| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
moderating rec.audio.low-end style
Here goes one-out of many- example of the rec.audio.low-end moderating objectivity, Fidel Castro style. An invocation extolling unvalidated, unconfirmed by basic research "testing"goes in as a clinching argument . Ah, but try and question it!: "We do not allow discussion of ABX" We only allow it in to end discussions, right? Ludovic Mirabel Message 24 in thread From: Richard ) Subject: Stereophile again! Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2005-01-25 17:00:04 PST .... "The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about then it would be happening already." Richard |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes: Here goes one-out of many- example of the rec.audio.low-end moderating objectivity, Fidel Castro style. I can't seem to find a newsgroup with that name. Please point it out to me. An invocation extolling unvalidated, unconfirmed by basic research "testing"goes in as a clinching argument . Ah, but try and question it!: "We do not allow discussion of ABX" I don't believe that's a quote of what the moderators actually said. There is ABX discussion on the group from time to time, although not much lately. We only allow it in to end discussions, right? Ludovic Mirabel Message 24 in thread From: Richard ) Subject: Stereophile again! Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2005-01-25 17:00:04 PST ... "The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about then it would be happening already." Richard I believe that is a very samll part of the actual post and not the focus of it at all. Can you say "sour grapes"? Can you also say "who cares"? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dr. ludovic mirabel wrote: Here goes one-out of many- example of the rec.audio.low-end moderating objectivity, Fidel Castro style. An invocation extolling unvalidated, unconfirmed by basic research "testing"goes in as a clinching argument . Ah, but try and question it!: "We do not allow discussion of ABX" We only allow it in to end discussions, right? Ludovic Mirabel Message 24 in thread From: Richard ) Subject: Stereophile again! Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2005-01-25 17:00:04 PST ... "The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about then it would be happening already." Richard Though I don't recall the specifics, but if Bath in fact nominated and assigned himself to the moderating role for that hilarious group, he should maintain his dignity by doing the honorable thing of unburdening himself from that responsibility. He should atone his misdeeds and voluntarily relieve himself from that post. . |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Richard" says:
I don't believe that's a quote of what the moderators actually said. There is ABX discussion on the group from time to time, although not much lately. From: David E. Bath ) Subject: All DBT or Subjective/Objective threads are ended View this article only Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2004-07-28 16:35:20 PST Due to the limited time the moderators now have to process posts, all DBT or objective/subjective threads are ended. This is effective as of the Date of this post, and is likely to stay in effect at least until the moderation team has grown. Please see the request for moderators post for an explanation why our time is limited. And please don't bother to plead "but I didn't get to respond...", it will fall on deaf ears. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -.- David Bath (rec.audio.high-end moderation team) ---------------------------------------------------------------------Please, do explain what did the moderator "actually" say to your unique brain cortex.. We need a clever, scholastic exegesis . He says also:: " I believe that is a very samll part of the actual post and not the focus of it at all. I suppose that was why "actually" you put your "ABX" sentence as the final one-two blow at the very end of your mesage.. Ludovic Mirabel elmir who? wrote in message ... In article , "ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes: Here goes one-out of many- example of the rec.audio.low-end moderating objectivity, Fidel Castro style. I can't seem to find a newsgroup with that name. Please point it out to me. An invocation extolling unvalidated, unconfirmed by basic research "testing"goes in as a clinching argument . Ah, but try and question it!: "We do not allow discussion of ABX" I don't believe that's a quote of what the moderators actually said. There is ABX discussion on the group from time to time, although not much lately. We only allow it in to end discussions, right? Ludovic Mirabel Message 24 in thread From: Richard ) Subject: Stereophile again! Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2005-01-25 17:00:04 PST ... "The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about then it would be happening already." Richard I believe that is a very samll part of the actual post and not the focus of it at all. Can you say "sour grapes"? Can you also say "who cares"? |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dr. ludovic mirabel wrote: Here goes one-out of many- example of the rec.audio.low-end moderating objectivity, Fidel Castro style. An invocation extolling unvalidated, unconfirmed by basic research "testing"goes in as a clinching argument . Ah, but try and question it!: "We do not allow discussion of ABX" We only allow it in to end discussions, right? Ludovic Mirabel Message 24 in thread From: Richard ) Subject: Stereophile again! Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2005-01-25 17:00:04 PST ... "The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about then it would be happening already." Richard Though I don't recall the specifics, but if Bath in fact nominated and assigned himself to the moderating role for that hilarious group, he should maintain his dignity by doing the honorable thing and unburden himself from that responsibility. He should atone his misdeeds and voluntarily relieve himself from that post. . --- I just ran into an information appearing that it may have been in fact a voluntary post. I must say though that I've never seen anyone put out such a wild and wacky show daily filled with sober-minded, gut-busting clan undulatingly muttering incoherent roar. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
George M. Middius wrote JBorg said: Though I don't recall the specifics, but if Bath in fact nominated and assigned himself to the moderating role for that hilarious group, he should maintain his dignity by doing the honorable thing and unburden himself from that responsibility. Did you just say RAHE is hilarious? I'm afraid that opinion is quite at odds with Official 'Borgma. Brother Horace the Uneducated has told us that "getting your stuff published" on RAHE is the pinnacle of the audio journalist's oeuvre. Time and again, Clerkie has used my and others' shortfall in this estimable "achievement" as evidence to show we're unworthy. And now you tell us, in direct contradiction of a prime tenet of Ferstlerianism, that RAHE is "hilarious"? I don't know what to think. I hope this revelation doesn't drive Clerkie to a desperate act. Daily I come to my desk and watch the show. At 10 pm, I peel a banana and slices it to pieces. I throw the peelings away and place bits and pieces on my screen. Ol'e for Fersler, his playmates want more bananas! |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes: "Richard" says: I don't believe that's a quote of what the moderators actually said. There is ABX discussion on the group from time to time, although not much lately. I'm not Richard, so guess again Luddy. From: David E. Bath ) Subject: All DBT or Subjective/Objective threads are ended View this article only Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2004-07-28 16:35:20 PST Due to the limited time the moderators now have to process posts, all DBT or objective/subjective threads are ended. This is effective as of the Date of this post, and is likely to stay in effect at least until the moderation team has grown. Please see the request for moderators post for an explanation why our time is limited. And please don't bother to plead "but I didn't get to respond...", it will fall on deaf ears. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -.- David Bath (rec.audio.high-end moderation team) ---------------------------------------------------------------------Please, do explain what did the moderator "actually" say to your unique brain cortex.. We need a clever, scholastic exegesis . And what does "likely to stay in effect" mean? IT certainly doesn't mean a permanent ban, unlike the permanent ban on you. He says also:: " I believe that is a very samll part of the actual post and not the focus of it at all. I suppose that was why "actually" you put your "ABX" sentence as the final one-two blow at the very end of your mesage.. Huh? This is an English language group, please use it here. Ludovic Mirabel elmir who? wrote in message ... In article , "ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes: Here goes one-out of many- example of the rec.audio.low-end moderating objectivity, Fidel Castro style. I can't seem to find a newsgroup with that name. Please point it out to me. An invocation extolling unvalidated, unconfirmed by basic research "testing"goes in as a clinching argument . Ah, but try and question it!: "We do not allow discussion of ABX" I don't believe that's a quote of what the moderators actually said. There is ABX discussion on the group from time to time, although not much lately. We only allow it in to end discussions, right? Ludovic Mirabel Message 24 in thread From: Richard ) Subject: Stereophile again! Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2005-01-25 17:00:04 PST ... "The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about then it would be happening already." Richard I believe that is a very samll part of the actual post and not the focus of it at all. Can you say "sour grapes"? Can you also say "who cares"? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dear non-Richard. You raise so many fascinating points that with my limited
English I hardly know where to begin.( how can I, a non-native speaker, compete with your unrivalled mastery of the RAO prose?) For instance Ludo is a clown. Was it meant as an endearment, insult, uninvited familiarity or all three? Till you explain I shall not know how you'd want me to address you?.. Thank you for so lucidly explaining that a ban is not a ban when it is not "permanent" Shall we call it a "non-permanent ban"? Please explain and inform: does " non-permanent" mean something that you lift when a "Richard" says something you like and clamp on again when someone wants to answer him? Now about "audio. low-end". You're right - no group so titled exists. But there is a group that was started long, long ago as a high-end group and that is now in the grip of second-raters, without an original, creative thought in their heads and without any interest in getting life-like instrumental sound, aided and abetted by Mr. Bath, the moderator.. Their check-mate slogan is the one "Richard" put at the end of his message: "Prove it by ABXing". And their main purpose is to shoot down anything outstanding because they either can not or do not care to hear the difference, And ,no, I was not banned. Neither temporarily nor "permanently. I quit like many others, regretting that a true high-end forum ceased to exist My use of "Low-end" was what they call " a figure of speech". In my native language it is known as "sarcasm". I think the word exists in English as well. Look it up in your Public Library reference/dictionary section. Regards Ludovic Mirabel _______________________________________ I'll try and put this chaotic exchange into a sequence that can be followed: This is how it started: "Richard in RAHE: " ... "The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about then it would be happening already." I commented: "Here goes one-out of many- example of the rec.audio.low-end moderating objectivity, Fidel Castro style An invocation extolling unvalidated, unconfirmed by basic research "testing"goes in as a clinching argument . Ah, but try and question it!: "We do not allow discussion of ABX" We only allow it in to end discussions, right?" .. "Richard" then said: I don't believe that's a quote of what the moderators actually said. There is ABX discussion on the group from time to time, although not much lately. In answer I copied Bath's message in RAHE.: __________________________ From: David E. Bath ) Subject: All DBT or Subjective/Objective threads are ended View this article only Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2004-07-28 16:35:20 PST Due to the limited time the moderators now have to process posts, all DBT or objective/subjective threads are ended. This is effective as of the Date of this post, and is likely to stay in effect at least until the moderation team has grown. Please see the request for moderators post for an explanation why our time is limited. And please don't bother to plead "but I didn't get to respond...", it will fall on deaf ears. -.- David Bath (rec.audio.high-end moderation team) __________________________________________________ ___ At this point newscu...etc steps in: Ludo is a clown wrote in message ... In article , I'm not Richard, so guess again Luddy. Fascinating topic Mr Newscu. Are you his mouthpiece? Newscu comments: I can't seem to find a newsgroup with that name. Please point it out to me. comments on Bath;s message: And what does "likely to stay in effect" mean? IT certainly doesn't mean a permanent ban, unlike the permanent ban on you. Further quote from Richard: " I believe that is a very samll part of the actual post and not the focus of it at all. My comment I suppose that was why "actually" you put your "ABX" sentence as the final one-two blow at the very end of your mesage.. Newscu is indignant and unforgiving: Huh? This is an English language group, please use it here. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message ... Dear non-Richard. You raise so many fascinating points that with my limited English I hardly know where to begin.( how can I, a non-native speaker, compete with your unrivalled mastery of the RAO prose?) For instance Ludo is a clown. Was it meant as an endearment, insult, uninvited familiarity or all three? Till you explain I shall not know how you'd want me to address you?.. Thank you for so lucidly explaining that a ban is not a ban when it is not "permanent" Shall we call it a "non-permanent ban"? Please explain and inform: does " non-permanent" mean something that you lift when a "Richard" says something you like and clamp on again when someone wants to answer him? Now about "audio. low-end". You're right - no group so titled exists. But there is a group that was started long, long ago as a high-end group and that is now in the grip of second-raters, without an original, creative thought in their heads and without any interest in getting life-like instrumental sound, aided and abetted by Mr. Bath, the moderator.. By that, can we assume that you mean they don't like to stray from what is provable into what is wishful thinking? Their check-mate slogan is the one "Richard" put at the end of his message: "Prove it by ABXing". And their main purpose is to shoot down anything outstanding because they either can not or do not care to hear the difference, And ,no, I was not banned. Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work. Neither temporarily nor "permanently. I quit like many others, regretting that a true high-end forum ceased to exist My use of "Low-end" was what they call " a figure of speech". In my native language it is known as "sarcasm". I think the word exists in English as well. Look it up in your Public Library reference/dictionary section. Regards Ludovic Mirabel Sarcasm is what they use when talking about your obsession with teh fact that ABX and DBT's in general are the standard for determining subtle differences. It's the way it is because it works. One only need peruse the pages of some of the subjectivist rags to see how wrong subjective review processes can be, how much they can miss about how good or bad something is until compared to an objective reference. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
ludovic mirabel writes: Richard" says: I don't believe that's a quote of what the moderators actually said. There is ABX discussion on the group from time to time, although not much lately. I'm not Richard, so guess again Luddy. No, you're not. You and elmir are clowns from that low-end group. Both of you are scintillating samples of damage goods who decided to put on the show here in order to illustrate that reading miscomprehensions(sic) are redeemable quality from that moderated group. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote:
ludovic mirabel"" wrote Now about "audio. low-end". You're right - no group so titled exists. But there is a group that was started long, long ago as a high-end group and that is now in the grip of second-raters, without an original, creative thought in their heads and without any interest in getting life-like instrumental sound, aided and abetted by Mr. Bath, the moderator.. By that, can we assume that you mean they don't like to stray from what is provable into what is wishful thinking? Their check-mate slogan is the one "Richard" put at the end of his message: "Prove it by ABXing". And their main purpose is to shoot down anything outstanding because they either can not or do not care to hear the difference, And ,no, I was not banned. Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work. Neither temporarily nor "permanently. I quit like many others, regretting that a true high-end forum ceased to exist My use of "Low-end" was what they call " a figure of speech". In my native language it is known as "sarcasm". I think the word exists in English as well. Look it up in your Public Library reference/dictionary section. Regards Ludovic Mirabel Sarcasm is what they use when talking about your obsession with teh fact that ABX and DBT's in general are the standard for determining subtle differences. It's the way it is because it works. One only need peruse the pages of some of the subjectivist rags to see how wrong subjective review processes can be, how much they can miss about how good or bad something is until compared to an objective reference. Listen, Mother Fuc****, part of your problem is that your talking about something that is somewhat not directly related to the fuc** issue here. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes: Dear non-Richard. You raise so many fascinating points that with my limited English I hardly know where to begin.( how can I, a non-native speaker, compete with your unrivalled mastery of the RAO prose?) For instance Ludo is a clown. Was it meant as an endearment, insult, uninvited familiarity or all three? Till you explain I shall not know how you'd want me to address you?.. I've changed it so that it is very clear to all. And all posts in this subthread came from me. Thank you for so lucidly explaining that a ban is not a ban when it is not "permanent" Shall we call it a "non-permanent ban"? Please explain and inform: does " non-permanent" mean something that you lift when a "Richard" says something you like and clamp on again when someone wants to answer him? I quoted from Dr. Bath's post, what is so unclear about "likely to stay in effect"? Is this another manifestation of your lack of English ability again? Now about "audio. low-end". You're right - no group so titled exists. But there is a group that was started long, long ago as a high-end group and that is now in the grip of second-raters, without an original, creative thought in their heads and without any interest in getting life-like instrumental sound, aided and abetted by Mr. Bath, the moderator.. Their check-mate slogan is the one "Richard" put at the end of his message: "Prove it by ABXing". And their main purpose is to shoot down anything outstanding because they either can not or do not care to hear the difference, Periods are used at the end of sentneces in English bud, not commas. And there is a lot of discussion on high-end on RAHE all the time. Just none of your logorrhea against ABX. And ,no, I was not banned. Neither temporarily nor "permanently. I quit like many others, regretting that a true high-end forum ceased to exist And a period is needed here, and no spaces before commas either. Quite poor for a supposed English speaker. Prove you can still post to RAHE by getting a post thru. Bet you can't. My use of "Low-end" was what they call " a figure of speech". In my native language it is known as "sarcasm". I think the word exists in English as well. Look it up in your Public Library reference/dictionary section. More unneeded spaces, what is you native language anyway? _______________________________________ I'll try and put this chaotic exchange into a sequence that can be followed: This is how it started: Highly edited supposed quote snipped |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr. McKelvy says:
Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work. You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components. I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that. Note that: There was wide variability of preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes.. Just as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every Tom , Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded. I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences. I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that it is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like not". No other walk of life is so plagued. Ludovic Mirabel "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message nk.net... "ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message ... Dear non-Richard. You raise so many fascinating points that with my limited English I hardly know where to begin.( how can I, a non-native speaker, compete with your unrivalled mastery of the RAO prose?) For instance Ludo is a clown. Was it meant as an endearment, insult, uninvited familiarity or all three? Till you explain I shall not know how you'd want me to address you?.. Thank you for so lucidly explaining that a ban is not a ban when it is not "permanent" Shall we call it a "non-permanent ban"? Please explain and inform: does " non-permanent" mean something that you lift when a "Richard" says something you like and clamp on again when someone wants to answer him? Now about "audio. low-end". You're right - no group so titled exists. But there is a group that was started long, long ago as a high-end group and that is now in the grip of second-raters, without an original, creative thought in their heads and without any interest in getting life-like instrumental sound, aided and abetted by Mr. Bath, the moderator.. By that, can we assume that you mean they don't like to stray from what is provable into what is wishful thinking? Their check-mate slogan is the one "Richard" put at the end of his message: "Prove it by ABXing". And their main purpose is to shoot down anything outstanding because they either can not or do not care to hear the difference, And ,no, I was not banned. Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work. Neither temporarily nor "permanently. I quit like many others, regretting that a true high-end forum ceased to exist My use of "Low-end" was what they call " a figure of speech". In my native language it is known as "sarcasm". I think the word exists in English as well. Look it up in your Public Library reference/dictionary section. Regards Ludovic Mirabel Sarcasm is what they use when talking about your obsession with teh fact that ABX and DBT's in general are the standard for determining subtle differences. It's the way it is because it works. One only need peruse the pages of some of the subjectivist rags to see how wrong subjective review processes can be, how much they can miss about how good or bad something is until compared to an objective reference. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you for your close reading, piocking up all my typos.
You'd qualify for a proof-reader providing that in addition you pass a literacy test. What all of that has to with the subject under discussion will remain your secret. Ludovic Mirabel Ludo has a severe case of logorrhea wrote in message ... In article , "ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes: Dear non-Richard. You raise so many fascinating points that with my limited English I hardly know where to begin.( how can I, a non-native speaker, compete with your unrivalled mastery of the RAO prose?) For instance Ludo is a clown. Was it meant as an endearment, insult, uninvited familiarity or all three? Till you explain I shall not know how you'd want me to address you?.. I've changed it so that it is very clear to all. And all posts in this subthread came from me. Thank you for so lucidly explaining that a ban is not a ban when it is not "permanent" Shall we call it a "non-permanent ban"? Please explain and inform: does " non-permanent" mean something that you lift when a "Richard" says something you like and clamp on again when someone wants to answer him? I quoted from Dr. Bath's post, what is so unclear about "likely to stay in effect"? Is this another manifestation of your lack of English ability again? Now about "audio. low-end". You're right - no group so titled exists. But there is a group that was started long, long ago as a high-end group and that is now in the grip of second-raters, without an original, creative thought in their heads and without any interest in getting life-like instrumental sound, aided and abetted by Mr. Bath, the moderator.. Their check-mate slogan is the one "Richard" put at the end of his message: "Prove it by ABXing". And their main purpose is to shoot down anything outstanding because they either can not or do not care to hear the difference, Periods are used at the end of sentneces in English bud, not commas. And there is a lot of discussion on high-end on RAHE all the time. Just none of your logorrhea against ABX. And ,no, I was not banned. Neither temporarily nor "permanently. I quit like many others, regretting that a true high-end forum ceased to exist And a period is needed here, and no spaces before commas either. Quite poor for a supposed English speaker. Prove you can still post to RAHE by getting a post thru. Bet you can't. My use of "Low-end" was what they call " a figure of speech". In my native language it is known as "sarcasm". I think the word exists in English as well. Look it up in your Public Library reference/dictionary section. More unneeded spaces, what is you native language anyway? _______________________________________ I'll try and put this chaotic exchange into a sequence that can be followed: This is how it started: Highly edited supposed quote snipped |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message ... Mr. McKelvy says: Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work. You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components. I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that. Note that: There was wide variability of preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes.. Just as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every Tom , Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded. I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences. I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that it is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like not". No other walk of life is so plagued. Ludovic Mirabel ABX is not aobut preference, it's about difference, and determing if any exists. It is simply another form of DBT. It is used by different areas of audip engneering, from home audio to hearing aids. The sole purpose for it's creation was to prove that differences DO exist. The unfortuante truth in many cases is that differences claimed, don't show up in the ears of people making claims of difference. If you cna't hear a difference, it seems clear that you can't reasonably make a claim of "better," at least in terms of sound quality. "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message nk.net... "ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message ... Dear non-Richard. You raise so many fascinating points that with my limited English I hardly know where to begin.( how can I, a non-native speaker, compete with your unrivalled mastery of the RAO prose?) For instance Ludo is a clown. Was it meant as an endearment, insult, uninvited familiarity or all three? Till you explain I shall not know how you'd want me to address you?.. Thank you for so lucidly explaining that a ban is not a ban when it is not "permanent" Shall we call it a "non-permanent ban"? Please explain and inform: does " non-permanent" mean something that you lift when a "Richard" says something you like and clamp on again when someone wants to answer him? Now about "audio. low-end". You're right - no group so titled exists. But there is a group that was started long, long ago as a high-end group and that is now in the grip of second-raters, without an original, creative thought in their heads and without any interest in getting life-like instrumental sound, aided and abetted by Mr. Bath, the moderator.. By that, can we assume that you mean they don't like to stray from what is provable into what is wishful thinking? Their check-mate slogan is the one "Richard" put at the end of his message: "Prove it by ABXing". And their main purpose is to shoot down anything outstanding because they either can not or do not care to hear the difference, And ,no, I was not banned. Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work. Neither temporarily nor "permanently. I quit like many others, regretting that a true high-end forum ceased to exist My use of "Low-end" was what they call " a figure of speech". In my native language it is known as "sarcasm". I think the word exists in English as well. Look it up in your Public Library reference/dictionary section. Regards Ludovic Mirabel Sarcasm is what they use when talking about your obsession with teh fact that ABX and DBT's in general are the standard for determining subtle differences. It's the way it is because it works. One only need peruse the pages of some of the subjectivist rags to see how wrong subjective review processes can be, how much they can miss about how good or bad something is until compared to an objective reference. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Mr. McKelvy says: Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work. You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components. I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that. Note that: There was wide variability of preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes.. Just as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every Tom , Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded. I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences. I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that it is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like not". No other walk of life is so plagued. Ludovic Mirabel I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA. M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry is particularly disturbing. His crudeness with regard to understanding our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow- mindedness. So is his intolerance to accept that inherent ability. An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us closer even more. M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical reproduction . |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
... "The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about then it would be happening already." I have, of course, just as everyone gaze through this divertingly inordinate low-end moderated group on regular occasion. It's quite discomforting, as always, to read the creeping fanaticism displayed by those who regularly dwell in that quizzical bin. The example you noted above is one among many instances leading me to believe that apples do indeed rot from inside out. Those who empower themselves to cast decision among the pure and putrefied reasoning owe it to acquaint themselves what is just, and what is not. To those who do, redeem themselves. A lightning volt delivered from the sky shall make it good, to those who won't |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes: Thank you for your close reading, piocking up all my typos. You'd qualify for a proof-reader providing that in addition you pass a literacy test. What all of that has to with the subject under discussion will remain your secret. Ludovic Mirabel Just trying to understand what in the world you are trying to say in all of your convoluted logorrhea. No reply to my point about the quote from Dr. Bath's post? Must mean you concede my point on the non-permanent ban. Also, I still haven't seen you post to RAHE, so it also must be true that you have been banned. Must really get under you skin since you have the irresistible need to complain here about RAHE, but cannot post there. Ludo has a severe case of logorrhea wrote in message ... In article , "ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes: Dear non-Richard. You raise so many fascinating points that with my limited English I hardly know where to begin.( how can I, a non-native speaker, compete with your unrivalled mastery of the RAO prose?) For instance Ludo is a clown. Was it meant as an endearment, insult, uninvited familiarity or all three? Till you explain I shall not know how you'd want me to address you?.. I've changed it so that it is very clear to all. And all posts in this subthread came from me. Thank you for so lucidly explaining that a ban is not a ban when it is not "permanent" Shall we call it a "non-permanent ban"? Please explain and inform: does " non-permanent" mean something that you lift when a "Richard" says something you like and clamp on again when someone wants to answer him? I quoted from Dr. Bath's post, what is so unclear about "likely to stay in effect"? Is this another manifestation of your lack of English ability again? Now about "audio. low-end". You're right - no group so titled exists. But there is a group that was started long, long ago as a high-end group and that is now in the grip of second-raters, without an original, creative thought in their heads and without any interest in getting life-like instrumental sound, aided and abetted by Mr. Bath, the moderator.. Their check-mate slogan is the one "Richard" put at the end of his message: "Prove it by ABXing". And their main purpose is to shoot down anything outstanding because they either can not or do not care to hear the difference, Periods are used at the end of sentneces in English bud, not commas. And there is a lot of discussion on high-end on RAHE all the time. Just none of your logorrhea against ABX. And ,no, I was not banned. Neither temporarily nor "permanently. I quit like many others, regretting that a true high-end forum ceased to exist And a period is needed here, and no spaces before commas either. Quite poor for a supposed English speaker. Prove you can still post to RAHE by getting a post thru. Bet you can't. My use of "Low-end" was what they call " a figure of speech". In my native language it is known as "sarcasm". I think the word exists in English as well. Look it up in your Public Library reference/dictionary section. More unneeded spaces, what is you native language anyway? _______________________________________ I'll try and put this chaotic exchange into a sequence that can be followed: This is how it started: Highly edited supposed quote snipped |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"JBorg" wrote in message ... ludovic mirabel wrote: Mr. McKelvy says: Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work. You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components. I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that. Note that: There was wide variability of preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes.. Just as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every Tom , Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded. I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences. I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that it is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like not". No other walk of life is so plagued. Ludovic Mirabel I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA. Apologize for your own deeds not mine. M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry is particularly disturbing. IOW right on target. His crudeness with regard to understanding our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow- mindedness. Actually, it reflects reality. I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made that have no proof. An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us closer even more. I think it would ber hard to find a person who loves high quality audio repordcution more than I do. M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical reproduction . Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message k.net... "JBorg" wrote in message ... ludovic mirabel wrote: Mr. McKelvy says: Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work. You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components. I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that. Note that: There was wide variability of preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes.. Just as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every Tom , Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded. I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences. I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that it is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like not". No other walk of life is so plagued. Ludovic Mirabel I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA. Apologize for your own deeds not mine. M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry is particularly disturbing. IOW right on target. His crudeness with regard to understanding our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow- mindedness. Actually, it reflects reality. I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made that have no proof. An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us closer even more. I think it would ber hard to find a person who loves high quality audio repordcution more than I do. M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical reproduction . Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism. You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof. Nor do we believe in mysticism. All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions. What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant, whether proven or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that matters. It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of flavor we like. This isn't science. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy"wrote: JBorg wrote I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA. Apologize for your own deeds not mine. I have. M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everyone. His ignorance about the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry is particularly disturbing. IOW right on target. You claim that HE gears of equal class all sounds alike,and that no one has yet to prove any sonic differences among them. Do you believe then that additional pursuit to achieve further sonic improvement will be unnecessary ? His crudeness with regard to understanding our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow- mindedness. Actually, it reflects reality. Your crudity and narrow-mindedness do not reflect the reality. I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made that have no proof. Why are you intolerant of audiophiles who claim to hear differences but feel it unneccessary to offer you proof? An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us closer even more. I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality audio reproduction more than I do. So you're enchanted with HE audio reproduction, yet you denigrate those who admit to hearing distinctive sonic differences among HE gears. Just as you do, why do you feel it necessary to be suspicious when other audiophiles express their fascination among the distinctive sounds of various gears ? M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Ferstler, and T. Nousaine, these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical reproduction . Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism. What are some of these examples leading you to believe that distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ? |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net "JBorg" wrote in message ... M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry is particularly disturbing. IOW right on target. Agreed that JBorg finds factual posting about high end audio to be particularly disturbing. His crudeness with regard to understanding our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow- mindedness. Actually, McKelvy is very refined in this regard. It is JBorg who pollutes RAO with his crudeness. Actually, it reflects reality. I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made that have no proof. Most of JBorg's lack any believable support. An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us closer even more. JBorg seems to think that he has the exclusive right to enjoy and love music. I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality audio reprodcution more than I do. JBorg will never get that because of his narrow, self-centered viewpoint. M. McKelvy is intolerant. He's just a sophisticated consumer who doesn't believe everything he reads in Stereophile, and ragazines like it. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, Pretty good description of a troll who posts here anonymously using the handle JBorg. a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal preferences. The inclusion of the wort sagaciously is particularly ironic. Sagacity means having discernment, sound judgement, farsightedness and wisdom. This word does describe people who are not sucked in by the many false claims of the dark side of the high end audio establishment. It's doesn't fit a born sucker like JBorg who has bit on just about every piece of snake-oil soaked bait that has been held in front of him. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological advancement in the High-End industry. The word fulminate relates to an explosion. It is true that if the snake oil claims of the dark side of high end audio were properly dealt with and done away with as Nousiane, Ferstler and others suggest, there would be an explosion of further technological advancement in the High-End industry. Somehow I don't think that JBorg meant to say this, but that is the meaning of his words here. A congregation of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound. Actually, I've seen no evidence of any knowlege of the physics of sound on the part of JBorg. He's apparently too enthralled with the latest in snake-oil power cords to spend much time studying acoustics. They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical reproduction . Ignores the fact that many of us are using the rational scientific approach to obtain higher states of musical reproduction. JBorg oooh and ahhs over high end power cords, and Nousaine builds a SOTA subwoofer. Who is the fool? Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism. Please remind me of any post that suggests that JBorg knows an ohm from a volt, or a SPL from a IM. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
ludovic mirabel wrote Here goes one-out of many- example of the rec.audio.low-end moderating objectivity, Fidel Castro style. An invocation extolling unvalidated, unconfirmed by basic research "testing"goes in as a clinching argument . Ah, but try and question it!: "We do not allow discussion of ABX" We only allow it in to end discussions, right? Ludovic Mirabel Message 24 in thread From: Richard ) Subject: Stereophile again! Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Date: 2005-01-25 17:00:04 PST ... "The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about then it would be happening already." Richard I had another look again today at that particular group we have in question. There are perhaps at least a total of no less than 20 posting posted for Monday. Perhaps more were submitted at the beginning prior to that day but it seem only those posted met the requirement as specified in their guidelines. Among these posting that were posted today was a man asking for suggestion about wires for his projection machine. In other post, another man is wondering whether he should return back into using his old amp as it seem to keep the rest of his system quiet again. Still in another, a new poster is seeking advice for appropriate receiver to be paired with his surround system. There's a small conversation I noted concerning the forthcoming HE2005 Show. I did not see any discussion mentioning ABX or DBT. I did not see any suspicious discussion pertaining to these methodologies as of this writing. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger" wrote
Michael McKelvy" wrote JBorg" wrote M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry is particularly disturbing. IOW right on target. Agreed that JBorg finds factual posting about high end audio to be particularly disturbing. His crudeness with regard to understanding our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow- mindedness. Actually, McKelvy is very refined in this regard. It is JBorg who pollutes RAO with his crudeness. Actually, it reflects reality. I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made that have no proof. Most of JBorg's lack any believable support. An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us closer even more. JBorg seems to think that he has the exclusive right to enjoy and love music. I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality audio reprodcution more than I do. JBorg will never get that because of his narrow, self-centered viewpoint. M. McKelvy is intolerant. He's just a sophisticated consumer who doesn't believe everything he reads in Stereophile, and ragazines like it. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, Pretty good description of a troll who posts here anonymously using the handle JBorg. That has been my on-line persona. Full-fledged, veteran Rao'ers are aware of my off-line identity. In your case, you're too demented to need to know. a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal preferences. The inclusion of the wort sagaciously is particularly ironic. Sagacity means having discernment, sound judgement, farsightedness and wisdom. This word does describe people who are not sucked in by the many false claims of the dark side of the high end audio establishment. It's doesn't fit a born sucker like JBorg who has bit on just about every piece of snake-oil soaked bait that has been held in front of him. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological advancement in the High-End industry. The word fulminate relates to an explosion. It is true that if the snake oil claims of the dark side of high end audio were properly dealt with and done away with as Nousiane, Ferstler and others suggest, there would be an explosion of further technological advancement in the High-End industry. Somehow I don't think that JBorg meant to say this, but that is the meaning of his words here. A congregation of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound. Actually, I've seen no evidence of any knowlege of the physics of sound on the part of JBorg. He's apparently too enthralled with the latest in snake-oil power cords to spend much time studying acoustics. They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical reproduction . Ignores the fact that many of us are using the rational scientific approach to obtain higher states of musical reproduction. JBorg oooh and ahhs over high end power cords, and Nousaine builds a SOTA subwoofer. Who is the fool? Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism. Please remind me of any post that suggests that JBorg knows an ohm from a volt, or a SPL from a IM. You know I'm just going to pretend that I didn't read any of your reply above. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"JBorg" wrote in message
Arny Krueger" wrote Michael McKelvy" wrote JBorg" wrote M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry is particularly disturbing. IOW right on target. Agreed that JBorg finds factual posting about high end audio to be particularly disturbing. His crudeness with regard to understanding our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow- mindedness. Actually, McKelvy is very refined in this regard. It is JBorg who pollutes RAO with his crudeness. Actually, it reflects reality. I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made that have no proof. Most of JBorg's lack any believable support. An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us closer even more. JBorg seems to think that he has the exclusive right to enjoy and love music. I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality audio reprodcution more than I do. JBorg will never get that because of his narrow, self-centered viewpoint. M. McKelvy is intolerant. He's just a sophisticated consumer who doesn't believe everything he reads in Stereophile, and ragazines like it. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, Pretty good description of a troll who posts here anonymously using the handle JBorg. That has been my on-line persona. Full-fledged, veteran Rao'ers are aware of my off-line identity. In your case, you're too demented to need to know. a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal preferences. The inclusion of the wort sagaciously is particularly ironic. Sagacity means having discernment, sound judgement, farsightedness and wisdom. This word does describe people who are not sucked in by the many false claims of the dark side of the high end audio establishment. It's doesn't fit a born sucker like JBorg who has bit on just about every piece of snake-oil soaked bait that has been held in front of him. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological advancement in the High-End industry. The word fulminate relates to an explosion. It is true that if the snake oil claims of the dark side of high end audio were properly dealt with and done away with as Nousiane, Ferstler and others suggest, there would be an explosion of further technological advancement in the High-End industry. Somehow I don't think that JBorg meant to say this, but that is the meaning of his words here. A congregation of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound. Actually, I've seen no evidence of any knowlege of the physics of sound on the part of JBorg. He's apparently too enthralled with the latest in snake-oil power cords to spend much time studying acoustics. They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical reproduction . Ignores the fact that many of us are using the rational scientific approach to obtain higher states of musical reproduction. JBorg oooh and ahhs over high end power cords, and Nousaine builds a SOTA subwoofer. Who is the fool? Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism. Please remind me of any post that suggests that JBorg knows an ohm from a volt, or a SPL from a IM. You know I'm just going to pretend that I didn't read any of your reply above. Thanks Borglet for admitting that my comments hit you so hard that you are speechless. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:11:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Thanks Borglet for admitting that my comments hit you so hard that you are speechless. More posturing. That debate is going to be a slam-dunk for Mr. Atkinson, unless you can organize your thoughts better and keep from relying on the cheap taunt. I don't see that as very likely, considering your telephone demeanor. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message k.net... "JBorg" wrote in message ... ludovic mirabel wrote: Mr. McKelvy says: Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work. You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components. I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that. Note that: There was wide variability of preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes.. Just as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every Tom , Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded. I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences. I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that it is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like not". No other walk of life is so plagued. Ludovic Mirabel I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA. Apologize for your own deeds not mine. M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry is particularly disturbing. IOW right on target. His crudeness with regard to understanding our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow- mindedness. Actually, it reflects reality. I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made that have no proof. An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us closer even more. I think it would ber hard to find a person who loves high quality audio repordcution more than I do. M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical reproduction . Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism. You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof. That much is obvious. Nor do we believe in mysticism. If you believe that people can hear differences from things like Shakti stones, then you do believe in mysticism. All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions. What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant, whether proven or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that matters. Who has said otherwise. Listen how you choose, to what you choose. If you make a claim of sonic difference due to something like Shakti Stones or some other device for which there is no possibility of an effect, you shouldn't be surpised or alarmed when people comment on the absurdity of it. It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of flavor we like. This isn't science. Not the way some of the people here do it, that's for sure. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil a écrit :
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:11:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Thanks Borglet for admitting that my comments hit you so hard that you are speechless. More posturing. That debate is going to be a slam-dunk for Mr. Atkinson, unless you can organize your thoughts better and keep from relying on the cheap taunt. I don't see that as very likely, considering your telephone demeanor. *GAG ALERT !!!!!* Dave and his pertinent, intelligent, arguments.... :-) Here, he is comparing a prepared meeting with an importune, impromptu phone call with a drunk interlocutor. Considering the quality of your above argumentation Dave, I think it's better that you let Arnold Krueger debate alone. At his place, I wouldn't be a cent on you. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Paul Dormer wrote: "George M. Middius" emitted : That debate is going to be a slam-dunk for Mr. Atkinson, unless you can organize your thoughts better and keep from relying on the cheap taunt. I don't see that as very likely, considering your telephone demeanor. You don't think "Bull****! Bull****! Bull****!" will score points for Krooger? ;-) Does anybody know if Tommy "Hold 'em at gunpoint" Nousaine will be holding Arnold's hand and/or patting him on the head during the showdown? No, they'll conceal a radio communication system in Arny's hearing-aid, like Bush at the debates. Stephen |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"JBorg" wrote in message ... Michael McKelvy"wrote: JBorg wrote I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA. Apologize for your own deeds not mine. I have. M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everyone. His ignorance about the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry is particularly disturbing. IOW right on target. You claim that HE gears of equal class all sounds alike,and that no one has yet to prove any sonic differences among them. Your paraphrasing is wrong. I and others have stated that gear that performs within certain parameters of FR and distortion sounds alike. Do you believe then that additional pursuit to achieve further sonic improvement will be unnecessary ? Depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, it is easy enough to find CD players, amps and preamps that sound alike. Ditto for wires. When it comes to speakers, there are plenty of significant differences that make experimentation worthwhile. His crudeness with regard to understanding our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow- mindedness. Actually, it reflects reality. Your crudity and narrow-mindedness do not reflect the reality. I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made that have no proof. Why are you intolerant of audiophiles who claim to hear differences but feel it unneccessary to offer you proof? I'm not intolerant of them, I simply think they ought to try and be wiser in their choices. Since it's about sound quality, one should simply concentrate on what can or can not affect it. You are obviously free to choose what you want for whatever reason you want. The fact still remains that there are things that people that do not actually have any effect. Since there are other people who lurk here without taking an active part in these discussions, I think it's important that they be able to get straight information. Those who argue so strenuously that XYZ product did so and so to the sound of their system ought to be able to have the facts available to them as well, even if they choose not to care. It seems pretty silly to be offended by truth, especially since in the end, you don't have to act on it if you choose. An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us closer even more. I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality audio reproduction more than I do. So you're enchanted with HE audio reproduction, yet you denigrate those who admit to hearing distinctive sonic differences among HE gears. I'm enchanted with good reproduction and I have always sought to optimize my listen pleasure in any way possible. Key word possible. Just as you do, why do you feel it necessary to be suspicious when other audiophiles express their fascination among the distinctive sounds of various gears ? Because many of the claims that are made about such sounds are known to be impossible. M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Ferstler, and T. Nousaine, these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical reproduction . Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism. What are some of these examples leading you to believe that distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ? Um, they're called DBT's. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"JBorg" wrote in message
What are some of these examples leading you to believe that distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ? (1) Some of the cause-and-effect relationships happen only in the Twilight Zone (2) Numerous ludicrous, not to mention offensive claims about the validity of the results of DBTs. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism. You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof. That much is obvious. Nor do we believe in mysticism. If you believe that people can hear differences from things like Shakti stones, then you do believe in mysticism. I don't know whether any particular people can hear differences with Shakti Stones. I don't know whetner any particular people do hear differences with Shakti Stones. All I care about is whether I hear any differences with Shakti Stones, and if so, are the differences worth the money, and if so, can I afford them. Three questions. If any one of the three answers is no, then I am not interested. Now, as to question 1) I don't know whether I would hear a difference. I never used Shakti Stones. Question 2) I assume that whatever differences I might possibly find, they are not worth the exhorbitant cost of the Shakti's, that I could get better results for less money investing in better equipment. Question 3) I probably could afford them, but there are scads of other things I would prefer to spend that money on. All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions. What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant, whether proven or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that matters. Who has said otherwise. Listen how you choose, to what you choose. If you make a claim of sonic difference due to something like Shakti Stones or some other device for which there is no possibility of an effect, you shouldn't be surpised or alarmed when people comment on the absurdity of it. That's fine, I don't care about you questioning Shakti Stones, ITs the insistence on your scienctific methodology as applied to consumer audio purchases. It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of flavor we like. This isn't science. Not the way some of the people here do it, that's for sure. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote in message ... dave weil a écrit : On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:11:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Thanks Borglet for admitting that my comments hit you so hard that you are speechless. More posturing. That debate is going to be a slam-dunk for Mr. Atkinson, unless you can organize your thoughts better and keep from relying on the cheap taunt. I don't see that as very likely, considering your telephone demeanor. *GAG ALERT !!!!!* Dave and his pertinent, intelligent, arguments.... :-) Here, he is comparing a prepared meeting with an importune, impromptu phone call with a drunk interlocutor. Considering the quality of your above argumentation Dave, I think it's better that you let Arnold Krueger debate alone. At his place, I wouldn't be a cent on you. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote in message ... dave weil a écrit : That debate is going to be a slam-dunk for Mr. Atkinson, unless you can organize your thoughts better and keep from relying on the cheap taunt. I don't see that as very likely, considering your telephone demeanor. *GAG ALERT !!!!!* Dave and his pertinent, intelligent, arguments.... :-) Here, he is comparing a prepared meeting with an importune, impromptu phone call with a drunk interlocutor. Good question! Will Arny show up sober? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote in message
dave weil a écrit : On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:11:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Thanks Borglet for admitting that my comments hit you so hard that you are speechless. More posturing. Is there any other way to discuss anything with Borglet? That debate is going to be a slam-dunk for Mr. Atkinson, unless you can organize your thoughts better and keep from relying on the cheap taunt. I don't see that as very likely, considering your telephone demeanor. *GAG ALERT !!!!!* Indeed, if irony killed. Dave and his pertinent, intelligent, arguments.... :-) Remember that Weil has a long and impressive track record related to technical analysis and technical writing, His magnificent intellectual successes include dropping out of college, operating a 50 caliber machine gun clipped to the the top of an APC while presumably a forced guest of Uncle Sam in Germany, and waiting on tables in a bar that is so bad that he won't publicly identify it. Here, he is comparing a prepared meeting with an importune, impromptu phone call with a drunk interlocutor. You forgot the part where the drunk interlocutor already had a lengthy track record of making morally rephensible posts on RAO related to the untimely and natural death of my son. Then there's the drunk interlocoutor's panning for sympathy with a lie about his daughter dying of cancer. The same person also made pornographic claims related to my wife, complete with purported photographs of my wife including one a woman executing fellatio in public. Dave can't possibly relate to my situation since he has no children that he is willing to accept responsibility for in public, and of course there's no wife he's willing to admit to. Furthermore it is arguable that Dave empathises positively with Devil's false claims related to my son's tragic death because of the unfortunate circumstances related to the death of Dave's dad. Note that I'd know nothing of this personal tragedy except that Dave posted the gory details including I believe make and model of gun, on RAO on a certain Christmas day, presumably to cheer us all up or more likely to panhandle for pity. Weird or what? Considering the quality of your above argumentation Dave, I think it's better that you let Arnold Krueger debate alone. Lionel, you've missed some incredible instances where Weil wet himself here. For instance, his arguing opinion against fact about Revox open reel tape recorders and their market position in the US during the late 1960s and early 1970s. It finally developed that Dave had some experience with selling Revox cassette tape recorders to Gi's in Europe about 10 years later. He was basing his opinons on that. Note that in Weil world, the major market changes, differences and changes in dollar/mark exchange rates were meaningless. Then there was Dave's lengthy and illogical argument against my opinion that hard drive-based music jukeboxes were a superior alternative to CD changers. Note his backward-looking arguments put Dave in the odd position of essentially arguing that the Apple iPod could never suceed. No, there are many reasons why Dave is likely to tell just about any lie that pops into his head to harass me. Most of the reasons are his own fault. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:57:28 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Remember that Weil has a long and impressive track record related to technical analysis and technical writing. Why, thank you Arnold. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:57:28 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: operating a 50 caliber machine gun clipped to the the top of an APC while presumably a forced guest of Uncle Sam in Germany Obviously, Arnold doesn't know that the draft ended in 1972. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:57:28 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Furthermore it is arguable that Dave empathises positively with Devil's false claims related to my son's tragic death because of the unfortunate circumstances related to the death of Dave's dad. Note that I'd know nothing of this personal tragedy except that Dave posted the gory details including I believe make and model of gun, on RAO on a certain Christmas day, presumably to cheer us all up or more likely to panhandle for pity. Weird or what? Yes, this is weird that Arnold can post about the death of his son and it's OK but I can post about the death of my dad and it's "panhandling for pity" (and using an irrelevant holiday as some sort of bizarre "debating trade"point). But it's again clear that Arnold has no compunction about bringing *others'* tragedies up to make some sort of "point". Also, the Devil wouldn't know the gory details of *his* son's unfortunate passing if *he* hadn't brought it to RAO's attention a couple of days after the death. Finally, the first point is only "arguable" if one is disgusting. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote: "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism. You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof. That much is obvious. Nor do we believe in mysticism. If you believe that people can hear differences from things like Shakti stones, then you do believe in mysticism. I don't know whether any particular people can hear differences with Shakti Stones. Yes you do, you just don't admit it. It's impossible. All I care about is whether I hear any differences with Shakti Stones, and if so, are the differences worth the money, and if so, can I afford them. You're saying you don't care if it's possible for them to have an effect. Three questions. If any one of the three answers is no, then I am not interested. Now, as to question 1) I don't know whether I would hear a difference. I never used Shakti Stones. Question 2) I assume that whatever differences I might possibly find, they are not worth the exhorbitant cost of the Shakti's, that I could get better results for less money investing in better equipment. Why would you be reluctant to know if it's possible for them to do what they claim? To me that's a more important question than being able to affor them. I can afford a copper bracelet which is allegedly supposed to benefit people with arthritis, but I won't buy one because I know they don't have any effect. Question 3) I probably could afford them, but there are scads of other things I would prefer to spend that money on. Save your money it is impossible for ehm to work as advertised. All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions. What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant, whether proven or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that matters. Who has said otherwise. Listen how you choose, to what you choose. If you make a claim of sonic difference due to something like Shakti Stones or some other device for which there is no possibility of an effect, you shouldn't be surpised or alarmed when people comment on the absurdity of it. That's fine, I don't care about you questioning Shakti Stones, ITs the insistence on your scienctific methodology as applied to consumer audio purchases. But I don't insist on it and never have. I only suggest that people claiming differences from things that aren'tlikely to have them or from things like Shakti Stones, which do not have any effect, think about finding out if there is a real effect or an imagined one. Perfectly reasonable, in light of how many things have been shown to be snake oil. It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of flavor we like. This isn't science. There's no real science to listening, but there is in how people can think something causes an effect when it in fact can't. I have never begrudged anybody buying whatever they want to listen ot music. I do have issues about things like stones and clairifiers that can not do what is claimed. I've listened to enough amplifiers to know that some do indeed sound different and tried to educate myself on why that might be. One thing is certain and that's that price and appearance havenoting to do with performance as is evidenced by pro amps, which typically costfar less than consumer audio amps and most of which perform at least as well as anything in the megabuck amp category. People who want to spend 10,000 bucks for a CD player ought to be aware of the fact that they could spend 1/10th of that and achieve the same level of sound quality. That doesn't mean I have a problem with people spending their money as they see fit, it just means that if it's sound they are after, then can get it for less and buy better spakers or more CD's. Why should anyone be offended at the notion of spending less to get the exact same sound quality? Why should anyone not want to know that? It seems there are basicly 2 kinds of audio systems. Those owned by people who are obsessed with accurate reproduction and those who are obsessed with endless tweaking to get a sound they have a preference for. I'm in the first group and I have no desire to spend/waste time trying to get anything different than what the artist and engineers who made the record wanted to be heard. You can do it your way if you choose. It's your money. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com There's no real science to listening, ....at least the way that Art (AKA Clyde Slick, Yustabe Slim, etc., etc.) wants us all to listen. but there is in how people can think something causes an effect when it in fact can't. Here's a heads up - Art believes that green pen lines on the periphery of a CD change how they sound. I have never begrudged anybody buying whatever they want to listen ot music. Really, neither do I. However, I have a problem with people who promote ignornace as if it were special wisdom. I do have issues about things like stones and clairifiers that can not do what is claimed. Art has probably written something nice about clarifiers, but I don't feel like trying to search them out using all of the aliases he's used through the years. I've listened to enough amplifiers to know that some do indeed sound different and tried to educate myself on why that might be. One thing is certain and that's that price and appearance havenoting to do with performance as is evidenced by pro amps, which typically costfar less than consumer audio amps and most of which perform at least as well as anything in the megabuck amp category. Agreed. I'll match your Crown and raise you two QSCs. People who want to spend 10,000 bucks for a CD player ought to be aware of the fact that they could spend 1/10th of that and achieve the same level of sound quality. Art is a vinyl-and-tubes maven. That means that his CD player has some thermionic distortion enhancers tacked on near their output terminals. That doesn't mean I have a problem with people spending their money as they see fit, it just means that if it's sound they are after, then can get it for less and buy better speakers or more CD's. If you spend less money than Art sees fit, no way can what you buy be good enough. At least that's what he's told me. If you want to understand Art's tastes better, remember that he's among the few who has posted his salary here. Why should anyone be offended at the notion of spending less to get the exact same sound quality? It makes them feel foolish? Why should anyone not want to know that? It makes them feel foolish if they believe what you say? It seems there are basicly 2 kinds of audio systems. Those owned by people who are obsessed with accurate reproduction and those who are obsessed with endless tweaking to get a sound they have a preference for. Two extremes of a continuum, to be sure. I'm in the first group and I have no desire to spend/waste time trying to get anything different than what the artist and engineers who made the record wanted to be heard. Another difference between Art and I is the fact that I mix for Sound Reinforcment and do quite a bit of multitrack recording. Art has repeatedly criticized me because I don't record the best musicans - mostly I work with amateurs, even fairly rank amateurs. You see in Art's world its more important to play a recording by a top artist than to play a recording where you heard the corresponding live performance. Art says that he knows exactly what a recording should sound like because he's heard similar groups play someplace maybe. You can do it your way if you choose. It's your money. I'm under the impression that Art was/is a government employee. If he earned his money as some kind of a manager or analyst, then arguably the taxpayers got robbed. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Anyone know of a good handheld PDA style audio analyser/spl...etc meter? | Pro Audio | |||
| Setup of "Bose style" double cube satellite speakers and sub in 5.1 config | Tech | |||
| Raw Multi-Track -- What Style Of Music? | Pro Audio | |||
| WTB- Old Style Sound Organisation stands | Marketplace | |||
| "round" 80 wire IDE cables instead of ribbon style | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
