Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Little **** whined: Yeah, SP is a laugh. In the latest issue, a $7,000 CD/SACD/DVD player? A $5,000 preamp? I mean, WTF does a preamp do that's so difficult/expensive to do properly? Is it true you have no dick? |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com wrote: I've never seen him [Arny Krueger] be rude to someone who hasn't been rude first. Sigh. You really seem to like making faith-based claims, Mr. McKelvy. I should remind you that in both this thread and in the "Don Pearce" thread (to both of which you have been posting at length), I have never failed to treat Arny Krueger with respect and politeness. IOW, while Atkinson has treated me with utter disrespect and crudeness on many occasions over many years, everybody let's forget all that, and consider only the past two weeks or so. Okay, let's extend the window back to when I first started posting on Usenet, Mr. Krueger. Almost without excpetion, I have responded to you with politeness and respect, addressing what you have said or claimed, rather than you the person. Just as I am doing in this thread. Just as I did in person at the HE2005 debate. Futhermore, while Atkinson may pride himself in his belief that he avoided overt disrespect, consider the numerous deceptions that I've caught him in, even just recently. There have been none. I guess that in Atkinson's book, his many recent deceptions... There have been none. and distortions of the truth... There have been none. not to mention his apparent intentional ignorance of accepted scientific fact, is in no way impolite. Even if that were true, it is hardly impolite for someone to disagree with you, Mr. Krueger. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson lies again: I have tried always to treat Arny Krueger with respect and politeness. By opining that Arny Krueger was "insane", you lying sack of crap? |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Little **** does the Kroopocrisy Dance. In spades. LOt"S! ;-) I have tried always to treat Arny Krueger with respect and politeness. By opining that Arny Krueger was "insane", you lying sack of crap? One might reasonably note that JA still addressed Big **** as "Mr. Krooger". And I don't believe he called Mr. **** a "lying sack of crap". Besides, you are one of avery small number of RAO regulars who do NOT believe Krooger is krazy. Why are you so angry, Thing? Maybe you should answer sam's questions. He seems to have dissected your twisted psyche pretty accurately. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
"Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity"
That's a terrible statement for a header. Frankly, I'm ashamed of anyone that posts under this header. It's not true. Just because one disagrees with the philosophy and approach of the staff of Stereophile magazine does not mean that they lack integrity. If Stereophile's editorial position was opposed to the staff's actual beliefs--then it might be said that they lack integrity. I see no evidence that that is the case. And I refuse to read or respond to any posting with that header. Norm Strong |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"George Middius" wrote in
message Besides, you are one of avery small number of RAO regulars who do NOT believe Krooger is krazy. Who is this "Krooger" Middius? |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com John Atkinson lies again: I have tried always to treat Arny Krueger with respect and politeness. By opining that Arny Krueger was "insane", you lying sack of crap? In Atkinson-land *always* started about 5 months ago. ;-) Side effect of the new meds or what? |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
"Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity" That's a terrible statement for a header. A lot of really reprehensble thread titles have been used on RAO, why take exception to just this one? |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
A remarkable awakening has occurred in Seattle. "Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity" That's a terrible statement for a header. Frankly, I'm ashamed of anyone that posts under this header. It's not true. Just because one disagrees with the philosophy and approach of the staff of Stereophile magazine does not mean that they lack integrity. If Stereophile's editorial position was opposed to the staff's actual beliefs--then it might be said that they lack integrity. I see no evidence that that is the case. And I refuse to read or respond to any posting with that header. Normy, congratulations on (finally) distancing yourself from the hardcore 'borgs. I'm glad to see that you have at long last come to terms with the true nature of your fellow class warriors. A battle is not worth fighting if you have to line up alongside animated turds. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article t, " wrote: You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers, right? Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are hearing impaired? (1) Strictly speaking-all of the SP writers are hearing-impaired due to their reliance on sighted listening. That would make them "listening impaired" rather than "hearing impaired". Yes, that would be a better choice of words. So my point is made; there is no evidence that the reviewing staff of SP is hearing impaired. Anybody I've ever talked to who has been succesful hearing small differences in blind tests will say that sighted listening is an inherently impaired form of listening. Seeing is a big distraction and ultimately impairs sensitivity. It's all about those type one errors and trying to minimize them. (2) A lot of the SP writers aren't spring chickens anymore. For example, it appears that John Atkinson and I aren't that many years apart. Again, because of the non-BS nature of blind listening for small differences, I know for sure that my hearing for some kinds of small differences isn't what it used to be. It's the age thing - the age-related loss of hearing acuity is reflected in most recent versions of the Fletcher-Munson curves, for example. The age-related hearing impairment isn't universal, it affects small differences, and more particularly small differences at high frequencies. Several people I know who do a lot of work with sound quality, myself included have close working relationships with younger workers, partially to make sure that small important stuff isn't falling through the cracks. It has always helped me to work as part of a listening team. Indeed, age, especially among males, takes its toll on hearing ability for most. I think that it would be a good idea for the staffs of audio review mags to submit themselves to an audiometer exam yearly. The problem there is that standard hearing tests are very much focussed on speech intelligibility, and generally only run up to 8 KHz. But they don't HAVE TO stop there. The tests can extend higher in range. Record companies often test their conductors who are under long term contract. I know, for example, that those who conducted for Mercury in the 50s and 60s were tested regularly. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article t, " wrote: You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers, right? Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are hearing impaired? (1) Strictly speaking-all of the SP writers are hearing-impaired due to their reliance on sighted listening. That would make them "listening impaired" rather than "hearing impaired". Yes, that would be a better choice of words. So my point is made; there is no evidence that the reviewing staff of SP is hearing impaired. No, you just get kudos for a better choice of words. The problem there is that standard hearing tests are very much focussed on speech intelligibility, and generally only run up to 8 KHz. But they don't HAVE TO stop there. But they almost always do. The tests can extend higher in range. But they almost always don't. Record companies often test their conductors who are under long term contract. I know, for example, that those who conducted for Mercury in the 50s and 60s were tested regularly. Probably, just up to 8 KHz. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article t, " wrote: You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers, right? Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are hearing impaired? (1) Strictly speaking-all of the SP writers are hearing-impaired due to their reliance on sighted listening. That would make them "listening impaired" rather than "hearing impaired". Yes, that would be a better choice of words. I can agree with that. Anybody I've ever talked to who has been succesful hearing small differences in blind tests will say that sighted listening is an inherently impaired form of listening. Seeing is a big distraction and ultimately impairs sensitivity. It's all about those type one errors and trying to minimize them. (2) A lot of the SP writers aren't spring chickens anymore. For example, it appears that John Atkinson and I aren't that many years apart. Again, because of the non-BS nature of blind listening for small differences, I know for sure that my hearing for some kinds of small differences isn't what it used to be. It's the age thing - the age-related loss of hearing acuity is reflected in most recent versions of the Fletcher-Munson curves, for example. The age-related hearing impairment isn't universal, it affects small differences, and more particularly small differences at high frequencies. Several people I know who do a lot of work with sound quality, myself included have close working relationships with younger workers, partially to make sure that small important stuff isn't falling through the cracks. It has always helped me to work as part of a listening team. Indeed, age, especially among males, takes its toll on hearing ability for most. I think that it would be a good idea for the staffs of audio review mags to submit themselves to an audiometer exam yearly. The problem there is that standard hearing tests are very much focussed on speech intelligibility, and generally only run up to 8 KHz. Well perhaps they can hire someone with the technical competence to play one of the SP test disks at an appropriate spl. My hunch is there isn't one of them that can hear 16 kHz. OTOH, I do a lot of sound reinforcment and recording, and the age thing makes very little difference there, at least at this point in my life. The nature of the differences you listen for in production are relatively large and the sound levels are generally high enough, so that everything important can be heard quite clearly. Ditto