| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message ups.com... Robert Morein wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:cOm2f.3102$jw6.2510@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Quantify the contact area and demonstrate through specs that ruthenium contacts have significantly greater resistance than relays of comparable size contacts. I look forward to you providing more than just idle speculation from your extremely poorly thought out and fundamentally flawed theories. ScottW Answer the question, Scott: Two hard and nonparallel surfaces can have a maximum of how many contact points? Why are you changing the question, Bob? Anyway, it still depends on their shape.....and we're not talking diamond hard here so your inference that there is no conformance is just hogwash. Sander has given the correct answer. You simply didn't have the smarts to figure it out. Show us how spheres fall outside the set of shapes you specified. Show us how spheres can have 3 points of contact. and finally... show us why your assumption of perfect hardness is valid. ScottW This has been covered in discussion with other people in these threads. |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message ups.com... Robert Morein wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:cOm2f.3102$jw6.2510@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Quantify the contact area and demonstrate through specs that ruthenium contacts have significantly greater resistance than relays of comparable size contacts. I look forward to you providing more than just idle speculation from your extremely poorly thought out and fundamentally flawed theories. ScottW Answer the question, Scott: Two hard and nonparallel surfaces can have a maximum of how many contact points? Why are you changing the question, Bob? Anyway, it still depends on their shape.....and we're not talking diamond hard here so your inference that there is no conformance is just hogwash. Sander has given the correct answer. You simply didn't have the smarts to figure it out. Show us how spheres fall outside the set of shapes you specified. Show us how spheres can have 3 points of contact. and finally... show us why your assumption of perfect hardness is valid. ScottW This has been covered in discussion with other people in these threads. So have you accepted the numerous flaws of your theory or are you still grasping at straws? ScottW |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't prove that there are not differences. Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person, they don't exist. all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test conditions, given that you have such test results for the given individual. My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison. "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted, but don't hear them under test conditions. You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was not removed and levels were not matched. The really interesting thing to see would be this: a) person hears differences sighted (According to you supposedly from expectation effects) Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted, as is the case with speakers b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing supposed future expectation effects) d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he still hear differences, or did they go away with removal of the supposed expectation effects? Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test is still not going to be relaible. Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you? |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... . It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals the world over. That should read "professional audio clowns". That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown. BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and the garish makeup. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news  "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these devices into hifi equipment. Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling components in quality equipment for audio production for decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays we used had been recently used by a widely-respected manufacturer of studio mixing boards. Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment, and audio in general. But Arny Krueger is pushing his device like the NBS platinum meter. This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years? However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module. Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device. Here's where you can get the schematic to build one of your own, use parts of whatever quality you chose. http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm Even if it were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have the same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers. You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us, deep suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the difference between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning for us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible equivalence classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the same as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that reliance on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the latter is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion, but, unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small club of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it hits us on our heads, just like speakers can and do. You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very intelligent person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results. Science always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It always suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the principal, not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward." I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are on the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence. By promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern with commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is reliant on this very troubled industry. A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the job, yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote your device, or others like it as a standard, It's not him doing the promoting, DBT IS the standard. it requires scrutiny far above the norm. Which has been done by many of his peers and people more involved in audio research than Arny ever was. That is how it became one of the accepted protocols. But not for hifi, Mikey. Yes Robert, even for hi-fi. Unless you don't consider Revel or a host of others to be hi fi companies. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" said:
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message For line levels, for me, nothing else comes into consideration but thoroughly gold-plated, gas filled relays. Wrong. For speaker-level signals, a combination of both silver-plated and gold-plated heavy duty contacts with strong spring action (meaning contact pressure) are a good choice (if one has to switch speaker-level signals at all, something I don't like to do at all). Wrong. Switching an audio signal at microphone- or phono cartridge levels is almost not possible without suffering from signal degradation. Wrong. Keep up the good work, Sander! Is this the difference between someone who has built and repaired many amplifiers, and someone who just read about them? ;-) -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... : "Arny Krueger" said: : Wrong.Wrong.Wrong. : : Keep up the good work, Sander! : : : Is this the difference between someone who has built and repaired many : amplifiers, and someone who just read about them? ;-) : : -- Nah, it's the betatesting of the Kroologique module v5.3 it's principle is 'winning an argument' by boring opponents to death :-) R. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
Is this the difference between someone who has built and repaired many amplifiers, and someone who just read about them? ;-) Since I've built and repaired a number of amplifiers, too bad about your reading-only familiarity with them, Sander. I had no idea. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't prove that there are not differences. Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person, they don't exist. all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test conditions, given that you have such test results for the given individual. My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison. "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted, but don't hear them under test conditions. You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was not removed and levels were not matched. The really interesting thing to see would be this: a) person hears differences sighted (According to you supposedly from expectation effects) Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted, as is the case with speakers b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing supposed future expectation effects) d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he still hear differences, or did they go away with removal of the supposed expectation effects? Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test is still not going to be relaible. Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you? Nothing. |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message news  "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... . It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals the world over. That should read "professional audio clowns". That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown. BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and the garish makeup. Mikey, you have an inferior mind. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't prove that there are not differences. Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person, they don't exist. all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test conditions, given that you have such test results for the given individual. My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison. "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted, but don't hear them under test conditions. You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was not removed and levels were not matched. The really interesting thing to see would be this: a) person hears differences sighted (According to you supposedly from expectation effects) Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted, as is the case with speakers b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing supposed future expectation effects) d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he still hear differences, or did they go away with removal of the supposed expectation effects? Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test is still not going to be relaible. Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you? Nothing. Nothing you're capable of understanding. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... . It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals the world over. That should read "professional audio clowns". That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown. BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and the garish makeup. Mikey, you have an inferior mind. Sit Bobbie, sit. More Kibble? |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't prove that there are not differences. Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person, they don't exist. all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test conditions, given that you have such test results for the given individual. My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison. "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted, but don't hear them under test conditions. You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was not removed and levels were not matched. IDIOT, that is EXACTLY why it "is" a true statement. The really interesting thing to see would be this: a) person hears differences sighted (According to you supposedly from expectation effects) Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted, as is the case with speakers IDIOT, many people hear differences when sighted. You have even said this. IT is one of the premises for your arguments to go blind. b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing supposed future expectation effects) d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he still hear differences, or did they go away with removal of the supposed expectation effects? Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test is still not going to be relaible. Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you? DIDN't come close to answering the question. It appears that you are too stupid to understand it. |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... . It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals the world over. That should read "professional audio clowns". That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown. BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and the garish makeup. My boyfriend lives in Talahassee. I must have been down there to visit him. |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't prove that there are not differences. Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person, they don't exist. all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test conditions, given that you have such test results for the given individual. My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison. "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted, but don't hear them under test conditions. You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was not removed and levels were not matched. IDIOT, that is EXACTLY why it "is" a true statement. The really interesting thing to see would be this: a) person hears differences sighted (According to you supposedly from expectation effects) Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted, as is the case with speakers IDIOT, many people hear differences when sighted. You have even said this. IT is one of the premises for your arguments to go blind. b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing supposed future expectation effects) d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he still hear differences, or did they go away with removal of the supposed expectation effects? Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test is still not going to be relaible. Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you? DIDN't come close to answering the question. It appears that you are too stupid to understand it. I guess we have that in common then. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... . It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals the world over. That should read "professional audio clowns". That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown. BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and the garish makeup. My boyfriend lives in Talahassee. I must have been down there to visit him. And the gigantic red shoes? |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... . It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals the world over. That should read "professional audio clowns". That's right, anybody who knows more about it than you must be a clown. BTW, I've been wondering why you've been seen with that big red nose and the garish makeup. My boyfriend lives in Talahassee. I must have been down there to visit him. And the gigantic red shoes? Those were giant red slippers he was wearing. they had bells on the toes. |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html "The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance." The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to a discrete number of points. Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft enough to conform? Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2 comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium. Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited over softer copper contacts. Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical purpose in answering it. Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons not to answer it. It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in physical contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of ruthenium important. Prove it makes an audible difference. Prove it doesn't. Can't prove a negative. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't prove that there are not differences. Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person, they don't exist. all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test conditions, given that you have such test results for the given individual. My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison. "If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted, but don't hear them under test conditions. You could say that but it would be untrue,due to the fact that bias was not removed and levels were not matched. IDIOT, that is EXACTLY why it "is" a true statement. The really interesting thing to see would be this: a) person hears differences sighted (According to you supposedly from expectation effects) Not mecessarily, they could be differences large enough to hear sighted, as is the case with speakers IDIOT, many people hear differences when sighted. You have even said this. IT is one of the premises for your arguments to go blind. b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing supposed future expectation effects) d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he still hear differences, or did they go away with removal of the supposed expectation effects? Unless there is level matching to within .1db I suspect any sighted test is still not going to be relaible. Fortunately we have someone who posts here freuently who knows much more about the acceptability of such tests than I do. Arny, what say you? DIDN't come close to answering the question. It appears that you are too stupid to understand it. I guess we have that in common then. Mikey, you are the village idiot. You can feel quite secure about the position. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:58:16 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote: DIDN't come close to answering the question. It appears that you are too stupid to understand it. I guess we have that in common then. Mikey, you are the village idiot. You can feel quite secure about the position. Strange, my eye problem's still bothering me..... |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... Mikey, you are the village idiot. You can feel quite secure about the position. "At least" until Howie returns. |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:58:16 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: DIDN't come close to answering the question. It appears that you are too stupid to understand it. I guess we have that in common then. Mikey, you are the village idiot. You can feel quite secure about the position. Strange, my eye problem's still bothering me..... It's a common problem with computers. At least you don't have carpal tunnel syndrome  |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... Mikey, you are the village idiot. You can feel quite secure about the position. "At least" until Howie returns. If irony killed. Art Sackman or whatever name he's using this week has to be one of the all-time bozos in RAO's rich history of mental midgets. |
Linear Mode
