| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#201
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue or a scientific issue. Right Harry - if it is about home audio, issues like truth and reliability are completely irrelevant to you. Of course this hasn't kept you from commenting about professional audio issues based on what you admit is zero testing. Not an "omitted center" Arny...an almost completely "omitted logic". Arny's motto: "non-sequitors are us" Lack of relevant response noted. Childish name-calling noted. |
|
#202
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ig y. com Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow me to summarize for you: 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing. It's been going on for about a decade. Point? ] And your explanation for your ignorance of significant details of that discussion are....???? I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it. Simple. 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating in an ABX test....") Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com. Why has she not done so? I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do: compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to me. What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to you, Jenn? None that I know of. I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded best-of-class. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it's useful to me or the average consumer. Jenn, you and the average consumer are two very different types of people. When it comes to music and sound, you are quite correct. Right Jenn, you live in such a lofty ivory tower that you're constantly suffering from low blood oxygen, and reasonble thought often escapes you. I suspect that you live in such a logic-proof box, that nothing as rational as ABX could help you. I suspect that you live in such a art-proof box that nothing as normal as the enjoyment of music reaches you. Delusions of omniscience noted. The average consumer's largest benefit from ABX was the revolution in audio industry subjective testing that it spawned. Great. That doesn't aid me in the selection of audio gear. Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from rational approachesto selecting audio gear. In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip on the choice of music for the audition. And, no way could we get the high end turntable vendors to cooperate, because any reasonable comparison would probably show that they sound a lot alike, because they reduce the audible flaws in the LP playback process to the very audible ones that are inherent in the medium. |
|
#203
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ig y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message od ig y. com Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow me to summarize for you: 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing. It's been going on for about a decade. Point? ] And your explanation for your ignorance of significant details of that discussion are....???? I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it. Simple. 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating in an ABX test....") Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com. Why has she not done so? I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do: compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to me. What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to you, Jenn? None that I know of. I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded best-of-class. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it's useful to me or the average consumer. Jenn, you and the average consumer are two very different types of people. When it comes to music and sound, you are quite correct. Right Jenn, you live in such a lofty ivory tower lol I love it when you say that. "Delusions of omniscience noted". that you're constantly suffering from low blood oxygen, and reasonble thought often escapes you. Ooooo, another snot storm on the way. I suspect that you live in such a logic-proof box, that nothing as rational as ABX could help you. I suspect that you live in such a art-proof box that nothing as normal as the enjoyment of music reaches you. Delusions of omniscience noted. Look three paragraphs up, Mr. Pot. The average consumer's largest benefit from ABX was the revolution in audio industry subjective testing that it spawned. Great. That doesn't aid me in the selection of audio gear. Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from rational approachesto selecting audio gear. Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that which sounds most like live acoustic music to me. Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital. on the choice of music for the audition. And, no way could we get the high end turntable vendors to cooperate, because any reasonable comparison would probably show that they sound a lot alike, because they reduce the audible flaws in the LP playback process to the very audible ones that are inherent in the medium. Well, thanks for your opinion. Keep listening to what sounds best to you; that's the sane thing to do. |
|
#204
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger a scris: You're like impotent man who rants and raves about vasectomies. "at least" its better than you, a certified lunatic that rants and raves about lobotomies and eye gougings required for PCABX |
|
#205
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger a scris: Jenn, you and the average consumer are two very different types of people. Those of here that can't stand you are well above average consumers. So stop annoying us Get a reviewing job at Consumer Reports. You will be much more productive. |
|
#206
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that which sounds most like live acoustic music to me. Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other recordings lack. Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital. So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs? |
|
#207
