Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 12:14:58 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: Just make sure your personal standard of behavior for yourself Tautology! Personal is for yourself. (Just thought you'd like to know that. :-)) or your expectation of others (excluding Arny) are not deviated due to his presence. Deviated? I thought only septums were deviated. True, rectums are deviant. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDem |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"jeffc" wrote
"j." jason.burrows wrote I would also think that it takes some time to get used to the sound of a system anyway, and I doubt DBTs are long enough to allow for that (also because of cost). ...but that's another argument and I'm sure I'm going to catch enough flak for this one already It's not "another" argument, it's THE argument, just that no one gets it. DBT *is* the way to go, just not the way most people think of doing it. You *should* be able to live with your equipment and listen to music over a long period of time in the privacy of your own home, and at the same time it should be one long DBT. Such a thing isn't impossible, just exremely inconvenient. But it can easily be approximated with willing participants. It really doesn't have to be double blind, only single blind, with participants who are really willing to get at the truth. It would be extremely easy to hide a couple amplifiers away somewhere you can't see them, and have a partner switch (or not switch) them over the course of a couple months. You could do the same with a CD player, but you'd need a very active partner (like a slave or butler). With speakers, it would be much more problematic. jason said: " I would also think that it takes some time to get used to the sound of a system anyway, and I doubt DBTs are long enough to allow for that (also because of cost). " jeffc said: " DBT *is* the way to go, just not the way most people think of doing it. You *should* be able to live with your equipment and listen to music over a long period of time ..." "... at the same time it should be one long DBT. Such a thing isn't impossible, just exremely inconvenient." "... and have a partner switch (or not switch) them over the course of a couple months. " Not only would this couple of month worth of switching and twitching exremely inconvenient, it is also bordering on lunacy. DBT requires that you set aside your personal preference and biases. How would you both suppose to prevent these after acouple of month's worth of faithful listening (and then switch n twitch in between) among components under test and then reliably id aural diff at the flick of the switch while ensuring that both your biases and preferences wouldn't interfere with the ability to select the difference having attentively listened to both unit for two month? Let's assume that after a couple of month, you both were able to reliably determine sound differences, how did you ensure that personal biases didn't come into play having thoroughly listened to both unit for two months? |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
Harry Lavo wrote snip Accordingly, without definitive research the camps break down into stubborn religiosity: * the ABX camp holds that since ABX is a proven research tool for audiometric research, it automatically becomes "the truth" and can be used in anything audio...including the evaluation of equipment designed to produce lifelike replication of music in the home, by untrained listener, and open-ended evaluation (e.g. not knowing what they are listening for). * the anti-ABX camp holds that the test itself interferes with the variable under test, ie how a person hears/perceives/responds to music, and the normal rise to consciousness of musical artifacts, and thus is an incorrect instrument for equipment evaluation purposes. What would be an specific opinion with regards to a "sacrosanct" view that anti-ABX camp holds above ? That is, about those anti-ABX audiophiles "themselves" who, accordingly, held such religious view about ABX. |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message .net... Harry Lavo wrote snip Accordingly, without definitive research the camps break down into stubborn religiosity: * the ABX camp holds that since ABX is a proven research tool for audiometric research, it automatically becomes "the truth" and can be used in anything audio...including the evaluation of equipment designed to produce lifelike replication of music in the home, by untrained listener, and open-ended evaluation (e.g. not knowing what they are listening for). * the anti-ABX camp holds that the test itself interferes with the variable under test, ie how a person hears/perceives/responds to music, and the normal rise to consciousness of musical artifacts, and thus is an incorrect instrument for equipment evaluation purposes. What would be an specific opinion with regards to a "sacrosanct" view that anti-ABX camp holds above ? That is, about those anti-ABX audiophiles "themselves" who, accordingly, held such religious view about ABX. I don't understand your comment/question. Perhaps I'm just dense, but can you try to restate it for me? |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
Harry Lavo wrote JBorg, Jr. wrote Harry Lavo wrote snip Accordingly, without definitive research the camps break down into stubborn religiosity: * the ABX camp holds that since ABX is a proven research tool for audiometric research, it automatically becomes "the truth" and can be used in anything audio...including the evaluation of equipment designed to produce lifelike replication of music in the home, by untrained listener, and open-ended evaluation (e.g. not knowing what they are listening for). * the anti-ABX camp holds that the test itself interferes with the variable under test, ie how a person hears/perceives/responds to music, and the normal rise to consciousness of musical artifacts, and thus is an incorrect instrument for equipment evaluation purposes. What would be an specific opinion with regards to a "sacrosanct" view that anti-ABX camp holds above ? That is, about those anti-ABX audiophiles "themselves" who, accordingly, held such religious view about ABX. I don't understand your comment/question. Perhaps I'm just dense, but can you try to restate it for me? Yes of course, I regret to cause any misunderstanding. I'm just wondering why it is considered to be a stubborn religiosity for anti-ABX audiophiles *to hold* such view regarding ABX. |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests? MY STALKERSON ROBERT MOREIN ATTACKS NEW VICTIMS
"j." wrote: were you refering to my posts being a forgery by him, or did I misinterpret that? I don't actually know who that is, and I suppose that there's no way for me to convince you that I'm not him ...but I'm not, I'm me! Mr. Burrows, Sorry you're now being targeted by my mentally ill son, Robert. He's been attacking and intimidating people using his computer since he was kicked out of Drexel University, and lost his lawsuit against them. Robert is my bitter, unemployed, 53 year old son who, thanks to the good people on this chat board has finally left my home, at least temporarily. Due to all the information on the neighborhood bulletin boards, exposing his life as an internet stalker and mentally ill person, he's left Pennsylvania for Texas where he doesn't think his bad reputation will follow. I was worried about my reputation in the area, however have discovered how kind people have been who have had run-ins with my son over the many years we've lived here. Here's some further information about your stalker, so that you can defend yourself from his coming vicious attacks. Sylvan Morein, DDS Bob Morein History -- http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court By L. STUART DITZEN Philadelphia Inquirer PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart. They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge his dismissal. The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw. "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we do come to a larger issue here." An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly "pleasantly" eccentric. A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed by the media and the public. Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser. But it has been the subject of much attention in academia. Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and computer engineering. Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it patented. A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life. In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea. An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life. Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition. Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's money to cover up his lack of productivity. That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions. Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the state Superior Court. The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic affairs was reasserted. The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary litigation, that would have been the end of it. But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing. Daddy throws more money down the crapper. His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without compensation. "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what happened to him is pretty common." It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge, the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are. Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim that his idea was stolen - "preposterous." "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg. "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than pursuing self-destructive litigation." No **** sherlock. The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser, Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea. His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes and electronic systems. The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a nuclear plant or a computer. My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of Robert Morein, only sawdust. Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata, through a university lawyer, declined to comment. At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It related to estimation theory. Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in industrial processes. Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the problem Kalata had presented. Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron. K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors. Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he became alienated from Kalata. As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron. The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the patent to lapse. No one made any money from it. Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein. In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and asked for a new faculty adviser. The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein. He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work. Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to complete his thesis. So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers (a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant! Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him. Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the usenet proves it. Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will." So much for political machine judges. The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only about 100 of them. Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the Pennsylvania courts. Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it. Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS. "I had to seek closure," he said. Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence. Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence". BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a bulletlike stream of water. FAILED STUDENT FAILED MOVIE MAKER FAILED SCREENWRITER FAILED INVESTOR FAILED DRIVER FAILED SON FAILED PARENTS FAILED INVENTOR FAILED PLAINTIFF FAILED HOMOSEXUAL FAILED HUMAN FAILED FAILED But none of it is what he had imagined for himself. "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very gnawing thing." |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests? MY STALKER SON ROBERT MOREIN ATTACKS NEW VICTIMS
F O A D
|
#88
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"dizzy" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message Or you could just realize that to be anti-ABX is to be truly blind to the facts. No, we are well aware of the fact, the fact that you have never set up, run, nor even participated in any such test, yourself. Idiot. evidently, you haven't, either. Idiot. Moron -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDem |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
dizzy wrote: Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message roups.com... Or you could just realize that to be anti-ABX is to be truly blind to the facts. No, we are well aware of the fact, the fact that you have never set up, run, nor even participated in any such test, yourself. Idiot. Commendable brevity, Mr. Dizzy. No explanations, no arguments- just judgement.. But whatever one's personal opinions about Mr. NYOB I must condemn the language. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
dizzy wrote: Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message roups.com... Or you could just realize that to be anti-ABX is to be truly blind to the facts. No, we are well aware of the fact, the fact that you have never set up, run, nor even participated in any such test, yourself. Idiot. I must amend my negative response to your post. Here is a quote from Mr.NYOB courteous reply to Harry Lavo's well-known addiction to gutter language. NYOB says (June 24 , 406 pm. in this thread): "Mumbo jumbo, gooey gumbo. Horse**** rationizations". You must be just reacting both to his Mr. Manners debating tactics and to his long-standing problems with those big words he loves to use once he comes across them like "rationizations". Ludovic Mirabel |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests? MY STALKER SON ROBERT MOREIN ATTACKS NEW VICTIMS
This is some weird ****. I've seen it pop up a dozen times and I still can't figure out what the hell this is all about. What is the purpose of the character assassination or is this a totally fictional character? Somebody has expended a lot of energy on it.... though that seems pretty neurotic/psychotic. This have anything to do with sound? |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"ScottW" wrote in message
news9Cng.22258$8q.11522@dukeread08 "Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... That's a matter of perception, I think. What I find petty is the endless political posts and - discussions in an audio newsgroup. Do you really think audio only content is sufficient to sustain this group? It used to be, and then came "Zip", "Derrida", "Middius" and a swarm of other ignorant but brutal radical subjectivists. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: Name-calling is the best you can do? "The pre-requisite lobotomy ensures that." Arny, exactly 1 min. before posting the above. Arny, I promise that this is the last time I'll post in this way, other than when you personally attack me. Since you take just about any comment as being a personal attack Jenn, that gives you considerable lattitude with your attacks. I'm trying to help, really. Then wait until a worthwhile thought crossses your fevered little mind. Based on the above, do you see why people are critical of you here? Like you then can dish it out even when they are not directly involved, but they can't take return in kind or even 50% of kind. The "persecution" that you complain about is brought on by your "what's good for the goose can be ignored by the gander" attitude and actions. What persecution? Check google. Other than quotes of post by others such as yourself Jenn, the last time I mentioned persecution, was in a post where I talked about *your* persecution complex. Please, for your own happiness, consider this. Stop externalizing Jenn. I'm really quite a happy person. Last week was one of the happiest of my life. I got some good computer system orders and spent every morning doing sound for the VBS at church. It was easily the best one we have ever had. I spent Saturday building a shed for Habitat with some very nice people. Sunday morning I mixed and recorded the church service, mostly just supervising a person that I have been training for several months. I spent Sunday afternoon with the San Diego segment of my family who are visiting, including my son with a PhD in cancer research, his lovely and intelligent wife, and their two bright, growing and active sons. We closed out the evening at a municipal fireworks show about a mile from here. I think that you're probably a good person, but you seem to have a blind spot in this area. Not at all. I know exactly what kind of human excretia dominate this place. Best wishes to you. Unlikley, given all the negative posturing that you seem to like to inflict on the world, Jenn. If your own house was in order you'd not be so hypersensitive to what I post. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
news Yes of course, I regret to cause any misunderstanding. I'm just wondering why it is considered to be a stubborn religiosity for anti-ABX audiophiles *to hold* such view regarding ABX. It's self-evident from their posts. Instead of presenting well-reasoned arguments they misrepresent the issues and become highly emotional when challenged. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests? MY STALKER SON ROBERT MOREIN ATTACKS NEW VICTIMS
wrote in message
oups.com This is some weird ****. Regrettably its pretty common on some of the Usenet audio groups. I've seen it pop up a dozen times and I still can't figure out what the hell this is all about. It is about a years-long vendetta. What is the purpose of the character assassination You've got it - the purpose is character assassination. or is this a totally fictional character? Sylvan Morien is AFAIK a real person, but the person who is posting this trash is not he. Somebody has expended a lot of energy on it.... though that seems pretty neurotic/psychotic. On both sides. This have anything to do with sound? Just the sound of two idiots clashing. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "ScottW" wrote in message news9Cng.22258$8q.11522@dukeread08 "Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... That's a matter of perception, I think. What I find petty is the endless political posts and - discussions in an audio newsgroup. Do you really think audio only content is sufficient to sustain this group? It used to be, and then came "Zip", "Derrida", "Middius" and a swarm of other ignorant but brutal radical subjectivists. Those assholes did nothing but pollute this group with radical subjectivist claptrap such as enjoying lstening to reproduced music. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
Slime-for-Brains is on the case! Instead of presenting well-reasoned arguments they misrepresent the issues and become highly emotional when challenged. When are you going to force duh-Mikey and dippyborg to undertake the "testing" rituals for themselves? In fact, when was the last time Tommi N. strapped you down for the S&M ritual yourself? Oops! Borgtonite! -- A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Krooborg encounters "happiness"
Who knew the pathology ran this deep? Last week was one of the happiest of my life. I got some good computer system orders and spent every morning doing sound for the VBS at church. Notably, none of your "enemies" conspired to attack you while you were a busy little 'borg. That includes your alleged family, who were no doubt relieved to see you taking a break from your borganoia conspiracy theories while occupired with busywork. How was church yesterday? I'm guessing Rev. Matt's topic was the only one that doesn't rattle your cage -- volunteering for the church itself. God knows how nasty you are after sitting through one of his expositions on lust or anger. ;-) -- A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests? MY STALKER SON ROBERT MOREIN ATTACKS NEW VICTIMS
emin9th wrote ...
This is some weird ****. I've seen it pop up a dozen times and I still can't figure out what the hell this is all about. What is the purpose of the character assassination or is this a totally fictional character? Replying to this garbage is called "feeding the troll" and every time you reply, it just encourages them to do it again. Ignore it and move on with your life. It is the internet equivalent of littering the highway. Do you stop and complain every time you see a Macdonald's hamburger wrapper along the road? |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Krooborg encounters "happiness"
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message Who knew the pathology ran this deep? Last week was one of the happiest of my life. I got some good computer system orders and spent every morning doing sound for the VBS at church. Notably, none of your "enemies" conspired to attack you while you were a busy little 'borg. I don't know if they conspired, but they definately attacked. That includes your alleged family, who were no doubt relieved to see you taking a break from your borganoia conspiracy theories while occupired with busywork. You call it busywork, I call it fun. BTW Middus what did you do this weekend? How was church yesterday? Answered once already. I'm guessing Rev. Matt's topic was the only one that doesn't rattle your cage -- volunteering for the church itself. Wrong again. God knows how nasty you are after sitting through one of his expositions on lust or anger. Why would that be a problem, Middius? |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message news Harry Lavo wrote JBorg, Jr. wrote Harry Lavo wrote snip Accordingly, without definitive research the camps break down into stubborn religiosity: * the ABX camp holds that since ABX is a proven research tool for audiometric research, it automatically becomes "the truth" and can be used in anything audio...including the evaluation of equipment designed to produce lifelike replication of music in the home, by untrained listener, and open-ended evaluation (e.g. not knowing what they are listening for). * the anti-ABX camp holds that the test itself interferes with the variable under test, ie how a person hears/perceives/responds to music, and the normal rise to consciousness of musical artifacts, and thus is an incorrect instrument for equipment evaluation purposes. What would be an specific opinion with regards to a "sacrosanct" view that anti-ABX camp holds above ? That is, about those anti-ABX audiophiles "themselves" who, accordingly, held such religious view about ABX. I don't understand your comment/question. Perhaps I'm just dense, but can you try to restate it for me? Yes of course, I regret to cause any misunderstanding. I'm just wondering why it is considered to be a stubborn religiosity for anti-ABX audiophiles *to hold* such view regarding ABX. Because *we* (I myself am in that camp) don't have scientific proof on our side anymore than the ABX'rs do on theirs when it comes to the suitability of ABX for open-ended evaluation of audio components. We have common sense (how can widely spaced and disparate people come to characterize the "sound" of a piece of gear very similarly, if such "sound" doesn't exists?), an intuitive understanding that the confusion and fatique experienced under ABX conditions are signs of something seriously wrong with what we are trying to do, and a growing smattering of scientific evidence that the brains relation to music is so complex and non-understood that we are willing to grant these perceptions the benefit of the doubt. But we have not ever run a controlled test to prove our beliefs. The reason is difficulty, complexity, organization, time, money and facility. If you read the RAHE archives, you will run across some very long posts of mine where I outline what such definitive testing might look like. On the other hand, the ABX camp has never run a controlled test to determine how their test might "warp" perception, perhaps for the same reasons. So we are a standstill. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:20:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 12:14:58 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: Just make sure your personal standard of behavior for yourself Tautology! Personal is for yourself. (Just thought you'd like to know that. :-)) or your expectation of others (excluding Arny) are not deviated due to his presence. Deviated? I thought only septums were deviated. True, rectums are deviant. Yours may be. Mine walks the straight and narrow. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:31:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Please, for your own happiness, consider this. Stop externalizing Jenn. I'm really quite a happy person. Arnie, do you ever wonder why everyone says the same thing to you, about you? Is it that we're all mistaken about you in exactly the same way? And if so, what are the odds on that? Please provide a figure for my peace of mind. Then provide a piece of your mind for examination. |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:31:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Please, for your own happiness, consider this. Stop externalizing Jenn. I'm really quite a happy person. Arnie, do you ever wonder why everyone says the same thing to you, about you? That is a false claim. Since everyone does not say the same thing to me, about me Paul; your question is irrelevant. |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
Because *we* (I myself am in that camp) don't have scientific proof on our side anymore than the ABX'rs do on theirs when it comes to the suitability of ABX for open-ended evaluation of audio components. Worse than that Harry, you have considerable scientific proof that runs against you. Sighted evaluations are prone to worlds of difficulties that only dreamers and those with religious beliefs could possibly ignore. We have common sense (how can widely spaced and disparate people come to characterize the "sound" of a piece of gear very similarly, if such "sound" doesn't exists?), False premise - a significant number of widely spaced and disparate people *don't* characterize the sound of a piece of gear very similarly, aside from the fact that the published characterizations of the sound of equipment tends to be limited and repetitive. an intuitive understanding that the confusion and fatique experienced under ABX conditions are signs of something seriously wrong with what we are trying to do, False premise - a statistically significant percentage of music lovers are *not* confused and fatigued by ABX tests. and a growing smattering of scientific evidence that the brains relation to music is so complex and non-understood Red herring - the complexity of music obviously affects any valid listening test paradigm in a similar fashion. that On the other hand, the ABX camp has never run a controlled test to determine how their test might "warp" perception, perhaps for the same reasons. So we are a standstill. Not true. We've done zillions of ABX and other bias-controlled lsitening tests that have shown zero evidence of warped perceptions. The biggest problem that golden ears have with bias-controlled tests is that they are prone to not validate a tiny noisy minority's cherished beliefs. If you have an invalid standard for testing such as sighted evaluations, your conclusions are likely to be invalid. It is as simple as that. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Krooborg encounters "happiness"
