Little **** whined:

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?

Is it true you have no dick?

wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
I've never seen him [Arny Krueger] 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?

Very droll, Mr. McKelvy. But why are you ducking my question. I
repeat: I have tried always to treat Arny Krueger with respect
and politeness. Yet he has not behaved in that manner, in threads
to which you have contributed at length. So why are you blind to
that behavior of his, contrary to the evidence? Just as when you
declared, without equivocation and contrary to the evidence,
that Arny Krueger has "never told a flat-out lie." Why do you
feel obliged to utter such blanket defenses of Mr. Krueger
when, by your own admission in earlier threads, you don't
actually _know_ what the facts of the matters are?

None of this matters a damn, if it weren't for the fact that you
continually accuse those you dislike of ignoring the evidence
in favor of their beliefs. Yet here you are, Mr. McKelvy, doing
exactly that!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
wrote:
I've never seen him [Arny Krueger] 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.

Okay, let's extend the window back to when I first started
posting on Usenet, Mr. Krueger. Almost without excpetion, I have
responded to you with politeness and respect, addressing what you
have said or claimed, rather than you the person. Just as I am
doing in this thread. Just as I did in person at the HE2005
debate.

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.

There have been none.

I guess that in Atkinson's book, his many recent deceptions...

There have been none.

and distortions of the truth...

There have been none.

not to mention his apparent intentional ignorance of accepted
scientific fact, is in no way impolite.

Even if that were true, it is hardly impolite for someone to
disagree with you, Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson lies again:

I have tried always to treat Arny Krueger with respect
and politeness.


By opining that Arny Krueger was "insane", you lying sack of crap?

Little **** does the Kroopocrisy Dance. In spades. LOt"S! ;-)

I have tried always to treat Arny Krueger with respect
and politeness.

By opining that Arny Krueger was "insane", you lying sack of crap?

One might reasonably note that JA still addressed Big **** as "Mr. Krooger". And
I don't believe he called Mr. **** a "lying sack of crap". Besides, you are one
of avery small number of RAO regulars who do NOT believe Krooger is krazy.

Why are you so angry, Thing? Maybe you should answer sam's questions. He seems
to have dissected your twisted psyche pretty accurately.

"Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity"

That's a terrible statement for a header. Frankly, I'm ashamed of anyone
that posts under this header. It's not true. Just because one disagrees
with the philosophy and approach of the staff of Stereophile magazine does
not mean that they lack integrity. If Stereophile's editorial position was
opposed to the staff's actual beliefs--then it might be said that they lack
integrity. I see no evidence that that is the case.

And I refuse to read or respond to any posting with that header.

Norm Strong

wrote:
"Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity"

That's a terrible statement for a header. Frankly, I'm ashamed of anyone
that posts under this header. It's not true. Just because one disagrees
with the philosophy and approach of the staff of Stereophile magazine does
not mean that they lack integrity. If Stereophile's editorial position was
opposed to the staff's actual beliefs--then it might be said that they lack
integrity. I see no evidence that that is the case.


So, according to you, if the $tereophile "reviewers" and editors are
united in their dedication to deceiving, misleading and fleecing the
public, they are not lacking in integrity, eh?


And I refuse to read or respond to any posting with that header.


"Middius" will be pleased.....

"George Middius" wrote in
message

Besides, you are one of
avery small number of RAO regulars who do NOT believe
Krooger is krazy.

Who is this "Krooger" Middius?

wrote in message
oups.com
John Atkinson lies again:

I have tried always to treat Arny Krueger with respect
and politeness.


By opining that Arny Krueger was "insane", you lying sack
of crap?

In Atkinson-land *always* started about 5 months ago. ;-)

Side effect of the new meds or what?

wrote in message


"Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity"

That's a terrible statement for a header.

A lot of really reprehensble thread titles have been used on
RAO, why take exception to just this one?

A remarkable awakening has occurred in Seattle.

"Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity"

That's a terrible statement for a header. Frankly, I'm ashamed of anyone
that posts under this header. It's not true. Just because one disagrees
with the philosophy and approach of the staff of Stereophile magazine does
not mean that they lack integrity. If Stereophile's editorial position was
opposed to the staff's actual beliefs--then it might be said that they lack
integrity. I see no evidence that that is the case.

And I refuse to read or respond to any posting with that header.


Normy, congratulations on (finally) distancing yourself from the hardcore
'borgs. I'm glad to see that you have at long last come to terms with the true
nature of your fellow class warriors. A battle is not worth fighting if you have
to line up alongside animated turds.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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.

So my point is made; there is no evidence that the reviewing staff of SP
is 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.

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

But they don't HAVE TO stop there. The tests can extend higher in
range. Record companies often test their conductors who are under long
term contract. I know, for example, that those who conducted for
Mercury in the 50s and 60s were tested regularly.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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.

So my point is made; there is no evidence that the
reviewing staff of SP is hearing impaired.

No, you just get kudos for a better choice of words.

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

But they don't HAVE TO stop there.

But they almost always do.

The tests can extend higher in range.

But they almost always don't.

Record companies often test their
conductors who are under long term contract. I know, for
example, that those who conducted for Mercury in the 50s
and 60s were tested regularly.

Probably, just up to 8 KHz.

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


I can agree with that.

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.


Well perhaps they can hire someone with the technical competence to play one
of the SP test disks at an appropriate spl. My hunch is there isn't one of
them that can hear 16 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.


Exactly, most males over 30 IIRC, have trouble at 16 kHz and above.

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.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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.

So my point is made; there is no evidence that the reviewing staff of SP
is hearing impaired.


Not exactly, I refer you to their reviews again.

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.

But they don't HAVE TO stop there. The tests can extend higher in
range. Record companies often test their conductors who are under long
term contract. I know, for example, that those who conducted for
Mercury in the 50s and 60s were tested regularly.

We're talking about SDP, they're not big on anything that has to do with
science, in fact thhey seem adamantly opposed to it unless it's either
bull**** or improbable. Anything that might actually help them do a better
job and provide more accurate reviews is shunned.
Then there's the promotion of outright fruadulent products like green pens,
magic wire, etc.

" wrote in
message
k.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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.

Well perhaps they can hire someone with the technical
competence to play one of the SP test disks at an
appropriate spl. My hunch is there isn't one of them
that can hear 16 kHz.

Hearing tests require standardized levels. Hearing an
isolated 16 KHz tone isn't that hard if you can turn up the
SPL. The real challenge is hearing the absence of 16 KHz,
which is far more difficult.

Arny Krueger wrote
normanstrong wrote







"Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity"

That's a terrible statement for a header.

A lot of really reprehensble thread titles have been used on RAO, why take
exception to just this one?


BECAUSE you are not making any sense. And you
remain a koward with no more protocols left in mind
to add.

Norm Strong is right. And he's a stand-out poster from Seattle.

torresists wrote
normanstrong wrote:



"Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity"

That's a terrible statement for a header. Frankly, I'm ashamed of anyone
that posts under this header. It's not true. Just because one disagrees
with the philosophy and approach of the staff of Stereophile magazine does
not mean that they lack integrity. If Stereophile's editorial position was
opposed to the staff's actual beliefs--then it might be said that they lack
integrity. I see no evidence that that is the case.

So, according to you, if the $tereophile "reviewers" and editors are
united in their dedication to deceiving, misleading and fleecing the
public, they are not lacking in integrity, eh?

And I refuse to read or respond to any posting with that header.

"Middius" will be pleased.....



Thing, you're a waste of ATP at cellular level.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message
k.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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.

Well perhaps they can hire someone with the technical
competence to play one of the SP test disks at an
appropriate spl. My hunch is there isn't one of them
that can hear 16 kHz.

Hearing tests require standardized levels. Hearing an isolated 16 KHz tone
isn't that hard if you can turn up the SPL. The real challenge is hearing
the absence of 16 KHz, which is far more difficult.



Any way you slice it, I think the hearing acuity at SP is suspect.

"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..
Arny Krueger wrote
normanstrong wrote







"Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity"

That's a terrible statement for a header.

A lot of really reprehensble thread titles have been used on RAO, why
take exception to just this one?


BECAUSE you are not making any sense. And you
remain a koward with no more protocols left in mind
to add.

Norm Strong is right. And he's a stand-out poster from Seattle.

This former Seattlite thinks that SP is supposed to provide accurate
reviews, as a subscriber, I find serious problems with the conclusions of
the SP reviewers.

This whole thread is a waste of bandwidth on any level . . . . .














in article , EddieM at
wrote on 8/23/05 11:57 PM:

torresists wrote
normanstrong wrote:



"Stereophile: Not a shred of integrity"

That's a terrible statement for a header. Frankly, I'm ashamed of anyone
that posts under this header. It's not true. Just because one disagrees
with the philosophy and approach of the staff of Stereophile magazine does
not mean that they lack integrity. If Stereophile's editorial position was
opposed to the staff's actual beliefs--then it might be said that they lack
integrity. I see no evidence that that is the case.

So, according to you, if the $tereophile "reviewers" and editors are
united in their dedication to deceiving, misleading and fleecing the
public, they are not lacking in integrity, eh?

And I refuse to read or respond to any posting with that header.

"Middius" will be pleased.....



Thing, you're a waste of ATP at cellular level.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:56:51 GMT, "
wrote:


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.

The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a good reader of
persons, at least from their posts. Several times I've posted
seriously and politely to Arnie and received an insulting reply
because he thought I was having a go at him. Now given the amount of
abuse he's copped for any number of years, it's hardly surprising he
sees abuse where it isn't, but that doesn't help much when you're on
the receiving end. Arnie is also fond of attaching meanings and
motives to your posts that don't belong; again this is hardly
surprising given his Usenet history. But it always ends with him
kicking out in all directions and inflicting bruises on the guilty and
innocent alike. Solution? He takes a step back from Usenet and clears
his mind. Maybe a long trip to Disneyworld, the Grand
Canyon...whatever. Anything to restore perspective. Honestly, Arnie,
you've been labouring in this field too long. The sun's getting to
you.

"paul packer" wrote in message



The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a
good reader of persons, at least from their posts.
Several times I've posted seriously and politely to Arnie
and received an insulting reply because he thought I was
having a go at him.

Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among all of
your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk... Besides,
your idea of a serious post has really been pretty
threadbare.

Jon Yaeger wrote:

This whole thread is a waste of bandwidth on any level . . . . .

I'd say this cross posting invasion of r.a.t in nth hemi summer has scared off all
the usual guys
and surely is a mindless BS session.

I guess I have had need for little comment on anything this past week
and that's given me more spare time.

Patrick Turner.

In article ,
says...

But it always ends with him kicking out in all directions and
inflicting bruises on the guilty and innocent alike. Solution?


Putting a name in a header to defame
Is a dolt's idea of how to defame.
They're too dumb to know
They shouldn't stoop so low
And that to them it only brings shame.

Otherwise they're a different sort of dude
And it's just their nature to be rude.
It don't help to shame 'em
The only way to "tame 'em"
Is to show 'em they're gonna get screwed.

Hammingaway Inc.

BTW, who started this thread?

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

But it always ends with him kicking out in all directions and
inflicting bruises on the guilty and innocent alike. Solution?


Putting a name in a header to defame
Is a dolt's idea of how to defame.
They're too dumb to know
They shouldn't stoop so low
And that to them it only brings shame.

Otherwise they're a different sort of dude
And it's just their nature to be rude.
It don't help to shame 'em
The only way to "tame 'em"
Is to show 'em they're gonna get screwed.

Hammingaway Inc.

BTW, who started this thread?



Ahem..... make the second line end with the word "flame".

Bad coffe this morning.. :-)

Hammingaway Inc.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"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 recording 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.

Perhaps you have not listened to the recording of the
debate, Mr. Krueger. Prior to the points of yours that
I quoted in full in my Stereophile article, you were
talking about yourself. Subsequent to your presentation
of those points, you didn't return to them in any
substantive manner, again as the recording makes clear.

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.

I never said that they were, Mr. Krueger. But as the
bulk of those comments were nor relevant either to
Stereophile or to any criticisms you made of Stereophile,
I didn't see any point in quoting them.

Regarding your continuing but incorrect accusations
of bias on my part, Mr. Krueger, you should note that
I did not prevent members of the audience either from
asking questions of you nor from making statements
in your support, again as is clear from the recording.
For you to blame the audience for what you claim was
your inability to present your case against Stereophile
in an effective manner is frankly ridiculous.

FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the
debate and my report on it (also printed in the
September 2005 issue of Stereophile) at
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit...si/index1.html.
Three of the letters were supportive of my case,
one critical, which is the proportion of all the
letters I received on this subject.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:


snip

FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the
debate and my report on it



In the closing paragraph of his letter, David Sanford wrote:


"For the record, I have been a serious audiophile for 37 years. I
continue to be amazed at the garbage I read in these publications, and
now I see that it is coming from the top. I'm sick about what has
happened to this hobby."


Well said, Mr. Sanford!

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"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 recording 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.

Perhaps you have not listened to the recording of the
debate, Mr. Krueger. Prior to the points of yours that
I quoted in full in my Stereophile article, you were
talking about yourself.

That's one way of looking at it, albeit very superficial.
Another way of looking at it Atkinson, is that I
deconstructed your wanton abuse of the terms "objectivist"
and "subjectivist" along the way to explaining what my
viewpoint was, and present the 3 critiques which were of
course a natural consequence of my viewpoint.

Subsequent to your presentation
of those points, you didn't return to them in any
substantive manner, again as the recording makes clear.

As I've pointed out several times by mutual agreement my
opening comments were limited. After our opening comments
questions from the audience were entertained. Nobody in the
audience seemed to need much more clarification, and if they
did some of that was covered within the time constraint, and
that was that.

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.

I never said that they were, Mr. Krueger. But as the
bulk of those comments were nor relevant either to
Stereophile or to any criticisms you made of Stereophile,
I didn't see any point in quoting them.

Well what you're saying Atkinson is that you couldn't see
the connection, but since you're not the only person in the
world, or a person who defines what the world thinks, the
fact that you didn't see the connection is not all that
important in the cosmic scheme of things.

Regarding your continuing but incorrect accusations
of bias on my part, Mr. Krueger, you should note that
I did not prevent members of the audience either from
asking questions of you nor from making statements
in your support, again as is clear from the recording.

That seems clear to you, but its not clear to me.

For you to blame the audience for what you claim was
your inability to present your case against Stereophile
in an effective manner is frankly ridiculous.

It's frankly rediculous to say that I was unable to present
my case against Stereophile. I presented a logical
foundation for my points, and I presented my 3 points.
Nobody seemed to have too many unanswered questions about
them at the time aside from the time constraints, and that
was pretty much that.

FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the
debate and my report on it (also printed in the
September 2005 issue of Stereophile) at
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit...si/index1.html.
Three of the letters were supportive of my case,
one critical, which is the proportion of all the
letters I received on this subject.

Given who the fact that these letters came from Stereophile
readers who have been been (mis) educated for years, the
fact that 25% of them went against you Atkinson is really
more than I expected. Actually, I had no expectations at
all, because I considered the matter pretty well closed at
the end of the debate. I figured from the onset that I was
speaking to a group of people who were pretty well set in
their illuded ways, basically hopeless cases.

A quick box sco

(1) A letter about 20+ year old experiences with Stanley
Lip****z. Let me reiterate that I'm not Stanley Lip****z,
that my associates and I independently developed ABX, and
that technology, even listening test technology hasn't stood
still in the past 20-30 years.

(2) A ludicrous, pompus, insulting, and self-serving claim
that I don't know any way to do subjective testing but DBTs.

(3) A snippet about the difference between listening for
pleasure and listening for the purpose of comparison. It
reaches a conclusion without any obvious foundation for that
conclusion at all.

(4) A rather lengthy piece from someone who is rather
obviously not sucked in by the Stereophile song-and-dance at
all
..
The HE2005 debate was something like a Protestant preaching
Protestantism in the Sistene chapel. In times past people
died trying to do things like that. In the present, one
would expect at best polite, but total resistance.

As much as 25% support from Stereophile readers is IMO
really way beyond reasonable expectations.

I'm not surprised that the only coherent, relevant letter fo
the 4 came from a DBT advocate.

Given how adverse the debate was for you Atkinson, I'm
surprised that you keep bringing it up again and again.