for things like the overall sound quality evaluation of say, speaker systems. I disagree. Hearing loss is not usually uniform in the frequency domain. Therefore, a person with hearing loss would have a skewed impression of music, live or recorded. The brain can and frequently does compensate for the ear, and often takes the skewing out. A person with hearing loss hears *everything* with the same ears. If they hear other natural sounds as if they are natural to them, then they hear what most find to be natural-sounding music whether live or recorded, as if it is natural-sounding fpr them. IOW turning up the treble sounds like turned-up treble to most people hearing loss or or not, if they hear the treble at all. Hearing loss has to be very profound for sonic experiences like the gloss of a bowed violin string or a delicately brushed cymbal to change perceptably. What high frequency hearing loss does do, is reduce or eliminate the ability to hear small differences at the high frequency extremes. Exactly, most males over 30 IIRC, have trouble at 16 kHz and above. A good example might be working with a third octave or similarly adjusted parametric. For people with normal hearing, relatively large changes in the right-most slider are not that obvious, compared similar changes to the sliders in the middle. As high frequency hearing acuity goes down, the changes that are just barely reliably heard tend to get larger. But, large changes are still heard as being *wrong*. Another example is waking up with stuffed-up ears. Initially things sound kind of muffled, but as the day progresses perception can compensate. Things will sound sound pretty natural except for some subtle things that are less noticable. The next day the stuffiness is gone and everything sounds bright for a while. Then perception adjusts and its back to normal. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article t, " wrote: You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers, right? Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are hearing impaired? (1) Strictly speaking-all of the SP writers are hearing-impaired due to their reliance on sighted listening. That would make them "listening impaired" rather than "hearing impaired". Yes, that would be a better choice of words. So my point is made; there is no evidence that the reviewing staff of SP is hearing impaired. Not exactly, I refer you to their reviews again. Anybody I've ever talked to who has been succesful hearing small differences in blind tests will say that sighted listening is an inherently impaired form of listening. Seeing is a big distraction and ultimately impairs sensitivity. It's all about those type one errors and trying to minimize them. (2) A lot of the SP writers aren't spring chickens anymore. For example, it appears that John Atkinson and I aren't that many years apart. Again, because of the non-BS nature of blind listening for small differences, I know for sure that my hearing for some kinds of small differences isn't what it used to be. It's the age thing - the age-related loss of hearing acuity is reflected in most recent versions of the Fletcher-Munson curves, for example. The age-related hearing impairment isn't universal, it affects small differences, and more particularly small differences at high frequencies. Several people I know who do a lot of work with sound quality, myself included have close working relationships with younger workers, partially to make sure that small important stuff isn't falling through the cracks. It has always helped me to work as part of a listening team. Indeed, age, especially among males, takes its toll on hearing ability for most. I think that it would be a good idea for the staffs of audio review mags to submit themselves to an audiometer exam yearly. The problem there is that standard hearing tests are very much focussed on speech intelligibility, and generally only run up to 8 KHz. But they don't HAVE TO stop there. The tests can extend higher in range. Record companies often test their conductors who are under long term contract. I know, for example, that those who conducted for Mercury in the 50s and 60s were tested regularly. We're talking about SDP, they're not big on anything that has to do with science, in fact thhey seem adamantly opposed to it unless it's either bull**** or improbable. Anything that might actually help them do a better job and provide more accurate reviews is shunned. Then there's the promotion of outright fruadulent products like green pens, magic wire, etc. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in
