical debate?

Mr.T, (the T stands for "****") :

"Walt" wrote in message
...

To extend the analogy, the problem comes when someone insists on only
eating apples that have been picked on the night of a full moon by a one
armed man from Peoria.

That is their right, (if they are willing to spend their own money) surely?

You're actually having a debate on whether its someones right to spend
their own money? And you wonder why I keep calling you people the most
blatantly ignorant ****tards on the planet?! Christ, you are stupid.
Get help.

Agreed, and I have been saying that for years. I have been personally
attacked for challenging their "opinion stated as fact" attitude, (always
followed by their ad hominem attacks), as many times as most on usenet
(maybe a little behind Arny :-)
However I still support their right to whatever self delusions they may
choose.

The self-delusions are coming from you. And NO, I don't support your
right to self-delusions. Get help, NOW. The reason I don't support your
self-delusions, is because it just breeds more ignorant fools like you.

If you think vinyl sounds better than CD, fine.

There's no "think" about it. It's a FACT that LPs are more accurate to
the sound of music, than CDs ever were. Those who know anything about
audio, know that already, and have good turntable setups. You no doubt
have **** on stick for a CD player, and that's all. You've no doubt
never actually HEARD a decent turntable in your life. My $50 turntable
could outperform the best cd player you,ve ever owned.

OTOH, if you claim that the magic bricks make a
difference, you should be able to tell whether they're there or not just
by listening. If you can't detect the difference by listening, they
don't make a difference.

Look who's talking. Two idiots who can't tell **** from shinola, and
that's why that have **** for hifi systems. Because everything sounds
alike to you ****ing technofool idiots! Christ, you people are stupid.

Fair point, but surely they would be better off looking at a copy of Playboy
(or whatever) while actually listening to the HiFi they do own.

Makes sense. You'd rather jack off to soft core porn than listen to a
decent hifi system. But admit it tinkerbell, isn't that a copy of
PlayGIRL on your coffee table?....

mc a écrit :

wrote in message
ups.com...

You wouldn't know a logical debate if it bit you in the ass, you stupid
drunk limey piece of ****.

Is that supposed to be a specimen of logical debate?

Shut up, Jr. Needless to say, there's no such thing as a "logical
debate" with you ****ing morons. It's always nothing more than a
****ing contest. You technophile geeks are shallow and ignorant fools
to the ****ing extreme, you have absolutely NO desire to be educated,
or learn anything you think you already know. Wether about audio, or
anything else. ERGO, you dumb ****ing twit, anyone who thinks they can
have a productive debate with any of you ignorant ****tards, is as much
a fool as you are. You technophile idiots never change your anti-audio
position in a decade of so-called "debates" on newsgroups. These
so-called "debates" you engage in only to massage your giant ego's, and
basically, because you have **** all more productive to do in life than
hang around on newsgroups, argue with and ridicule people who's ideas
about audio are far more advanced than yours. You certainly wouldn't
use any of this time to actually get your hands dirty and find out what
the **** DOES make a difference in audio. NOOOO....... you already,
don't ya, idjut? Because YOU read it all in BOOKS, that are like
****ing BIBLES to you, and helped form your RELIGION about audio.

Pray all you want to your audio gods, you stupid flat-earth fool. But
DO NOT come to me and give me that tired old joke about how you just
want to engage in a "logical debate", as though you're prepared to
learn something you don't know about audio. Like I said to your
technofool buddy, you wouldn't know a proper debate if it bit you in
the ass. There are over 320 posts in the thread I started on this
newsgroup the last few weeks, concerning my fuse experiment. Not a
single ONE of you dumb ****s EVER tried the tweak yourself. No, you all
just want to "debate" the idea that I'm full of **** when I say fuses
are as audible as anything else in the chain, even though its clearly
evident you have no ****ing clue as to what you're talking about. If
any of you ever showed any signs of intelligence that showed you're
worth debating, that might be a different story. Until then, shut up,
jr., and don't talk to me about your bull**** meaningless debates.

"mc" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in message
ups.com...

You wouldn't know a logical debate if it bit you in the ass, you stupid
drunk limey piece of ****.

Is that supposed to be a specimen of logical debate?

As close as he is ever likely to get unfortunately.

MrT.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:sPxIf.33589$Eq.17607@trnddc02...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Karl Uppiano wrote :

wrote in message
oups.com...
Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is
to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the
audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.


They sure do a lousy job of teaching science in schools anymore.


They do an even worse job of teaching grammar, obviously.

Ha ha! I was wondering if you were going to take that bait. That was a
colloquialism; nothing more. Since you seem to have understood the
sentence, it got the job done. But I will agree with you that they do a
lousy job of teaching grammar as well.

Nevertheless, your complete rejection of ABX would surprise anyone with
much scientific training. It is used anywhere scientists and
technologists want to reduce the amount of human bias and placebo effect
from their research. The pharmaceutical industry uses it, the cosmetic
industry uses it, the audio industry uses it. The truth takes a beating
whenever there is an agenda to be sold. It is really hard for people to
be unbiased. ABX is an attempt to reduce the built-in bias. Like
everything else man-made, it isn't perfect, but it is a useful tool. And
it is so effective on audio snake oil, it really ****es people off.

It would help if you realized the difference between ABX and DBT's in
general.

In my research I see the terms ABX and DBT used interchangeably, often
written out as "ABX/DBT". ABX and DBT are both methodologies intended for
removing bias and placebo effects. Depending upon the problem being solved,
the exact methodologies may differ. I would not necessarily design exactly
the same test for comparing color variations or drug efficacy but the goal
is the same.

On 16 Feb 2006 18:41:34 -0800, wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton puked out :

On 13 Feb 2006 20:58:02 -0800, wrote:

Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.

Actually, it's not *his* ABX, it's what the entire audio industry
uses, because it works.

If by the "entire audio industry" you mean your fat faggot friend
KKKrueger's PC audio site, then you're right. If you're implying
anything else, then you're the stupid drunk ****head everyone knows you
to be.

Try telling that to Sean Olive, you moron.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Feb 2006 18:41:34 -0800, wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton puked out :

On 13 Feb 2006 20:58:02 -0800, wrote:

Still hawking your silly stupid ABX crap, I see. What a joke. ABX is to
audio, as pineapples are to cleanroom microchip production. In other
words, your ABX myth is about as relevant as your presence in the audio
community, Krueger Klown. And your entire failed life, I'm sorry to
say.

Actually, it's not *his* ABX, it's what the entire audio industry
uses, because it works.

If by the "entire audio industry" you mean your fat faggot friend
KKKrueger's PC audio site, then you're right. If you're implying
anything else, then you're the stupid drunk ****head everyone knows you
to be.

Try telling that to Sean Olive, you moron.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

This is an individual ) that obviously has
some serious self-esteem issues.
Pointless ranting that rarely addresses the topic,
only attacks the poster of his choice.
This thread will also quickly degenerate into a
constant string of venomous posts.