I guess this new concern about some purported lack of
foundation for my three points is how you are dissembling
these days, Atkinson. Hey, if it gets you through the day...

wrote in message
oups.com
John Atkinson wrote:


snip

FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the
debate and my report on it



In the closing paragraph of his letter, David Sanford
wrote:


"For the record, I have been a serious audiophile for 37
years. I continue to be amazed at the garbage I read in
these publications, and now I see that it is coming from
the top. I'm sick about what has happened to this hobby."


Well said, Mr. Sanford!

The bad news is that the other 3 letters should have been an
embarassment to Stereophile and its staff.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
John Atkinson wrote:


snip

FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the
debate and my report on it



In the closing paragraph of his letter, David Sanford
wrote:


"For the record, I have been a serious audiophile for 37
years. I continue to be amazed at the garbage I read in
these publications, and now I see that it is coming from
the top. I'm sick about what has happened to this hobby."


Well said, Mr. Sanford!

The bad news is that the other 3 letters should have been an
embarassment to Stereophile and its staff.


And let's keep in mind that these letters were carefully chosen for
publication by the highly biased Mr. Atkinson. I.e., you can be pretty
sure that the "pro-Atkinson" letters were among the best available and
that David Sanford's "con" letter, 'though well thought out, was among
the more tepid of the naysayers.


I also wonder about the veracity of Atkinson's "3 to 1 favorable to
Stereophile" claim.

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
John Atkinson wrote:


snip

FYI, I have just posted 4 letters commenting on the
debate and my report on it



In the closing paragraph of his letter, David Sanford
wrote:


"For the record, I have been a serious audiophile for 37
years. I continue to be amazed at the garbage I read in
these publications, and now I see that it is coming from
the top. I'm sick about what has happened to this
hobby."


Well said, Mr. Sanford!

The bad news is that the other 3 letters should have
been an embarassment to Stereophile and its staff.

And let's keep in mind that these letters were carefully
chosen for publication by the highly biased Mr. Atkinson.

What was he thinking?

Why pick those three highly-confused-sounding and/or
irrelevant letters?

Is Atkinson's chosen image for Stereophile "The journal of
obscure and obscured thinking"?

I.e., you can be pretty sure that the "pro-Atkinson"
letters were among the best available and that David
Sanford's "con" letter, 'though well thought out, was
among the more tepid of the naysayers.

I don't know if it chosen because it was was a bit laid back
in places, or fit someone's image of what to expect from a
so-called "objectivist". For example:

"Blind testing is objective science."

I also wonder about the veracity of Atkinson's "3 to 1
favorable to Stereophile" claim.

I'm willing to stipulate that Atkinson didn't stray that far
from objective truth. On second thought, he could have
tipped the scales by biasing the selection and analysis
process like he's done so many times before.

Mr. Mc Kelvy says:
"We're talking about SDP, they're not big on anything that has
to do with science, in fact they seem adamantly opposed to it unless
it's either bull**** or improbable. Anything that might actually help
them do a better
job and provide more accurate reviews is shunned."

Sadly I must conclude that your messages are not
the signposts to guide poor, science-deprived Mr. Atkinson. onto the
royal road to "science" that you claim to be the spokesman for..
The science I was taught implies that a
hypothesis can only be validated by properly designed experiment (s).
If you said once that ABX is the right
tool for showing differences between components you said it a dozen
times in this thread and before.
On one such occasion 9 months
ago("RAHE challenges...) I asked you to give your reference ( Accepted
meaning of "reference" in any research is: Journal, author(s),
year, volume, number, pages) You said you had "many". I challenged
you to quote JUST ONE component comparison that was done on ANYTHING
in audio, including loudspeakers, and had a POSITIVE outcome.
Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned protocol ), statistically
valid (significant numbers), randomised and truly double blind..
You had no answer then and you
won't have any now. All the published reports to date have had one
result: NO DIFFERENCE.. When ABXing or DBTiing it all sounds the same ,
to a thumping majority of randomized audio fans.; Whatever is being
tested including loudspeakers with very different frequency responses
(See S. Olive, "Differences in performance...." , JAES, vol 51, #
9, 2003 , pps 806-825).
I do not know why and I do not
care to hear more off the top- of-the head speculations.. Consecutive
A/B testing appears to disable most brains from hearing differences
between components unless disparities are huge (who needs ABX for
that?) or one of them is malfunctioning..
You decided to stay silent in
December but you revived by now and again shout "me is science".
Sorry you're not. In fact you seem not to have the foggiest notion
what validation of hypotheses and science are all about.. You worship a
"test" that has had forty years to show that it works and failed
to do so. . That is called "faith"- or blind faith if you'd
rather.
Ludovic Mirabel.

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...

Given how adverse the debate was for you Atkinson....


Yes, yes. Good show, Arny! You rock! You kicked ass!

Potts wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...

Given how adverse the debate was for you Atkinson....


Yes, yes. Good show, Arny! You rock! You kicked ass!


"Potts" has made just two posts in the history of Usenet and is posting
from 24.9.70.239. It's Tom Albertz, aka Sam/surf/Mr.Anderson/Pat
Mabottom, etc., etc. A well known Usenet stalker and psychotic.


PLONK!

dave weil wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 19:06:20 -0700, wrote:

Potts wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...

Given how adverse the debate was for you Atkinson....


Yes, yes. Good show, Arny! You rock! You kicked ass!


"Potts" has made just two posts in the history of Usenet and is posting
from 24.9.70.239. It's Tom Albertz, aka Sam/surf/Mr.Anderson/Pat
Mabottom, etc., etc. A well known Usenet stalker and psychotic.


PLONK!

Is bicycle season over so early in the Ozarks?


Do butterflies drink red wine with the fish course?

On 24 Aug 2005 19:06:20 -0700, wrote:

Potts wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...

Given how adverse the debate was for you Atkinson....


Yes, yes. Good show, Arny! You rock! You kicked ass!


"Potts" has made just two posts in the history of Usenet and is posting
from 24.9.70.239. It's Tom Albertz, aka Sam/surf/Mr.Anderson/Pat
Mabottom, etc., etc. A well known Usenet stalker and psychotic.


PLONK!

Is bicycle season over so early in the Ozarks?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message



The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a
good reader of persons, at least from their posts.
Several times I've posted seriously and politely to Arnie
and received an insulting reply because he thought I was
having a go at him.

Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among all of
your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk..

Proves my point. I don't post "insulting" stuff. If you read it that
way, well, that's up to you. But really, your day on Usenet must be
like one of those courses for FBI trainees, where cardboard cutout
criminals--plus the occasional little old lady--pop up in every
window. It's not surprising you get confused sometimes and gun down
the little old lady.

. Besides,
your idea of a serious post has really been pretty
threadbare.

Define "threadbare".

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message



The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a
good reader of persons, at least from their posts.
Several times I've posted seriously and politely to
Arnie and received an insulting reply because he
thought I was having a go at him.

Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among
all of your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk..

Proves my point. I don't post "insulting" stuff.

Self-righteous stuff, too.

If you read it that way, well, that's up to you.

Introspection and self-awareness = low.

But really, your day on Usenet must be like one of those
courses for
FBI trainees, where cardboard cutout criminals--plus the
occasional little old lady--pop up in every window.

Not at all. There are plenty of sane, intelligent people to
converse with, just not many on RAO or AHF.

It's not surprising you get confused sometimes and gun
down
the little old lady.

Thanks Paul for admitting that you are the intellectual
equivalent of a little old lady.

. Besides,
your idea of a serious post has really been pretty
threadbare.

Define "threadbare".

Introspection and self-awareness = low
Intellectual equivalent of a little old lady (except I know
some little old ladies who stayed very sharp)
Totally sucked in by high end audio snake oil
Totally sucked in by the "If I hear it, that is how it is"
myth
A poster child for high end deceptions and myths

in article , dave weil at
wrote on 8/25/05 9:40 AM:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:36:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a
good reader of persons, at least from their posts.
Several times I've posted seriously and politely to
Arnie and received an insulting reply because he
thought I was having a go at him.

Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among
all of your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk..

Arnold is inching toward the realization about the reason that he's
one of the most abused posters in the history of USENET.


Does anyone on R.A.T. care? ANYONE??

DO NOT CROSS-POST YOUR VAPID RANTS TO R.A.T.