Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Arny Is Not Listening.

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
But since you don't have access to the JAES, its all
futile - you're just ranting and raving like this
because ranting and raving is what you do.


LOL!


You should note that according to postings Arny Krueger
made a couple of years back (in connection with
criticisms he expressed over an AES paper authored by
Francis Rumsey that it transpired he had never read),
neither does _he_ have access to the JAES. This is
because a) he is not a member and b) he does not have
a nearby library that keeps it on its shelves.


All true. Of course I had an opportunity to correct the situation, and did.

Note that this is yet another example of Atkinson reaching into the past to
press his little vendetta against me.

Does anybody care, except for the bad things it says about Atkinson's
character?

I'll check out the references he gave for mentions of his
name.


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
AES Member for more than 25 years
with a complete collection of Journals going back to 1980


I just took a look at an article that was in Vol 1 Number 1, dated January
1953.



  #602   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Arny Is Not Listening.

wrote in message
ups.com

I'm afraid Mr . Atkinson that wily Mr. Krueger is again
derailing the discussion into insubstantial nit- picking,


Ludo, you should be more worried about your really big problem - your
inability to think clearly.

Yes, Prof Lipschitz very likely did use ABXing in some
of his acoustic research projects.


Not only that, Luip****z came up with a kind of an ABX comparator of his
own, in the same general time that we came up with ours.

Yes, ABX may or may
not be useful in narrowly defined acoustic research
projects such as phase or frequency changes recognition
etc.


The JAES article says that it is geneally useful for audio testing.

But this is not what rec.audio.opinion is or should be
about. It is also not what an audio consumer is
interested in.


Not true. We live in a world where some audio manufacturers and some audio
magazines often make claims that contradict the results of what Ludo
quaintly and erroneusly calls "acoustic research projects".

The ABX website is marketing. a "comparator" for
testing (or "test proceduring" in the latest
Krueger-speak) the musical reproduction characteristics
of audio components to differentiate them.


The ABX website has no tangible products for sale. It's all about knowlege.
If someone tried to buy an ABX comparator from the ABX website today, they
would be informed of other alternatives.

And as ABX backer Clark says in the website,
differentiating is the next step to preferring (ie
choosing.)


Right, and audio research says that a lot of audiophile hardware can't be
differentiated by its sonics.

This "test" (or "test procedure") to have any meaning
needs experimental validation. Without experimental
backing it just someone' daydreaming. It is not
"science" and it is not "objective"


Wrong, and debunked many times.

Krueger can not quote such experimental work FOR THIS
PURPOSE good enough to be acceptable to the voice of his
profession the JAES. But he wriggles and Krueggles quite
amusingly.


Wrong, and debunked many times.


I for one enjoy waiting for what he'll come up next with
in this theater of the absurd all his own.


I need come up with nothing more than I already have.


  #603   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
John Atkinson John Atkinson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 462
Default Arny Is Not Listening.


Arny Krueger wrote:
I just took a look at an article that was in Vol 1 Number 1,
dated January 1953.


I know you now have a set of the papers and preprints CD, Mr.
Krueger, as you recently said so. What you don't have is the
journals themselves, which include the articles you claimed
to have "authored or co-authored," which I note you now
admit were _not_ refereed technical papers and thus were
_not_ included on the AES CD.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

  #604   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Powell Powell is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 287
Default Arny Is Not Listening.


"John Atkinson" wrote

You should note that according to postings Arny Krueger made a
couple of years back (in connection with criticisms he expressed
over an AES paper authored by Francis Rumsey that it transpired
he had never read), neither does _he_ have access to the JAES.
This is because a) he is not a member and b) he does not have
a nearby library that keeps it on its shelves.

I'll check out the references he gave for mentions of his name.

Arny wrote this as to his AES access: "Silly boy - you
think that one must be a member to read the JAES?...
Wow, Powell never even heard of libraries or borrowing
copyrighted media from friends."

"b) he does not have a nearby library that keeps it on
its shelves."... I don't doubt it but how do you know?









  #605   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
John Atkinson John Atkinson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 462
Default Arny Is Not Listening.


Powell wrote:
"b) he does not have a nearby library that keeps it on
its shelves."... I don't doubt it but how do you know?


That was what Arny posted as his reason for not having
read the Rumsey paper before he criticized it. He was
subsequently sent a copy of the paper by Tom Nousaine,
if I remember correctly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



  #606   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Arny Is Not Listening.



Powell said:

"b) he does not have a nearby library that keeps it on
its shelves."... I don't doubt it but how do you know?


Because Krooger and the rest of the Baptist mob stormed the library and
burned all the science books.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.
  #607   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
[email protected] elmir2m@shaw.ca is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 818
Default Arny Is Not Listening.


Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

I'm afraid Mr . Atkinson that wily Mr. Krueger is again
derailing the discussion into insubstantial nit- picking,


Ludo, you should be more worried about your really big problem - your
inability to think clearly.

Yes, Prof Lipschitz very likely did use ABXing in some
of his acoustic research projects.


Not only that, Luip****z came up with a kind of an ABX comparator of his
own, in the same general time that we came up with ours.

Yes, ABX may or may
not be useful in narrowly defined acoustic research
projects such as phase or frequency changes recognition
etc.


The JAES article says that it is geneally useful for audio testing.

But this is not what rec.audio.opinion is or should be
about. It is also not what an audio consumer is
interested in.


Not true. We live in a world where some audio manufacturers and some audio
magazines often make claims that contradict the results of what Ludo
quaintly and erroneusly calls "acoustic research projects".

The ABX website is marketing. a "comparator" for
testing (or "test proceduring" in the latest
Krueger-speak) the musical reproduction characteristics
of audio components to differentiate them.


The ABX website has no tangible products for sale. It's all about knowlege.
If someone tried to buy an ABX comparator from the ABX website today, they
would be informed of other alternatives.

And as ABX backer Clark says in the website,
differentiating is the next step to preferring (ie
choosing.)


Right, and audio research says that a lot of audiophile hardware can't be
differentiated by its sonics.

This "test" (or "test procedure") to have any meaning
needs experimental validation. Without experimental
backing it just someone' daydreaming. It is not
"science" and it is not "objective"


Wrong, and debunked many times.

Krueger can not quote such experimental work FOR THIS
PURPOSE good enough to be acceptable to the voice of his
profession the JAES. But he wriggles and Krueggles quite
amusingly.


Wrong, and debunked many times.


I for one enjoy waiting for what he'll come up next with
in this theater of the absurd all his own.


I need come up with nothing more than I already have.

===============================
Krueger has a new line.
"Wrong, and debunked many times"
Add it to the Kruegerspeak collection of what to say when one does not
know what to say ( "Been there. done that" etc).

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.

Mind you- its been 40 years only. He might yet take time from posting
messages and produce.

There still is time to ask me to apologise for saying that he is a con
artist wasting everybody's time and marketing a "test" under false
pretences. ( Sorry - not a "test". ABX was rebaptised. It is now a
"test procedure" for "analysis")
Ludovic Mirabel

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction??? Jacob Kramer Audio Opinions 1094 September 9th 03 02:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:20 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"