Arny Krueger wrote:
"GregS" wrote in message

In article
.com,
wrote:

I have no doubt you learned "much" from this group of
beanie heads. About the technical side of audio.
Although "Dick" is one of the biggest dicks on the audio
newsgroups, he does know something or other about this
technical nature of audio. Unfortunately, he doesn't
know jack **** about how to get audio to sound like real
music. Neither does anyone else on this group. Knowing
the ****ing "damping factor" or

Either you post under different names or somethings up.
Its hard to believe
one just listens to newsgroups and does not reply, untill
ALL OF A SUDDEN
just creating a big stir are ya!!!???


(senseless crap snipped)

Say.... arent you the fat chicken**** faggot that pretends to be a big
brave newsgroup bully but STILL cant seem to find at least one of your
balls in order to debate or even address me directly? Sure you are,
Arnold/Arny Krueger/KRuger/Krooger or whatever your name is this week.
And arent you the same Arnold/Arny Krueger/KRuger/Krooger chicken****
little weasel that made up a thousand stupid excuses to get out of a
debate with Atkinson? Oh, now I recognize you! I guess I should have
already by the smell of **** and pizza boxes next to you, you fat
****ing loser.

I. Care wrote:
In article . com,

How easily we forget.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the original claim to a
group (no or re-oriented fuses sound better or even different). Yes in
this case I understand the OP was giving background info along with the
original question (see the header), but; this thread has gone well past
that particular issue.

One person stating I heard something, and someone else says they did
too, is anecdotal evidence at best, not proof. Anecdotal evidence is
fine but should then lead to scientifically valid investigation and
trials by the person(s) making the claim.

A proper test to be remotely believable would require repeatable tests
by the claimant (OP) witnessed using multiple subjects and multiple
trials and/or monitoring signals with properly calibrated and setup test
equipment. Where is this scientifically valid data from the OP? Where
is the link to the scientifically valid data or trials the OP is using
for the claim?

What is offered instead is the typical troll response effectively
saying, scientifically prove I didn't or can't hear a difference (prove
a negative), and a bunch of name calling (a tool of the weak mind).

Why don't the "techs" on RAT repeat the test using their ears like the
OP did? It is a scientifically invalid way to perform bias controlled
test(s) as has been proven over and over again (read past postings
here), and it's not their job to provide valid tests for someone else's
claim.

If the OP so strongly believes scientific testing is not necessary and
just listen for yourself, why doesn't the OP collect the money from the
"million dollar challenge" from Randi? http://www.randi.org/

I do not necessarily believe the OP is wrong.

It's just that I was one of those people that believed expensive cable
and cable direction and green pens on cd's, and spending big $$ on Krell
gear was easily heard by anyone, after all I heard it (I really like my
Krell gear). I repeated some of my informal listening tests for cables
etc., I wasn't going to get rid of my Krell stuff after all, and
couldn't hear the difference anymore. So I too have become skeptical of
some claims, after all Krell used green led's to flood the cd's in some
of their players, so it must be true :-P.

So flame away, curse and throw a tantrum like a 3 year old. Cover your
eyes and say "you can't see me!", after all that's a valid test right?

Actually, I respect your response, so you'll get no flames from me. The
others, I can't speak for. I can respect it for the fact that you show,
unlike others here, that at the very least, you're troubling to pay
attention to what's been said. Most here just speak out of their
asshole, and their replies show it. So you're right to say I was only
giving background info when I talked about running my amp without a
fuse, and that the thread has goen well past that issue. Had no one
said anything to me about how ridiculous I was to even suggest fuses
could possibly have an audible effect, I assure you, the thread would
have ended almost as quickly as it began. I don't much care for it when
ignorants have the arrogance to tell me I don't know what I'm talking
about, on an area of knowledge they have no knowledge of.

Your RAT buddies made false claims to me, such as stating as fact that
I was a "troll", and also claims related to audio. Well I could make
the same statement you did. That anecdotal evidence (which I don't even
think they provided THAT MUCH to back their claims), is not PROOF. I
agree I did not prove anything to anybody here. But nor did ANYONE on
this technical group of wanna-be scientists, provide proof of ANY claim
they made to me. What everyone so far, after 240 messages, seems to
fail to understand, despite my having explained this to about 15
squatters here, is that I do not have to prove anything to anyone, and
I do not care to "prove" any claim of audio that I make, to anyone
here. My position, as I've stated it about 120 times to about as many
posters in this thread, is that if you want proof, FIND IT ON YOUR OWN.
God, YOU people are supposed to be the techie scientists! Act like one!
If you can't figure out how to open up an amp and try the fuse tweak
yourself, you have no business on this group. And if you can and don't
want to, you still have no business on this group. At the very least,
you have no business asking me to prove what you're curious to find out
about. I've already done the tests, no one else here in 240 posts has.
If you don't like my standard of proof, I have no problem with that.
I've described how to do the tweak. So prove it yourself using your OWN
standard of proof. Be that DBTs, ABXs, or voodoo witch rituals. I
didn't say you couldn't use your own standard, whatever you consider
valid, DID I?!! What I DID say was that its NOT MY JOB to prove
anything to anyone here, particularly when they are already predisposed
to disbelieve it, out of their arrogant ignorance.

Unlike most everyone here, I don't just sit on a computer all day on my
lazy ass, posting to a clique I have on a newsgroup, and pretending I'm
a genius of audio. No, rather, I do a LOT of actual audio tests. And
since life is too short for silly ABX/DBT tests, my preferred method of
proof is good old fashioned LISTENING, as God intended it (or as audio
component engineers intended it). I suggest that if LISTENING to a
given DUT doesn't work for you, then attempting to replicate medical
standards of experimentation is not going to cut it either. Raw
listening should tell you all you need to know about anything in audio.
Most people here don't even have the skills to pass something as
stressful as a DBT, simply because they don't even do much raw
listening tests. As for "scientifically valid data", please... don't
make me laugh. You don't anything about what is valid, you're just
making assumptions and believing in "religions of theory" (that have
long since been debunked), when you cite that blind or double blind
audio tests are "scientifically valid", and the only thing that is
valid, when testing audio.

If you wanna talk bout "tools of the weak mind", well, we can mention
all the name calling made gainst me in this thread, but I'd much rather
use this example to exemplify the "weak mind": I would define "weak
minds" as woefully ignorant people who will mock, ridicule, deride or
criticize those with different beliefs, without ever having tested
their arguments, or without even having the will to try. That pretty
much describes everyone who participated in this 240 message thread
(thank you for showing my friends and proving to them what I've said
all along about predictable audio techies), besides me.

As for the alleged "James Randi", please.. dont make me laugh again!
That fruitcakes only job in life is to act as an attention whore,
attempting to emulate the great Houdini, and the only money he makes is
from what little publicity he can generate and appeal to ignorant
skeptics (as opposed to intelligent skeptics like myself, who realize
that half of what Randi says is utter bull****, and full of
misinformation). So I strongly doubt the fruitcake in question even has
a million dollars to give away. And if he does, are you really that
naive to think he'll ever part with it voluntarily? Apparently, you
are. He sure ain't gonna give it to me because I just said my fuses are
audible. Read the fine print. Its about as possible to collect that
money under randis terms, than it is for Bush to get a third term.

Let me get this straight: You heard the audible significance of high
end cables, cable direction, green pens on cds and Krell gear. Which
are all things that I've heard as well. And then one day, 'poof!'. You
no longer "heard" it? How in the **** does that happen, I wonder? Do
you really think that all the people who buy anything better than
dollar store cables or Krell gear for that matter, really can't hear
the differences they believe they can,t because YOU can no longer hear
them in one of your "informal tests" (who knows how stoned you were
that day?). Look, either you're wrong, or 50 million audio enthusiasts
who do hear these things are wrong. You do the math. (I'll give you a
hint: You're wrong).


Krell used green led's to flood the cd's in some of their players, so it must be true

It doesn't really matter whether the bloody LEDs are significant or
not. What matters is how the Krell player sounds to other players in
its price range, and if you think it is good. Geez! I said I wasn't
going to flame you, but you're making it really hard, with comments as
ignorant as this one...

Joe Blough wrote:

Ladbury, you need to get a clue.
The one who makes the assertion has the burden of proof in a debate.
You made the looney assertion that bypassing a fuse will change the
sound of audio.
Prove it, and state why.

QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 1:

What kind of an ignorant ****WIT do you have to be, to ask that?

QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 2:

To begin with, sockpuppet, if I did "prove it" to you using whatever
the hell you think is "proof", how would you know I'm not lying? How
would you know anyone else isn't, who tells you the same?

QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 3:

How do you establish what "proof" is? By YOUR idiot standard? How says
that YOUR standard, is any more valid than mine?

QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 4:

Given that your standard is DBTs, and that I didn't lie to you about
doing them, how the hell do you know whether I or anyone who does a DBT
of my fuse test can even hear worth a damn, you shallow-thinking
small-minded ****-for-brains fool?

Since you don't trust your own ears to "prove" whether something is
valid, I'm sure you research all your audio equipment upgrades based on
whatever DBTs that you've read that people have undertaken on the
particular model of equipment you're thinking of buying (let's just say
its speakers, since thats likely the only thing you think is audible,
in audio - if anything!). You're certainly stupid enough to buy your
equipment that way, fool. And if you don't, that means you listen to
speakers raw before buying them. Which is no PROOF that one model is
better than another, according to your idiotic retarded
non-understanding of all matters audio. Now shut your ****ing face and
eat my gob, you stupid retard. (chaptooey!)

And stop asking stupid questions, fool.

p.s. Since you're the one that called my assertion "loony", let's see
you PROVE THAT IT IS.

wrote:
GregS wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

Stuart Welwood wrote:

Through the years, I have learned much from this group, especially from the
more knowledgeable "members" such as yourself, Dick Pierce (I'll never think
in terms of damping factor again!), Scott Dorsey, and several other serious
contributors.

I have no doubt you learned "much" from this group of beanie heads.
About the technical side of audio. Although "Dick" is one of the
biggest dicks on the audio newsgroups, he does know something or other
about this technical nature of audio. Unfortunately, he doesn't know
jack **** about how to get audio to sound like real music. Neither
does anyone else on this group. Knowing the ****ing "damping factor" or

Either you post under different names or somethings up. Its hard to believe
one just listens to newsgroups and does not reply, untill ALL OF A SUDDEN
just creating a big stir are ya!!!???

First of all, moron, there are plenty of people who read newsgroups and
dont reply. I believe they call them "lurkers" in your lingo. Second of
all, when did I say I dont respond to newsgroups, you stupid
presumptious ****wit? And whats this ALL OF A SUDDEN ****, you
ignorant ****? I'm not the one who made a stir. Rather, over 200
responses to my posts is what made the stir. If you don't like it, shut
the **** up already, and dont ****ing reply. Let this be the last I see
of you in my thread.


greg

Your math is lacking, your replies are not considered responses in this
thread. It is almost as developed as your discussion skills.

wrote in message
oups.com

And arent you the same Arnold/Arny
Krueger/KRuger/Krooger chicken**** little weasel that
made up a thousand stupid excuses to get out of a debate
with Atkinson?

Ladbury or whatever your real name is, you're about a year out of touch with
reality. I debated Atkinson in New York about a year ago.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/8885.html

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
Ladbury or whatever your real name is, you're about a
year out of touch with reality.

More than that I think. The fuse fantasy is at least 10 years
old. I remember at least that long ago sitting around lunch
with my cow-orkers and joking about selling gold-plated
fuses. We thought it was a joke until somebody else started
making money at it. Maybe the same people that sell the
magic bricks?

Richard Crowley wrote:

The fuse fantasy is at least 10 years
old. I remember at least that long ago sitting around lunch
with my cow-orkers and joking about selling gold-plated
fuses. We thought it was a joke until somebody else started
making money at it. Maybe the same people that sell the
magic bricks?

The aluminum ones that absorb eddy currents? I remember those.

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message

Richard Crowley wrote:

The fuse fantasy is at least 10 years
old. I remember at least that long ago sitting around
lunch with my cow-orkers and joking about selling
gold-plated fuses. We thought it was a joke until
somebody else started making money at it. Maybe the
same people that sell the magic bricks?

The aluminum ones that absorb eddy currents? I remember
those.

Brace yourself - here comes the prerequisite subjectivist personal attack!
;-)

Fat Arny Krueger wrote :

wrote in message
oups.com

And arent you the same Arnold/Arny
Krueger/KRuger/Krooger chicken**** little weasel that
made up a thousand stupid excuses to get out of a debate
with Atkinson?

Ladbury or whatever your real name is, you're about a year out of touch with
reality. I debated Atkinson in New York about a year ago.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/8885.html

My real name is written in all my posts, you stupid fat Nazi ****. If
you claim it isn't my name, then where the hellis all that hard factual
PROOF that you keep talking about, necessary before you can make claims
on this newsgroup?

While we're on the subject, I also want to hear where the **** is your
hard factual proof that blue LEDs don't have any influence on the
sound? I don't mean your ignorant half-assed theories and anecdotal
evidence, I mean the scientifically acceptable tests you undertook -
you know, the only ones that are acceptable to you when someone else
makes a groundless bull**** audio claim - ABX tests?

Now Arny/Arnold Krueger/Kruger/Krooger or whatever your real name is,
since you go under so many variations of this name, don't try your
smoke and mirrors routine on me. I predicted that your massive ego
would show up to quote the Atkinson debate, if anyone called you a fat
****ing crying whimp for trying to bail out of it. And there you show
up, first thing in the morning, with a link for all to see, like the
predictable little imbecile you are, KKKrueger. Although I note that
you're still ignoring my challenge to you to debate your arguments
against me, like the chicken**** you are.

You, me and Google all know that I'm not talking about the debate you
DID finally show up at, after they had to drag your ego through the mud
to get you to attend. No, I'm talking about all the PREVIOUS attempts
where JA challenged you to a debate, and like the cowardly faggot you
are, you came out with lie after lie as to why you wouldn't attend. So
what finally gave you the guts to make a fool out of yourself in front
of the high end community? Did your wife just get sick of seeing your
ugly hairy back for all these years, while you spend your entire life
trolling audio newsgroups on your computer in this holy anti-audio war
of yours, and demand that you go to that debate and give her a break?

wrote:

... you stupid fat Nazi ****.

Godwin's Law - "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." ... once this occurs, that thread is over,
and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost
whatever argument was in progress.

You lose.

//Walt

I. Care a écrit :

In article .com,
says...

Joe Blough wrote:
wrote in news:1139157220.975816.217990
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I remind you that I am still the current champ and winner of any ofthe
audio debates in this thread, as not a single ONE of you chicken****
whiners ever proved me wrong abotu ANYTHING, with anything even close
to solid factual evidence (and not simply faulty theories).



Ladbury, you need to get a clue.
The one who makes the assertion has the burden of proof in a debate.
You made the looney assertion that bypassing a fuse will change the
sound of audio.
Prove it, and state why.
Otherwise, stop making foolish claims.

Oh nice. An ignorant sockpuppet ****wit telling me I need to get a
clue. First of all, since your sockpuppet name is Joe Blough, you can
suck my dick. Second of all, I was just informed by one of your RAT
buddies this wasn't a debate, but a discussion. You can argue that one
out amongst yourselves. Third of all, the only loony assertions are
coming from you, kook, and from the other sockpuppets on this group. If
you claim that mine is a loony assertion, then the burden of proof is
now on your shoulders, to PROVE your claim and state why. Otherwise,
STOP MAKING FOOLISH CLAIMS. And suck my dick.


Typical side-stepping of someone that cannot or will not back-up their
original claim.

I didn't "sidestep" anything, Chumly. I thought you said you read my
posts? I always made it very clear in this thread that I did not intend
to prove anything to anyone here, if they were not willing to prove it
for themselves. Why do you have such a difficult time wrapping your
little brain around that, you don't have confidence in your own
hearing? I already gave very clear instructions on how to replace a
fuse with an alternative, so you can prove the effect for yourself. Do
you need help in figuring out how to remove the screws, for
chrissakes?! (hint: you turn them anti-clockwise to remove)

Its not my job in life to "prove" things to presumptious imbeciles who
make false claims (audio and otherwise), to or about me, but don't feel
the need to "prove" a single one of them after 250 posts in a single
thread. I didn't see you saying anything to that fat Nazi ******* who
calls himself Arny/Arnold Krueger/Kruger etc., when he made the claim
that YBAs blue diodes, that the engineer goes to great expense to
include in his equipment, could not possibly work, providing no ABX
test evidence that he demands of others, to back up his claims. I
didn't see you chiming in when several of your RAT beanie heads made
the unsupported claim that I came only to troll you freaks and geeks,
and never made a sincere inquiry (although I'm not surprised at the
accusation, given how paranoid and insecure wanna-be audio engineers on
audio newsgroups are). I didn't see you opening your big mouth and
demanding "proof" of Arny/Arnold Krueger/Kruger when he just finished
saying recently I'm not using my real name? So obviously, according to
you, everyone else can get away with saying anything they want in this
thread, without having to "prove" it, because they,re your little RAT
buddies. Which is typical of religious audio zealots on the technical
audio newsgroups, but God forbid if one of your opponents does the
same... then that's "typical sidestepping" according to you.

Seriously, why do you think anyone should listen to a
self-contradicting hypocrite like you? YOU are the one who
"sidestepped" my entire last response to you, and a reasoned one at
that.


How's it feel to be a diode?

I don't know, but I'm sure you can answer me on "how does it feel to be
a presumptious ignorant hypocrite"?

You DEMAND credible
"proof" of everyone with a differing opinion, yet you can't back-up your
own opinion with "proof".

I already have.

Since I addressed most of your criticisms already in my recent response
to you, here it is again in case you didn,t understand the first time:

Your RAT buddies made false claims to me, such as stating as fact that
I was a "troll", and also claims related to audio. Well I could make
the same statement you did. That anecdotal evidence (which I don't even

think they provided THAT MUCH to back their claims), is not PROOF. I
agree I did not prove anything to anybody here. But nor did ANYONE on
this technical group of wanna-be scientists, provide proof of ANY claim

they made to me. What everyone so far, after 240 messages, seems to
fail to understand, despite my having explained this to about 15
squatters here, is that I do not have to prove anything to anyone, and
I do not care to "prove" any claim of audio that I make, to anyone
here. My position, as I've stated it about 120 times to about as many
posters in this thread, is that if you want proof, FIND IT ON YOUR OWN.

God, YOU people are supposed to be the techie scientists! Act like one!

If you can't figure out how to open up an amp and try the fuse tweak
yourself, you have no business on this group. And if you can and don't
want to, you still have no business on this group. At the very least,
you have no business asking me to prove what you're curious to find out

about. I've already done the tests, no one else here in 240 posts has.
If you don't like my standard of proof, I have no problem with that.
I've described how to do the tweak. So prove it yourself using your OWN

standard of proof. Be that DBTs, ABXs, or voodoo witch rituals. I
didn't say you couldn't use your own standard, whatever you consider
valid, DID I?!! What I DID say was that its NOT MY JOB to prove
anything to anyone here, particularly when they are already predisposed

to disbelieve it, out of their arrogant ignorance.


Unlike most everyone here, I don't just sit on a computer all day on my

lazy ass, posting to a clique I have on a newsgroup, and pretending I'm

a genius of audio. No, rather, I do a LOT of actual audio tests. And
since life is too short for silly ABX/DBT tests, my preferred method of

proof is good old fashioned LISTENING, as God intended it (or as audio
component engineers intended it). I suggest that if LISTENING to a
given DUT doesn't work for you, then attempting to replicate medical
standards of experimentation is not going to cut it either. Raw
listening should tell you all you need to know about anything in audio.

Most people here don't even have the skills to pass something as
stressful as a DBT, simply because they don't even do much raw
listening tests. As for "scientifically valid data", please... don't
make me laugh. You don't anything about what is valid, you're just
making assumptions and believing in "religions of theory" (that have
long since been debunked), when you cite that blind or double blind
audio tests are "scientifically valid", and the only thing that is
valid, when testing audio.


If you wanna talk bout "tools of the weak mind", well, we can mention
all the name calling made gainst me in this thread, but I'd much rather

use this example to exemplify the "weak mind": I would define "weak
minds" as woefully ignorant people who will mock, ridicule, deride or
criticize those with different beliefs, without ever having tested
their arguments, or without even having the will to try. That pretty
much describes everyone who participated in this 240 message thread
(thank you for showing my friends and proving to them what I've said
all along about predictable audio techies), besides me.


As for the alleged "James Randi", please.. dont make me laugh again!
That fruitcakes only job in life is to act as an attention whore,
attempting to emulate the great Houdini, and the only money he makes is

from what little publicity he can generate and appeal to ignorant
skeptics (as opposed to intelligent skeptics like myself, who realize
that half of what Randi says is utter bull****, and full of
misinformation). So I strongly doubt the fruitcake in question even has

a million dollars to give away. And if he does, are you really that
naive to think he'll ever part with it voluntarily? Apparently, you
are. He sure ain't gonna give it to me because I just said my fuses are

audible. Read the fine print. Its about as possible to collect that
money under randis terms, than it is for Bush to get a third term.


Let me get this straight: You heard the audible significance of high
end cables, cable direction, green pens on cds and Krell gear. Which
are all things that I've heard as well. And then one day, 'poof!'. You
no longer "heard" it? How in the **** does that happen, I wonder? Do
you really think that all the people who buy anything better than
dollar store cables or Krell gear for that matter, really can't hear
the differences they believe they can,t because YOU can no longer hear
them in one of your "informal tests" (who knows how stoned you were
that day?). Look, either you're wrong, or 50 million audio enthusiasts
who do hear these things are wrong. You do the math. (I'll give you a
hint: You're wrong).


Krell used green led's to flood the cd's in some of their players, so it must be true


It doesn't really matter whether the bloody LEDs are significant or
not. What matters is how the Krell player sounds to other players in
its price range, and if you think it is good. Geez! I said I wasn't
going to flame you, but you're making it really hard, with comments as
ignorant as this one...

--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

Richard Crowley a écrit :

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
Ladbury or whatever your real name is, you're about a
year out of touch with reality.

More than that I think. The fuse fantasy is at least 10 years
old.

The fantasy that you anti-audio techie freaks have about everything
sounding the same in audio, is at least 50 years old. Doesn't make you
any less stupider or ignorant.

I remember at least that long ago sitting around lunch
with my cow-orkers and joking about selling gold-plated
fuses. We thought it was a joke until somebody else started
making money at it. Maybe the same people that sell the
magic bricks?

Okay, now you done did it. Where is your scientific PROOF that the
"magic bricks" don't work. I want to see evidence of properly conducted
tests. Next, where is your scientific PROOF that the "gold fuses" don't
work. I want to see evidence of properly conducted tests. Otherwise,
where is the proof that you are not a deluded, ignorant ****wit?

Walt wrote:
wrote:

... you stupid fat Nazi ****.

Godwin's Law - "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." ... once this occurs, that thread is over,
and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost
whatever argument was in progress.

You lose.

//Walt

He (rladbury) doesn't grasp the laws of physics,
why would you expect him to acknowlege Godwin's Law.
Thermodynamics would have had him spontaneously
self combust by now.

QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 1:

What kind of an ignorant ****WIT do you have to be, to ask that?

QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 2:

To begin with, sockpuppet, if I did "prove it" to you using whatever
he hell you think is "proof", how would you know I'm not lying? How
would you know anyone else isn't, who tells you the same?

QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 3:

How do you establish what "proof" is? By YOUR idiot standard? How says
that YOUR standard, is any more valid than mine?

QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 4:

Given that your standard is DBTs, and that I didn't lie to you about
doing them, how the hell do you know whether I or anyone who does a BT
of my fuse test can even hear worth a damn, you
shallow-thinkingsmall-minded ****-for-brains fool?

:-)

Per

"Walt" wrote in message

wrote:

... you stupid fat Nazi ****.

What did I say about bracing ourselves for the prerequisite subjectivist
personal attack?

Godwin's Law - "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." ... once this occurs, that thread is
over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically
lost whatever argument was in progress.

You lose.

Again.

In article .com,
wrote:

Are you kidding me? If I killfiled all the assholes that responded to
me, what fun would there be in continuing to hang around here, among
this hive of ignorant audio ****s? Besides, I don't see you chiding
your RAT brothers when they whine about my presence here and beg their
comrades to ignore me (245 posts says theres a fat ****ing chance of
THAT happening on this group of do-nothing newsgroup junkies,
unfortunately), do I? Where is your demands to them to killfile me or
email me privately, instead of whining about me responding to their
moronic posts?


Noosegroup arguments are vicious only because the stakes are so low.

IMO Operate your amp with a fuse or don't. Its not mine.

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

I. Care wrote:
In article . com,
says...


SNIP



Actually, I respect your response, so you'll get no flames from me. The
others, I can't speak for. I can respect it for the fact that you show,
unlike others here, that at the very least, you're troubling to pay
attention to what's been said. Most here just speak out of their
asshole, and their replies show it. So you're right to say I was only
giving background info when I talked about running my amp without a
fuse, and that the thread has goen well past that issue. Had no one
said anything to me about how ridiculous I was to even suggest fuses
could possibly have an audible effect, I assure you, the thread would
have ended almost as quickly as it began. I don't much care for it when
ignorants have the arrogance to tell me I don't know what I'm talking
about, on an area of knowledge they have no knowledge of.

Your RAT buddies made false claims to me, such as stating as fact that
I was a "troll", and also claims related to audio. Well I could make
the same statement you did. That anecdotal evidence (which I don't even
think they provided THAT MUCH to back their claims), is not PROOF. I
agree I did not prove anything to anybody here. But nor did ANYONE on
this technical group of wanna-be scientists, provide proof of ANY claim
they made to me. What everyone so far, after 240 messages, seems to
fail to understand, despite my having explained this to about 15
squatters here, is that I do not have to prove anything to anyone, and
I do not care to "prove" any claim of audio that I make, to anyone
here. My position, as I've stated it about 120 times to about as many
posters in this thread, is that if you want proof, FIND IT ON YOUR OWN.
God, YOU people are supposed to be the techie scientists! Act like one!
If you can't figure out how to open up an amp and try the fuse tweak
yourself, you have no business on this group. And if you can and don't
want to, you still have no business on this group. At the very least,
you have no business asking me to prove what you're curious to find out
about. I've already done the tests, no one else here in 240 posts has.
If you don't like my standard of proof, I have no problem with that.
I've described how to do the tweak. So prove it yourself using your OWN
standard of proof. Be that DBTs, ABXs, or voodoo witch rituals. I
didn't say you couldn't use your own standard, whatever you consider
valid, DID I?!! What I DID say was that its NOT MY JOB to prove
anything to anyone here, particularly when they are already predisposed
to disbelieve it, out of their arrogant ignorance.

Unlike most everyone here, I don't just sit on a computer all day on my
lazy ass, posting to a clique I have on a newsgroup, and pretending I'm
a genius of audio. No, rather, I do a LOT of actual audio tests. And
since life is too short for silly ABX/DBT tests, my preferred method of
proof is good old fashioned LISTENING, as God intended it (or as audio
component engineers intended it). I suggest that if LISTENING to a
given DUT doesn't work for you, then attempting to replicate medical
standards of experimentation is not going to cut it either. Raw
listening should tell you all you need to know about anything in audio.

Thanks for your relatively temperate response.

Have you had an opportunity to read a book by Robert Harley titled "The
Complete Guide to High-End Audio"? Harley was/is the Editor-In-Chief of
"The Absolute Sound" magazine, and has, I think, an interesting and
entertaining view of audio and listening. He seems to give a fair
listen to comments from both sides of the subjectivist objectivist
argument. Some might call it being "wishy-washy" or "fence sitting".

I've met him several times and have been reading one of his books. I
asked him about the "objectivists" claim all cables, competently
designed amps, CD players etc. sound the same and he pointed me to
Appendix "D" of his book and also stated "we will probably find that the
truth is somewhere in the middle".

To give you a little flavor of his writing let me quote a couple of
passages from the third edition of the book I referenced.

Appendix D "The Role of Critical Listening"--

"Central to 'The Great Debate' is the question of science's capacity to
encompass within its domain all forms of knowledge. The objectivists
hold that understanding reality is a formalized process, which, if its
rules are followed, will establish an unambiguous, universal truth.
Adherence to the prescribed methods is the only way of revealing
nature's secrets. This belief is reflected in the blind-testing
methodology, detailed later in this paper.........I propose that other
forms of knowing are possible. Many skills, including critical
observational listening, fall outside the domain of formalized method
and cannot be quantified: these forms of knowledge are 'tacit',
'unspecifiable', and 'inarticulate'."

---

Objectivists generally claim that electronic test instruments are far
more sensitive to audio signals than our ears, therefore if "it" cannot
be measured and quantified "it" can't be audible. Truthfully, I am on
the fence about this. I enjoy music, have heard differences with
cables, amps, line conditioners etc., but I also worked in electronics
for 30+ years, the last 10 years as an electronics supervisor of several
specialty areas including a calibration laboratory. My technical
expertise required adherence to rigid standards of documentation,
testing and "proof". While at home or during car audio competition, I
competed in IASCA (International Auto Sound Challenge Association) 1995
World Finals, I trusted my ears with a little ..hmmmm.. what does the
Real Time Analyzer show compared to what I think I heard?

OK, yeah I stated you (OP) had the burden of scientific proof for your
claim. I then stated I thought I had heard differences in similar
unscientific listening experiments. The reason I asked for your
scientific "proof" is because it appeared you required scientific proof
of your detractors, and I felt you should be held to the same standard.
Which is right? Can both ways be right? Is there really an absolute
right and wrong in the "Great Debate"? Maybe you are correct, it comes
down to what "you" hear. Does it make any difference what the testing
procedures, DBT or electronic measurements show, or should you just
enjoy the music you hear?

However, I think you have to admit that you posted in a technical group
that by its very nature would require a valid technical explanation. I
know, you were asking about safety try to explain what you are doing,
and get hammered. You aren't going to convert or convince those that
don't trust their ears and need validation of what they are hearing.

I do believe electronic engineers design audio equipment using
"objectivist" methods, but some of them, the owner of Krell (Dan
D'Agostino) whom I met at a Krell seminar for example, also listen to
the equipment and make circuit changes until his ears are happy.

I say if "you" hear it, and like it, go for it. After all, it's done
for the MUSIC. Just be safe.
--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

I enjoyed your post, found it quite refreshing in the
comparison of criteria.
I have a question, not meant to be dis-respectful.
Do you know if Dan D'Agostino would go back to the lab
after he had listened and made his circuit modifications
from his design specified circuit to determine what had
changed to create the desired aural result?
Thanks for your consideration.

I. Care wrote:
In article .com,
says...


SNIP

I enjoyed your post, found it quite refreshing in the
comparison of criteria.
I have a question, not meant to be dis-respectful.
Do you know if Dan D'Agostino would go back to the lab
after he had listened and made his circuit modifications
from his design specified circuit to determine what had
changed to create the desired aural result?
Thanks for your consideration.


I'm not sure I understand your question. I would think if circuit
modifications were made, and listening tests performed, he would know
what mods produced what results. Does that make any sense? I don't
know for a fact that Dan D'Agostino personnaly specified in detail every
change. I believe he has a group of talented engineers working on
various aspects of the products Krell produces, and I think he is quite
involved in the process. I also believe the, your job is to please the
"Boss" rule most likely exists. I'm not sure when I will have an
opportunity to speak with him again, I only see him every couple of
years. I will try to remember to ask when I do however.
--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

What I was wondering was if circuit A produced undesired experience A
and testing produced A graphed results then B circuit was created which
produced B desired experience and was tested to produce B graphed
results which were compared to A and the resultant data applied to
improve
existing products?
I hope that explained my question more precisely.

From what I know about the CD readout mechanism, the laser beam is
bright and tightly focused, whereas the LED is an extended source
incapable of being focused to a small spot. The LED would produce a
small DC offset, and the noise it produces would be buried in the shot
noise produced by the laser itself. And there would be no interference
because the blue light is incoherent and of a different wavelength.

Another way of putting it is that the readout detector and electronics
probably don't have the dynamic range to pick up anything from the LED.

I. Care a écrit :

In article . com,
says...
Thanks for your relatively temperate response.

Have you had an opportunity to read a book by Robert Harley titled "The
Complete Guide to High-End Audio"? Harley was/is the Editor-In-Chief of
"The Absolute Sound" magazine, and has, I think, an interesting and
entertaining view of audio and listening. He seems to give a fair
listen to comments from both sides of the subjectivist objectivist
argument. Some might call it being "wishy-washy" or "fence sitting".

I'm familiar with Harley, but no, I haven't read anything he's ever
written, as far as I know. There's nothing wishy washy about me, and
that's because I don't like wishy washy types. But believe it or not,
I've also given a fair listen to both sides of the
subjectivist-objectivist argument. I ended up choosing what was true,
rather than what sounded true.

I've met him several times and have been reading one of his books. I
asked him about the "objectivists" claim all cables, competently
designed amps, CD players etc. sound the same and he pointed me to
Appendix "D" of his book and also stated "we will probably find that the
truth is somewhere in the middle".

I disagree completely. In fact, I find it surprising a once reviewer
for Stereophile, which is a subjectivist high end magazine if I'm not
mistaken, would even suggest things like cables, amps and CD players
might all sound the same. Competently designed or not! The truth is in
ourselves, not anywhere in a dichotomy.

To give you a little flavor of his writing let me quote a couple of
passages from the third edition of the book I referenced.

Appendix D "The Role of Critical Listening"--

"Central to 'The Great Debate' is the question of science's capacity to
encompass within its domain all forms of knowledge. The objectivists
hold that understanding reality is a formalized process, which, if its
rules are followed, will establish an unambiguous, universal truth.
Adherence to the prescribed methods is the only way of revealing
nature's secrets. This belief is reflected in the blind-testing
methodology, detailed later in this paper.........I propose that other
forms of knowing are possible. Many skills, including critical
observational listening, fall outside the domain of formalized method
and cannot be quantified: these forms of knowledge are 'tacit',
'unspecifiable', and 'inarticulate'."

I would agree that listening skills cannot be quantified, or at least
replicated by test equipment, in most cases. But that doesn't mean you
can't use test equipment in some cases, to help substantiate an
observational listening condition. Further to that, I propose that
there are areas of science little understood, in the audio domain.
Contrary to technophiles who seem to think that we now understand
everything there is to know about audio and the experience of music
reproduction. I'm only beginning to understand them myself, but as
there are absolutely no current ways to measure these phenomenon, and
even no DBT tests ever on record, listening is absolutely the only way
to understand this application of science.

Objectivists generally claim that electronic test instruments are far
more sensitive to audio signals than our ears, therefore if "it" cannot
be measured and quantified "it" can't be audible. Truthfully, I am on
the fence about this. I enjoy music, have heard differences with
cables, amps, line conditioners etc., but I also worked in electronics
for 30+ years, the last 10 years as an electronics supervisor of several
specialty areas including a calibration laboratory. My technical
expertise required adherence to rigid standards of documentation,
testing and "proof". While at home or during car audio competition, I
competed in IASCA (International Auto Sound Challenge Association) 1995
World Finals, I trusted my ears with a little ..hmmmm.. what does the
Real Time Analyzer show compared to what I think I heard?

I can see now why I didn't read Harley's guide to audio. If Robert
Harley after 30+ years in audio, still can't decide whether amps, cd
players and cables sound different to each other, the man has no
business writing an "audio guide", for pete's sake... Moreover, he does
not appear to be a particularly skilled listener (so i have no idea
what business he had writing audio reviews), and his problem is that he
is still in the grips of technophile "religions" about audio; ie. you
can and have to measure what is heard, to prove it is heard. This
undermines his confidence in his own ears, which seriously impairs his
ability to hear real differences in audio, that test instruments don't
pick up. I'm sorry to say, but with poor skills like that, you don't
learn much of anything new of merit in audio over a lifetime. Your
ability to perceive differences cannot be any less limited than your
mind.


OK, yeah I stated you (OP) had the burden of scientific proof for your
claim. I then stated I thought I had heard differences in similar
unscientific listening experiments. The reason I asked for your
scientific "proof" is because it appeared you required scientific proof
of your detractors, and I felt you should be held to the same standard.

In truth, I require no proof of anyone's claim to me. I simply demanded
proof from my detractors, in response to the fact that they arrogantly
demanded proof from me. Particularly as I never felt as though I was
ever making any claims that required me to prove them to anyone. Anyone
has the right to make any claim about anything, and anyone else has the
right to believe or disbelieve him, or verify that claim following
whichever standard they adhere, if they require further proof before
they will believe. In other words, you can believe or disbelieve
anything in life, as you can intellectually rationalize anything. When
I want proof of someone's claim about audio, I don't sit there on a
computer and demand DBTs from them. I reproduce the experiment. I've
never found these things complicated to reproduce, as those here seem
to, given the excuses they come up with to tell me they don't know how
to replicate my simple experiment of using an alternate fuse.

If I did require so-called "proof" of some claim someone made on
usenet, first off, how do I know they aren't making it up? Maybe they
have a link to provide me to a website's DBTests backing up their
claim. Great. Now how do I know the website isn't making it up? Let's
say I take it on "faith" they aren't. Great. Now how do I know what the
listening skills or mental composure is of those who took the test? All
I know is I wasn't one of them! Or let's say it wasn't a listening test
at all, but some sort of attempt to measure a diffrence using test
instruments, which yields no results. Great. Now how do I know what to
measure? And if I could measure what I hear, how do I know which
equipment test to apply? If I don't find any results on any of my test
equipment, how do I know that I happen to own or have access to
equipment than can measure what I know I hear?

So it is utterly foolish to ask for scientific proof of someone's audio
claim from across the internet. If you are really interested to know
whether they're nuts or whether you're just ignorant (as ahem, they
might say you are...), then you prove it to yourself. If you're just
too lazy to try it yourself, and you'd rather be spoon-fed what you
should believe in, then you deserve to be lied to (as most technophiles
seem eager to do to themselves on a daily basis).

Which is right? Can both ways be right? Is there really an absolute
right and wrong in the "Great Debate"? Maybe you are correct, it comes
down to what "you" hear

No, both ways are not right, and I say there really is an absolute
right and wrong in The Great Debate; which is that it comes down to
what you hear. Let me expand on why: The usual boring predictable
argument you'll get from the objectivists, is that what you hear may be
autosuggestion (ie. placebo). Extremist agenda-peddling control-freak
objectivists like Arnold Krueger/Kruger, will insist on 0.1db
level-matched, double-blind ABX-comparator equipped tests. All in an
attempt to control the parameters during a test. But you are kidding
yourself if you think you can control everything; especially if we're
talking about the human mind. Its a little like trying to measure love.
We know it exists in the human mind, but how do we know it exists in
scientific terms, if you can't measure it? You'd be a fool to argue
that love doesn't exist because it can't be measured, as foolish as one
is to argue that differences that can be readily heard by millions (ie.
cables, cd players, amps, etc) don't exist, and that those millions are
all under a giant mass delusion; promulgated by the high end industry
(this last line is basically Krueger's reason for getting up in the
morning, the last 35 years).

Fact is, few comparator controlled DBTs result in positive
confirmations of almost anything in audio. Rather than look at the
so-called scientific method that so many having built religious beliefs
upon, to see how accurate and truthful it actually is in the face of
overwhelming empirical evidence, extremist control-freak technophiles
will then proceed to argue that almost nothing in audio is
distinguishable from anything else (except for the usual blah blah blah
about speakers and some faulty amps).

Even if 50 million Elvis fans are wrong, and there is no real
difference between one audio component or another, or one cable
direction or another, or one polarity or another... but you can hear
the difference, then the difference is valid. I stress, ***even its
only valid for YOU***. The most extreme act of foolishness, is to
forego the idea of listening to one thing or another, because you read
that DBTs have already disproven differences. Especially as the
participants in those tests represent the tiniest fraction of 1% of
those who've heard the differences in their living rooms. If you let
others make up your mind for you, you might as well be DEAD.


Does it make any difference what the testing
procedures, DBT or electronic measurements show, or should you just
enjoy the music you hear?

It makes no difference, and it is precisely why I keep insisting people
here do their own listening tests. No attempt at so-called "scientific
tests" is valid for music reproduction, in place of human listening.

However, I think you have to admit that you posted in a technical group
that by its very nature would require a valid technical explanation. I
know, you were asking about safety try to explain what you are doing,
and get hammered.

Yes, and as I said before, I really did not post in order to debate
whether what I was doing was audible or not. I didn't ask for, nor did
I want a second opinion about whether what I was doing was audible. I
posted because the question of whether I should leave my fuse tweak as
is (that is running gear without a fuse), came up in my mind. I already
knew it was risky to leave the amp sans fuse. I just wanted a better
idea of what the risk was (how possible a fault is, and what the likely
damage is), so I could make up my mind about how to proceed. I didn't
care to be told what I should do by people who have no clue as to what
I know or don't know about audio to begin with, nor did I care to be
told I had no clue about anything to do with audio, from people who
know less of merit than I did twenty five years ago. But because I did
get those sort of arrogant and ignorant responses, I decided to stick
around and play "pin the tail on the technophile". And now, some 265
mesages later... it seems, no one wants me to leave. Every time I think
I'm finally off the hook for this thing and I can move on.... some
ignorant **** proceeds to add to my thread. And then the process starts
all over again...

Truth be told, an intelligent RAT member (bless his heart), emailed me
with a complete answer to my query about 260 messages ago. He knew
exactly what I was doing, as he had done the same himself. He knew
exactly what I wanted from a response, and he gave me exactly what I
needed to know, without insulting me or condescending to me. It helped
me make a decision, and that issue is long since dead for me. So I'm
not sticking around because I'm still looking for an answer to my
question. I've stuck it out, because the very first answer I got was a
condescending insult.

You aren't going to convert or convince those that
don't trust their ears and need validation of what they are hearing.

I know that all too well. I don't have any hope of doing so, and
there's no more hope that they'd ever convert me into their
techno-religion. That is precisely why I won't waste me time trying to
offer proof, to people who have already made up their primitive, closed
minds about what I'm saying. There really is no substitute for
experience, and this especially applies to audio. If you try to live in
a world of theory, thinking yourself so very clever about audio
matters, you will end up not really knowing much of any import. But
you'll never realize that, because rather than learn about audio via
experience, technophiles learn through books. Which can tell you a lot
about how to design a circuit, but not how to design a circuit so it
reproduces sounds that closely approximate real music. (Real music" is
full of emotion, and the reproduction must transmit this emotional
content. Just try to find an instrument in your lab that can measure
the emotional content of music!).

I do believe electronic engineers design audio equipment using
"objectivist" methods, but some of them, the owner of Krell (Dan
D'Agostino) whom I met at a Krell seminar for example, also listen to
the equipment and make circuit changes until his ears are happy.

Of couse. Good high end designers always listen to their designs, and
most use both subjective and objective methods. But for the audio
hobbyist who isn't designing gear, the only criteria necessary is, does
it work for you?

"I. Care" wrote in message
.net...
In article . com,
says...


SNIP



Actually, I respect your response, so you'll get no flames from me. The
others, I can't speak for. I can respect it for the fact that you show,
unlike others here, that at the very least, you're troubling to pay
attention to what's been said. Most here just speak out of their
asshole, and their replies show it. So you're right to say I was only
giving background info when I talked about running my amp without a
fuse, and that the thread has goen well past that issue. Had no one
said anything to me about how ridiculous I was to even suggest fuses
could possibly have an audible effect, I assure you, the thread would
have ended almost as quickly as it began. I don't much care for it when
ignorants have the arrogance to tell me I don't know what I'm talking
about, on an area of knowledge they have no knowledge of.

Your RAT buddies made false claims to me, such as stating as fact that
I was a "troll", and also claims related to audio. Well I could make
the same statement you did. That anecdotal evidence (which I don't even
think they provided THAT MUCH to back their claims), is not PROOF. I
agree I did not prove anything to anybody here. But nor did ANYONE on
this technical group of wanna-be scientists, provide proof of ANY claim
they made to me. What everyone so far, after 240 messages, seems to
fail to understand, despite my having explained this to about 15
squatters here, is that I do not have to prove anything to anyone, and
I do not care to "prove" any claim of audio that I make, to anyone
here. My position, as I've stated it about 120 times to about as many
posters in this thread, is that if you want proof, FIND IT ON YOUR OWN.
God, YOU people are supposed to be the techie scientists! Act like one!
If you can't figure out how to open up an amp and try the fuse tweak
yourself, you have no business on this group. And if you can and don't
want to, you still have no business on this group. At the very least,
you have no business asking me to prove what you're curious to find out
about. I've already done the tests, no one else here in 240 posts has.
If you don't like my standard of proof, I have no problem with that.
I've described how to do the tweak. So prove it yourself using your OWN
standard of proof. Be that DBTs, ABXs, or voodoo witch rituals. I
didn't say you couldn't use your own standard, whatever you consider
valid, DID I?!! What I DID say was that its NOT MY JOB to prove
anything to anyone here, particularly when they are already predisposed
to disbelieve it, out of their arrogant ignorance.

Unlike most everyone here, I don't just sit on a computer all day on my
lazy ass, posting to a clique I have on a newsgroup, and pretending I'm
a genius of audio. No, rather, I do a LOT of actual audio tests. And
since life is too short for silly ABX/DBT tests, my preferred method of
proof is good old fashioned LISTENING, as God intended it (or as audio
component engineers intended it). I suggest that if LISTENING to a
given DUT doesn't work for you, then attempting to replicate medical
standards of experimentation is not going to cut it either. Raw
listening should tell you all you need to know about anything in audio.

Thanks for your relatively temperate response.

Have you had an opportunity to read a book by Robert Harley titled "The
Complete Guide to High-End Audio"? Harley was/is the Editor-In-Chief of
"The Absolute Sound" magazine, and has, I think, an interesting and
entertaining view of audio and listening. He seems to give a fair
listen to comments from both sides of the subjectivist objectivist
argument. Some might call it being "wishy-washy" or "fence sitting".

I've met him several times and have been reading one of his books. I
asked him about the "objectivists" claim all cables, competently
designed amps, CD players etc. sound the same and he pointed me to
Appendix "D" of his book and also stated "we will probably find that the
truth is somewhere in the middle".

To give you a little flavor of his writing let me quote a couple of
passages from the third edition of the book I referenced.

Appendix D "The Role of Critical Listening"--

"Central to 'The Great Debate' is the question of science's capacity to
encompass within its domain all forms of knowledge. The objectivists
hold that understanding reality is a formalized process, which, if its
rules are followed, will establish an unambiguous, universal truth.
Adherence to the prescribed methods is the only way of revealing
nature's secrets. This belief is reflected in the blind-testing
methodology, detailed later in this paper.........I propose that other
forms of knowing are possible. Many skills, including critical
observational listening, fall outside the domain of formalized method
and cannot be quantified: these forms of knowledge are 'tacit',
'unspecifiable', and 'inarticulate'."

---

Objectivists generally claim that electronic test instruments are far
more sensitive to audio signals than our ears, therefore if "it" cannot
be measured and quantified "it" can't be audible. Truthfully, I am on
the fence about this. I enjoy music, have heard differences with
cables, amps, line conditioners etc., but I also worked in electronics
for 30+ years, the last 10 years as an electronics supervisor of several
specialty areas including a calibration laboratory. My technical
expertise required adherence to rigid standards of documentation,
testing and "proof". While at home or during car audio competition, I
competed in IASCA (International Auto Sound Challenge Association) 1995
World Finals, I trusted my ears with a little ..hmmmm.. what does the
Real Time Analyzer show compared to what I think I heard?

OK, yeah I stated you (OP) had the burden of scientific proof for your
claim. I then stated I thought I had heard differences in similar
unscientific listening experiments. The reason I asked for your
scientific "proof" is because it appeared you required scientific proof
of your detractors, and I felt you should be held to the same standard.
Which is right? Can both ways be right? Is there really an absolute
right and wrong in the "Great Debate"? Maybe you are correct, it comes
down to what "you" hear. Does it make any difference what the testing
procedures, DBT or electronic measurements show, or should you just
enjoy the music you hear?

However, I think you have to admit that you posted in a technical group
that by its very nature would require a valid technical explanation. I
know, you were asking about safety try to explain what you are doing,
and get hammered. You aren't going to convert or convince those that
don't trust their ears and need validation of what they are hearing.

I do believe electronic engineers design audio equipment using
"objectivist" methods, but some of them, the owner of Krell (Dan
D'Agostino) whom I met at a Krell seminar for example, also listen to
the equipment and make circuit changes until his ears are happy.

I say if "you" hear it, and like it, go for it. After all, it's done
for the MUSIC. Just be safe.
--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}


Good post. I have killfiled the OP, but some of the responses are worth a
read.

Mark Z.

I. Care wrote:
In article .com,
says...

I. Care a écrit :

In article . com,
says...
Thanks for your relatively temperate response.

SNIP

Truthfully, I am on
the fence about this. I enjoy music, have heard differences with
cables, amps, line conditioners etc., but I also worked in electronics
for 30+ years, the last 10 years as an electronics supervisor of several
specialty areas including a calibration laboratory. My technical
expertise required adherence to rigid standards of documentation,
testing and "proof". While at home or during car audio competition, I
competed in IASCA (International Auto Sound Challenge Association) 1995
World Finals, I trusted my ears with a little ..hmmmm.. what does the
Real Time Analyzer show compared to what I think I heard?

I can see now why I didn't read Harley's guide to audio. If Robert
Harley after 30+ years in audio, still can't decide whether amps, cd
players and cables sound different to each other, the man has no
business writing an "audio guide", for pete's sake... Moreover, he does
not appear to be a particularly skilled listener (so i have no idea
what business he had writing audio reviews), and his problem is that he
is still in the grips of technophile "religions" about audio; ie. you
can and have to measure what is heard, to prove it is heard. This
undermines his confidence in his own ears, which seriously impairs his
ability to hear real differences in audio, that test instruments don't
pick up. I'm sorry to say, but with poor skills like that, you don't
learn much of anything new of merit in audio over a lifetime. Your
ability to perceive differences cannot be any less limited than your
mind.

I must have confused you. The above paragraph was *my experience* not
Harley. I stated it was *me* that worked in electronics for 30+ years
in a techie type environment not Harley. I also meant I used the RTA as
a visual cue for my ears. That way adjustments could be restored
quickly if needed to settings I previously liked. It was also valuable
to pin-point problem areas heard so proper corrections could be made.

Harley has some of the same ideas you stated here so you might find him
enjoyable to read.


SNIP

Fact is, few comparator controlled DBTs result in positive
confirmations of almost anything in audio.

That is also why I have some reservations about the method. I think our
brains work differently when straining to hear every last nuance of
sounds (critical listening) during a DBT or even our own systems. I
find I don't enjoy the music I'm listening to in that situation. We
should be listening to the music for our enjoyment. Just like many
people enjoy driving their vehicles but not during a driving test.

SNIP

Yes, and as I said before, I really did not post in order to debate
whether what I was doing was audible or not. I didn't ask for, nor did
I want a second opinion about whether what I was doing was audible. I
posted because the question of whether I should leave my fuse tweak as
is (that is running gear without a fuse), came up in my mind. I already
knew it was risky to leave the amp sans fuse. I just wanted a better
idea of what the risk was (how possible a fault is, and what the likely
damage is), so I could make up my mind about how to proceed

Maybe the special "audio" fuses could give you the same result you
experienced during your test without the worry of being sans fuse.

--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

I am also in agreement that one can't enjoy the material fully while
observing the data from test equipment, or for that matter while
mixing a live show. You're too busy with the details of the matter at
hand
to devote total concentration to the aural experience.
It was nice to see that the OP had received the answer to his question,
260+ posts ago, yet failed to share that nugget of information or the
details.
We have come a long way in the ability to log, store,and measure
data, and have the tools to be able to analyze audio, there are
microphones
far more sensitive than the human ear to catch those nuances, and
sampling
rates and software to capture the information to define the output of a
system.
We even have medical test equipment that can measure the brain's
activity
in response to the music, I personally provided the audio feeds for
such
research, so I actually am of the objectivist's school.
What I am actually interested in is the standard of the listening
skills.
That in itself seems to be the largest variable. How do you determine
the amount of attention being given the task?
The OP had made the reference that we should be able to duplicate
the device in the original post, but never provided any specific
details,
such as amplifier model, interconnecting cables, source device, or
loudspeaker system, just the generalization that we were all to be
described by rants of profanity since we couldn't grasp the concept
or agree with him.

I. Care a écrit :

In article .com,
says...

I. Care a écrit :

I must have confused you. The above paragraph was *my experience* not
Harley. I stated it was *me* that worked in electronics for 30+ years
in a techie type environment not Harley. I also meant I used the RTA as
a visual cue for my ears. That way adjustments could be restored
quickly if needed to settings I previously liked. It was also valuable
to pin-point problem areas heard so proper corrections could be made.

Harley has some of the same ideas you stated here so you might find him
enjoyable to read.

Oh. Frankly, I haven't read an audio magazine in... God knows, 15 years
maybe. It's been longer than that since I stopped reading them for the
reviews; after I found I didn't need them to judge equipment. I'm sure
its because the magazines no longer had anything to teach me.
Personally, I'd rather find out what audio has to offer for myself,
than read someone's opinion on it.

That is also why I have some reservations about the method. I think our
brains work differently when straining to hear every last nuance of
sounds (critical listening) during a DBT or even our own systems. I
find I don't enjoy the music I'm listening to in that situation.

There's much evidence out there accrued that shows how stress resulting
from unnatural observational listening, which is the ABX test, changes
our pattern of thinking, and messes up our cognitive abilities.
Evidence that extremist objectivist control-freaks, like Krueger & Co.,
refuse to accept.

We should be listening to the music for our enjoyment.

Bingo. That's all any audio component needs to tell you. Which is why
that DBTs and ABXs for consumers are one giant fallacy and a giant
waste of time.Problem is, those that adhere to this artificial standard
will never know what they like in audio components, because they're
judging with their test reports. I started out like that myself in this
business when I was a kid, thinking that the best audio equipment is
the one that had the best specs. Some clown in a high end hifi store
laughed at me when he saw my Sony spec sheet, telling me he started out
the same. Twenty years ago I concluded that the technophile mentality,
that would have you trust printed tests or specs before your own ears,
is a sign of a less evolved audiophile. Behind every technophile is an
audiophile, afraid to trust their own judgement!


Just like many people enjoy driving their vehicles but not during a driving test.

Damn, that's a good analogy. I'll have to remember that one, if Krueger
ever finds out where he put his balls, and agrees to debate me.

Maybe the special "audio" fuses could give you the same result you
experienced during your test without the worry of being sans fuse.

Don't worry, I'm not sans fuse. I reinstalled them ages ago. I thought
about those high end grade fuses for my good equipment, but for the amp
in question, it would cost more than the entire amp is worth. So as a
compromise, I found ways to make the amp live in better harmony with
the fuse. I'm SO beyond thinking of tweaking fuses, I almost forgot
about that one. Between now and the time I first mentioned that tweak,
I've since found so many other amazing ways to tweak my amp and the
rest of my system, that it's no longer the same system I started with.
I'd say I added about $3,000 dollars to the overall sound. Now if I
could get my *main* system to sound this good... I mention this,
because it occurs to me its something a technophile, ie. just about
everyone who attacked me in this thread, would never think to do, never
believe it could be done, never believe it needs to be done, and never
know how to go about it, if someone paid him. That's where audiophiles
differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the
silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back.
That's because we have the better sounding stereo!

That's where audiophiles
differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the
silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back.
That's because we have the better sounding stereo!

It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself
*think* it sounds good?

Better audio through self-hypnosis?

Solipsism rules!

wrote in message
ups.com

There's much evidence out there accrued that shows how
stress resulting from unnatural observational listening, which is the ABX
test, changes our pattern of thinking, and messes up our cognitive
abilities.

It's evidence that has largely been fabricated in the minds of people who
don't even do DBTs but feel highly threatened by them. We're talking
closely-held personal beliefs about personally possessing superhuman
hearing.

In fact stress managed well tends to improve human performance. Look at the
Olympics. What many golden ears profess to do on a daily basis is like
running the mile in 4 seconds.

We're talking multi-million dollar businesses here. There's a lot of money
to be made by lying to people about what they can hear, even if it does not
exist at all.

Evidence that extremist objectivist control-freaks, like Krueger & Co.,
refuse to accept.

I accept it for what it is - mostly a smoke screen by no-shows and failures.

"mc" wrote in message

That's where audiophiles
differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers
and mock the silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh
harder, when we laugh back. That's because we have the
better sounding stereo!

It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can
make yourself *think* it sounds good?

There is clearly some of that going on in some quarters. OTOH I've heard a
number of golden ear audio systems that sounded pretty good.

Unfortunately their price-performance ratio was horrid.

Better audio through self-hypnosis?

Solipsism rules!

There you go. I can be the fastest runner in the world if you just let me
run my own stop watch. ;-)

mc a écrit :

That's where audiophiles
differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the
silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back.
That's because we have the better sounding stereo!

It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself
*think* it sounds good?

Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no
way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid
**** to say to me, anyway? Do you each discuss what you have to say in
email amongst yourselves, and the person voted as having the most
stupidest remark to offer in response, gets to tell it to "that Ladbury
guy"? The remarks that you people make, that you even think are CLEVER,
are just so mind-numbingly dumb, they're even starting to lose their
humourous appeal. Just how many times can you laugh at the ignorant
things said by technophile fools, anyway? Jesus, get a ****ing clue
about audio and THEN try to discuss it with me. Otherwise, if you have
nothing intelligent to say, you're better off not making an even
greater fool out of yourself.

Seeing as you don't know anything about audio except maybe some
technical aspects, we can deduce that you have a system that sounds
**** like warmed over. But the important thing is, YOU probably think
it sounds good. Therefore, you and your technophile buddies make
yourselves "think" that your piece-of-**** hifi systems sound good. Or
"self-hypnosis" as you call it. In fact, because you don't know jack
**** about what sounds good, you wouldn't even know how bad your
systems sounds, having no point of reference as to how good a system
can sound.

However, I DO know what a hifi system is supposed to sound like, or NOT
sound like. I have listening skill you couldn't dream of having, since
about the only **** you know about audio, is what you're told. So
unlike you, I don't have to make myself "think" my modest system sounds
good. I know it does. And I have no doubt that your system is
"better", in terms of cost and technological advancement. But that mine
sounds better. WAY better. Which is one reason why I'm laughing at you.
"Better living through tweaking" (tm).


Better audio through self-hypnosis?

It sounds like it, since that's basically what you people have done to
yourselves, from having based all your knowledge of audio on theories;
which are often misguided or incomplete at best. Problem is, no one
who's ever followed the advice of a know-nothing wanna-be technophile
audio hobbyist has ever ended up with a system that sounds good to
anyone but themselves.

Solipsism rules!

Right... it looks more like ignorance rules, on this newsgroup of
technophile geeks and audio dilletantes.

wrote in message
oups.com...

mc a écrit :

That's where audiophiles
differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the
silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back.
That's because we have the better sounding stereo!

It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself
*think* it sounds good?

Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no
way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid
**** to say to me, anyway?

How remarkably polite, respectul, and persuasive you are.

mc wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

mc a écrit :

That's where audiophiles
differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the
silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back.
That's because we have the better sounding stereo!

It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself
*think* it sounds good?

Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no
way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid
**** to say to me, anyway?

How remarkably polite, respectul, and persuasive you are.

wrote:

Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no
way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid
**** to say to me, anyway? Do you each discuss what you have to say in
email amongst yourselves, and the person voted as having the most
stupidest remark to offer in response, gets to tell it to "that Ladbury
guy"?

I do believe he's starting to get a bit paranoid too.
Quick, someone prove that there isn't a conspiracy against him.

Arny Krueger farted and it looked like this :

wrote in message
ups.com

Krueger, you fat nazi ****. You are SO ****ing predictable. Anyone
wants to troll you, all they have to do is say something against your
stupid ****ing ABX obsession. Its your honeypot. More like, ABX=****
and YOU'RE THE FLY, BUZZING AROUND THE ****. So if I'm a troll as you
say, what kind of a dumbass ****wit do you have to be to have declared
me a troll, but you can't avoid being trolled by me? And how many
sockpuppets do you have trolling this group of ignorant jack-offs,
anyway? We're up to 7 now, by my count. Speaking of your sockpuppets,
did you remember how to spell your name today, you hypocritical bag of
****?

There's much evidence out there accrued that shows how
stress resulting from unnatural observational listening, which is the ABX
test, changes our pattern of thinking, and messes up our cognitive
abilities.

It's evidence that has largely been fabricated in the minds of people who
don't even do DBTs but feel highly threatened by them.


Provide factual evidence of this, or retract your statement, you fat
lying gasbag.


We're talking
closely-held personal beliefs about personally possessing superhuman
hearing.

You have closely held personal beliefs about personally possessing
superhuman hearing? What other personal beliefs do you have, besides
the one about how the entire world is emailing child pornograhpy to
you, and you don't know how it got on your hard drive, and that's your
story and you're sticking to it? (for more information on this fat nazi
****'s false accusations of people sending him child pornography, see:
Google group search + Arny / Arnold Krueger / Kruger + "child
pornography")

And if you posess superhuman hearing as you claim, why does your stereo
reputedly sound like a bag of fart? Why is it, for that matter, that by
your own admission, you can't pass one of your own ABX tests, unless it
is with recorded sound, rather than music that audio systems are
designed to reproduce? Could it be because you're a fat gay nazi ****?
Or is that condition more attributable to your parents?


In fact stress managed well tends to improve human performance. Look at the
Olympics. What many golden ears profess to do on a daily basis is like
running the mile in 4 seconds.

Yeah right. Let's all just sit here and wait while KKKrueger the gay
nazi audio pedophile, explains how the **** olympic track & field is
related to the mind-numbing process of undergoing his torturous ABX
experiments.

Not holding my breath, folks....


We're talking multi-million dollar businesses here.

Then surely, you're not talking about your cheesy ABX business, or your
screwy little pc sound card business....

There's a lot of money
to be made by lying to people about what they can hear, even if it does not
exist at all.

Oh I'm sure there is. In fact, the most money to be had in mass
consumer mid-fi. But then, that's exactly why you were exposed years
ago as being a shill for the consumer electronics industry, and as
well, your own ABX and PC audio business.


Evidence that extremist objectivist control-freaks, like Krueger & Co.,
refuse to accept.

I accept it for what it is - mostly a smoke screen by no-shows and failures.

Newsflash: Nearly EVERYTHING you ****ing write on the audio groups is a
"smoke screen", you sleazy lying shill. As for no-shows, I'm still
waiting on the evidence I asked you to provide for your claim that my
fuse tweak doesn't work, hypocrite. As for failures, well once again,
the spotlight turns to you, you worthless piece of ****. You're a
wanna-be audio engineer who never became a real audio engineer, you've
spent the last 10 years of your pathetic life in front of a PC,
trolling and attacking anyone and everyone on audio newsgroups with
different beliefs about audio than yours, including successful
journalists and engineers, whom you immediately target if you see them
posting to these groups. All driven by your FAILURE as an engineer, a
successful anything, and as a father.

When John Atkinson, a highly respected editor of a high end magazine
that you attack relentlessly, originally challenged you to a debate,
you almost died of a heart attack, in your mad, frantic efforts to come
up with excuses to avoid showing up. Everyone saw what a big talking
chicken**** coward you really were. It was only years later that you
finally found the balls to show your fat ugly face in public, that you
finally debated him. And lost, big time, to a crowd of audio
enthusaists who lauged every time you opened up your ignorant cakehole
and vomited out some inane crap out of this wacky anti-audio religion
of yours, which rules that everything sounds alike.

You sir, are the definition of a no-show and a failure. And you're the
closest thing to Hitler, anyone is likely to find on audio Usenet
groups.

mc a écrit :

wrote in message
oups.com...

mc a écrit :

That's where audiophiles
differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the
silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back.
That's because we have the better sounding stereo!

It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself
*think* it sounds good?

Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no
way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid
**** to say to me, anyway?

How remarkably polite, respectul, and persuasive you are.

If the above to you was "polite and respectful", I'm going to have to
revise my assessment that you are merely a total ****ing cretin. Make
that a total ****ing DELUDED cretin. Seriously, you truly are an idiot
for no end of reasons. Beginning with the fact that you couldn't
intelligently respond to my argument against your dumbass twaddle that
you try to pass off as "audio wisdom", and so you clipped all parts of
my response that defeated your arguments, and then bitch and whine
about what a rude ******* I am. What a ****ing intellectual coward you
are, as well as being a dumb ****tard. From this MO, I take it you're
another Arny Krueger sockpuppet.

About being a rude *******... I'm responding to a message from yours,
where out of the blue, you write condescending, mocking and derisive
words to me. What the **** kind of response were you expecting, given
the attack you made on me, you stupid ****? Those who wrote to me
respectfully here, got treated with respect. You wrote to me with
disrespect, you get the lack of respect that you show you deserve. Now
shut your ****ing gob, stop whining and crying you little ****bag, and
**** right off. I don't want to hear from you again.

wrote:
mc a écrit :

wrote in message
oups.com...

mc a écrit :

That's where audiophiles
differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the
silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back.
That's because we have the better sounding stereo!

It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself
*think* it sounds good?

Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no
way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid
**** to say to me, anyway?

How remarkably polite, respectul, and persuasive you are.

If the above to you was "polite and respectful", I'm going to have to
revise my assessment that you are merely a total ****ing cretin. Make
that a total ****ing DELUDED cretin. Seriously, you truly are an idiot
for no end of reasons. Beginning with the fact that you couldn't
intelligently respond to my argument against your dumbass twaddle that
you try to pass off as "audio wisdom", and so you clipped all parts of
my response that defeated your arguments, and then bitch and whine
about what a rude ******* I am. What a ****ing intellectual coward you
are, as well as being a dumb ****tard. From this MO, I take it you're
another Arny Krueger sockpuppet.

About being a rude *******... I'm responding to a message from yours,
where out of the blue, you write condescending, mocking and derisive
words to me. What the **** kind of response were you expecting, given
the attack you made on me, you stupid ****? Those who wrote to me
respectfully here, got treated with respect. You wrote to me with
disrespect, you get the lack of respect that you show you deserve. Now
shut your ****ing gob, stop whining and crying you little ****bag, and
**** right off. I don't want to hear from you again.

Well, I must say, by some cultural standards,your not rude at all,
you don't say "**** off" as much as some Australians I've read.
There are those that have it down to an art form,
your just mudlin' along at it.
On the other hand, your ability to read between the lines is
truly a phenomena that defies rational examination.
Could be construed as an insecurity of your dis-prove your observation
with absolutely no samples of before and after.
Since I can't hear it in my mind through internet telepathy
then I must be the defective observer.

wrote in message
ups.com


I do believe he's starting to get a bit paranoid too.
Quick, someone prove that there isn't a conspiracy
against him.

We all agree, there's no conspiracy against him, right? ;-)

wrote in message
oups.com

Snip childish rants, name-calling and back-biting

When John Atkinson, a highly respected editor of a high
end magazine that you attack relentlessly, originally
challenged you to a debate, you almost died of a heart
attack, in your mad, frantic efforts to come up with
excuses to avoid showing up.

Prove it.

Everyone saw what a big
talking chicken**** coward you really were.

Prove it.

It was only
years later that you finally found the balls to show your
fat ugly face in public, that you finally debated him.

It simply matter of receiving a good enough offer. I made a counter-off to
Atkinson that he refused.

Remember that Atkinson subsequently agreed to a debate with me in Detroit
and then unilaterally cancelled it.

And lost, big time, to a crowd of audio enthusiasts who
lauged every time you opened up your ignorant cakehole
and vomited out some inane crap out of this wacky
anti-audio religion of yours, which rules that everything
sounds alike.

Nonsense.

are the definition of a no-show and a failure.

I came to New York, I saw Atkinson and his disciples, and I conquered. Note
that Atkinson is not setting up a re-match. I'd gladly go for 2 out of 3
with him.

Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no
way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid
**** to say to me, anyway?

How remarkably polite, respectul, and persuasive you are.

If the above to you was "polite and respectful", I'm going to have to
revise my assessment that you are merely a total ****ing cretin. Make
that a total ****ing DELUDED cretin. Seriously, you truly are an idiot
for no end of reasons. Beginning with the fact that you couldn't

Ever heard of such a thing as sarcasm?

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

are the definition of a no-show and a failure.


I came to New York, I saw Atkinson and his disciples, and I conquered. Note
that Atkinson is not setting up a re-match. I'd gladly go for 2 out of 3
with him.

Is there a link to this debate? Either audio or transcribed.

a écrit :

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:48:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup hasno
reliable audible effect.

Therefore, I know for sure that it does not work.

Why did you hedge your first statement with "reliable"?

Perhaps the effect is dependent on the color of the CD?
Gold vs Silver or those pretty multi colored ones
from Memorex.
It's the K-Mart phenomonon, blue light attracts the audio bits
at a higher rate.
The other application is LEDs in your clear Desktop tower
increasing the processing speed of your HD.

Techie geek humour. Gotta love it. Dumb jokes that are about as
original and predictable as a Steven Segal movie. Christ, you're such a
clueless sockpuppet, you even had to repeat them in the same thread.

The audio transcript is much better. You get to hear the audience
laughing at KKKrueger's inane responses:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

wrote:

... Christ, you're such a clueless sockpuppet...

Inigo Montoya:

Sockpuppet. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you
think it means.

/Inigo Montoya

//Walt

Arny Krueger farted out :

wrote in message
oups.com


Snip childish rants, name-calling and back-biting

When John Atkinson, a highly respected editor of a high
end magazine that you attack relentlessly, originally
challenged you to a debate, you almost died of a heart
attack, in your mad, frantic efforts to come up with
excuses to avoid showing up.

Prove it.


Ah yes. The two-word "prove it" response. Which you've used about
16,000 times in the last year alone, I believe, whenever you are losing
a debate. That's of course, after you snip out the parts in the other
guy's post where he's asked YOU to prove your claims. Is this your
favorite debating tactic/trick, KKKrueger? A google group search will
verify those facts for you. I'll even post the messages in question for
the eternally lazy, once you prove the claims I asked you to prove in
my last response to you. By ignoring my request that you prove your
false claims, you're once again showing what a fat ****ing coward you
are. How ironic, don't you think?


Everyone saw what a big
talking chicken**** coward you really were.

Prove it.


Ah yes. The two-word "prove it" response. Which you've used about
16,000 times in the last year alone, I believe, whenever you are losing
a debate. That's of course, after you snip out the parts in the other
guy's post where he's asked YOU to prove your claims. Is this your
favorite debating tactic/trick, KKKrueger? A google group search will
verify those facts for you. I'll even post the messages in question for
the eternally lazy, once you prove the claims I asked you to prove in
my last response to you. By ignoring my request that you prove your
false claims, you're once again showing what a fat ****ing coward you
are. How ironic, don't you think?


It was only
years later that you finally found the balls to show your
fat ugly face in public, that you finally debated him.

It simply matter of receiving a good enough offer.

With no prompting from you, he offered to have you come to one of his
audio shows and debate him, giving you the opportunity to defend your
stupid bull**** ABX gadget. Now either you DO or you DON'T, you lying
little weasel. There's nothing complicated about that. You simply
chickened out, you fat greasy yellow piece of chicken****.


I made a counter-off to Atkinson that he refused.


Prove it.


Remember that Atkinson subsequently agreed to a debate with me in Detroit
and then unilaterally cancelled it.


Prove it.


And lost, big time, to a crowd of audio enthusiasts who
lauged every time you opened up your ignorant cakehole
and vomited out some inane crap out of this wacky
anti-audio religion of yours, which rules that everything
sounds alike.

Nonsense.


Fact. Live with it, failure.


are the definition of a no-show and a failure.

I came to New York, I saw Atkinson and his disciples, and I conquered. Note
that Atkinson is not setting up a re-match. I'd gladly go for 2 out of 3
with him.

He already humiliated you in front of the entire high end industry. I
believe it was a smart move on his part, planned ahead to pay you back
for all the unprovoked attacks you made against him and his name. The
ripple effects of your complete and utter humiliation, are STILL
reverberating through the internet, on web sites and newsgroups
everywhere. You're a ****ing joke, KKKreuger. You're an anti-audio nazi
extremist, and the most hated audio troll on Usenet today. And now
thanks to Atkinson (bless his heart for his persistence in dragging
your fat, bloated, crying, whining, cowardly ass to the audio show to
finally expose you to the industry for the fool that you are....),
you're the biggest joke in the high end industry. Here's one joke I
overheard about you:

Q. "How many Kruegers does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

A. "3. One to run the ABX comparator, the second administer the
changing of the bulb, and the third to observe the changed bulb, to see
if there is a difference, and whether the bulb needed changing at
all.".

Man, THAT'S a classic.


Thanks for the laughs, KKKrueger! Don't be shy, keep 'em coming!