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ig y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message od ig y. com In article , "ScottW" wrote: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution. Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn? From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX doesn't seem like a good solution. Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home consumer. Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the great job it has done at convincing home consumers that contrary to many things published in the high end audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money. ABX has also done a good job of convincing home consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't audible. I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you figure have ever even HEARD of ABX? Sorry, I don't run a market research organization. So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of convincing home consumers of anything? There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to think that the CD format is an overkill format, and that they happily listen to formats that are less accurate. What does the above have to do with ABX? ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high resolution" audio formats and show that CD audio format is sonically transparent. The vast majority of consumers have agreed with their dollars. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Krueger says: ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high resolution" audio formats and show that CD audio format is sonically transparent. The vast majority of consumers have agreed with their dollars. We already know that your "tests" have "It all souns the same" outcome. What you ha not proved is that your "test" helps listeners to recognise differences.between audio components reproducing music. If I were the editor of a professional journal I would tell you to come back when you have something serious to contribute. Which they probably did . Which made you instantly try to get recognition by flooding the web.with advertising material Your vast majority of consumers are happy with their choices. Which proves what? That "vast majority" never attended a single classical music concert or cared about superior reproduction of a symphony orchestra or chamber group.? You're free to follow their choices I'll listen with my ears and my brain. Ludovic Mirabel More about "I definitely had papers published in the JAES" Connie Robinson at UC. Berkeley "I searched several engineering indexes I'm familiar with, and none indexed the author in question for this publication. I think you could probably look at table of contents from this period in the print versions. I looked up the journal holdings in British Columbia and the following institutions list holdings in the period you are looking at: Title: Journal of the Audio Engineering Society Author: Audio Engineering Society ISSN: 1549-4950 CA,BC SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY CA,BC UNIV OF VICTORIA, MCPHERSON LIBR CA,BC VANCOUVER PUB LIBR Please consult these local libraries for more information. I hope the information I provide is of use to you. Sincerely, Corinne Robinson Ask-a-Reference-Question Service Research, Reference, and Collections Doe/Moffitt Libraries UC Berkeley "Irrelevant" again? If at least you were a clever liar. But you are a silly transparent liar hoping never to be foundout .. |
|
#208
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that which sounds most like live acoustic music to me. Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other recordings lack. Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds best to them. Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital. So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs? That's not what I've stated, and you know it. You should pay more attention. |
|
#210
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" wrote But it takes lots of time and money to organize and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical evaluation. Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his personal lack of technical ability. Remember that Harry has claimed to have expertise in consumer testing. You're over reacting. Long gone are the days when a single person could make new discoveries. Today's science is a cross-discipline of many professional fields. In one research grant study my department hired a full time PhD in statistics for two years just to write survey questions and analyze responses. In a true *scientific* study of your ABX theory would require thousands of dollars and months such to quantify the subject study group. You have one of the finest research universities in the world (U M) right in your back yard. Perhaps you might consider submitting a proposal for a PhD thesis. Students often sweat finding useful studies to write about and defend. This could get your foot in the door for cheap. Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget and the sophistication to want to do so. Prove it. No, Harry is correct. Besides, what would be the business motivation ($) to enter into such a study. I don't see any real world applications in manufacturing, for example. Maybe behavioral science, but then you're chasing after soft funding. To give you an example, even the "small" Division I helped build for one such company had sales back in the '70's of $325mm, a total marketing budget of $16mm, and of that a research budget of just under $2.0mm. I bet even H-K doesn't spend $2.0mm a year on research (I don't mean development...I mean actually testing, or buying data to analyze). We should thus conclude that H-K does not meet Harry's standards because they aren't spending enough money? Well there you have it folks, first from Powell and now from Harry Lavo. The only way to have good sound or good lisetning tests is to spend megabucks. Regardless of the methodology in-home listening is still the standard... and it ain't broke, so why change it? It is all about money, Well there's science which is money dependant. And there is empirical knowledge which is almost free. Both are powerful but you have neither. and true high fidelity or even good evaluations of audio products is way beyond the budget of the average audiophile. At least 30 years of audio magazines, of every type, would indicate that subjective reviewing on the whole is advancing audio technology just fine, thank you. |
|
#211
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Clyde Slick said to The Big ****: Get a reviewing job at Consumer Reports. You will be much more productive. Wrong! Krooger isn't qualified to be a reviewer. CR might possibly need some testing wonks to work in their electronics torture chamber, though. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#212
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Jenn said: lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that which sounds most like live acoustic music to me. Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other recordings lack. Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds best to them. Jenn, I've tried in the past to explain the horrific effect comments like this have on Mr. Krooger and his fellow nitwits. First off, phrases like "sounds best" or "sounds better" are terribly disorienting to Them. Did you see Ghostbusters? It had a scene where Venkman and Egon (Harold Ramis) are trying to determine if they're looking at a manifestation of a ghost. Egon is tongue-tied and uses his scanning device, and Venkman slaps it out of his hand in frustration. That's how Krooger approaches every audio decision -- with his clunky, clueless "testing" mindset. When Normals talk about subjective, humanistic evaluations like "pleasing" or "sounds best", they're not just slapping Krooger's hand. They're attacking his religion, the very pillar of his pathetic existence. In my view, Krooger deserves any upbraiding or excoriation he gets, but you should be aware of how cruel you seem to Turdborg when you say things like that. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#213
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from rational approachesto selecting audio gear. Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? Unanswered by Arny in his previous response to my post. |
|
#214
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ps.com... Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit. This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert. Who's "Robert"? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#215
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ps.com... Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit. This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert. Who's "Robert"? Good question. From the tone I somehow got the idea that ****R was Morien. |
|
#216
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
wrote in message
ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high resolution" audio formats and show that CD audio format is sonically transparent. The vast majority of consumers have agreed with their dollars. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Krueger says: ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high resolution" audio formats and show that CD audio format is sonically transparent. The vast majority of consumers have agreed with their dollars. We already know that your "tests" have "It all souns the same" outcome. You are either ignorant or lying. As has been shown many times, ABX tests are sensitive tests for audible differences when audible differences actually exist. What you have not proved is that your "test" helps listeners to recognise differences.between audio components reproducing music. Sure I have. All of the power amplifier PCABX listening tests referenced by this page have positive outcomes: http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm |
|
#217
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Powell" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote But it takes lots of time and money to organize and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical evaluation. Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his personal lack of technical ability. Remember that Harry has claimed to have expertise in consumer testing. You're over reacting. Long gone are the days when a single person could make new discoveries. Today's science is a cross-discipline of many professional fields. Non sequitor. In one research grant study my department hired a full time PhD in statistics for two years just to write survey questions and analyze responses. Meaningless unless you identify your university and department so that we can confirm it. |
|
#218
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that which sounds most like live acoustic music to me. Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other recordings lack. Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds best to them. Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to classical, jazz and other so-called serious music. Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change what sounds good to people. You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music education, Jenn? Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital. So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs? That's not what I've stated, and you know it. I know no such thing, Jenn. You should pay more attention. It appears that it isn't about paying attention, it is about decoding the past. |
|
#219
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from rational approachesto selecting audio gear. Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, Unsaid: the bar for "when possible" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. using unsighted conditions as are practical, Unsaid: the bar for "when practical" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. using source material with which I'm very familiar. Unsaid: the bar for "I'm very familair" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? I don't have a lot of problem buying audio gear unseen and unheard and obtaining good results from it. I've bought a ton of mics, headphones, and earphones this way, with very few unhappy surprises. |
|
#220
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message oups.com Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from rational approachesto selecting audio gear. Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, Unsaid: the bar for "when possible" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. "Debating trade" BS. Normal people understand this. The meaning is clear. "When possible" means when I can get the piece in my home. Understand? using unsighted conditions as are practical, Unsaid: the bar for "when practical" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. "Debating trade" BS. Normal people understand this. I listen to things unsighted when it is possible to do so. using source material with which I'm very familiar. Unsaid: the bar for "I'm very familair" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. "Debating trade" BS. Normal people understand this. I listen to source material that I've heard for years under familiar circumstances. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? I don't have a lot of problem buying audio gear unseen and unheard and obtaining good results from it. I've bought a ton of mics, headphones, and earphones this way, with very few unhappy surprises. But if you wanted to take the radical approach of listening to something before you bought it, either in your home or in a store, how would you do it? |
