| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
ups.com Arny Krueger a scris: In contrast we have a great collection of Art's meltdowns - they are simply full quotes of other people's posts with no additional comments. The only thing melting down in my house is my mouse. Come on Art. On occasions you've admitted that it was operator failure. You want us to believe that you're the only guy on Usenet with a mouse that bad? Oh, I get it Art, you have thousands of dollars invested in your audio gear, and can't afford a new mouse? LOL! Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past year or so: It is a Mitsumi model S6702. http://acortech.com/Mitsumi_Optical_...d-3214737.html Net price: $7.20. |
|
#122
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Jenn wrote: In article om, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown: So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't recall seeing any posts from this person. He's a Real Audio Guy who used to post on Usenet. He owns his own company that makes professional studio gear (www.z-sys.com). Naturally, Krooger is much smarter than some PhD who earns a fine living supplying equipment to top sound engineers around the world. Or so Arnii tells us. ;-) This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk about you when you're not here, would it? Stop doing that! You can't expect the Krooborg to play fair when everybody is conspiring against him. The bottom line about Glenn is that a few times, he tried to teach Arnii a thing or two about digital electronics. The effort was unsuccessful. My fave exchange between Dr. Z and Mr. **** involved a test Glenn gives to job applicants. He posted it on RAO and invited Krooger to submit his answers. That drove Turdy into a major Kroodown. I'll go search that exchange. My guess is that it's pretty funny. I just read the 'meltdown' post that Arns referred to. It appears that it's simply another case of somebody trying to have a discussion with Arns, then Arns frustrates them with lies, distortions, illogic and so forth, then the person realizes that Arns is an insane asshole and tells him to **** off, then Arns declares 'victory' due to a 'meltdown.' While I haven't been here all that long, it does seem to be a recurring pattern. That plus often declaring himself the smartest person in the room. Well, I wrapped that into 'insane asshole.' :-) I've come to the conclusion that I've never encountered a more pathetic individual. Even where you agree with him, you're still wrong. |
|
#123
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message oups.com Even where you agree with him, you're still wrong. It is not just that you agree, it is also how you agree. In your case you're so poorly-informed that even correct information sounds incorrect when you present it. It is almost like someone who knows what they are doing is telling you what to type in the next room, and by the time you walk next door and type it in, your addled mind has scrambled it. |
|
#124
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com Even where you agree with him, you're still wrong. It is not just that you agree, it is also how you agree. In your case you're so poorly-informed that even correct information sounds incorrect when you present it. So now there's a correct way to agree and an incorrect way to agree. Arns, I hope some day that someone as perfect as you are agrees with you... LMAO! It is almost like someone who knows what they are doing is telling you what to type in the next room, and by the time you walk next door and type it in, your addled mind has scrambled it. I see. And who is telling me to type, Arns? Who is that person that 'knows what they are doing'? In my archive search I saw some people who apparently 'know what they are doing' handing your ass to you, telling you what the rest of us already know (that you are an insane asshole), and yet... ....they apparently suffer from the same malady that you now accuse me of having. Have you ever wondered how so many people could get it exactly wrong, and how you could be the *only* person to get it so right? LMAO! ____________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#125
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message oups.com And who is telling me to type, Arns? One of the other voices in your head? Have you ever wondered how so many people could get it exactly wrong, Easy - arrogant and stupid, like you. and how you could be the *only* person to get it so right? Wrong - there are tons of people in this world who have things right. Few of them have the strong stomach it takes to bother with RAO, let alone read your posts. |
|
#126
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
The Krooborg is stuck behind its own personal language barrier again. In contrast we have a great collection of Art's meltdowns - they are simply full quotes of other people's posts with no additional comments. Arnii, could you please tell us what "meltdown" means in Krooglish? All we know from your outburst quoted above is that the meaning is vastly different from the human meaning. Still waiting for the secret instructions on how to purchase an aBxism switchbox. TIA. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#127
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com And who is telling me to type, Arns? One of the other voices in your head? Have you ever wondered how so many people could get it exactly wrong, Easy - arrogant and stupid, like you. LOL! and how you could be the *only* person to get it so right? Wrong - there are tons of people in this world who have things right. Few of them have the strong stomach it takes to bother with RAO, let alone read your posts. It would seem that people with audio chops --many people with audio chops far stronger than yours-- disagree with you. I've enjoyed seeing these people's reactions to you in the archives. Now why don't you go and tell us all how you are superior to these people, and how you and not they have it 'right.' Arrogance? LMAO! Mirrors aren't allowed in your house, Arns? I have seen people who appear to be audio researchers, professional recording engineers, professional audio designers, and other people with far greater training, experience, and audio resumes which your eternal hackdom couldn't even come close to, call you an idiot or worse. Now who should I pay attention to? You are clearly insane. _________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#128
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Jenn wrote: In article om, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown: So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't recall seeing any posts from this person. He's a Real Audio Guy who used to post on Usenet. He owns his own company that makes professional studio gear (www.z-sys.com). Naturally, Krooger is much smarter than some PhD who earns a fine living supplying equipment to top sound engineers around the world. Or so Arnii tells us. ;-) This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk about you when you're not here, would it? Stop doing that! You can't expect the Krooborg to play fair when everybody is conspiring against him. The bottom line about Glenn is that a few times, he tried to teach Arnii a thing or two about digital electronics. The effort was unsuccessful. My fave exchange between Dr. Z and Mr. **** involved a test Glenn gives to job applicants. He posted it on RAO and invited Krooger to submit his answers. That drove Turdy into a major Kroodown. I'll go search that exchange. My guess is that it's pretty funny. I just read the 'meltdown' post that Arns referred to. It appears that it's simply another case of somebody trying to have a discussion with Arns, then Arns frustrates them with lies, distortions, illogic and so forth, then the person realizes that Arns is an insane asshole and tells him to **** off, then Arns declares 'victory' due to a 'meltdown.' While I haven't been here all that long, it does seem to be a recurring pattern. ======================================= That plus often declaring himself the smartest person in the room. Whom is Jenn talking about ?.No prizes for the right answer.. Not just simple smart. He said once that in the RAO he felt like Gulliver amongst the Liliputians. Long, long ago I was doing a six-week house physicianship in Ediburgh's largest asylum . (They had those in those days where the insane were fed and taken care of instead of being encouraged to sleep in the rain barrels in the street, muttering to their voices, while looking for scraps in the garbage bins- all in the name of freedom of choice). Anyway there was one inmate there who stood by the window day in day out counting aloud. When asked what he counted he'd say matter-of-fact: " I'm counting the 'planes that salute me" In the textbooks this is called " ideas of reference" with folie de grandeur added for spice. And there you have it- the celeb. complex. Let them say what they like, bad and worse- as long as it is about me. . But operating just on the verge and surviving is what not a few , "the world revolves about me" specimens manage to perfection. It takes and is quite compattible with cunning. Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the "Arny is not listening..." thread was mine four days ago. "He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS backing up the ABX use for differentiating the musical reproduction characteristics of audio components- in LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC. An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks for that purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable to JAES- the professional voice of audio engineering" I issued this challenge to him many times. Every time he blusters for a bit producing out of this world messages like "JAES Board of Review approved ABX'- no date , no quote to find what was it approvewd for. Every time Arny knows when to let the matter die. In those fourr days he found time for some ten postings. . He's just biding time only to come back in full fighting mettle, when all is forgotten, babling about his patented cure for "bias", "accuracy", "objectivity" and other quack remedies he markets. He need not feel insulted. He said I was senile. The vigorous young thinkers don't get upset by the demented old.. Just sail on Arny. Ludovic Mirabel . .. .. . |
|
#129
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
wrote in message
ups.com Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the "Arny is not listening..." thread was mine four days ago. "He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS backing up the ABX use for differentiating the musical reproduction characteristics of audio components- in LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC. An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks for that purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable to JAES- the professional voice of audio engineering" Asked and answered many times: Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338. |
|
#130
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the "Arny is not listening..." thread was mine four days ago. "He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS backing up the ABX use for differentiating the musical reproduction characteristics of audio components- in LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC. An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks for that purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable to JAES- the professional voice of audio engineering" Asked and answered many times: Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338. Nice to meet you, David. LOL! The fog wraps Arns' mind in a thick cloak... |
|
#131
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
wrote in message ups.com... (snip) Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the "Arny is not listening..." thread was mine four days ago. "He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS backing up the ABX use for differentiating the musical reproduction characteristics of audio components- in LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC. An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks for that purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable to JAES- the professional voice of audio engineering" I issued this challenge to him many times. Every time he blusters for a bit producing out of this world messages like "JAES Board of Review approved ABX'- no date , no quote to find what was it approvewd for. You have a point. For the sake of discussion, how do suppose a scientist would go about establishing whether or not ABX is a good way to evaluate audio reproduction? As far as I know, all ABX does is determine which of 2 signals is identical to a 3rd one. Certainly, if one cannot do better than chance on such a test, the choice can be made on a basis other than sound. Yes, it's true that failing such a test doesn't mean that nobody can pass it, and there's always the possibility that the same subject might pass the test using some other supporting gear. However, repeated failure over a long period of time does tend to lead one to the conclusion that there is no audible difference between the 2 signals. Norm Strong |
|
#132
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
|
|
#133
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
wrote in message
oups.com Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities between audio components would have to include cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical education, experience/preference etc. Sounds a lot like the people who have taken ABX tests over the years. Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do again if requested. Go ahead, Mirabel. Where's Krueger's research?. Where is yours, related to difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities? According to you, if it isn't in a relevant refereed professional journal, it ain't squat. After you, Mirabel. |