Batten down the hatches! Secure all portals! Arm the pea-shooters and ready the spitball battalion! ALL UNITS TO BATTLE STATIONS!! Notably, none of your "enemies" conspired to attack you while you were a busy little 'borg. I don't know if they conspired, but they definately attacked. My God, Arnii! What happened? Were you injured? Did they take any prisoners? How many lies were launched at you? I hope this wasn't a serious attack. What with fighting your "debating trade" battles 24/7, you must be completely worn down. How was church yesterday? Answered once already. No you did not. You are *such* a liar, Arnii. God knows how nasty you are after sitting through one of his expositions on lust or anger. Why would that be a problem, Middius? Well, for starters, because you are perpetually angry and you continually battle your forbidden lusts. Beyond that, your problems are known publicly, so anytime Rev. Matt launches a sermon about them, all eyes dart your way and all the other hypocrites laugh silently at your discomfiture. -- A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: Name-calling is the best you can do? "The pre-requisite lobotomy ensures that." Arny, exactly 1 min. before posting the above. Arny, I promise that this is the last time I'll post in this way, other than when you personally attack me. Since you take just about any comment as being a personal attack Jenn, that gives you considerable lattitude with your attacks. I'm trying to help, really. Then wait until a worthwhile thought crossses your fevered little mind. Based on the above, do you see why people are critical of you here? Like you then can dish it out even when they are not directly involved, but they can't take return in kind or even 50% of kind. The "persecution" that you complain about is brought on by your "what's good for the goose can be ignored by the gander" attitude and actions. What persecution? Check google. Other than quotes of post by others such as yourself Jenn, the last time I mentioned persecution, was in a post where I talked about *your* persecution complex. Please, for your own happiness, consider this. Stop externalizing Jenn. I'm really quite a happy person. Last week was one of the happiest of my life. I got some good computer system orders and spent every morning doing sound for the VBS at church. It was easily the best one we have ever had. I spent Saturday building a shed for Habitat with some very nice people. Sunday morning I mixed and recorded the church service, mostly just supervising a person that I have been training for several months. I spent Sunday afternoon with the San Diego segment of my family who are visiting, including my son with a PhD in cancer research, his lovely and intelligent wife, and their two bright, growing and active sons. We closed out the evening at a municipal fireworks show about a mile from here. I think that you're probably a good person, but you seem to have a blind spot in this area. Not at all. I know exactly what kind of human excretia dominate this place. Best wishes to you. Unlikley, given all the negative posturing that you seem to like to inflict on the world, Jenn. If your own house was in order you'd not be so hypersensitive to what I post. Thanks for your thoughts. No comment, as I'm perfectly willing to let my post above, along with your response to it, stand as is. |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Happy, happy, happy
paul packer said to SlimeBorg: I'm really quite a happy person. Arnie, do you ever wonder why everyone says the same thing to you, about you? Silly question, paul. Arnii doesn't need to wonder about that because he knows the answer. Is it that we're all mistaken about you in exactly the same way? And if so, what are the odds on that? Please provide a figure for my peace of mind. Then provide a piece of your mind for examination. Arnii has "prooved" that every other Usenet poster is a "liar". And as you know, he uses my posts as an excuse to attack Jenn, just as he uses dave weil's posts as an excuse to attack you. I suggest you try factoring in Kroologic whenever you ask Arnii a "why" question. It will help you decode what always seems like paranoid ravings. -- A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic. |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
Arny Krueger wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message Arnie, do you ever wonder why everyone says the same thing to you, about you? That is a false claim. Since everyone does not say the same thing to me, about me Paul; your question is irrelevant. Arny is right in this case. Look at all the people that back him. There's nob, and... nob... and, er ah... But that one exception *proves* that he's correct. From what I've seen in the archives, the ones who are really expert at audio, the ones with real-world chops (as opposed to, say, people like Arny) may agree with him on some small technical point or another, but they all seem pretty disgusted with his deranged behavior. The point? Yes, Paul, it is everybody else that is wrong. Arny is a saint. |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:31:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Please, for your own happiness, consider this. Stop externalizing Jenn. I'm really quite a happy person. Arnie, do you ever wonder why everyone says the same thing to you, about you? Is it that we're all mistaken about you in exactly the same way? And if so, what are the odds on that? Please provide a figure for my peace of mind. Then provide a piece of your mind for examination. We are all tools of Middius. We are One. We are assimilated. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDem |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests? MY STALKER SON ROBERT MOREIN ATTACKS NEW VICTIMS
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... emin9th wrote ... This is some weird ****. I've seen it pop up a dozen times and I still can't figure out what the hell this is all about. What is the purpose of the character assassination or is this a totally fictional character? Replying to this garbage is called "feeding the troll" and every time you reply, it just encourages them to do it again. Ignore it and move on with your life. It is the internet equivalent of littering the highway. Do you stop and complain every time you see a Macdonald's hamburger wrapper along the road? Yes I look to see if there are any burger bites left. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDem |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
Clyde Slick wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:31:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Please, for your own happiness, consider this. Stop externalizing Jenn. I'm really quite a happy person. Arnie, do you ever wonder why everyone says the same thing to you, about you? Is it that we're all mistaken about you in exactly the same way? And if so, what are the odds on that? Please provide a figure for my peace of mind. Then provide a piece of your mind for examination. We are all tools of Middius. We are One. We are assimilated. Resistance is futile. You know, I keep thinking of Nixon's enemies list. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDem |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests? MY STALKER SON ROBERT MOREIN ATTACKS NEW VICTIMS
Richard Crowley wrote:
Do you stop and complain every time you see a Macdonald's hamburger wrapper along the road? I do a double-blind test to make sure it's really there. Often, I find it was just my imagination! |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
Clyde Slick said: We are all tools of Middius. We are One. We are assimilated. I regret to inform you that you have been de-tooled. Get lost. -- A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic. |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Krooborg's danse macabre
Jenn said: You know, I keep thinking of Nixon's enemies list. Arnii secretly wishes he were the Godfather, directing cutthroat soldiers against his "enemies". -- A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"Jenn" wrote in message ups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:31:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Please, for your own happiness, consider this. Stop externalizing Jenn. I'm really quite a happy person. Arnie, do you ever wonder why everyone says the same thing to you, about you? Is it that we're all mistaken about you in exactly the same way? And if so, what are the odds on that? Please provide a figure for my peace of mind. Then provide a piece of your mind for examination. We are all tools of Middius. We are One. We are assimilated. Resistance is futile. You know, I keep thinking of Nixon's enemies list. Definitely, they were all tools of John Kenneth Galbreath -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: We are all tools of Middius. We are One. We are assimilated. I regret to inform you that you have been de-tooled. Get lost. Ouch!! -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Krooborg's danse macabre
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Jenn said: You know, I keep thinking of Nixon's enemies list. Arnii secretly wishes he were the Godfather, directing cutthroat soldiers against his "enemies". Maybe its time he made Dave Weil another offer he can't refuse. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:57:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:31:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Please, for your own happiness, consider this. Stop externalizing Jenn. I'm really quite a happy person. Arnie, do you ever wonder why everyone says the same thing to you, about you? That is a false claim. Since everyone does not say the same thing to me, about me Paul; your question is irrelevant. My question is not as irrelevant as your sentence is poorly punctuated. In any case on this NG they do indeed say the same things, except a couple who appear to be your supporters who discreetly say nothing about your Usenet behaviour. And please punctuate your reply correctly. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:46:21 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:31:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Please, for your own happiness, consider this. Stop externalizing Jenn. I'm really quite a happy person. Arnie, do you ever wonder why everyone says the same thing to you, about you? Is it that we're all mistaken about you in exactly the same way? And if so, what are the odds on that? Please provide a figure for my peace of mind. Then provide a piece of your mind for examination. We are all tools of Middius. I've been a tool all my life. :-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Just for Ludovic | Audio Opinions | |||
Any blind listening tests on Class A vs Class B amps? | Tech | |||
Richman's ethical lapses | Audio Opinions | |||
science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio |