Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
your dissembling since then has lowered you considerably
in many people's eyes.


One small point, Mr. Krueger, but an important one: I
haven't done any dissembling. What I have done is
contradict you when you are wrong, put forward different,
valid explanations for observed phenomena and events, and
argue with you when I feel you are getting something
wrong.


I didn't just say that you were dissembling, what I said is
that dissembling is what those other folks called what they
found you doing in your recent Stereophile ragazine article.


In which case, you _and_ they are mistaken, Mr. Krueger. If you
were to read the article at www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi
you would see that I accurately presented your thoughts, quoting
from the recordings at http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate.
I hardly see that my presenting _my_ considered opinions is
"dissembling." Perhaps you use the word without really being sure
of what it means, Mr. Krueger.

And in any case, I was responding to your general accusation.

FWIW I haven't read it.


Sigh. Once again, you're not having read something does not
apparently prevent you from having an opinion on it, does it Mr.
Krueger. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

  #82   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
your dissembling since then has lowered you
considerably in many people's eyes.

One small point, Mr. Krueger, but an important one: I
haven't done any dissembling. What I have done is
contradict you when you are wrong, put forward
different, valid explanations for observed phenomena
and events, and argue with you when I feel you are
getting something wrong.


I didn't just say that you were dissembling, what I said
is that dissembling is what those other folks called
what they found you doing in your recent Stereophile
ragazine article.


In which case, you _and_ they are mistaken, Mr. Krueger.
If you were to read the article at
www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi you would see that
I accurately presented your thoughts, quoting from the
recordings at
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate.


Who is surprised? John didn't present my full thoughts or
even a representative selection, just the few he wanted to
take pot shots at.

I believe that far more words were devoted to discussing
that same tired old 1978 DBT that apparently changed John's
life from a life of science a life of promoting snake oil.



  #83   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



KrazyBorg hallucinated:

His persona is. I suspect that the real person behind it is
a little AC/DC. Married or was.


Gosh, Arnii, you sure are smart. The depth and breadth of your perceptiveness is
breathtaking. You astonish me with your oracular vision. I am awed.

  #84   Report Post  
Mark S
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Holy smokes, 70+ posts about and resolving absolutely nothing...why don't
ya'll get together in a small room armed with switch blades? Something
useful might come out of that.
Have a great day!
M
wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike McKelvy said to John Atkinson:

You have yet to adequately address why your magazine has zero oversight
on
things like Shakti Stones and Mpingo disks, that make people laugh at you
when you try to claim any sort of crediblity. They are fraud, and anyone
with a shred of integrity would be offended to let the glowing reviews
that
the dolts at SP penned ever see light of day.

(Begin Dance here)


The "Atkinson Two-step"!



  #85   Report Post  
sam
 
Posts: n/a
Default

" wrote...

John's a nice guy and runs a business that caters to people
that you and Malesweski don't understand.


The stupid and uninformed about the truth of audio electronics?
Worse the SP people lead them down the path to even ggreater stupidity by
mininforming and misleading them.


Or the possibility that you don't know everything and don't understand
what the hobby means to them.


IOW there's no hope that the idiots who read and write SP are ever going
to wise up.


They know what they believe. They know what they want. They
know their hobby is expensive. Most of them are wiser and more
successful than you and Arny together.




  #86   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"sam" wrote in message


They know what they believe.


So do the creationists.

They know what they want.


So do drug addicts.

They know their hobby is expensive.


There's a lot to be said for spending one's time and money
wisely.

Most of them are wiser and more successful than you and
Arny together.


Being an untracable anonymous poster "sam", you can pretend
to be as successful in the virtual world of Usenet as you
want to pretend you are.


  #87   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
your dissembling since then has lowered you
considerably in many people's eyes.

One small point, Mr. Krueger, but an important one: I
haven't done any dissembling. What I have done is
contradict you when you are wrong, put forward
different, valid explanations for observed phenomena
and events, and argue with you when I feel you are
getting something wrong.

I didn't just say that you were dissembling, what I said
is that dissembling is what those other folks called
what they found you doing in your recent Stereophile
ragazine article.



In which case, you _and_ they are mistaken, Mr. Krueger.
If you were to read the article at
www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi you would see that
I accurately presented your thoughts, quoting from the
recordings at
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate.


Who is surprised? John didn't present my full thoughts or
even a representative selection, just the few he wanted to
take pot shots at.


More specifically, the "Assweseeit" article only presented 3
points from my opening comments and then characteristically
unfairly criticized those points as followed: "However, as
you can also hear, these assertions were not supported or
fleshed out.".

In fact, those three points were the conclusion of my
introductory comments, which laid the basis for those 3
points. The debate then transitioned to a
question-and-answer period. My comments during the rest of
the debate were dictated by the pleasure of the audience.
Since they did not ask me to flesh them out, I had no
opportunity to do so.

In short many people tell me that they see that Atkinson has
again misused his control over Stereophile magazine to
criticize me for sticking to the discussion format that he
dictated to me. They characterize this, and the long
defenses of the Stereophile writers personal philosophies as
dissembling. It's obviously a smoke screen.

I believe that far more words were devoted to discussing
that same tired old 1978 DBT that apparently changed
John's life from a life of science a life of promoting
snake oil.


If you read both the Atkinson and Serinus articles, they
follow a common format. They start out with a few factual
comments about the HE2005 debate followed by far longer
discussions of the respective Stereophile writer's
philosophies. They both send the same message - Stereophile
cannot afford to give equal time to its critics, even within
the span of a tiny article.


  #88   Report Post  
sam
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Being an untracable anonymous poster "sam", you can pretend to be as
successful in the virtual world of Usenet as you want to pretend you are.



Thanks for admitting Mr. Krueger, that your intelligence
level is below that of the total failure, dickless Malesweski.


  #89   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

If you read both the Atkinson and Serinus articles, they follow a common
format. They start out with a few factual comments about the HE2005 debate
followed by far longer discussions of the respective Stereophile writer's
philosophies. They both send the same message - Stereophile cannot afford
to give equal time to its critics, even within the span of a tiny article.


Stop whining. Start your own audio magazine.



----== 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 =----
  #91   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Clyde Slick said to the Big ****:

Stop whining. Start your own audio magazine.


Don't be silly. That's not the Hivie way.


  #92   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jon Yaeger said:

Thanks for admitting Mr. Krueger, that your intelligence
level is below that of the total failure, dickless Malesweski.


"PLONK!"


If you don't like the badinage, you have little reason to read RAO.




  #93   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"sam" wrote in message
...
" wrote...

John's a nice guy and runs a business that caters to people
that you and Malesweski don't understand.


The stupid and uninformed about the truth of audio electronics?
Worse the SP people lead them down the path to even ggreater stupidity by
mininforming and misleading them.


Or the possibility that you don't know everything and don't understand
what the hobby means to them.

I assume it means the same to them as it does to me, the absolute joy of
hearing a great recording by a talented artist. Where one can feel like
they're actually inside the music.

That doesn't mean that people should be subjected to glowing reviews of
snake oil crap.
In the real world things work or they don't. That there are far too many
people who don't understand that most so-called tweaks or upgrades don't
actually do anything because what they claim to do is impossible is truly
sad. That many of these people refuse to allow themselves to be wised up is
even sadder.

IOW there's no hope that the idiots who read and write SP are ever going
to wise up.


They know what they believe.


Belief is not cognition. No matter how much you believe a lie, it's still a
lie. All the belief in the world won't change the fact that there are
scientific principles that govern audio electronics. SP of course does its
best to fill the heads of the gullible with psuedo scientific bull****.

They know what they want. They
know their hobby is expensive.


For some things, mostly top quality speakers, for most of the rest of it it
doesn't need to be nearly as expensive as some would have us believe.
There's no real reason to spend more than a couple hundred bucks on a CD
player, or more than a thousand on an amp, yet we constanly see claims of
superior sound quality for stuff that costs thousands of dollars. If one
wants to spend more than one needs for some kind of snob appeal, so be it,
but that doesn't mean they should not be made aware that the same sound can
be had for much less.

Most of them are wiser and more
successful than you and Arny together.

See, there's the snob thing again.

I don't really care about how successful or not someone is when they talk
about audio, I know enough to acheive the quality of sound I desire and I
know it doesn't have anything to do with snake oil crap like magic bricks,
green pens, Mpingo disks, or Tice clocks.

Simple adherence to sound engineering principles and good setup of the
speaker/room interface will lead to improvement in sound quality. Choosing
things based on price reviewed by people who refuse to control for bias,
will most likely not, or at best, lead to spending enormous amounts of money
on things that make no difference.


  #94   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"sam" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote

Being an untracable anonymous poster "sam", you can pretend to be as
successful in the virtual world of Usenet as you want to pretend you are.



Thanks for admitting Mr. Krueger, that your intelligence
level is below that of the total failure, dickless Malesweski.

