| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#281
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: What you don't seem to understand Jenn, is that things like level matching, time synching, and bias controls actually enhance the use of the ears. Time synching: I disagree. The purpose of that seems to eliminate the subject of a test knowing when the switch happens. Am I wrong here? Yes Jenn, you are as usual, completely and totally wrong. And as usual, you can't comment without snot. The purpose of time synching is to make it as easy as possible to compare, and to avoid false positives due to hearing the lack of synchronization. Isn't that basically what I said? In the case of time synching, aren't the false positives due to hearing the lack of synchronization caused because the subject hears the switch? If the two pieces of music being compared aren't synchonized well enough, small differences will be masked by the larger differences due to time displacement. If the two pieces of music being compared aren't synchonized well enough, I can always identify them in a DBT, even if they are otherwise identical. Right, you can identify them because you "know when the switch happens" which is what I said. Level matching: I agree. Congratulations Jenn, you actually got something right! Congratulations Arny, you remain true to form! Remember that level-matching extends naturally to matching frequency response. Bias controls: I'm about to write a bit about that. I'm sure that you'll get that all wrong, too. But, give it a shot! I'm sure that you'll disagree if for no other reason that I write it. But again: at the end of the day, simple listening with discernment for what sounds best to you is most important. An important issue that many golden ears want to ignore - if you can't tell the difference by means of just sound quality, then any differences in your preferences are irrelevant to the issue of sound quality. Could you provide an actual example of this? |
|
#282
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message LOL Oh how "fun"! Too bad you're such an impotent old man. Yet another silly fantasy of yours Jenn. As is yours about me being a "bitter old woman". No Jenn, when it comes to modern audio technology, your cup is always half empty. |
|
#283
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 LOL Oh how "fun"! Too bad you're such an impotent old man. Yet another silly fantasy of yours Jenn. As is yours about me being a "bitter old woman". No Jenn, when it comes to modern audio technology, your cup is always half empty. Please forgive me for listening to what sounds best to me. |
|
#284
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: What you don't seem to understand Jenn, is that things like level matching, time synching, and bias controls actually enhance the use of the ears. Time synching: I disagree. The purpose of that seems to eliminate the subject of a test knowing when the switch happens. Am I wrong here? Yes Jenn, you are as usual, completely and totally wrong. And as usual, you can't comment without snot. The purpose of time synching is to make it as easy as possible to compare, and to avoid false positives due to hearing the lack of synchronization. Isn't that basically what I said? Not at all. In the case of time synching, aren't the false positives due to hearing the lack of synchronization caused because the subject hears the switch? Not necessarily. Get this idea out of your head that hearing the switch is a problem. As long as there is nothing distinctive about the switch-over hearing it is just fine. If the two pieces of music being compared aren't synchonized well enough, small differences will be masked by the larger differences due to time displacement. No response from Jenn. This very important point is completely flying over Jenn's head because if she admits that it exists then she has to admit that I've raised a different issue than the one that is her current hot button. If the two pieces of music being compared aren't synchonized well enough, I can always identify them in a DBT, even if they are otherwise identical. Right, you can identify them because you "know when the switch happens" which is what I said. Wrong Jenn. Knowing when the switch happens isn't a problem. Knowing the details of what the switch involved is a problem. Level matching: I agree. Congratulations Jenn, you actually got something right! Congratulations Arny, you remain true to form! The problem is Jenn that you don't realize how focussed you are on your own issues. Remember that level-matching extends naturally to matching frequency response. Bias controls: I'm about to write a bit about that. I'm sure that you'll get that all wrong, too. But, give it a shot! I'm sure that you'll disagree if for no other reason that I write it. Slough of the issue noted. But again: at the end of the day, simple listening with discernment for what sounds best to you is most important. An important issue that many golden ears want to ignore - if you can't tell the difference by means of just sound quality, then any differences in your preferences are irrelevant to the issue of sound quality. Could you provide an actual example of this? All of the golden ear ranting and raving about CD players and power amps that sound "mind-blowingly different". As I said before, I strongly suspect that were good DBTs of turntables to be done, a lot of people would feel like giant fools for the money they blew on their last big investment. Much of what they hear is related to the limitations of the medium, not differences in SQ related to various turntables. |
|
#285
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: "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. 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 Answer so generalized as to be totally meaningless. I think he was saying, generally, that you are insane. ________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#286
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 LOL Oh how "fun"! Too bad you're such an impotent old man. Yet another silly fantasy of yours Jenn. As is yours about me being a "bitter old woman". No Jenn, when it comes to modern audio technology, your cup is always half empty. Please forgive me for listening to what sounds best to me. Resistance to education about what sounds best in general, noted. |
|
#287
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
ScottW wrote: I see Classic Records has delayed release of Aqualung until Jan 10. They were kind of advertising this as a nice stocking stuffer so I'm bummed  I have the MFSL version which I like a great deal. Have you heard it? |
|
#288
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: Remember what Mark Twain said about older women, and think about Tony Randall. Is this your 'secret' to successful masturbation, Arns? |
|
#289
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 LOL Oh how "fun"! Too bad you're such an impotent old man. Yet another silly fantasy of yours Jenn. As is yours about me being a "bitter old woman". No Jenn, when it comes to modern audio technology, your cup is always half empty. Please forgive me for listening to what sounds best to me. Resistance to education about what sounds best in general, noted. Ah! We get to the gist of the matter at last. Given that my model for good audio is the sound of live acoustic music, and given that I'm so familiar with that model, what "education" could possibly change how I feel about what sounds best to me? And consider the alternative to me simply listening to what sounds best to me: I concede that "modern audio technology" is better and I start listen exclusively to sounds WORSE to me. What have I gained? |
|
#290
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: Resistance to education about what sounds best in general, noted. Denial of your insanity noted. ________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#291
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message Ah! We get to the gist of the matter at last. Given that my model for good audio is the sound of live acoustic music It's not a given, especially given your preference for music with audible noise and distortion added. I find it intriguing that you have found live venues that produce the acoustical equivalents of grain noise, rumble, flutter and wow, tracing distortion, goove pre- and post-echo, etc. |
|
#292
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Shhhh! said: Answer so generalized as to be totally meaningless. I think he was saying, generally, that you are insane. He might have been saying that Krooger is a disgusting turd. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#293
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
The Krooborg is on the rag again. I find it intriguing that you have found live venues that produce the acoustical equivalents of grain noise, rumble, flutter and wow, tracing distortion, goove pre- and post-echo, etc. That's nothing. It's a miracle of otherwordly technology that a cyborg that is composed of 96% pure feces is able to use a computer and operate a minivan. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#294
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article . com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: Remember what Mark Twain said about older women, and think about Tony Randall. Is this your 'secret' to successful masturbation, Arns? Ask him if it works using Ben Franklin and Anthony Quinn. Stephen |
|
#295
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger a scris: No Jenn, when it comes to modern audio technology, your cup is always half empty. "at least" your toilet is always full. |
|
#296
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message Ah! We get to the gist of the matter at last. Given that my model for good audio is the sound of live acoustic music It's not a given, especially given your preference for music with audible noise and distortion added. I find it intriguing that you have found live venues that produce the acoustical equivalents of grain noise, rumble, flutter and wow, tracing distortion, goove pre- and post-echo, etc. While I find it intriguing (in a sick, insane way) that you think of Tony Randall while you masturbate... ________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#297
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Clyde Slick said: No Jenn, when it comes to modern audio technology, your cup is always half empty. "at least" your toilet is always full. What do you mean? Is Arnii on a diet? -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#298
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger a scris: No Jenn, when it comes to modern audio technology, your cup is always half empty. "at least" your toilet is always full. |
|
#299
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: 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 ============================ Krueger has "proofs": 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 Why don't you submit your joke web pages to the judgement of the JAES editors and see wher you get off, When I say "joke" I mean it. Number of panelists?: from 12 to 1. Protocol ( how many "hits" is enough to constitute a result.? , control groups ( no change between A and B). etc. You have no clue how to set up a proper statistically significant listening test. I'm too bored to look for my previous detailed survey of your "research".- not unless you insist. You're a quack Krueger. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#300
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: ScottW wrote: I see Classic Records has delayed release of Aqualung until Jan 10. They were kind of advertising this as a nice stocking stuffer so I'm bummed I have the MFSL version which I like a great deal. Have you heard it? Nope. Are you going to bundle that up with your V15 in my xmas stocking? ScottW |
|
#301
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
George M. Middius wrote: Jenn said: LOL Oh how "fun"! Too bad you're such an impotent old man. Yet another silly fantasy of yours Jenn. As is yours about me being a "bitter old woman". Arnii has dragged you down into the mud with him. Inevitable, He is a market barker who does not hesitate inventing nonexistent writings, idiotically confident that no one will check, When caught what has he got left but personal insults about Jenn's age, my age, my English and so on. He really does not deserve any rational polemic. In the midst of an argument he'll bring up a lie, a complete fabrication. Normals can not cope with that.. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#302
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
" said:
Arnii has dragged you down into the mud with him. Inevitable, He is a market barker who does not hesitate inventing nonexistent writings, idiotically confident that no one will check, When caught what has he got left but personal insults about Jenn's age, my age, my English and so on. He really does not deserve any rational polemic. In the midst of an argument he'll bring up a lie, a complete fabrication. Normals can not cope with that.. So far, I have never seen evidence of anyone being influenced by his ABX-babbling when it comes to evaluating and purchasing domestic audio gear. The few (wanna-be) audio borgs that parrot his party line, either never did a DBT/ABX test themselves for this purpose, or tacitly admitted to owning expensive "snake oil" audio components themselves. No amount of "...but the Krell sounded exactly the same than that cheap Yamaha!" will change that. -- - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? - |
|
#303
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message Ah! We get to the gist of the matter at last. Given that my model for good audio is the sound of live acoustic music It's not a given, especially given your preference for music with audible noise and distortion added. Yes, it's a given. I find it intriguing that you have found live venues that produce the acoustical equivalents of grain noise, rumble, flutter and wow, tracing distortion, goove pre- and post-echo, etc. I find it interesting that you evidently have no model for good sound at all. |
|
#304
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Jenn said: LOL Oh how "fun"! Too bad you're such an impotent old man. Yet another silly fantasy of yours Jenn. As is yours about me being a "bitter old woman". Arnii has dragged you down into the mud with him. There's method to the madness. It probably won't work, but hope springs and all.... |
|
#305
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article om,
" wrote: George M. Middius wrote: Jenn said: LOL Oh how "fun"! Too bad you're such an impotent old man. Yet another silly fantasy of yours Jenn. As is yours about me being a "bitter old woman". Arnii has dragged you down into the mud with him. Inevitable, He is a market barker who does not hesitate inventing nonexistent writings, idiotically confident that no one will check, When caught what has he got left but personal insults about Jenn's age, my age, my English and so on. Especially interesting as he's older than I (as if that's some kind of insult), and he mangles the English language more than anybody here. |
|
#306
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: What you don't seem to understand Jenn, is that things like level matching, time synching, and bias controls actually enhance the use of the ears. Time synching: I disagree. The purpose of that seems to eliminate the subject of a test knowing when the switch happens. Am I wrong here? Yes Jenn, you are as usual, completely and totally wrong. And as usual, you can't comment without snot. The purpose of time synching is to make it as easy as possible to compare, and to avoid false positives due to hearing the lack of synchronization. Isn't that basically what I said? Not at all. In the case of time synching, aren't the false positives due to hearing the lack of synchronization caused because the subject hears the switch? Not necessarily. Get this idea out of your head that hearing the switch is a problem. As long as there is nothing distinctive about the switch-over hearing it is just fine. If the two pieces of music being compared aren't synchonized well enough, small differences will be masked by the larger differences due to time displacement. No response from Jenn. This very important point is completely flying over Jenn's head because if she admits that it exists then she has to admit that I've raised a different issue than the one that is her current hot button. If the two pieces of music being compared aren't synchonized well enough, I can always identify them in a DBT, even if they are otherwise identical. Right, you can identify them because you "know when the switch happens" which is what I said. Wrong Jenn. Knowing when the switch happens isn't a problem. Knowing the details of what the switch involved is a problem. Level matching: I agree. Congratulations Jenn, you actually got something right! Congratulations Arny, you remain true to form! The problem is Jenn that you don't realize how focussed you are on your own issues. Remember that level-matching extends naturally to matching frequency response. Bias controls: I'm about to write a bit about that. I'm sure that you'll get that all wrong, too. But, give it a shot! I'm sure that you'll disagree if for no other reason that I write it. Slough of the issue noted. But again: at the end of the day, simple listening with discernment for what sounds best to you is most important. An important issue that many golden ears want to ignore - if you can't tell the difference by means of just sound quality, then any differences in your preferences are irrelevant to the issue of sound quality. Could you provide an actual example of this? All of the golden ear ranting and raving about CD players and power amps that sound "mind-blowingly different". As I said before, I strongly suspect that were good DBTs of turntables to be done, a lot of people would feel like giant fools for the money they blew on their last big investment. Much of what they hear is related to the limitations of the medium, not differences in SQ related to various turntables. LoT"s to answer here and it shall be later this afternoon. I have to go now and convince myself that Arny is right and I should listen to something that sounds inferior to me. |
|
#307
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message Ah! We get to the gist of the matter at last. Given that my model for good audio is the sound of live acoustic music It's not a given, especially given your preference for music with audible noise and distortion added. Yes, it's a given. OK, on Planet Jenn, it is a given. I find it intriguing that you have found live venues that produce the acoustical equivalents of grain noise, rumble, flutter and wow, tracing distortion, goove pre- and post-echo, etc. I find it interesting that you evidently have no model for good sound at all. Delusions of omniscience noted. |
|
#308
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Sander deWaal wrote: " said: Arnii has dragged you down into the mud with him. Inevitable, He is a market barker who does not hesitate inventing nonexistent writings, idiotically confident that no one will check, When caught what has he got left but personal insults about Jenn's age, my age, my English and so on. He really does not deserve any rational polemic. In the midst of an argument he'll bring up a lie, a complete fabrication. Normals can not cope with that.. So far, I have never seen evidence of anyone being influenced by his ABX-babbling when it comes to evaluating and purchasing domestic audio gear. The few (wanna-be) audio borgs that parrot his party line, either never did a DBT/ABX test themselves for this purpose, or tacitly admitted to owning expensive "snake oil" audio components themselves. No amount of "...but the Krell sounded exactly the same than that cheap Yamaha!" will change that. If you're going to quote me Sander... you think you could take the trouble to do it accurately? Once again you've shown your anti-Arny fetish has caused you to slander and disrespect my position which, though Arny has made you too blind to see, is very much closer to Harry's than Arny's. I'll thank you not to misquote nor misrepresent me again. ScottW |
|
#309
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
wrote in message
ps.com George M. Middius wrote: Jenn said: LOL Oh how "fun"! Too bad you're such an impotent old man. Yet another silly fantasy of yours Jenn. As is yours about me being a "bitter old woman". Arnii has dragged you down into the mud with him. Inevitable, He is a market barker who does not hesitate inventing nonexistent writings, idiotically confident that no one will check, Tell you what Mirabel, I'm sure I can find one of my JAES articles but it will take some work. Make it worth my trouble! Wanna bet me $50 (John Atkinson holding the bets) that I have never written an article that was printed in the JAES? |
|
#310
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Jenn said: Arnii has dragged you down into the mud with him. There's method to the madness. It probably won't work, but hope springs and all.... I hope your goal isn't to jolt Turdborg into an epiphany of self-awareness.... -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#311
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"ScottW" said:
The few (wanna-be) audio borgs that parrot his party line, either never did a DBT/ABX test themselves for this purpose, or tacitly admitted to owning expensive "snake oil" audio components themselves. No amount of "...but the Krell sounded exactly the same than that cheap Yamaha!" will change that. If you're going to quote me Sander... you think you could take the trouble to do it accurately? Actually, I was thinking of Stewart Pinkerton. I don't recall you ever saying something like in the above. Let alone that I think of you as an audio borg (unless you sold your Quads) ;-) Come to think of it, Pinkerton didn't compare his Krell to a Yamaha, either. It was a Parasound, IIRC. -- - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? - |
|
#312
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
So far, I have never seen evidence of anyone being influenced by his ABX-babbling when it comes to evaluating and purchasing domestic audio gear. Given the irrational circles you seem to travel in Sander, I take that as a complement. The few (wanna-be) audio borgs that parrot his party line, either never did a DBT/ABX test themselves for this purpose, In fact what seems to happen is that people participate in ABX tests of audio components that they have an interest in, but may not intend to buy at the moment. They obtain useful information about the true extent of audible differences between good power amps which are typically vanishing. This informs their future choices. or tacitly admitted to owning expensive "snake oil" audio components themselves. Facts, please. No amount of "...but the Krell sounded exactly the same than that cheap Yamaha!" will change that. Letsee, that must have been Scottw's Krell KSA 150 versus his Yamaha M-50. But I don't see where he did an ABX test. |
|
#313
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" said:
So far, I have never seen evidence of anyone being influenced by his ABX-babbling when it comes to evaluating and purchasing domestic audio gear. Given the irrational circles you seem to travel in Sander, I take that as a complement. A complement of what? The few (wanna-be) audio borgs that parrot his party line, either never did a DBT/ABX test themselves for this purpose, In fact what seems to happen is that people participate in ABX tests of audio components that they have an interest in, but may not intend to buy at the moment. They obtain useful information about the true extent of audible differences between good power amps which are typically vanishing. This informs their future choices. That doesn't invalidate what I wrote above. Oh, and facts, please. Who, when, what kinds of amps, how many trials, how many listeners? or tacitly admitted to owning expensive "snake oil" audio components themselves. Facts, please. Stewart Pinkerton: a Krell, and several other analogue stuff. You: a Conrad Johnson tube preamplifier. Stuart Krivis admitted to owning some expensive stuff, IIRC. He admitted he never did an ABX test. Vlad, Mike McKelvy, Dizzy: never did ABX tests for the purpose of buying domestic audio components. There are more, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Heck, even I did single blind tests to compare capacitors. That would place me way up the science scale, wouldn't it? ;-) No amount of "...but the Krell sounded exactly the same than that cheap Yamaha!" will change that. Letsee, that must have been Scottw's Krell KSA 150 versus his Yamaha M-50. But I don't see where he did an ABX test. Already corrected in my post to Scott: I meant Pinkerton, and the Yamaha was a Parasound. Scott isn't a borg, not even a wannabe, and he doesn't parrot you. But I would be surprised if Pinkerton did ABX the 2 amps, which would only serve to weaken your case and strengthen mine. I'll repeat it here, again: The few (wanna-be) audio borgs that parrot his party line, either never did a DBT/ABX test themselves for this purpose, or tacitly admitted to owning expensive "snake oil" audio components themselves. -- - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? - |
|
#314
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