|
#134
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past year or so: It is a Mitsumi model S6702. Ick. :-) Not exactly a golden pinnacle of ergonomic research, but on balance, cheap, comfortable, and reliable. I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice. I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech are IME better tools. Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk. Can't beat the price for something at least halfways decent. |
|
#135
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... (snip) Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the "Arny is not listening..." thread was mine four days ago. "He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS backing up the ABX use for differentiating the musical reproduction characteristics of audio components- in LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC. An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks for that purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable to JAES- the professional voice of audio engineering" I issued this challenge to him many times. Every time he blusters for a bit producing out of this world messages like "JAES Board of Review approved ABX'- no date , no quote to find what was it approvewd for. You have a point. For the sake of discussion, how do suppose a scientist would go about establishing whether or not ABX is a good way to evaluate audio reproduction? As far as I know, all ABX does is determine which of 2 signals is identical to a 3rd one. Certainly, if one cannot do better than chance on such a test, the choice can be made on a basis other than sound. Yes, it's true that failing such a test doesn't mean that nobody can pass it, and there's always the possibility that the same subject might pass the test using some other supporting gear. However, repeated failure over a long period of time does tend to lead one to the conclusion that there is no audible difference between the 2 signals. The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially violates one very important principle for use as a tool for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself into the process of listening to music, which is a holistic and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without conscious thought and over a longer time frame. That is very different from listening to FR differences, or level differences, or distortion artifacts, or codec artifacts, which is why this test was developed and how it was designed to be used. So as a tool for the open-ended evaluation of components as musical transducers, it can legitimately be questioned. When faced with that kind of situation, good test methodology calls for an indirect test, where what is being measured is measured without the test interfering, and by elicited and measureable response on secondary measures as well as primary measures And if the proponent believes that a direct test will not interfere while his peers believe it will, it is imperative (in the scientific world) to validate the methodology by showing that the test does not interfere with the variable under test, as feared. Arny (and many other objectivists as well) refuse to enter into any serious discussion as to how to do that. Such a discussion was held on RAHE, but under much duress which often tended to short-circuit civil discourse, even on that proctored site (see last paragraph for further discussion) Another issue is its universality. Such testing is used at H-K in the classic manner...potential panel members are chosen from volunteers within the company, and then trained in what they are supposed to be listening for - a single characteristic (which such a test demands). Sean Phillips who leads the testing at H-K has written that nearly half of all potential testers are so bad at ABX'ng that even with training they have to be dropped from the panel. So just dropping abx testing into a randowm group of audiophiles probably means that as many as half of them automatically have no chance of succeeding in the test. And that in turn makes a mockery out of the "win statistics" needed to prove a difference exists. In other words, this phenomenon alone biases the test toward a null hypothesis. And the need for testing reveals yet a third shortcoming of the test...how do you "train" for open-ended evaluation. Such evaluation general is done in a relaxed, evaluative state where the "perceived shortcoming" suddenly comes into conscious focus, and then can be a-b'd quickly to verfify that it exists. ABX testing is particularly ill-suited for such "exploratory" listening. A blind A-B preference test consisting of long and short term listening to music of subjects choice, with quick-switch, syncronized A-B switching under the control of the listener, and with no other requirement than eventually coming to a preference is much more conducive to such testing. If statistical reliability is required by the listener, then the test can be repeated 15-20 times over several weeks or months to arrive at a conculusion. If reliability of a sub-group, such as for example all audiophiles with component systems valued at $5000 or more is desired, then several dozen to several hundred people can take the test, and the results statistically analyzed to determine if a true preference exists. Attempts to get Arny to face up to this these issues, which scientists of any stripe would recognize as absolutely necessity to be confronted in attempting to design the most appropriate test, and then validated before widespread use, are dismissed out of hand. His stock answer is: "it is proven and good enough for audio research; and we know everything we need to know about our hearing sensitivity, so that is that". In other words, "if its good enough for audiometrics, it's good enough for me." That is the primary reason why his obdurant repeating of his mantra became so divisive on usenet that even JJ who used double-blind testing daily in his research work took him to task. I haven't even mentioned that fact that the abx test is potentially subject to a very strong negative perceptual bias...anybody who really doesn't think objects sound different can either deliberately guess at random, or (more likely) be swift and somewhat cavalier in their choices and thus guarantee (whether willfully or not) that their results will prove to find "no difference". To be fair, this can also be a problem with blind a-b testing. There is a solution: it is called monadic testing, and a complete test validation should consider it as well. But I won't go into that here. If you want to learn more about it, visit the RAHE archives looking for "monadic test" and "monadic testing". |
|
#136
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past year or so: It is a Mitsumi model S6702. Ick. :-) I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice. Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk. The last and only one I ever owned stopped working in months. |