Thanks for admitting you can't discuss ideas that challenge your belief
system in a civil way.


  #95   Report Post  
sam
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jon Yaeger" wrote

"PLONK!"



is this supposed to make me feel bad??
why doesn't he just do it? why does he feel
the need to notify us? is he an idiot?




  #96   Report Post  
sam
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mikey writes:

Thanks for admitting you can't discuss ideas that challenge your belief
system in a civil way.



WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to be ironic?
Have I not just been having a civil discussion with you?


  #97   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"sam" wrote in message
...
"Jon Yaeger" wrote

"PLONK!"



is this supposed to make me feel bad??
why doesn't he just do it? why does he feel
the need to notify us? is he an idiot?



my guess is that he will feel the need to
notify us least a hundred times that he is not
reading our posts.



----== 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 =----
  #98   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
If you were to read the article at
www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi you would see that
I accurately presented your thoughts, quoting from the
recordings at http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate.


Who is surprised? John didn't present my full thoughts or
even a representative selection, just the few he wanted to
take pot shots at.


I didn't feel I was obliged to make your case for you, Mr.
Krueger. Nevertheless, I presented the case you made against
Stereophile in its entirety.

More specifically, the "Assweseeit" article only presented 3
points from my opening comments and then characteristically
unfairly criticized those points as followed: "However, as
you can also hear, these assertions were not supported or
fleshed out.".


The recording makes it clear that I was correct in this
characterization, Mr. Krueger.

In fact, those three points were the conclusion of my
introductory comments, which laid the basis for those 3
points.


Except that you didn't return to those 3 points in any
meaningful manner, Mr. Krueger.

The debate then transitioned to a question-and-answer period.
My comments during the rest of the debate were dictated by the
pleasure of the audience. Since they did not ask me to flesh
them out, I had no opportunity to do so.


I guaranteed you, Mr. Krueger, that you could say anything you
wished to, Mr. Krueger. The audience certainly didn't prevent
you from doing so, again as can be heard on the recording. If
you now regret not taking full advantage of the occasion, that
is hardly somethiung for which I, or the audience, can be blamed.

If you read both the Atkinson and Serinus articles, they
follow a common format. They start out with a few factual
comments about the HE2005 debate followed by far longer
discussions of the respective Stereophile writer's
philosophies.


Again, Mr. Krueger, Stereophile can hardly be expected to
make your case for you. That was up to you at the debate. If
you had done so and again, it is incorrect for you to complain
that the aduience prevented you from doing so -- then that would
have been reported on.

They both send the same message - Stereophile cannot afford to
give equal time to its critics, even within the span of a tiny
article.


I had thought that was exactly what I had done, by paying for you
to debate me at the Show, Mr. Krueger.

And in case, I fail to understand your complaint. You have
repeatedly on the newsgroups declared yourself the "winner" of
the HE2005 debate. In which case, why are you now behaving as
a "sore winner"? :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

  #99   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote If you were to read the article at
www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi you would see that
I accurately presented your thoughts, quoting from the
recordings at
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate.


Who is surprised? John didn't present my full thoughts or
even a representative selection, just the few he wanted
to take pot shots at.


I didn't feel I was obliged to make your case for you, Mr.
Krueger. Nevertheless, I presented the case you made
against Stereophile in its entirety.


Since my entire opening comments were the entirety of the
case I made against Stereophile. and you obviously didn't
present my entire opening comments, that can't be true.

More specifically, the "Assweseeit" article only
presented 3 points from my opening comments and then
characteristically unfairly criticized those points as
followed: "However, as you can also hear, these
assertions were not supported or fleshed out.".


The recording makes it clear that I was correct in this
characterization, Mr. Krueger.


Actually, the recording makes it clear that my entire
opening comments weren't represented in your article, John.

In fact, those three points were the conclusion of my
introductory comments, which laid the basis for those 3
points.


Except that you didn't return to those 3 points in any
meaningful manner, Mr. Krueger.


The debate then transitioned to a question-and-answer
period. My comments during the rest of the debate were
dictated by the pleasure of the audience. Since they did
not ask me to flesh them out, I had no opportunity to do
so.


I guaranteed you, Mr. Krueger, that you could say
anything you wished to, Mr. Krueger.


Of course John you failed to do that when you aborted the
discussion on the hour, and gave so much time for a
gratuitous
declaration to your faithful supporter, Harry Lavo.

The audience certainly didn't prevent you from doing so,
again as can
be heard on the recording.


The audience said where they wanted to go. If my comments
were incomplete to anybody's way of thinking, they could
have brought it up at the time.

If you now regret not taking
full advantage of the occasion, that is hardly somethiung
for which I, or the audience, can be blamed.


In essence John, you're trying to escape taking
responsibility for your self-assigned role as moderator.

If you read both the Atkinson and Serinus articles, they
follow a common format. They start out with a few factual
comments about the HE2005 debate followed by far longer
discussions of the respective Stereophile writer's
philosophies.


Again, Mr. Krueger, Stereophile can hardly be expected to
make your case for you. That was up to you at the debate.


I was constrained by the debate's moderator, who you now
seem to be claiming acted irresponsibly, Mr. Atkinson.

If you had done so and again, it is incorrect for you to
complain that the aduience prevented you from doing so --
then that would have been reported on.


No, I blame it all on the debate's moderator, who was
clearly biased against me for and for you, Mr. Atkinson.

They both send the same message - Stereophile cannot
afford to give equal time to its critics, even within
the span of a tiny article.


I had thought that was exactly what I had done, by paying
for you to debate me at the Show, Mr. Krueger.


It's quite clear that the debate's moderator squandered my
time Mr. Atkinson, according to your claim that the debate
was mismanaged in such a away that I was not given time to
further explain my 3 points.

And in case, I fail to understand your complaint. You have
repeatedly on the newsgroups declared yourself the
"winner" of the HE2005 debate. In which case, why are you
now behaving as a "sore winner"? :-)


I think I did pretty well given that the debate's organizer
failed to provide the vital resources I needed to present my
opening comments, and was obviously biased against me, and
in favor of the other party in the debate.






  #100   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"sam" wrote in message
...
Mikey writes:

Thanks for admitting you can't discuss ideas that challenge your belief
system in a civil way.



WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to be ironic?
Have I not just been having a civil discussion with you?


With me, yes. but why not everybody?





  #101   Report Post  
sam
 
Posts: n/a
Default

" wrote...

"sam"

WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to be ironic?
Have I not just been having a civil discussion with you?


With me, yes. but why not everybody?


Malesweski's a scum. At least I don't recall you playing nice
with dickless, despite his best efforts to enroll you.

Arny's an immature, lying, nasty nerd. I don't know why you
can't see that. It's because you share similar beliefs wrt audio.

What if the people that develop and sell audio products
aren't trying to scam audiophiles? What if the people that
evaluate and report on these products aren't trying to scam
audiophiles? What if these products actually work? What
if people actually enjoy music more as a result of them?
What if the world isn't flat? You said yourself it's possible.


  #102   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"sam" wrote in message


Arny's an immature, lying, nasty nerd.


What if the world isn't flat?


LOL!


  #103   Report Post  
Robert Gault
 
Posts: n/a
Default

sam wrote:

" wrote...

"sam"

WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to be ironic?
Have I not just been having a civil discussion with you?


With me, yes. but why not everybody?



Malesweski's a scum. At least I don't recall you playing nice
with dickless, despite his best efforts to enroll you.

Arny's an immature, lying, nasty nerd. I don't know why you
can't see that. It's because you share similar beliefs wrt audio.

What if the people that develop and sell audio products
aren't trying to scam audiophiles?


Granted for the sake of argument.

What if the people that
evaluate and report on these products aren't trying to scam
audiophiles?


Granted for the sake of argument.

What if these products actually work?


How do we know they work? What type of tests should be used? What makes
a test statistically significant rather than anecdotal?

What if people actually enjoy music more as a result of them?


They will if they believe the products work. However, if it is belief
and not fact, should people pay for non functional items? Heard of the
placebo effect?

What if the world isn't flat? You said yourself it's possible.


Just because someone says the world is flat or has developed a perpetual
motion machine does not make it so. Some things just are not possible.
  #104   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Robert Gault" wrote in
message

sam wrote:

" wrote...

"sam"

WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to be
ironic? Have I not just been having a civil discussion
with you?

With me, yes. but why not everybody?



Malesweski's a scum. At least I don't recall you playing
nice with dickless, despite his best efforts to enroll
you. Arny's an immature, lying, nasty nerd. I don't know
why
you can't see that. It's because you share similar
beliefs wrt audio. What if the people that develop and
sell audio products
aren't trying to scam audiophiles?


Granted for the sake of argument.

What if the people that
evaluate and report on these products aren't trying to
scam audiophiles?


Granted for the sake of argument.

What if these products actually work?


How do we know they work? What type of tests should be
used? What makes a test statistically significant rather
than anecdotal?


IOW, why should anecdotes be thought to be more important
than proper listening tests?

What if people actually enjoy music more as a result of
them?


They will if they believe the products work. However, if
it is belief and not fact, should people pay for non
functional items? Heard of the placebo effect?


The problems with beliefs that are not supported by reliable
facts is that not everybody is convinced by anecdotes in the
presence of contradictory facts, and that some people who
initially believe and invest in their beliefs will change
their mind later and decide that they were scammed.

What if the world isn't flat? You said yourself it's
possible.


Just because someone says the world is flat or has
developed a perpetual motion machine does not make it so.
Some things just are not possible.


Resolved - belief that the world is flat is a prerequisite
for belief in the anti-scientific claims of the mystical
high end ragazines.


  #105   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


sam wrote:
...'s a scum, ... dickless
...'s an immature, lying, nasty nerd.


Are we to assume that major tenet of your position is that
you think someone is a scum, someone else an immature, lying,
nasty nerd? Should we assume that, then, that you're not willing
to argue the point on its merits?

What if the people that develop and sell audio products
aren't trying to scam audiophiles?


Some do. SOme don't. Some don't know the difference.

How do you propose we tell the difference?

What if the people that evaluate and report on these
products aren't trying to scam audiophiles?


Some do, some don't. Some don't know the difference.

How do you porpose we tell the difference?

What if these products actually work?


Some do, some don't.

How do you propose we tell the difference?

If someone derives listening pleasure from edging their
CD's with a green pen, there's no denying their right to
do so and there's no denying their right to believe
whatever they want.

But there's also no denying an opposing viewpoint, either.

The green pen is an especially appropriate example, because,
in fact, it was developed as an April Fool's joke.

That you may or may not think that the joke works for you,
that you may or may not like the fact that a joke WAS pulled
on you, that's completely aside from the fact that it is
an instance of one audiophile product that WAS reviewed
positively that, while it may or may not be a scam, it IS
a joke.



  #106   Report Post  
Jon Yaeger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

in article ,
at wrote on 8/22/05 11:37 AM:


sam wrote:
...'s a scum, ... dickless
...'s an immature, lying, nasty nerd.


Are we to assume that major tenet of your position is that
you think someone is a scum, someone else an immature, lying,
nasty nerd? Should we assume that, then, that you're not willing
to argue the point on its merits?

What if the people that develop and sell audio products
aren't trying to scam audiophiles?


Some do. SOme don't. Some don't know the difference.

How do you propose we tell the difference?

What if the people that evaluate and report on these
products aren't trying to scam audiophiles?


Some do, some don't. Some don't know the difference.

How do you porpose we tell the difference?

What if these products actually work?


Some do, some don't.

How do you propose we tell the difference?

If someone derives listening pleasure from edging their
CD's with a green pen, there's no denying their right to
do so and there's no denying their right to believe
whatever they want.

But there's also no denying an opposing viewpoint, either.

The green pen is an especially appropriate example, because,
in fact, it was developed as an April Fool's joke.

That you may or may not think that the joke works for you,
that you may or may not like the fact that a joke WAS pulled
on you, that's completely aside from the fact that it is
an instance of one audiophile product that WAS reviewed
positively that, while it may or may not be a scam, it IS
a joke.



The problem is, too many audiophool products fall into the joke category.
The green pen, IMHO, is not much different from the $400 volume control
knobs, bits of aluminum foil in the corners of a room, etc. The green pen
joke would be funny if it were distinguishable from other BS reviews in
consumer-oriented publications. But it's not.

Bull**** products and BS reviews have ruined the stereo / audio field. The
consumers have been misled for a long time.

BTW, since this topic has nothing to do with rec.audio.tubes, could you
warriors omit R.A.T. From your replies?

'Preciate it.

Jon










  #107   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"sam" wrote in message
...
" wrote...

"sam"

WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to be ironic?
Have I not just been having a civil discussion with you?


With me, yes. but why not everybody?


Malesweski's a scum. At least I don't recall you playing nice
with dickless, despite his best efforts to enroll you.

I haven't seen his name in any post other than from those alleging that it
washe who posted.

Arny's an immature, lying, nasty nerd. I don't know why you
can't see that. It's because you share similar beliefs wrt audio.

Becuase it isn't true. I've never seen him be rude to someone who hasn't
been rude first.

What if the people that develop and sell audio products
aren't trying to scam audiophiles?


What if pigs could fly? The simple fact is, that there are people who scam
them. There are some who simply make the best possible product at the best
possible price.

What if the people that
evaluate and report on these products aren't trying to scam
audiophiles?


Aside from the Audio Critic, who would that be?

What if these products actually work?

Where's the proof?

What
if people actually enjoy music more as a result of them?


If people want to spend money on snake oil and believe they make a
difference, then there's not much that can stop them. They should be able
to get the most accurate information though. If a product doesn't have any
way of making any audible improvement, I think the manufacturers should be
tried for fraud.

What if the world isn't flat? You said yourself it's possible.

The world isn't flat, but the list of fradulent audio do-dads is long. If
someone says product X does something and it really doesn't, why should
anyone be upset at receiving that information?

If someone wants to claim that there are things that we don't know of that
affect our enjoyment of audio, then it is incumbent on them to demonstrate
whatever it is they think it might be. There is no reason to take
seriously, the claims that have no reliable evidence to back them up.


  #109   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
wrote:
"sam" wrote in message
...
Arny's an immature, lying, nasty nerd. I don't know why
you can't see that. It's because you share similar
beliefs wrt audio.


Because it isn't true. I've never seen him be rude to
someone who hasn't been rude first.


Sigh. You really seem to like making faith-based claims,
Mr. McKelvy. I should remind you that in both this thread
and in the "Don Pearce" thread (to both of which you have
been posting at length), I have never failed to treat
Arny Krueger with respect and politeness.


IOW, while Atkinson has treated me with utter disrespect and
crudeness on many occasions over many years, everybody let's
forget all that, and consider only the past two weeks or so.

Futhermore, while Atkinson may pride himself in his belief
that he avoided overt disrespect, consider the numerous
deceptions that I've caught him in, even just recently.

I guess that in Atkinson's book, his many recent deceptions
and distortions of the truth, not to mention his apparent
intentional ignorance of accepted scientific fact, is in no
way impolite.

The closest metaphor for Atkinson's recent behavior that I
can come up with on the spot, is that he's a polite
pickpocket, in the intellectual sense of course.

Yet in return,
Mr. Krueger has indeed been "rude," indulging himself in
childish abuse.


I guess that in Mr. Atkinsons dreams, his numerous
intelligence-insulting antics would be treated with the
utmost politeness.

I fail to understand why you either fail to notice this
behavior on his part or excuse it or deny it.


I fail to understand why Atkinson fails to notice the
disingenousness of this post.


  #110   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



The Big **** fails to flush. What else is new? ;-)

Sigh. You really seem to like making faith-based claims,
Mr. McKelvy. I should remind you that in both this thread
and in the "Don Pearce" thread (to both of which you have
been posting at length), I have never failed to treat
Arny Krueger with respect and politeness.


IOW, while Atkinson has treated me with utter disrespect and
crudeness on many occasions over many years, everybody let's
forget all that, and consider only the past two weeks or so.


Arnii, really now. Aren't you proud of being a liar and a hypocrite? You
used to boast about it. You're also proud of being a sex pervert. And in
your favor, not every single RAO regular loathes you. Some of them
actually look up to you. I'm sure that's a burden you didn't ask for, but
why blame JA for your own bad behavior?

Futhermore, while Atkinson may pride himself in his belief
that he avoided overt disrespect, consider the numerous
deceptions that I've caught him in, even just recently.


If a psychologist were studying you, he'd have a hard time cataloguing
your overlapping and redundant delusions. In fact, he'd probably kick your
teeth in and have you committed. Oh joy!

The closest metaphor for Atkinson's recent behavior that I
can come up with on the spot, is that he's a polite
pickpocket, in the intellectual sense of course.


You're the only individual I've ever run across whose turpitude is so
profound that even Mickey McMickey apologizes for you. What's lower than
the lowest of the low, Arnii? We'd really like to know what your goals
are.

Yet in return,
Mr. Krueger has indeed been "rude," indulging himself in
childish abuse.


I guess that in Mr. Atkinsons dreams, his numerous
intelligence-insulting antics would be treated with the
utmost politeness.


Who said you're not intelligent? That's a lie. You're psychotic.
Completely different animal.






  #112   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article t,
" wrote:


You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers, right?


Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are hearing impaired?
  #113   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jenn" wrote in message


In article


t,
" wrote:


You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers,
right?


Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are
hearing impaired?


(1) Strictly speaking-all of the SP writers are
hearing-impaired due to their reliance on sighted listening.
Anybody I've ever talked to who has been succesful hearing
small differences in blind tests will say that sighted
listening is an inherently impaired form of listening.
Seeing is a big distraction and ultimately impairs
sensitivity. It's all about those type one errors and trying
to minimize them.

(2) A lot of the SP writers aren't spring chickens anymore.
For example, it appears that John Atkinson and I aren't that
many years apart. Again, because of the non-BS nature of
blind listening for small differences, I know for sure that
my hearing for some kinds of small differences isn't what it
used to be. It's the age thing - the age-related loss of
hearing acuity is reflected in most recent versions of the
Fletcher-Munson curves, for example.

The age-related hearing impairment isn't universal, it
affects small differences, and more particularly small
differences at high frequencies. Several people I know who
do a lot of work with sound quality, myself included have
close working relationships with younger workers, partially
to make sure that small important stuff isn't falling
through the cracks. It has always helped me to work as part
of a listening team.

OTOH, I do a lot of sound reinforcment and recording, and
the age thing makes very little difference there, at least
at this point in my life. The nature of the differences you
listen for in production are relatively large and the sound
levels are generally high enough, so that everything
important can be heard quite clearly. Ditto for things like
the overall sound quality evaluation of say, speaker
systems.



  #114   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


In article


t,
" wrote:


You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers,
right?


Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are
hearing impaired?


(1) Strictly speaking-all of the SP writers are
hearing-impaired due to their reliance on sighted listening.


That would make them "listening impaired" rather than "hearing impaired".

Anybody I've ever talked to who has been succesful hearing
small differences in blind tests will say that sighted
listening is an inherently impaired form of listening.
Seeing is a big distraction and ultimately impairs
sensitivity. It's all about those type one errors and trying
to minimize them.

(2) A lot of the SP writers aren't spring chickens anymore.
For example, it appears that John Atkinson and I aren't that
many years apart. Again, because of the non-BS nature of
blind listening for small differences, I know for sure that
my hearing for some kinds of small differences isn't what it
used to be. It's the age thing - the age-related loss of
hearing acuity is reflected in most recent versions of the
Fletcher-Munson curves, for example.

The age-related hearing impairment isn't universal, it
affects small differences, and more particularly small
differences at high frequencies. Several people I know who
do a lot of work with sound quality, myself included have
close working relationships with younger workers, partially
to make sure that small important stuff isn't falling
through the cracks. It has always helped me to work as part
of a listening team.


Indeed, age, especially among males, takes its toll on hearing ability
for most. I think that it would be a good idea for the staffs of audio
review mags to submit themselves to an audiometer exam yearly.

OTOH, I do a lot of sound reinforcment and recording, and
the age thing makes very little difference there, at least
at this point in my life. The nature of the differences you
listen for in production are relatively large and the sound
levels are generally high enough, so that everything
important can be heard quite clearly. Ditto for things like
the overall sound quality evaluation of say, speaker
systems.


I disagree. Hearing loss is not usually uniform in the frequency
domain. Therefore, a person with hearing loss would have a skewed
impression of music, live or recorded.
  #115   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article t,
" wrote:


You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers, right?


Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are hearing impaired?


From the reviews, I'd say all of them.




  #116   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article t,
" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article t,
" wrote:


You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers, right?


Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are hearing impaired?


From the reviews, I'd say all of them.


So you're engaging in hyperbole rather than facts (not that this is
unusual in usenet!)
  #117   Report Post  
dizzy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:52:55 GMT, "
wrote:

Simple adherence to sound engineering principles and good setup of the
speaker/room interface will lead to improvement in sound quality. Choosing
things based on price reviewed by people who refuse to control for bias,
will most likely not, or at best, lead to spending enormous amounts of money
on things that make no difference.


Yeah, SP is a laugh. In the latest issue, a $7,000 CD/SACD/DVD
player? A $5,000 preamp? I mean, WTF does a preamp do that's so
difficult/expensive to do properly?

  #118   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article t,
" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article t,
" wrote:


You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers, right?

Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are hearing impaired?


From the reviews, I'd say all of them.


So you're engaging in hyperbole rather than facts (not that this is
unusual in usenet!)


I was engaging in satire. Still, a reasonable person could easily assume
there's a problem with the hearing of their reviewers based on many of the
reviews. The WAVAC amp comes to mind. An amp that produces 1% THD at 1
watt and increases from there, is lauded as great sounding, People hearing
improvements from wooden disks placed on the walls. Green ink causing CD's
to sound better, all these things have appeared in the pages of SP. I see
no reason to take their reviewers seriously when they make such
pronouncements.


  #119   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


In article


t,
" wrote:


You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers,
right?


Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are
hearing impaired?


(1) Strictly speaking-all of the SP writers are
hearing-impaired due to their reliance on sighted
listening.


That would make them "listening impaired" rather than
"hearing impaired".


Yes, that would be a better choice of words.

Anybody I've ever talked to who has been succesful
hearing small differences in blind tests will say that
sighted listening is an inherently impaired form of
listening. Seeing is a big distraction and ultimately
impairs sensitivity. It's all about those type one
errors and trying to minimize them.

(2) A lot of the SP writers aren't spring chickens
anymore. For example, it appears that John Atkinson and
I aren't that many years apart. Again, because of the
non-BS nature of blind listening for small differences,
I know for sure that my hearing for some kinds of small
differences isn't what it used to be. It's the age thing
- the age-related loss of hearing acuity is reflected
in most recent versions of the Fletcher-Munson curves,
for example.

The age-related hearing impairment isn't universal, it
affects small differences, and more particularly small
differences at high frequencies. Several people I know
who do a lot of work with sound quality, myself included
have close working relationships with younger workers,
partially to make sure that small important stuff isn't
falling through the cracks. It has always helped me to
work as part of a listening team.


Indeed, age, especially among males, takes its toll on
hearing ability for most. I think that it would be a
good idea for the staffs of audio review mags to submit
themselves to an audiometer exam yearly.


The problem there is that standard hearing tests are very
much focussed on speech intelligibility, and generally only
run up to 8 KHz.

OTOH, I do a lot of sound reinforcment and recording, and
the age thing makes very little difference there, at
least at this point in my life. The nature of the
differences you listen for in production are relatively
large and the sound levels are generally high enough, so
that everything important can be heard quite clearly.
Ditto for things like the overall sound quality
evaluation of say, speaker systems.


I disagree. Hearing loss is not usually uniform in the
frequency domain. Therefore, a person with hearing loss
would have a skewed impression of music, live or recorded.


The brain can and frequently does compensate for the ear,
and often takes the skewing out.

A person with hearing loss hears *everything* with the same
ears. If they hear other natural sounds as if they are
natural to them, then they hear what most find to be
natural-sounding music whether live or recorded, as if it is
natural-sounding fpr them.

IOW turning up the treble sounds like turned-up treble to
most people hearing loss or or not, if they hear the treble
at all.

Hearing loss has to be very profound for sonic experiences
like the gloss of a bowed violin string or a delicately
brushed cymbal to change perceptably.

What high frequency hearing loss does do, is reduce or
eliminate the ability to hear small differences at the high
frequency extremes.

A good example might be working with a third octave or
similarly adjusted parametric. For people with normal
hearing, relatively large changes in the right-most slider
are not that obvious, compared similar changes to the
sliders in the middle.

As high frequency hearing acuity goes down, the changes that
are just barely reliably heard tend to get larger. But,
large changes are still heard as being *wrong*.

Another example is waking up with stuffed-up ears. Initially
things sound kind of muffled, but as the day progresses
perception can compensate. Things will sound sound pretty
natural except for some subtle things that are less
noticable. The next day the stuffiness is gone and
everything sounds bright for a while. Then perception
adjusts and its back to normal.


  #120   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"dizzy" wrote in message

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:52:55 GMT, "
wrote:

Simple adherence to sound engineering principles and
good setup of the speaker/room interface will lead to
improvement in sound quality. Choosing things based on
price reviewed by people who refuse to control for bias,
will most likely not, or at best, lead to spending
enormous amounts of money on things that make no
difference.


Yeah, SP is a laugh. In the latest issue, a $7,000
CD/SACD/DVD player? A $5,000 preamp? I mean, WTF does a
preamp do that's so difficult/expensive to do properly?


Extract money from otherwise canny people.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stereophile: not a shred of integrity [email protected] General 298 September 1st 05 10:19 AM
Stereophile...source of all this bitterness?...Not! lcw999 Audio Opinions 6 June 27th 05 03:17 PM
Stereophile Tries To Come Clean About The DiAural Fiasco Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 9 November 23rd 04 06:21 PM
Integrity (was Steely Dan The Absolute Sound) Bob Marcus High End Audio 12 July 14th 04 11:36 PM
Note to the Idiot George M. Middius Audio Opinions 222 January 8th 04 08:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"