ScottW wrote: Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: ScottW wrote: I see Classic Records has delayed release of Aqualung until Jan 10. They were kind of advertising this as a nice stocking stuffer so I'm bummed I have the MFSL version which I like a great deal. Have you heard it? Nope. Are you going to bundle that up with your V15 in my xmas stocking? No, I still listen to it. Just not with a V15. Besides, you only wanted the current version, which mine are not... BTW, the MFSL LP of CSN&Y Deja Vu is also stellar, as are Waiting for Columbus by Little Feat, Katy Lied by Steely Dan (These are some of those that sound better than any CD, IMO) and a few others that simply shine. They're occasionally on eBay. The Little Feat can be had pretty cheaply. The others are a little spendy. |
|
#315
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Jenn wrote: Especially interesting as he's older than I (as if that's some kind of insult), and he mangles the English language more than anybody here. I'm sure he'll take that as a "complement." |
|
#316
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny's "Omniscicence", LoT;"S! ;-(
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" said:
Especially interesting as he's older than I (as if that's some kind of insult), and he mangles the English language more than anybody here. I'm sure he'll take that as a "complement." SH*TR, considering the wierd circle's you seem to, travel in, LOt;"S! SHIRT that would indeed be, the case RITSH. LOL ! ;-) -- - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? - |
|
#317
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: Tell you what Mirabel, I'm sure I can find one of my JAES articles but it will take some work. Make it worth my trouble! Wanna bet me $50 (John Atkinson holding the bets) that I have never written an article that was printed in the JAES? Arns makes a claim, then he wants to be paid to back it up. Is he insane, or is he just a loser just a loser? I vote for insane. On another note, now we can assume that Arns will pay $50 any time he asks someone for proof of something and it gets provided. I'm OK with that, I guess, but Arns needs to put a rather large pile in escrow. I'm hoping that he asks me to prove why I like something. Getting $50 to say "Because it is my preference" seems like a waste, but I'd never tell old Arns how to spend his money like he tries to tell others how to spend theirs... ________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#318
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message Ah! We get to the gist of the matter at last. Given that my model for good audio is the sound of live acoustic music It's not a given, especially given your preference for music with audible noise and distortion added. Yes, it's a given. OK, on Planet Jenn, it is a given. I find it intriguing that you have found live venues that produce the acoustical equivalents of grain noise, rumble, flutter and wow, tracing distortion, goove pre- and post-echo, etc. I find it interesting that you evidently have no model for good sound at all. Delusions of omniscience noted. Poor, bitter old man.:-( ________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#319
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" said: So far, I have never seen evidence of anyone being influenced by his ABX-babbling when it comes to evaluating and purchasing domestic audio gear. Given the irrational circles you seem to travel in Sander, I take that as a complement. A complement of what? I guess I meant compliment. The few (wanna-be) audio borgs that parrot his party line, either never did a DBT/ABX test themselves for this purpose, In fact what seems to happen is that people participate in ABX tests of audio components that they have an interest in, but may not intend to buy at the moment. They obtain useful information about the true extent of audible differences between good power amps which are typically vanishing. This informs their future choices. That doesn't invalidate what I wrote above. Did I say that it did? Nope. Oh, and facts, please. Who, when, what kinds of amps, how many trials, how many listeners? Please see back issues of Stereo Review, Audio, and Sound and Vision. or tacitly admitted to owning expensive "snake oil" audio components themselves. Facts, please. Stewart Pinkerton: a Krell, and several other analogue stuff. Why is it snake oil? You: a Conrad Johnson tube preamplifier. Why is it snake oil? Stuart Krivis admitted to owning some expensive stuff, IIRC. Sander are you so class-conscious that you think that all equipment that is expensive is snake oil? He admitted he never did an ABX test. Vlad, Mike McKelvy, Dizzy: never did ABX tests for the purpose of buying domestic audio components. So what? There are more, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Well then I'm too lazy to bother with this topic much more. |
|
#320
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
The Krooborg is struttin' its stuff. I take that as a complement. Arnii! What happened to Mrs. Krooborg? -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
Linear Mode
