Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
" 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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick said to the Big ****: Stop whining. Start your own audio magazine. Don't be silly. That's not the Hivie way. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
" 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
|
|||
|
|||
"sam" wrote in message
Arny's an immature, lying, nasty nerd. What if the world isn't flat? LOL! |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Yet in return, Mr. Krueger has indeed been "rude," indulging himself in childish abuse. I fail to understand why you either fail to notice this behavior on his part or excuse it or deny it. You still deny the validity of ABX and audio DBT's, right? You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers, right? |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stereophile: not a shred of integrity | General | |||
Stereophile...source of all this bitterness?...Not! | Audio Opinions | |||
Stereophile Tries To Come Clean About The DiAural Fiasco | Audio Opinions | |||
Integrity (was Steely Dan The Absolute Sound) | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions |