Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. Doubtful, and they'd have to endure your misspelling in the instructions on the box. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for enjoyment, not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment. How do you know if you've never bothered to try? Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for enjoyment, not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment. How do you know if you've never bothered to try? Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system? First of all, my time is valuable. There goes the several hundred saved right there. Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000. Anyway, if I went back to sighted and the 'favored' component still sounded better sighted (despite sounding the same blind) I would select the favored component. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community. We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for enjoyment, not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment. How do you know if you've never bothered to try? Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system? With the fraudulent form of ABX currently being pushed by liars, poseurs,and pseudoscientists, it would only cause the listener to miss the genuine difference that mean all the difference in hifi. We cannot accept your "sake of discussion" request, because you are a known liar, arguing in bad faith on behalf of the notorious BAD SCIENTIST and poseur, Arny Krueger. To accept your request would be a disservice to the audio community. Therefore, your request is DENIED. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community. We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you. Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious rituals. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
Mikey, have you been eating from Arnii's dinner bowl instead of scouring the garden for your food as you're accustomed to doing? Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred dollars". If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option. God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to alleviate your crushing idiocy? .. .. .. .. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Mikey, have you been eating from Arnii's dinner bowl instead of scouring the garden for your food as you're accustomed to doing? Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred dollars". If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option. God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to alleviate your crushing idiocy? Currently beyond the capabilities of medicine to increase his mental capacity. Perhaps Mikey might be interested in breast enlargement; it's doable. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. its just not about science. its about enjoying the playback of music. Its about enjoyment. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community. We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you. Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious rituals. Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT. I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I require. I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't exist. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for enjoyment, not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment. How do you know if you've never bothered to try? Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system? First of all, my time is valuable. There goes the several hundred saved right there. Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000. What speakers do you own? Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP? At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K. Anyway, if I went back to sighted and the 'favored' component still sounded better sighted (despite sounding the same blind) I would select the favored component. I'm not sure I believe you. I think that despite all your protestations, you are in fact smart enough to know that the illusory sonic improvements you might perceive from a sighted comparison, are just that. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Mikey, have you been eating from Arnii's dinner bowl instead of scouring the garden for your food as you're accustomed to doing? Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred dollars". Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons involved in high end audio. If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option. And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same sound as from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong. You don't have any frame of refernce for Normal. God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to alleviate your crushing idiocy? Isn't it time you did the world a favor and dropped a piano on your head? |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
duh! said Mikey, while noshing on a plateful of cockroaches. Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred dollars". Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons involved in high end audio. Oh greatly stupid one, you're engaging in a fallacy that has been explained to you many times before. Suffice it to say, for the sake of repetition, that "several hundred dollars" is not a factor for people who buy high-priced equipment. As a point of reference, they also buy $5000 skis, $80,000 cars, and $200,000 pieces of jewelry, among other items. If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option. And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same sound as from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong. How did you banish reality so thoroughly from that hermetic dimension you inhabit? Inquiring minds want to know how you came to know what others are "convinced" of without them telling you. God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to alleviate your crushing idiocy? no response from duh-Mikey How many times have you seen "Forrest Gump"? Do you still tear up when Hanks drawls about the box of chocolates? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for enjoyment, not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment. How do you know if you've never bothered to try? Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system? First of all, my time is valuable. There goes the several hundred saved right there. Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000. What speakers do you own? Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP? At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K. Vandersteen 4's I will have to replace them when I move. No room, and the overseas freight charge will be outrageous. And the original boxes were ruined in a flood. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. its just not about science. its about enjoying the playback of music. Its about enjoyment. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry to find a satisfying system. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community. We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you. Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious rituals. Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT. I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I require. I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't exist. Just listen sighted, if you don't hear any differences, fine. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. its just not about science. its about enjoying the playback of music. Its about enjoyment. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry to find a satisfying system. No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they are hearing. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community. We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you. Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious rituals. Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT. I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I require. I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't exist. Just listen sighted, if you don't hear any differences, fine. That's the problem, sighted listening is least likely to keep me from being swayed by bias. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for enjoyment, not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment. How do you know if you've never bothered to try? Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system? First of all, my time is valuable. There goes the several hundred saved right there. Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000. What speakers do you own? Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP? At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K. Vandersteen 4's I will have to replace them when I move. No room, and the overseas freight charge will be outrageous. And the original boxes were ruined in a flood. I must have missed it, where are you moving to? If you get a chance the NHT's look to be amazing. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... duh! said Mikey, while noshing on a plateful of cockroaches. Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred dollars". Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons involved in high end audio. Oh greatly stupid one, you're engaging in a fallacy that has been explained to you many times before. Suffice it to say, for the sake of repetition, that "several hundred dollars" is not a factor for people who buy high-priced equipment. As a point of reference, they also buy $5000 skis, $80,000 cars, and $200,000 pieces of jewelry, among other items. Those are not Normals. If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option. And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same sound as from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong. How did you banish reality so thoroughly from that hermetic dimension you inhabit? Inquiring minds want to know how you came to know what others are "convinced" of without them telling you. Large healthy doses of fact. You should try it. God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to alleviate your crushing idiocy? no response from duh-Mikey How should I respond to another in your endless supply of insults? You won't stop and you'll still be an asshole and a pig, and I'll still have a better idea on how to assembel an audio system than you do. How many times have you seen "Forrest Gump"? Do you still tear up when Hanks drawls about the box of chocolates? Do you still get all misty when it's time to renew your NAMBLA membership? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for enjoyment, not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment. How do you know if you've never bothered to try? Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system? First of all, my time is valuable. There goes the several hundred saved right there. Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000. What speakers do you own? Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP? At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K. Vandersteen 4's I will have to replace them when I move. No room, and the overseas freight charge will be outrageous. And the original boxes were ruined in a flood. I must have missed it, where are you moving to? I would rather not say too much about my personal life. If you get a chance the NHT's look to be amazing. I will check to see if they are available anywhere near my destination. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. its just not about science. its about enjoying the playback of music. Its about enjoyment. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry to find a satisfying system. No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they are hearing. So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything else being equal, or even if that satisfaction costs them a little extra money. I don't agree with that at all. Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community. We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you. Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious rituals. Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT. I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I require. I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't exist. Just listen sighted, if you don't hear any differences, fine. That's the problem, sighted listening is least likely to keep me from being swayed by bias. You are certainly correct, that IS your problem. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. its just not about science. its about enjoying the playback of music. Its about enjoyment. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry to find a satisfying system. No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they are hearing. So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything else being equal, or even if that satisfaction costs them a little extra money. I don't agree with that at all. Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself. I have no need, I know what I'm getting. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. its just not about science. its about enjoying the playback of music. Its about enjoyment. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry to find a satisfying system. No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they are hearing. So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything else being equal, or even if that satisfaction costs them a little extra money. I don't agree with that at all. Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself. I have no need, I know what I'm getting. You ASSUME you know what you are getting. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message ink.net... : : "Clyde Slick" wrote in message : ... : snipss you still haven't figure out that it's : NOT about science. : Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. : : It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. : its just not about science. : its about enjoying the playback of music. : Its about enjoyment. : : : The 2 are not mutually exclusive. : : But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry : to find a satisfying system. : No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they : are hearing. : : : So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they : DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything : else being equal, or even if that : satisfaction costs them a little extra money. : I don't agree with that at all. : : Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself. : I have no need, I know what I'm getting. When we want to study a system, we soon come to realize nearly every system is an open system. Thus, if one wants to establish correlations, hopefully causally linked, it is necessary to keep many circumstantial parameters that may be deemed of influence controlled. Ideally, all of 'm, but that presupposes we _do_ know all possible influences, which is not usually the case. This is essentially the divide and conquer strategy in scientific research. It leads to specialization and a sizeable output of findings and models in all fields of research. So much so, that even a specialist has a hard time keeping up with the ongoings in his/her field. It is also why at any given time, there is no homogenous, more or less complete model of the research field. There are definitions, axioma's, basic 'undisputed models', then several tentatively proposed new/extention models, finally a wealth of puzzling/ exiting/hard to belief research results that have yet to be encompassed in the 'big picture'. From this, it must be clear, there is no such thing as _science says_. More accurate would be: _current findings seem to indicate_ , followed by a selection of research results that the speaker happens to favour :-) A controlled parameter setting, part of methodology and protocol of some experiment, when dealing with humans, includes doubleblind administering/ setting as there is then no way, directly or indirectly, that the test participants can be influenced by knowing what is administered/set up at any moment. Now we come to the all important part: getting the results in This is where the 'hard science' has all the advantages, that is, measurements with ever more precise/less invasive/process changing equipment can give a wealth of results. The number of -to be controlled- parameters is not too bad. And last but not least, there is repeatability. Good fortune then for physics, chemistry, electronics. Less so for biology as the number of parameters is rather large, but the results can at least be measured. As Ludovic has repeatedly pointed out, the dbt test results in medicine are based on observed results, not _reported effects_. Scientific research that deals with subjective evaluation is much worse off. large quantity of parameters, many _inherently_ noncontrollable, not much to measure, quantify, repeatability often problematic. Hence a large body of different models, known to be 'ok' within some restrictions or with otherwise limited scope, no unified theories by any stretch of the imagination. What makes audio interesting in this respect is that it is at the crossroads of different disciplines, using different modeling, different strategies. It therefore makes sense to have a multidisciplinary approach in audio, or results are bound to be erratic to some degree. And this starts with proper protocol setup. I hope it is now selfevident that it is rather a long stretch from what science entails to say: with the ABX protocol, no differences could be established - there are thus no differences, no possible preferences between A and B. this is now an established fact. RB. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. its just not about science. its about enjoying the playback of music. Its about enjoyment. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry to find a satisfying system. No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they are hearing. So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything else being equal, or even if that satisfaction costs them a little extra money. I don't agree with that at all. Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself. I have no need, I know what I'm getting. You ASSUME you know what you are getting. Oooooh so close, but no. I get good information from which to make a good decision from. Given that there are so few differences anyway, I'm looking for build quality and features, since it's almost a given, that it will sound right. I'm not getting tubes after all. I'd already been introduced to the perils of sighted listening before I ever heard of ABX for audio. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. its just not about science. its about enjoying the playback of music. Its about enjoyment. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry to find a satisfying system. No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they are hearing. So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything else being equal, or even if that satisfaction costs them a little extra money. I don't agree with that at all. Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself. I have no need, I know what I'm getting. You ASSUME you know what you are getting. Oooooh so close, but no. I get good information from which to make a good decision from. Given that there are so few differences anyway, I'm looking for build quality and features, since it's almost a given, that it will sound right. I'm not getting tubes after all. I'd already been introduced to the perils of sighted listening before I ever heard of ABX for audio. Why don't you go beyond just having heard of it? Like use it for making decisions. DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for having done it yourself. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
Ruud Broens wrote: wrote in message ink.net... : : "Clyde Slick" wrote in message : ... : snipss you still haven't figure out that it's : NOT about science. : Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. : : It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. : its just not about science. : its about enjoying the playback of music. : Its about enjoyment. : : : The 2 are not mutually exclusive. : : But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry : to find a satisfying system. : No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they : are hearing. : : : So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they : DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything : else being equal, or even if that : satisfaction costs them a little extra money. : I don't agree with that at all. : : Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself. : I have no need, I know what I'm getting. When we want to study a system, we soon come to realize nearly every system is an open system. Thus, if one wants to establish correlations, hopefully causally linked, it is necessary to keep many circumstantial parameters that may be deemed of influence controlled. Ideally, all of 'm, but that presupposes we _do_ know all possible influences, which is not usually the case. This is essentially the divide and conquer strategy in scientific research. It leads to specialization and a sizeable output of findings and models in all fields of research. So much so, that even a specialist has a hard time keeping up with the ongoings in his/her field. It is also why at any given time, there is no homogenous, more or less complete model of the research field. There are definitions, axioma's, basic 'undisputed models', then several tentatively proposed new/extention models, finally a wealth of puzzling/ exiting/hard to belief research results that have yet to be encompassed in the 'big picture'. From this, it must be clear, there is no such thing as _science says_. More accurate would be: _current findings seem to indicate_ , followed by a selection of research results that the speaker happens to favour :-) A controlled parameter setting, part of methodology and protocol of some experiment, when dealing with humans, includes doubleblind administering/ setting as there is then no way, directly or indirectly, that the test participants can be influenced by knowing what is administered/set up at any moment. Now we come to the all important part: getting the results in This is where the 'hard science' has all the advantages, that is, measurements with ever more precise/less invasive/process changing equipment can give a wealth of results. The number of -to be controlled- parameters is not too bad. And last but not least, there is repeatability. Good fortune then for physics, chemistry, electronics. Less so for biology as the number of parameters is rather large, but the results can at least be measured. As Ludovic has repeatedly pointed out, the dbt test results in medicine are based on observed results, not _reported effects_. Scientific research that deals with subjective evaluation is much worse off. large quantity of parameters, many _inherently_ noncontrollable, not much to measure, quantify, repeatability often problematic. Hence a large body of different models, known to be 'ok' within some restrictions or with otherwise limited scope, no unified theories by any stretch of the imagination. What makes audio interesting in this respect is that it is at the crossroads of different disciplines, using different modeling, different strategies. It therefore makes sense to have a multidisciplinary approach in audio, or results are bound to be erratic to some degree. And this starts with proper protocol setup. I hope it is now selfevident that it is rather a long stretch from what science entails to say: with the ABX protocol, no differences could be established - there are thus no differences, no possible preferences between A and B. this is now an established fact. RB. ______________________________________ I read with interest your erudite and well- written message. I fear that it will fall on deaf ears. You're not in the sphere of rational argument.. You're dealing with magical thinking. Like this: "I learnt at school that there is an equation for auditory wave progression - so there must be a formula for deciding which component will play my music best." Hurrah I found it.. It is called ABX. It confirms that differences I have never been able to hear do not exist. This makes me feel good. I always knew those golden ears were just trying to put me down. Now I can show them what science is. I'll go to my Public Library get a string of references with "audio" or "listening" in the title and call them "scholarly references to ABX" No mention of ABX in them? Who is checking?" Well I checked and found not a single published reference in any mag. or journal where majority of an ABXing panel heard a difference between ANY comparable components when music was played. This challenge has been on the web for the last four years and still is. All we get is ridiculous catalogues of irrelevancies like the one that opened this thread. Simple minds just will not face the simple truth. We're all different, We all have different abilities and different training/experience and we all have different expectations from music reproduction. If I heard or did not hear something does not mean that someone else will hear or not hear in unison with me.. Amplifiers are physical objects, Some of their properties can be measured, So are violins. If a virtuoso tells me that he hears differences between them I'll take his opinion. I wii not ask him to compete with NYOB in a phony "test" that has never been properly researched and validated to show that it does help to show differences rather than obliterate them. To show that it WORKS.. Ludovic Mirabel |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message k.net... "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... duh! said Mikey, while noshing on a plateful of cockroaches. Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred dollars". Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons involved in high end audio. Oh greatly stupid one, you're engaging in a fallacy that has been explained to you many times before. Suffice it to say, for the sake of repetition, that "several hundred dollars" is not a factor for people who buy high-priced equipment. As a point of reference, they also buy $5000 skis, $80,000 cars, and $200,000 pieces of jewelry, among other items. Those are not Normals. If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option. And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same sound as from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong. How did you banish reality so thoroughly from that hermetic dimension you inhabit? Inquiring minds want to know how you came to know what others are "convinced" of without them telling you. Large healthy doses of fact. You should try it. God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to alleviate your crushing idiocy? no response from duh-Mikey How should I respond to another in your endless supply of insults? You won't stop and you'll still be an asshole and a pig, and I'll still have a better idea on how to assembel an audio system than you do. Mikey, your Existence is an insult to the whole human race. You are the Missing Link that connects us with the apes. If it weren't for you, we could all imagine we were created in the image of God. But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who crawled out of the mud on spiny fins, and belched rank air from a bladder. How many times have you seen "Forrest Gump"? Do you still tear up when Hanks drawls about the box of chocolates? Do you still get all misty when it's time to renew your NAMBLA membership? What are you doing with my sheep? |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. its just not about science. its about enjoying the playback of music. Its about enjoyment. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry to find a satisfying system. No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they are hearing. So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything else being equal, or even if that satisfaction costs them a little extra money. I don't agree with that at all. Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself. I have no need, I know what I'm getting. You ASSUME you know what you are getting. Oooooh so close, but no. I get good information from which to make a good decision from. Given that there are so few differences anyway, I'm looking for build quality and features, since it's almost a given, that it will sound right. I'm not getting tubes after all. I'd already been introduced to the perils of sighted listening before I ever heard of ABX for audio. Why don't you go beyond just having heard of it? Been there done that. Like use it for making decisions. What for? I know what I want and how to get it. I pay for the best perfromance there is, not the what it looks like, but what it does. DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for having done it yourself. I have done it myself. Now I know better. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news Mikey, your Existence is an insult to the whole human race. You are the Missing Link that connects us with the apes. If it weren't for you, we could all imagine we were created in the image of God. But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who crawled out of the mud on spiny fins, and belched rank air from a bladder. Isn't it good to see Morien doing what he can to reduce the number of personal attacks around here? ;-) |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 06:41:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who crawled out of the mud on spiny fins, and belched rank air from a bladder. Isn't it good to see Morien doing what he can to reduce the number of personal attacks around here? You don't believe Mike can belch rank air from his bladder? Ask him to show you. It's one of his best party tricks. :-) |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message oups.com... Snip... I read with interest your erudite and well- written message. I fear that it will fall on deaf ears. You're not in the sphere of rational argument.. You're dealing with magical thinking. Like this: "I learnt at school that there is an equation for auditory wave progression - so there must be a formula for deciding which component will play my music best." Hurrah I found it.. It is called ABX. It confirms that differences I have never been able to hear do not exist. This makes me feel good. I always knew those golden ears were just trying to put me down. Now I can show them what science is. I'll go to my Public Library get a string of references with "audio" or "listening" in the title and call them "scholarly references to ABX" No mention of ABX in them? Who is checking?" Before I replied to the original post I did a Google search on the first listed reference in that post and ended up on an ABX web page. Not only was that reference there but the entire list - he obviously just copied and pasted from the ABX page. Why trek all the way down to the Public Library and actually do some independent research when the ABXers have already done the research for him? |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"paul packer" wrote in message
Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting. Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws, and you have no practical background in the topic so you can't spot the factual errors. Of course no-one in the ABX camp will applaud it, or likely even read it through, but that's their loss. It takes a lot of cups of coffee to retain consciousness while reading Ludovic's highly repetitive and bogus posts. Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day it will be common. Paul, you just flunked another IQ test. Maybe there is some chemical that will energize your synapses to the point where bilge like Ludovic's will start wrinkling your nose. Ask Paul Domer, in the past he's bragged about his self-experimentation along these lines. Of course, we're talking Paul Dormer, so many of us know that none of his experiments ever bore what most would call fruit. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 06:41:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who crawled out of the mud on spiny fins, and belched rank air from a bladder. Isn't it good to see Morien doing what he can to reduce the number of personal attacks around here? You don't believe Mike can belch rank air from his bladder? Irreelvant. Paul, we're talking about Morien's obvious hypocrisy here, as well as your's. You've got your nose how far up Morien's and Middius' schtick and you don't say *what* about all of their name-calling? Ask him to show you. It's one of his best party tricks. :-) Gosh this forum was a lot more fun before Middius chased most of the adults off. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
Looks like the title I put in this sub-thread was prescient. DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for having done it yourself. I have done it myself. Now I know better. Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting that "tests" are for losers. ;-) .. .. .. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
f.S. Tons of cheapgear | Pro Audio | |||
shipping Rode NT2000 in carrying case | Pro Audio | |||
WANTED: 6 Space Effects Rack Case | Pro Audio | |||
FS: 400 Closeouts!! Video Game, Computer, Mobile A/V, Personal A/V | Car Audio | |||
Sherwood S-8000 Schematic and Case needed | Vacuum Tubes |