|
#221
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Jenn wrote: Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home? Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections? ScottW |
|
#222
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that which sounds most like live acoustic music to me. Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other recordings lack. Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds best to them. Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to classical, jazz and other so-called serious music. Of course. Same with R&R or church music. But we're speaking of audio quality. Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change what sounds good to people. LOL Who said that? You are the most illogical person I've ever read. You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music education, Jenn? LOL For you, yes. An expression about teaching a pig to sing comes to mind. Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital. So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs? That's not what I've stated, and you know it. I know no such thing, Jenn. Are you getting enough sleep? What I've CLEARLY stated, over and over, is that to me the best LPs sound better than CDs. Understand? You should pay more attention. It appears that it isn't about paying attention, it is about decoding the past. It's about understanding clear writing and not attributing false statements to another person. |
|
#223
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home? Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections? ScottW If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover the 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing. |
|
#224
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Jenn wrote: In article . com, "ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home? Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections? ScottW If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover the 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing. Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a bigger factor than my sight in making subtle difference comparisons. In long listening....days... I generally find I get acclimated to the gear and my preference can shift. My recent cart change took a couple weeks to get used to but now I love the detail and dynamics. ScottW |
|
#225
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that which sounds most like live acoustic music to me. Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other recordings lack. Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds best to them. Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to classical, jazz and other so-called serious music. Of course. Same with R&R or church music. But we're speaking of audio quality. In your case Jenn, we're talking about religious beliefs about audio. But thanks for bringing religion up. Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change what sounds good to people. LOL Who said that? That's a possible implication of what you said, Jenn. You are the most illogical person I've ever read. Trying to make sense out of what you say may do that to some people, Jenn. You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music education, Jenn? LOL For you, yes. An expression about teaching a pig to sing comes to mind. As much the same principle comes to mind when trying to get you to think logically about audio, Jenn. Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital. So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs? That's not what I've stated, and you know it. I know no such thing, Jenn. Are you getting enough sleep? What I've CLEARLY stated, over and over, is that to me the best LPs sound better than CDs. Understand? The question about sleep may be autobiographical for you Jenn, as you seem to be very excitable. If you were thinking calmly, you'd see that "your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs" is that you say "that to me the best LPs sound better than CDs.'. The connection is very logical, no matter what you say. You should pay more attention. It appears that it isn't about paying attention, it is about decoding the past. It's about understanding clear writing and not attributing false statements to another person. No such thing ever happened, except in your mind, Jenn. You just over-reacted. |
|
#226
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message y. com In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that which sounds most like live acoustic music to me. Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other recordings lack. Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds best to them. Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to classical, jazz and other so-called serious music. Of course. Same with R&R or church music. But we're speaking of audio quality. In your case Jenn, we're talking about religious beliefs about audio. But thanks for bringing religion up. Try to stay on task: we're speaking about the quality of audio. Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change what sounds good to people. LOL Who said that? That's a possible implication of what you said, Jenn. I quite agree that it's stupid to try to change what sounds good to people vis-a-vis audio. It's called "preference". You are the most illogical person I've ever read. Trying to make sense out of what you say may do that to some people, Jenn. What I write is quite clear in its meaning, Arny. The YOU have problems with it is YOUR problem. You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music education, Jenn? LOL For you, yes. An expression about teaching a pig to sing comes to mind. As much the same principle comes to mind when trying to get you to think logically about audio, Jenn. How would "thinking logically" about audio help? I listen to what sounds best to me. It has nothing to do with logic. Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital. So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs? That's not what I've stated, and you know it. I know no such thing, Jenn. Are you getting enough sleep? What I've CLEARLY stated, over and over, is that to me the best LPs sound better than CDs. Understand? The question about sleep may be autobiographical for you Jenn, as you seem to be very excitable. If you were thinking calmly, you'd see that "your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs" is that you say "that to me the best LPs sound better than CDs.'. The connection is very logical, no matter what you say. Incorrect. Your asking if I've changed my position shows that clearly. |
|
#227
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article . com, "ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home? Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections? ScottW If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover the 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing. Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a bigger factor than my sight in making subtle difference comparisons. In long listening....days... I generally find I get acclimated to the gear and my preference can shift. My recent cart change took a couple weeks to get used to but now I love the detail and dynamics. ScottW It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say? |
|
#228
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" wrote But it takes lots of time and money to organize and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical evaluation. Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his personal lack of technical ability. Remember that Harry has claimed to have expertise in consumer testing. You're over reacting. Long gone are the days when a single person could make new discoveries. Today's science is a cross-discipline of many professional fields. Non sequitor. Perhaps if you didn't spend the better part of 13 business weeks worth of posting a year on USEnet you'd have time for a really fulfilling life. Is this really IT (Christian) for you, Arny? In one research grant study my department hired a full time PhD in statistics for two years just to write survey questions and analyze responses. Meaningless unless you identify your university and department so that we can confirm it. Oh, I see, because you regularly malign the truth you assume everyone does the same. Knock yourself out. Perhaps you've heard of one or the another. Oakwood Hospital & Medical Center, Dearborn, Michigan. http://www.oakwood.org/?id=697&sid=1&SiteCode=01 Major Grant Provider: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Michigan http://www.wkkf.org/Default.aspx?LanguageID=0 |
|
#229
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Jenn wrote: In article .com, "ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article . com, "ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home? Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections? ScottW If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover the 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing. Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a bigger factor than my sight in making subtle difference comparisons. In long listening....days... I generally find I get acclimated to the gear and my preference can shift. My recent cart change took a couple weeks to get used to but now I love the detail and dynamics. ScottW It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say? Depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your home. I'm still curious why you feel the need to be blind in your own personal evaluations. ScottW |
|
#230
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
John Atkinson wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ps.com... Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit. This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert. Who's "Robert"? You stole my question. Now I'm mad at you. |
|
#231
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arns insanity causes him to flail around some mo
Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert. Who's "Robert"? Good question. From the tone I somehow got the idea that ****R was Morien. Was it voices in your head, or perhaps an angel whispered in your ear? Whatever. It is pointless to try to understand the 'mind' of an insane person. ________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#232
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Jenn" wrote in message oups.com Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from rational approachesto selecting audio gear. Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, Unsaid: the bar for "when possible" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. using unsighted conditions as are practical, Unsaid: the bar for "when practical" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. using source material with which I'm very familiar. Unsaid: the bar for "I'm very familair" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? I don't have a lot of problem buying audio gear unseen and unheard and obtaining good results from it. I've bought a ton of mics, headphones, and earphones this way, with very few unhappy surprises. Well, my guess is you don't expect much from $150 mics and $100 mic preamps. If the bar is set low enough, there won't be any surprises. Think about it. |
|
#233
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article .com, "ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article . com, "ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home? Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections? ScottW If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover the 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing. Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a bigger factor than my sight in making subtle difference comparisons. In long listening....days... I generally find I get acclimated to the gear and my preference can shift. My recent cart change took a couple weeks to get used to but now I love the detail and dynamics. ScottW It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say? Depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your home. Well, to some extent, "practical is practical". In other words, regardless of what one is trying to accomplish, there are limits as to what is practical, don't you agree? I'm doing what I feel is practical in order to do as objective an evaluation as is possible in practical terms. I'm still curious why you feel the need to be blind in your own personal evaluations. I don't really feel a need per se. It's just interesting to me to see if, for example, a big Krell sounds better to me than does a Sony. In that kind of case, seeing the gear might affect a choice, I suppose. Ordinarily, I would just listen. |
|
#234
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arns' insanity exhibits itself in a new manifestation:
Arny Krueger wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ps.com... Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of convincing home consumers of anything? There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to think that the CD format is an overkill format, and that they happily listen to formats that are less accurate. The conclusion that I would draw is that some people prefer MP3 players and iPods as a far more convenient way to store and transport their music. I doubt that most home consumers ever give thought to "overkill." Sure they do, but probably not in exactly those terms. I personally don't think the average home consumer gives sound quality much thought. I know people who only have a boom-box and they are happy with that. I know others who only have those Bose iPod plug-in things and they are happy with that. I know others who have no home system at all. "Overkill" to those people would be any system above what they have. But let's look at your statement anyway: "they happily listen to formats that are less accurate." How about, "they seem to happily prefer formats that are less accurate (for whatever reasons)." What's the difference in the real world? Nothing. You're just playing with words. No. You're wrong. You attribute some kind of conclusion based on sound quality. The amended statement shows a preference, which is all it is, and indicates that there may be other reasons for that preference besides sound quality, which is far more likely than the conclusion you drew. Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit. This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert. I don't "short circuit". If anything its you who short circuit when you demonstrate your confusion over inputs and outputs. You are insane. You're talking gibberish. You are hallucinating. As usual Robert you've misrepresented everything because you have no appreciation for the basics. I simply find it very interesting when people are so prejudices and biased that they repeatedly claim that an audibly inaccurate format does a more realistic job of reproducing sounds than one that can be audibly accurate. I suspect its a study in personal bias - one where a person has been educated to believe that in essence, black is white. Are you speaking in tongues, Arns? Or is this just another manifestation of your insanity? I wonder (aside from your insanity, that is) why somone who "happily listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like LP or SET is a "bigot" deserving of bucketloads of snot, while someone else who "happily listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like MP3 or an iPod is saying they think "that the CD format is an overkill format." It's the same problem - the SET and LP bigots are examples of bias gone amok - they seem to truely believe that something that is audibly flawed is the reference standard, and that there is something inherently wrong with a mediaum that can be sonically transparent. These people believe that black is white, and up is down. Or they prefer whatever colorations their preferred medium add, which gives them what they seek musically. Aren't many of the distortions caused by those two media called "euphonic" or something? Isn't it well-known that some people find these "euphonic" distortions pleasing? I would suggest that it is you who is confused. You seem to think that you can determine what is best for everybody, or you seem to think that you can determine how others perceive things. What is it you accuse others of so frequently? Ah, yes. Are you omniscient, Arns?;-) In contrast, the so-called high resolution formats have failed in the marketplace because they have nothing that is real and tangible to sell. They are selling the emperor's new britches. The public is not impressed with a public display of the bare butts of people who prefer trousers made of whole cloth. Again you draw an unwarranted and unsupported conclusion. This is quite typical of you. As I've pointed out above, IMO most home consumers are not critical listeners. Convenience, portability, and cost are probably higher priority factors to most. Add to that the fact that most people are not interested in new formats that have not been accepted or standardized yet. Now do you begin to see exactly how warped your 'thinking' is? Probably not. Self-awareness isn't your strong point, is it?;-) Did I call that or what?;-) The irony is that the person making this joke is well-known for their lack of personal awareness. Who tried to sue Drexel University for a PhD? The regulars on RAP are having a lot of fun at your expense Robert because you have no clue about real world audio. You are totally insane. My name is not Robert. You make up a name for me and then create a bunch of tripe to go with it. I have never had ANY dealings with Drexel. I have never (to my knowledge) posted on RAP. Perhaps something has been crossposted to that group, though. Do you drool, too? You're far sicker than even I thought. Here, I'll try to speak your language in an attempt to cut through the wall of your insanity: Reynaldo (or are you Frankie today?), it is you who claim that by taking a few classes at a second-rate community college you have some kind of technical "engineering" expertise. This does not give you a one-up technical advantage over anybody. It means you are an insane person without any degree, much like some of the people who might work in the fast-food industry. You flog a test protocol that is absolutely useless to the average consumer. The fact that you also have great difficulty separating opinion from fact in your statements shows that you think you actually know more than the next person. From what I've seen, though, most people here seem to realize that what they say is their opinion. Ironically, that puts them one up over you. Your mental disease has obviously kicked up a few notches, Arns. Please seek professional help. I don't want you to hurt yourself or somebody else. ________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#235
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Jenn said to DebatingTradeBorg: It appears that it isn't about paying attention, it is about decoding the past. It's about understanding clear writing and not attributing false statements to another person. Take away the "debating trade" and an Audio 'Borg is just a machine. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#236
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news  "John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ps.com... Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit. This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert. Who's "Robert"? Good question. From the tone I somehow got the idea that ****R was Morien. Hey, well, listen Arny....both "handles" begin with the letter "S". It's a natural mistake. We can't expect you to be perfect now, can we? Not when you have 500,000 more messages to type, and so little time to do it because of the time demands of your 250 annual recording sessions. You are forgiven. |
|
#237
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message y. com In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that which sounds most like live acoustic music to me. Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other recordings lack. Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds best to them. Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to classical, jazz and other so-called serious music. Of course. Same with R&R or church music. But we're speaking of audio quality. In your case Jenn, we're talking about religious beliefs about audio. But thanks for bringing religion up. Try to stay on task: we're speaking about the quality of audio. Right, and we're talking about your religious beliefs with respect to sound quality. You have this irrational belief that music doesn't sound realistic without added noise and distortion. Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change what sounds good to people. LOL Who said that? That's a possible implication of what you said, Jenn. I quite agree that it's stupid to try to change what sounds good to people vis-a-vis audio. It's called "preference". Resolved, I'll never point out audible flaws in music reproduction to anybody, because if they prefer crappy SQ, that's their preference. You are the most illogical person I've ever read. Trying to make sense out of what you say may do that to some people, Jenn. What I write is quite clear in its meaning, Arny. The YOU have problems with it is YOUR problem. Resolved, nobody should ever point out audible flaws in music reproduction to anybody, or demonstrate superior tonal balance or clarity because if they prefer poor SQ, that's their preference. You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music education, Jenn? LOL For you, yes. An expression about teaching a pig to sing comes to mind. As much the same principle comes to mind when trying to get you to think logically about audio, Jenn. How would "thinking logically" about audio help? I've discovered that I should ever point out audible flaws in music reproduction to anybody, or demonstrate superior tonal balance or clarity because if they prefer poor SQ, that's their preference. Preference for noise and distortion is sacrosanct. I listen to what sounds best to me. It has nothing to do with logic. I know Jenn that I've done terrible things when I provided people with a higher quality recording of a musical event to people who thought that what they had previouisly heard sounded best to them. It was their preference and I trashed their preference by demonstrating a better sound to them. Obviously, I was trashing their former preferences. Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital. So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs? That's not what I've stated, and you know it. I know no such thing, Jenn. Are you getting enough sleep? What I've CLEARLY stated, over and over, is that to me the best LPs sound better than CDs. Understand? The question about sleep may be autobiographical for you Jenn, as you seem to be very excitable. If you were thinking calmly, you'd see that "your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs" is that you say "that to me the best LPs sound better than CDs.'. The connection is very logical, no matter what you say. Incorrect. Your asking if I've changed my position shows that clearly. Heaven forbid that you'd ever change your thinking, Jenn. |
|
#238
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Jenn" wrote in message oups.com Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from rational approachesto selecting audio gear. Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, Unsaid: the bar for "when possible" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. using unsighted conditions as are practical, Unsaid: the bar for "when practical" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. using source material with which I'm very familiar. Unsaid: the bar for "I'm very familair" has been set high as to avoid practical and useful means. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? I don't have a lot of problem buying audio gear unseen and unheard and obtaining good results from it. I've bought a ton of mics, headphones, and earphones this way, with very few unhappy surprises. Well, my guess is you don't expect much from $150 mics and $100 mic preamps. Actually I expect quite a bit, even from $75 mics. I guess you don't realize that I have ca. $300 mics and mic preamps in my hardware collection. What about my 02R96? - I paid about $7200 for a pidding 16 mic preamps, or about $450 per. But thanks for your lame attempt at playing the class card again, Harry. It shows your worship of high prices and snobbery very well, thank you. If the bar is set low enough, there won't be any surprises. Think about it. |
|
#239
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com Jenn wrote: Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible, using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say. How do you do it? How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home? Especially as related to say, turntables. ;-) |
|
#240
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Harry Lavo wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ps.com... Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit. This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert. Who's "Robert"? Good question. From the tone I somehow got the idea that ****R was Morien. Hey, well, listen Arny....both "handles" begin with the letter "S". It's a natural mistake. We can't expect you to be perfect now, can we? Not when you have 500,000 more messages to type, and so little time to do it because of the time demands of your 250 annual recording sessions. You are forgiven. Wow. Arns is that busy? We should be thankful for the time he spends here then, I suppose.:-) |
Linear Mode