|
#137
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:59:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice. I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech are IME better tools. MS has several levels of quality. The stuff they supply as an OEM is horrible, but the stuff they sell at retail is quite a bit better. I'm considering both. Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk. Agreed. Can't beat the price for something at least halfways decent. The Mitsumi stuff I evaluated in the mid '90s was not even halfway decent, it was just inexpensive. That was a long, long time ago. As I said, perhaps they have improved. But my first impulse would be to spend the extra $10 and get a Logitech mouse. Been there done that, and it wasn't bad. More than that, it was very good. But when there are a lot of systems in the buy, well something that works well for a lot less has its charms. Remember that the reason I brought this up was that Art blames a lot of crap posts on a bad mouse, and there's no economic excuse for using a bad mouse. Personally, I think that he just gets so excited that he sends in those posts that are 100% copies of the post he was responding to, in a fit of pique. |
|
#138
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Here in Ohio" wrote in message On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past year or so: It is a Mitsumi model S6702. Ick. :-) Not exactly a golden pinnacle of ergonomic research, but on balance, cheap, comfortable, and reliable. I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice. I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech are IME better tools. Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk. Can't beat the price for something at least halfways decent. "beating the price" may mean value to you Arny, but if it falls apart it is still junk even if you can buy three for the price of a Microsoft or a Logitech. |
|
#139
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
|
|
#140
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Here in Ohio" wrote in message On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past year or so: It is a Mitsumi model S6702. Ick. :-) Not exactly a golden pinnacle of ergonomic research, but on balance, cheap, comfortable, and reliable. I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice. I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech are IME better tools. Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk. Can't beat the price for something at least halfways decent. This about sums up Arns' view of life. And audio, it would seem.;-) |
|
#141
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message ... On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:28:19 -0500, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I found TAS to be rather snotty. HP wasn't snotty in those days...he basically did the same as Stereophile...look for the best, and evaluate the equipment based primarily on sound and synergy. I never mentioned HP... :-) You didn't have to? My impression from reading TAS was that the reviews were being handed down from on high, especially from Seacliff. Actually if you heard his Magnapan/Infinity reference system driven by ARC preamp and power amps and fed by a transcriptors arm/adc cartridge and Fulton cables, you would understand why. This was 1974 remember, when even audiophiles were still mostly listening to god-awful sounding Japanese transistor electronics and AR and Advent speakers. As for HP, perhaps he was different in person, but it seemed to me (and others) that he was an arrogant prick. He could be a prick, but he could be a lot of fun as well. And he did have a fine ear, and an even finer ability to write about "the sound of things". The journalist in him knew he was covering the same ground as JGH's Stereophile, so to some degree the "tone" of the magazine was a deliberate attempt to differentiate it. And boy, did he succeed...it took only a couple of years to leave SP's cirulation in the dust. If JGH *had* published more on time, there probably wouldn't have been a TAS. There was much audiophile unhappiness with Stereophiles erratic JGH did not come across to me as an arrogant prick. Yeah, but he was a down-to-earth guy who couldn't get his mag out on time. I like the tests that JA does for Stereophile too, although I think more weight should be given to the results. There are problems with some of JAs tests, especially in the digital domain. However, IMO & IME the means by which they do equipment listening tests are unbelievably crude and inherently highly insensitive, issues of bias control notwithstanding. In essence their equipment reviews are as good as fiction or poetry. Well-written pap. We never would have guessed you held such views, Arny. :-) I should perhaps have been more clear in that I meant the measurements that JA takes. Too many other magazines and web sites seem to have a disdain for measurements completely. Right. I like them too. And you can give them as much or as little weight viz-a-viz the subjective reviews they accompany as you desire. Don't like the subjective...ignore them, and draw your own conclusions from JA's measurement work. The listening tests in Stereophile reviews? They're about the same as everyone else's. A bunch of arm waving and purple prose. They even occasionally shuffle the reviewers around from place to place and you can't really tell. (Which magazine am I reading? Oh yeah, it's Stereophile.) :-) That hasn't happened much in the last dozen years or so. The pictures in SP are nice though. Agreed. |
|
#142
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message ... On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:14:55 -0500, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I like the tests that JA does for Stereophile too, although I think more weight should be given to the results. The mag provides the info...subjective and objective. You provide the "weights". How hard is that? Except that I saw on several occasions something like, "Although the measurements showed there was something wrong with this piece of equipment, the listening tests by XYZ showed it was more wonderful than wonderful, so this piece of equipment must be just hunky-dory." It seems that there may be a tendency to discount the importance of the measurements. I don't agree with that. (It's partly why I am no longer a SP subscriber.) I've never seen JA reach such an explicit conclusion. I have seen him sometimes spell out the differences and proffer a possible explanation for them, and I've sometimes just seen him figuratively "scratch his head". |
|
#143
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
In article ,
Here in Ohio wrote: On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:28:19 -0500, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I found TAS to be rather snotty. HP wasn't snotty in those days...he basically did the same as Stereophile...look for the best, and evaluate the equipment based primarily on sound and synergy. I never mentioned HP... :-) My impression from reading TAS was that the reviews were being handed down from on high, especially from Seacliff. As for HP, perhaps he was different in person, but it seemed to me (and others) that he was an arrogant prick. I found him to be charming and gracious when we met. |
|
#144
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Here in Ohio wrote: On 20 Nov 2006 12:53:36 -0800, " wrote: experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do again if requested. Where's Krueger's research?. So far, according to your standards (peer-reviewed paper in JAES), Clark is much more reputable than you are. :-) I.ve been fed too many pseudoreferences to all kinds of audio research to get excited and rush out to the Univ. Library on another wild goose chase. It will wait till tomorrow. I'll be in touch and awaiting your response.. The topic is not codecs, not phase differences, not harmonics perception but what ABX is beeing marketed for: namely a TEST for recognition by listeners of differences in performance of MUSIC by different audio components. More importantly: Not reflexions about the theory but experimental evidence that IT WORKS. Note that Clark's paper is dated year 1982. Note that it's taken Arny 5 years to give a refernece with no quote , no summary of what it contains. I'll eat a (very small) paper hat if it contains an ACTUAL comparison by a large panel between comparable audio components. The hat is safe : my bet is that Arny would not keep it a secret all these years quoting all kinds of irrelevancies in the meantime. As for reputations: Anyone familiar with history and actuality of medicine is not too worried about Holy Writs issued by reputable people. Quite a few of them write all those diet books littering the paper book sections of airline bookstalls. I'll tell you a secret: I'm not worried about my reputation with RAO either. It seems like you practically foam at the mouth asking Arny to provide you with a peer-reviewed paper from the JAES. You were beating that horse over and over and over again. And yet again. I love the "foaming at the mouth" bit, It a ppears I'm foaming not Pinkerton who reached for sewers to call me names, not Sullivan who investigated my medical qualifications in the US colleges hoping to prove me an impostor. (poor guy- he never heard of Canada!), Not Krueger who calls me half ignorant and half senile and not you, who...but why bother. .. I enjoy real debate too much to foam.. I also know a little about semantics and I read "The meaning of meaning". So I doggedly refuse to be sidetracked by Arny's somewhat primitive sidetracking tactics and I take my gloves off when sworn at, called insane and worse by the Arnys, Pinkertons and NYOBs. And when I take my gloves off I don't need to descend into their gutter..I just ask for evidence, evidence, evidence. Now that Arny gives you a reference, you're still not happy and have to dismiss it as "ridiculous." I did not say this one was "ridiculous". I had not yet seen it. But I said and repeat that the "research" on the ABX web site is ridiculous ( see below) and I wonder why Clark et al. would not reprint something better if it showed up in JAES. Maybe you only want to accept peer-reviewed papers in the JAES that say what you want to hear? Wrong again. I'd love to see a "test" that will tell me infallibly what to buy. Who would not? You got it? Ludovic Mirabel. . What follows is the "research" that the ABX web site offers for its forty years of marketing. Essentially a copy of my answer to NYOB a few years ago.: " "Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?" Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their one and only "evidence" and once last year So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be bored no more than the writer. The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against: low wattage tube amps: 7 watt Heatkit and a 10 watt "homebrew" They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400, two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10 Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was not bad but less than flat: Believe it or not; They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering subtle differences"- lSubtle like between 200 and 7 watts. 2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong. Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables 3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment: "The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it! Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap. They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20 watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3) Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX or not. Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared Shure V15III, very "high-end" (at that time) against 4 different cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE -repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same" when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie. "different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong. Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right and one wrong. First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- *the first cdplayer ever made*, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right! Against all odds- like using ABX. They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology" The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should they? If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They comment: "The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors. Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. " Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. NYOB reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours. Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his menu in the lock-up. The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter against wire" I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in volume at various frequencies. NYOB triumphantly reports it as six positive ABX results |
|
#145
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities between audio components would have to include cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical education, experience/preference etc. Sounds a lot like the people who have taken ABX tests over the years. Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do again if requested. Go ahead, Mirabel. Always willing to oblige. Re-re-re quoted in my answer to the gentleman from Ohio just below.this Where's Krueger's research?. Where is yours, related to difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities? According to you, if it isn't in a relevant refereed professional journal, it ain't squat. Oh dear!. Again and again and again. for the nth. time. I'm not an audio researcher. I'm a consumer. I don't market a "TEST". I don't have a website. Those who disagree with my likes are welcome to theirs ( poor guys- they don't know what they are missing) Strange as it may seem to yousomeone who is offering a test has to validate by research.I am looking for YOUR evidence, evidence, evidence fot YOUR "test". We'll seer if it is any good when we see it. After you, Mirabel. Welcome to courtly manners. Jenn must be exertin her womanly influence and softening you up. Ludovic Mirabel. |
|
#146
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
wrote in message
ups.com Here in Ohio wrote: On 20 Nov 2006 12:53:36 -0800, " wrote: experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do again if requested. Where's Krueger's research?. So far, according to your standards (peer-reviewed paper in JAES), Clark is much more reputable than you are. :-) I.ve been fed too many pseudoreferences to all kinds of audio research to get excited and rush out to the Univ. Library on another wild goose chase. It will wait till tomorrow. I'll be in touch and awaiting your response.. Ludo seems to be having a mind snap. I've pointed the Clark paper out to him many times before. Here is the first full RAO reference to it that I can quickly find dated 6/8/97, over 9 years ago. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d5b905d2fc430d Other searching suggests that this reference has been posted on RAO over 70 times since then. At least 10 formal cites of this paper have been posted in RAO during the past 5 years. The topic is not codecs, not phase differences, not harmonics perception but what ABX is being marketed for: namely a TEST for recognition by listeners of differences in performance of MUSIC by different audio components. The Clark paper makes it quite clear that this is what the ABX test is for. More importantly: Not reflexions about the theory but experimental evidence that IT WORKS. The ABX test paper passed formal review by the JAES review board and has been demonstrated at a number of AES conferences. Obvioiusly, nobody in the AES hierarchy at that time seriously doubted that it works. Note that Clark's paper is dated year 1982. Note that it's taken Arny 5 years to give a refernece with no quote , no summary of what it contains. False claim. Google searching shows at least 10 full cites to Clarks paper have been posted on RAO in the past 5 years. I'll eat a (very small) paper hat if it contains an ACTUAL comparison by a large panel between comparable audio components. The Clark paper covers this in a manner that is consistent with other JAESb papers. The hat is safe : my bet is that Arny would not keep it a secret all these years quoting all kinds of irrelevancies in the meantime. Mirabel apparently thinks that 70 formal cites on RAO, 10 in the past 5 years, constitutes keeping something a secret. |
|
#147
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message ups.com wrote: Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities between audio components would have to include cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical education, experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do again if requested. Where's Krueger's research?. I would also suspect that hearing acuity, environment, and several other factors might apply too. I do think that blind testing has its place. When developing new CODECs, or at the manufacturing level, might be two examples. For an audio hobbyist it's more bother than it's worth IMO. Given that you're so ashamed of your posts that you won't even provide your given name, we know exactly what you think your opinion is worth: zero. |
|
#148
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially violates one very important principle for use as a tool for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself into the process of listening to music, which is a holistic and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without conscious thought and over a longer time frame. Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement completely meaningless. The claim that the ABX test intrudes into the process of listening to music does not make it any different from the sighted, non-level matched, non-time-synchronized listening tests that Harry uses and reports the results of. That is very different from listening to FR differences, or level differences, or distortion artifacts, or codec artifacts, which is why this test was developed and how it was designed to be used. Harry is spouting science fiction. He is implicitly claiming that there are audio component differences that can't be explained by frequency response differences, noise levels or nonlinear distortion. In fact there are no other known differences among audio components. Furthermore, Harry cites differences in frequency response, etc. as being the causes of audible differences that he claims he hears in his sighted, non-level matched, non-time-synchronized listening tests, which Harry uses and reports the results of. So as a tool for the open-ended evaluation of components as musical transducers, it can legitimately be questioned. Again Harry is implicitly claiming that a test that is effective for detecting frequency response differences, noise levels or nonlinear distortion, must be ineffective for evaluating components such as musical transducers. Obviously, Harry believes that there can be other kinds of audible differences. Let him describe them. When faced with that kind of situation, good test methodology calls for an indirect test, where what is being measured is measured without the test interfering, and by elicited and measureable response on secondary measures as well as primary measures. Harry is making up new science, as he goes along. He claims that the definition of an indirect test is one that does not interfere, when in fact this is contrary to the meaning of indirect test as used in scientific literature. Then he claims that all indirect tests can't possibly interfere with what is being measured, and of course this is also a false claim. And if the proponent believes that a direct test will not interfere while his peers believe it will, it is imperative (in the scientific world) to validate the methodology by showing that the test does not interfere with the variable under test, as feared. At this point the use of made-up terminology that differs from accepted use in scientific literature renders Harrys comments meaningless. Arny (and many other objectivists as well) refuse to enter into any serious discussion as to how to do that. How can one have a serious discussion with someone who is making up his science as he goes along? Such a discussion was held on RAHE, but under much duress which often tended to short-circuit civil discourse, even on that proctored site (see last paragraph for further discussion) Another issue is its universality. Such testing is used at H-K in the classic manner...potential panel members are chosen from volunteers within the company, and then trained in what they are supposed to be listening for - a single characteristic (which such a test demands). Sean Phillips who leads the testing at H-K has written that nearly half of all potential testers are so bad at ABX'ng that even with training they have to be dropped from the panel. So just dropping abx testing into a randowm group of audiophiles probably means that as many as half of them automatically have no chance of succeeding in the test. And that in turn makes a mockery out of the "win statistics" needed to prove a difference exists. In other words, this phenomenon alone biases the test toward a null hypothesis. Harry creates a straw man - "dropping abx testing into a random group of audiophiles". And the need for testing reveals yet a third shortcoming of the test...how do you "train" for open-ended evaluation. Such evaluation general is done in a relaxed, evaluative state where the "perceived shortcoming" suddenly comes into conscious focus, and then can be a-b'd quickly to verfify that it exists. ABX testing is particularly ill-suited for such "exploratory" listening. A blind A-B preference test consisting of long and short term listening to music of subjects choice, with quick-switch, syncronized A-B switching under the control of the listener, and with no other requirement than eventually coming to a preference is much more conducive to such testing. If statistical reliability is required by the listener, then the test can be repeated 15-20 times over several weeks or months to arrive at a conculusion. If reliability of a sub-group, such as for example all audiophiles with component systems valued at $5000 or more is desired, then several dozen to several hundred people can take the test, and the results statistically analyzed to determine if a true preference exists. Harry makes yet another fatal error and calls ABX a test for preference. snip remaining Harry blather |
|
#149
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Here in Ohio" wrote in message On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past year or so: It is a Mitsumi model S6702. Ick. :-) Not exactly a golden pinnacle of ergonomic research, but on balance, cheap, comfortable, and reliable. I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice. I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech are IME better tools. Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk. Can't beat the price for something at least halfways decent. "beating the price" may mean value to you Arny, but if it falls apart it is still junk even if you can buy three for the price of a Microsoft or a Logitech. You seem to have missed an important fact Harry - the Mitsumi mouse in question has proven to be more reliable than certain Microsoft mice, and is at least as reliable as certain Logitech mice. In fact, the Mitsumi mouse I currenlty use replaces both Microsoft and Logitech mice that failed in similar service of similar length. |
|
#150
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past year or so: It is a Mitsumi model S6702. Ick. :-) I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice. Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk. The last and only one I ever owned stopped working in months. If harry can't tell us what model that failing Mitsumi mouse was, then his comment is meaningless. |
|
#151
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
On 20 Nov 2006 23:27:34 -0800, " wrote: Note that Clark's paper is dated year 1982. Note that it's taken Arny 5 years to give a refernece with no quote , no summary of what it contains. I'll eat a (very small) paper hat if it contains an ACTUAL comparison by a large panel between comparable audio components. The hat is safe : my bet is that Arny would not keep it a secret all these years quoting all kinds of irrelevancies in the meantime. So now that a reference is provided, you try to denigrate it. Mirabel is pulling the forum's collective legs. Simple google searching shows something like 70 full citations of the Clark JAES article on RAO, at least 10 in the last 5 years. The reference is well-known and was also cited indirectly, since its on the ABX web site and that has been cited numerous times. "Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do again if requested." You said this in response to Arny providing a reference to a paper in the JAES by Clark. It sure sounded to me like you were saying this paper was ridiculous. Agreed. Ludo sets up all of these tiny little hoops for people to jump through. He also likes to play stupid. Or at least I hope he's playing. |
|
#152
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Ribbet quibbles with the Kroo. If harry can't tell us what model that failing Mitsumi mouse was, then his comment is meaningless. Why? He was commenting on his experience with the Mitsumi brand. Lack of "debating trade" chops noted. The subtext, of course, is that Krooger loves Mitsumi mouses. Why does Krooger love them? Because they're cheap, of course. Their cheapness allows Krooger to make an extra $3 by telling his victims -- er, I mean "customers" -- that Mitsumi mouses are just as good as Microsoft or Logitech or other fancy brands and charging them almost as much as the name brand ones cost. Say, Ribbet, if you're such an admirer of Krooger, why don't you try to get him a job at your company? You geeks have to stick together. you know. The day of fully automated LANs is not far off in the future. Pretty soon the only job you clowns will have is shuttling boxes around the office. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#153
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:33:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Here in Ohio" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past year or so: It is a Mitsumi model S6702. Ick. :-) I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice. Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk. That's a fair statement. The last and only one I ever owned stopped working in months. But when that sad affair took place is not given. I specified a particular Mitsumi mouse, not all Mitsuimi mice. If harry can't tell us what model that failing Mitsumi mouse was, then his comment is meaningless. Why? He was commenting on his experience with the Mitsumi brand. As I'm sure you know, one not-so-hidden hidden agenda is the fact that not all equipment sold under a given brand has identical failure rates, sources, etc. Many of us have been using mice for 20 years or more. Over 20 years, lotsa things change. For example, MS relies on others to manufacture a lot (if not all) of their hardware including mice. A MS mouse you buy today might be made by someone completely different from the organization that made the mouse hanging next to it on the peg board. MS can do what they can to maintain consistency, but there is this problem with reliabilty only being known for sure in the retroactive sense, if you catch my drift. AFAIK, Logitech has better control over the manufacturing of their products than MS does. |
|
#154
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
"George M. Middius" wrote: Ribbet quibbles with the Kroo. If harry can't tell us what model that failing Mitsumi mouse was, then his comment is meaningless. Why? He was commenting on his experience with the Mitsumi brand. Lack of "debating trade" chops noted. The subtext, of course, is that Krooger loves Mitsumi mouses. Why does Krooger love them? Because they're cheap, of course. Their cheapness allows Krooger to make an extra $3 by telling his victims -- er, I mean "customers" -- that Mitsumi mouses are just as good as Microsoft or Logitech or other fancy brands and charging them almost as much as the name brand ones cost. You have to be joking ! I'm not noted for spending more than necessary but I've had Microsoft mice for yonks. Graham |
|
#155
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Poopie piles on the Kroo-b-q. Ribbet quibbles with the Kroo. If harry can't tell us what model that failing Mitsumi mouse was, then his comment is meaningless. Why? He was commenting on his experience with the Mitsumi brand. Lack of "debating trade" chops noted. The subtext, of course, is that Krooger loves Mitsumi mouses. Why does Krooger love them? Because they're cheap, of course. Their cheapness allows Krooger to make an extra $3 by telling his victims -- er, I mean "customers" -- that Mitsumi mouses are just as good as Microsoft or Logitech or other fancy brands and charging them almost as much as the name brand ones cost. You have to be joking ! Not at all, Mr. Donkey. My opinions is based on extant knowledge of how Mr. **** runs his "business". I'm not noted for spending more than necessary but I've had Microsoft mice for yonks. How much is a yonk in Sterling? -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#156
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com wrote: Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities between audio components would have to include cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical education, experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do again if requested. Where's Krueger's research?. I would also suspect that hearing acuity, environment, and several other factors might apply too. I do think that blind testing has its place. When developing new CODECs, or at the manufacturing level, might be two examples. For an audio hobbyist it's more bother than it's worth IMO. Given that you're so ashamed of your posts that you won't even provide your given name, we know exactly what you think your opinion is worth: zero. LOL! Nice logic, Arns. Since most audio hobbyists buy their gear at places like Circuit City or Best Buy, I doubt that they'd be interested anyway. For those that do not (and what do you suppose the percentage is, Arns? 5%? 10%?), thaey aren't likely to go throught the hassle to save a few bucks. What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set up a test in their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go out and buy at least two of whatever component they are interested in, test them, and then repackage and return (with a possible restock fee involved) some of them to the store. I just don't see where that bother would be worth it to audio hobbyists. It certainly wouldn't be to me. As I said, that seems far more appropriate to a labratory or to a marketing study at the manufactuter level. That opinion is valid and will not change whether you know my real name and street address or not. After all, why would I want an insane asshole like you to know where I live? Nice attempt at deflection though. It shows you have no logical counter to the argument. ___________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#158
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Shhhh! said to The Big ****: What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set up a test in their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go out and buy at least two of whatever component they are interested in, test them, and then repackage and return (with a possible restock fee involved) some of them to the store. To top all of that off, Krooger is still beating the drum for his pet aBxism box, even though you can't get hold of one anywhere. As a wise man once noted, aBxism is a cure for a nonexistent problem. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#159
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this?
Dirty K tries a ploy from "debating trade" 001. Given When Krooger says "Given", that means the klaim that follows will have a strong resemblance to a freshly laid Kroo-turd. that you're so ashamed of your posts As expected. There is no evidence of shame, at least none that can be perceived by sane people. that you won't even provide your given name, we know exactly what you think your opinion is worth: zero. Nice logic, Arns. Thanks for agreeing with me. [snip bothersome text] Arnii, here's a little quiz for you. What is the correct term for your last contribution to this exchange (i.e., "Thanks for agreeing with me."?) (a) deception (b) evidence of insanity (c) sarcasm (d) first step of a rain dance Take your time. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#160
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arns' gay confession! How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com wrote: Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities between audio components would have to include cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical education, experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do again if requested. Where's Krueger's research?. I would also suspect that hearing acuity, environment, and several other factors might apply too. I do think that blind testing has its place. When developing new CODECs, or at the manufacturing level, might be two examples. For an audio hobbyist it's more bother than it's worth IMO. Given that I'm so ashamed of my homoerotic fantasies will you give me you name, so that I can call you? I think you're sexy! Sorry, Arns. I have nothing against gays, but I'm solidly in the hetero camp. Nice logic, Arns. Thanks for agreeing with me that sleeping with small furry animals is entertaining. LosT':S! Why, I never said any such thing, Arns. But as long as the animals give their consent to you, I hope you enjoy yourself. Further, sometimes I slice off my own hemorrhoids and drink them with warm milk and toenail clippings. Yummy! ;-) Fascinating, Arns. I really don't care to discuss your dietary 'habits' though. And shall we continue to dishonestly alter the meaning of each other's posts, or would you care to try to be honest, for once? You're a very sick being, Arns. ____________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
Linear Mode