message k.net "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Anybody I've ever talked to who has been succesful hearing small differences in blind tests will say that sighted listening is an inherently impaired form of listening. Seeing is a big distraction and ultimately impairs sensitivity. It's all about those type one errors and trying to minimize them. (2) A lot of the SP writers aren't spring chickens anymore. For example, it appears that John Atkinson and I aren't that many years apart. Again, because of the non-BS nature of blind listening for small differences, I know for sure that my hearing for some kinds of small differences isn't what it used to be. It's the age thing - the age-related loss of hearing acuity is reflected in most recent versions of the Fletcher-Munson curves, for example. The age-related hearing impairment isn't universal, it affects small differences, and more particularly small differences at high frequencies. Several people I know who do a lot of work with sound quality, myself included have close working relationships with younger workers, partially to make sure that small important stuff isn't falling through the cracks. It has always helped me to work as part of a listening team. Indeed, age, especially among males, takes its toll on hearing ability for most. I think that it would be a good idea for the staffs of audio review mags to submit themselves to an audiometer exam yearly. The problem there is that standard hearing tests are very much focussed on speech intelligibility, and generally only run up to 8 KHz. Well perhaps they can hire someone with the technical competence to play one of the SP test disks at an appropriate spl. My hunch is there isn't one of them that can hear 16 kHz. Hearing tests require standardized levels. Hearing an isolated 16 KHz tone isn't that hard if you can turn up the SPL. The real challenge is hearing the absence of 16 KHz, which is far more difficult. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote
normanstrong wrote "Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity" That's a terrible statement for a header. A lot of really reprehensble thread titles have been used on RAO, why take exception to just this one? BECAUSE you are not making any sense. And you remain a koward with no more protocols left in mind to add. Norm Strong is right. And he's a stand-out poster from Seattle. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
torresists wrote
normanstrong wrote: "Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity" That's a terrible statement for a header. Frankly, I'm ashamed of anyone that posts under this header. It's not true. Just because one disagrees with the philosophy and approach of the staff of Stereophile magazine does not mean that they lack integrity. If Stereophile's editorial position was opposed to the staff's actual beliefs--then it might be said that they lack integrity. I see no evidence that that is the case. So, according to you, if the $tereophile "reviewers" and editors are united in their dedication to deceiving, misleading and fleecing the public, they are not lacking in integrity, eh? And I refuse to read or respond to any posting with that header. "Middius" will be pleased..... Thing, you're a waste of ATP at cellular level. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... " wrote in message k.net "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Anybody I've ever talked to who has been succesful hearing small differences in blind tests will say that sighted listening is an inherently impaired form of listening. Seeing is a big distraction and ultimately impairs sensitivity. It's all about those type one errors and trying to minimize them. (2) A lot of the SP writers aren't spring chickens anymore. For example, it appears that John Atkinson and I aren't that many years apart. Again, because of the non-BS nature of blind listening for small differences, I know for sure that my hearing for some kinds of small differences isn't what it used to be. It's the age thing - the age-related loss of hearing acuity is reflected in most recent versions of the Fletcher-Munson curves, for example. The age-related hearing impairment isn't universal, it affects small differences, and more particularly small differences at high frequencies. Several people I know who do a lot of work with sound quality, myself included have close working relationships with younger workers, partially to make sure that small important stuff isn't falling through the cracks. It has always helped me to work as part of a listening team. Indeed, age, especially among males, takes its toll on hearing ability for most. I think that it would be a good idea for the staffs of audio review mags to submit themselves to an audiometer exam yearly. The problem there is that standard hearing tests are very much focussed on speech intelligibility, and generally only run up to 8 KHz. Well perhaps they can hire someone with the technical competence to play one of the SP test disks at an appropriate spl. My hunch is there isn't one of them that can hear 16 kHz. Hearing tests require standardized levels. Hearing an isolated 16 KHz tone isn't that hard if you can turn up the SPL. The real challenge is hearing the absence of 16 KHz, which is far more difficult. Any way you slice it, I think the hearing acuity at SP is suspect. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
"EddieM" wrote in message . .. Arny Krueger wrote normanstrong wrote "Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity" That's a terrible statement for a header. A lot of really reprehensble thread titles have been used on RAO, why take exception to just this one? BECAUSE you are not making any sense. And you remain a koward with no more protocols left in mind to add. Norm Strong is right. And he's a stand-out poster from Seattle. This former Seattlite thinks that SP is supposed to provide accurate reviews, as a subscriber, I find serious problems with the conclusions of the SP reviewers. |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:56:51 GMT, "
wrote: Arny's an immature, lying, nasty nerd. I don't know why you can't see that. It's because you share similar beliefs wrt audio. Becuase it isn't true. I've never seen him be rude to someone who hasn't been rude first. The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a good reader of persons, at least from their posts. Several times I've posted seriously and politely to Arnie and received an insulting reply because he thought I was having a go at him. Now given the amount of abuse he's copped for any number of years, it's hardly surprising he sees abuse where it isn't, but that doesn't help much when you're on the receiving end. Arnie is also fond of attaching meanings and motives to your posts that don't belong; again this is hardly surprising given his Usenet history. But it always ends with him kicking out in all directions and inflicting bruises on the guilty and innocent alike. Solution? He takes a step back from Usenet and clears his mind. Maybe a long trip to Disneyworld, the Grand Canyon...whatever. Anything to restore perspective. Honestly, Arnie, you've been labouring in this field too long. The sun's getting to you. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
"paul packer" wrote in message
The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a good reader of persons, at least from their posts. Several times I've posted seriously and politely to Arnie and received an insulting reply because he thought I was having a go at him. Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among all of your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk... Besides, your idea of a serious post has really been pretty threadbare. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Yaeger wrote: This whole thread is a waste of bandwidth on any level . . . . . I'd say this cross posting invasion of r.a.t in nth hemi summer has scared off all the usual guys and surely is a mindless BS session. I guess I have had need for little comment on anything this past week and that's given me more spare time. Patrick Turner. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
In article , says...
In article , says... But it always ends with him kicking out in all directions and inflicting bruises on the guilty and innocent alike. Solution? Putting a name in a header to defame Is a dolt's idea of how to defame. They're too dumb to know They shouldn't stoop so low And that to them it only brings shame. Otherwise they're a different sort of dude And it's just their nature to be rude. It don't help to shame 'em The only way to "tame 'em" Is to show 'em they're gonna get screwed. Hammingaway Inc. BTW, who started this thread? Ahem..... make the second line end with the word "flame". Bad coffe this morning.. :-) Hammingaway Inc. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote If you were to read the article at www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi you would see that I accurately presented your thoughts, quoting from the recording at http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate. Who is surprised? John didn't present my full thoughts or even a representative selection, just the few he wanted to take pot shots at. I didn't feel I was obliged to make your case for you, Mr. Krueger. Nevertheless, I presented the case you made against Stereophile in its entirety. Since my entire opening comments were the entirety of the case I made against Stereophile. and you obviously didn't present my entire opening comments, that can't be true. Perhaps you have not listened to the recording of the debate, Mr. Krueger. Prior to the points of yours that I quoted in full in my Stereophile article, you were talking about yourself. Subsequent to your presentation of those points, you didn't return to them in any substantive manner, again as the recording makes clear. More specifically, the "Assweseeit" article only presented 3 points from my opening comments and then characteristically unfairly criticized those points as followed: "However, as you can also hear, these assertions were not supported or fleshed out.". The recording makes it clear that I was correct in this characterization, Mr. Krueger. Actually, the recording makes it clear that my entire opening comments weren't represented in your article, John. I never said that they were, Mr. Krueger. But as the bulk of those comments were nor relevant either to Stereophile or to any criticisms you made of Stereophile, I didn't see any point in quoting them. Regarding your continuing but incorrect accusations of bias on my part, Mr. Krueger, you should note that I did not prevent members of the audience either from asking questions of you nor from making statements in your support, again as is clear from the recording. For you to blame the audience for what you claim was your inability to present your case against Stereophile in an effective manner is frankly ridiculous. FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the debate and my report on it (also printed in the September 2005 issue of Stereophile) at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit...si/index1.html. Three of the letters were supportive of my case, one critical, which is the proportion of all the letters I received on this subject. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson wrote: snip FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the debate and my report on it In the closing paragraph of his letter, David Sanford wrote: "For the record, I have been a serious audiophile for 37 years. I continue to be amazed at the garbage I read in these publications, and now I see that it is coming from the top. I'm sick about what has happened to this hobby." Well said, Mr. Sanford! |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote If you were to read the article at www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi you would see that I accurately presented your thoughts, quoting from the recording at http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate. Who is surprised? John didn't present my full thoughts or even a representative selection, just the few he wanted to take pot shots at. I didn't feel I was obliged to make your case for you, Mr. Krueger. Nevertheless, I presented the case you made against Stereophile in its entirety. Since my entire opening comments were the entirety of the case I made against Stereophile. and you obviously didn't present my entire opening comments, that can't be true. Perhaps you have not listened to the recording of the debate, Mr. Krueger. Prior to the points of yours that I quoted in full in my Stereophile article, you were talking about yourself. That's one way of looking at it, albeit very superficial. Another way of looking at it Atkinson, is that I deconstructed your wanton abuse of the terms "objectivist" and "subjectivist" along the way to explaining what my viewpoint was, and present the 3 critiques which were of course a natural consequence of my viewpoint. Subsequent to your presentation of those points, you didn't return to them in any substantive manner, again as the recording makes clear. As I've pointed out several times by mutual agreement my opening comments were limited. After our opening comments questions from the audience were entertained. Nobody in the audience seemed to need much more clarification, and if they did some of that was covered within the time constraint, and that was that. More specifically, the "Assweseeit" article only presented 3 points from my opening comments and then characteristically unfairly criticized those points as followed: "However, as you can also hear, these assertions were not supported or fleshed out.". The recording makes it clear that I was correct in this characterization, Mr. Krueger. Actually, the recording makes it clear that my entire opening comments weren't represented in your article, John. I never said that they were, Mr. Krueger. But as the bulk of those comments were nor relevant either to Stereophile or to any criticisms you made of Stereophile, I didn't see any point in quoting them. Well what you're saying Atkinson is that you couldn't see the connection, but since you're not the only person in the world, or a person who defines what the world thinks, the fact that you didn't see the connection is not all that important in the cosmic scheme of things. Regarding your continuing but incorrect accusations of bias on my part, Mr. Krueger, you should note that I did not prevent members of the audience either from asking questions of you nor from making statements in your support, again as is clear from the recording. That seems clear to you, but its not clear to me. For you to blame the audience for what you claim was your inability to present your case against Stereophile in an effective manner is frankly ridiculous. It's frankly rediculous to say that I was unable to present my case against Stereophile. I presented a logical foundation for my points, and I presented my 3 points. Nobody seemed to have too many unanswered questions about them at the time aside from the time constraints, and that was pretty much that. FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the debate and my report on it (also printed in the September 2005 issue of Stereophile) at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit...si/index1.html. Three of the letters were supportive of my case, one critical, which is the proportion of all the letters I received on this subject. Given who the fact that these letters came from Stereophile readers who have been been (mis) educated for years, the fact that 25% of them went against you Atkinson is really more than I expected. Actually, I had no expectations at all, because I considered the matter pretty well closed at the end of the debate. I figured from the onset that I was speaking to a group of people who were pretty well set in their illuded ways, basically hopeless cases. A quick box sco (1) A letter about 20+ year old experiences with Stanley Lip****z. Let me reiterate that I'm not Stanley Lip****z, that my associates and I independently developed ABX, and that technology, even listening test technology hasn't stood still in the past 20-30 years. (2) A ludicrous, pompus, insulting, and self-serving claim that I don't know any way to do subjective testing but DBTs. (3) A snippet about the difference between listening for pleasure and listening for the purpose of comparison. It reaches a conclusion without any obvious foundation for that conclusion at all. (4) A rather lengthy piece from someone who is rather obviously not sucked in by the Stereophile song-and-dance at all .. The HE2005 debate was something like a Protestant preaching Protestantism in the Sistene chapel. In times past people died trying to do things like that. In the present, one would expect at best polite, but total resistance. As much as 25% support from Stereophile readers is IMO really way beyond reasonable expectations. I'm not surprised that the only coherent, relevant letter fo the 4 came from a DBT advocate. Given how adverse the debate was for you Atkinson, I'm surprised that you keep bringing it up again and again. I guess this new concern about some purported lack of foundation for my three points is how you are dissembling these days, Atkinson. Hey, if it gets you through the day... |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com John Atkinson wrote: snip FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the debate and my report on it In the closing paragraph of his letter, David Sanford wrote: "For the record, I have been a serious audiophile for 37 years. I continue to be amazed at the garbage I read in these publications, and now I see that it is coming from the top. I'm sick about what has happened to this hobby." Well said, Mr. Sanford! The bad news is that the other 3 letters should have been an embarassment to Stereophile and its staff. |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com John Atkinson wrote: snip FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the debate and my report on it In the closing paragraph of his letter, David Sanford wrote: "For the record, I have been a serious audiophile for 37 years. I continue to be amazed at the garbage I read in these publications, and now I see that it is coming from the top. I'm sick about what has happened to this hobby." Well said, Mr. Sanford! The bad news is that the other 3 letters should have been an embarassment to Stereophile and its staff. And let's keep in mind that these letters were carefully chosen for publication by the highly biased Mr. Atkinson. I.e., you can be pretty sure that the "pro-Atkinson" letters were among the best available and that David Sanford's "con" letter, 'though well thought out, was among the more tepid of the naysayers. I also wonder about the veracity of Atkinson's "3 to 1 favorable to Stereophile" claim. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com John Atkinson wrote: snip FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the debate and my report on it In the closing paragraph of his letter, David Sanford wrote: "For the record, I have been a serious audiophile for 37 years. I continue to be amazed at the garbage I read in these publications, and now I see that it is coming from the top. I'm sick about what has happened to this hobby." Well said, Mr. Sanford! The bad news is that the other 3 letters should have been an embarassment to Stereophile and its staff. And let's keep in mind that these letters were carefully chosen for publication by the highly biased Mr. Atkinson. What was he thinking? Why pick those three highly-confused-sounding and/or irrelevant letters? Is Atkinson's chosen image for Stereophile "The journal of obscure and obscured thinking"? I.e., you can be pretty sure that the "pro-Atkinson" letters were among the best available and that David Sanford's "con" letter, 'though well thought out, was among the more tepid of the naysayers. I don't know if it chosen because it was was a bit laid back in places, or fit someone's image of what to expect from a so-called "objectivist". For example: "Blind testing is objective science." I also wonder about the veracity of Atkinson's "3 to 1 favorable to Stereophile" claim. I'm willing to stipulate that Atkinson didn't stray that far from objective truth. On second thought, he could have tipped the scales by biasing the selection and analysis process like he's done so many times before. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Mr. Mc Kelvy says:
"We're talking about SDP, they're not big on anything that has to do with science, in fact they seem adamantly opposed to it unless it's either bull**** or improbable. Anything that might actually help them do a better job and provide more accurate reviews is shunned." Sadly I must conclude that your messages are not the signposts to guide poor, science-deprived Mr. Atkinson. onto the royal road to "science" that you claim to be the spokesman for.. The science I was taught implies that a hypothesis can only be validated by properly designed experiment (s). If you said once that ABX is the right tool for showing differences between components you said it a dozen times in this thread and before. On one such occasion 9 months ago("RAHE challenges...) I asked you to give your reference ( Accepted meaning of "reference" in any research is: Journal, author(s), year, volume, number, pages) You said you had "many". I challenged you to quote JUST ONE component comparison that was done on ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, and had a POSITIVE outcome. Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned protocol ), statistically valid (significant numbers), randomised and truly double blind.. You had no answer then and you won't have any now. All the published reports to date have had one result: NO DIFFERENCE.. When ABXing or DBTiing it all sounds the same , to a thumping majority of randomized audio fans.; Whatever is being tested including loudspeakers with very different frequency responses (See S. Olive, "Differences in performance...." , JAES, vol 51, # 9, 2003 , pps 806-825). I do not know why and I do not care to hear more off the top- of-the head speculations.. Consecutive A/B testing appears to disable most brains from hearing differences between components unless disparities are huge (who needs ABX for that?) or one of them is malfunctioning.. You decided to stay silent in December but you revived by now and again shout "me is science". Sorry you're not. In fact you seem not to have the foggiest notion what validation of hypotheses and science are all about.. You worship a "test" that has had forty years to show that it works and failed to do so. . That is called "faith"- or blind faith if you'd rather. Ludovic Mirabel. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
Given how adverse the debate was for you Atkinson.... Yes, yes. Good show, Arny! You rock! You kicked ass! |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Potts wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote ... Given how adverse the debate was for you Atkinson.... Yes, yes. Good show, Arny! You rock! You kicked ass! "Potts" has made just two posts in the history of Usenet and is posting from 24.9.70.239. It's Tom Albertz, aka Sam/surf/Mr.Anderson/Pat Mabottom, etc., etc. A well known Usenet stalker and psychotic. PLONK! |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 19:06:20 -0700, wrote: Potts wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote ... Given how adverse the debate was for you Atkinson.... Yes, yes. Good show, Arny! You rock! You kicked ass! "Potts" has made just two posts in the history of Usenet and is posting from 24.9.70.239. It's Tom Albertz, aka Sam/surf/Mr.Anderson/Pat Mabottom, etc., etc. A well known Usenet stalker and psychotic. PLONK! Is bicycle season over so early in the Ozarks? Do butterflies drink red wine with the fish course? |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a good reader of persons, at least from their posts. Several times I've posted seriously and politely to Arnie and received an insulting reply because he thought I was having a go at him. Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among all of your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk.. Proves my point. I don't post "insulting" stuff. If you read it that way, well, that's up to you. But really, your day on Usenet must be like one of those courses for FBI trainees, where cardboard cutout criminals--plus the occasional little old lady--pop up in every window. It's not surprising you get confused sometimes and gun down the little old lady. . Besides, your idea of a serious post has really been pretty threadbare. Define "threadbare". |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a good reader of persons, at least from their posts. Several times I've posted seriously and politely to Arnie and received an insulting reply because he thought I was having a go at him. Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among all of your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk.. Proves my point. I don't post "insulting" stuff. Self-righteous stuff, too. If you read it that way, well, that's up to you. Introspection and self-awareness = low. But really, your day on Usenet must be like one of those courses for FBI trainees, where cardboard cutout criminals--plus the occasional little old lady--pop up in every window. Not at all. There are plenty of sane, intelligent people to converse with, just not many on RAO or AHF. It's not surprising you get confused sometimes and gun down the little old lady. Thanks Paul for admitting that you are the intellectual equivalent of a little old lady. . Besides, your idea of a serious post has really been pretty threadbare. Define "threadbare". Introspection and self-awareness = low Intellectual equivalent of a little old lady (except I know some little old ladies who stayed very sharp) Totally sucked in by high end audio snake oil Totally sucked in by the "If I hear it, that is how it is" myth A poster child for high end deceptions and myths |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
in article , dave weil at
wrote on 8/25/05 9:40 AM: On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:36:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a good reader of persons, at least from their posts. Several times I've posted seriously and politely to Arnie and received an insulting reply because he thought I was having a go at him. Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among all of your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk.. Arnold is inching toward the realization about the reason that he's one of the most abused posters in the history of USENET. Does anyone on R.A.T. care? ANYONE?? DO NOT CROSS-POST YOUR VAPID RANTS TO R.A.T. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stereophile: not a shred of integrity | General | |||
Stereophile...source of all this bitterness?...Not! | Audio Opinions | |||
Stereophile Tries To Come Clean About The DiAural Fiasco | Audio Opinions | |||
Integrity (was Steely Dan The Absolute Sound) | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions |