Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission

said:

Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
school bully?


Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass in
middle
school.



Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy.



I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
  #163   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission



Sander deWaal said:

Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
school bully?


Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass in
middle school.


Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy.


I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-)


That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also
thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-)






  #164   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
said:

Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
school bully?


Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass
in
middle
school.



Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy.



I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-)

When George leaves a hole that big, I'm going to drive a truck through it.


  #165   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Sander deWaal said:

Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
school bully?


Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass
in
middle school.


Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy.


I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-)


That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also
thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-)

No, screaming Queen.

Like the guy on Will and Grace, the one who's not Will.




  #166   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission



Miss Mickey needs some male lovin'.

That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also
thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-)


No, screaming Queen.
Like the guy on Will and Grace, the one who's not Will.


Thanks Ms. McMickey for, admitting you lust for sissy boys.





  #167   Report Post  
Ruud Broens
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

: However I am well versed, while Rudy is merely an illiterate country
: boy.
:
: His neck is still red from the boomerang he threw last week, note..
:
: --
illiterate ?
why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish,
it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel,
online _city_ cooking by moi
;-)


  #168   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Miss Mickey needs some male lovin'.

That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also
thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-)


No, screaming Queen.
Like the guy on Will and Grace, the one who's not Will.


Thanks Ms. McMickey for, admitting you lust for sissy boys.



Thanks for admitting your abuse is flirting.
You girls are all the same.


  #169   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission

"Ruud Broens" said:

: However I am well versed, while Rudy is merely an illiterate country
: boy.



illiterate ?
why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish,
it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel,
online _city_ cooking by moi
;-)



I'll let this post speak for itself. QED.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
  #170   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission



Sander deWaal said:

why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish,
it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel,
online _city_ cooking by moi
;-)


I'll let this post speak for itself. QED.


Looks like you got your head handed to you again, debating trade wise,
Slick. LOL!







  #171   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission

George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net

why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish,
it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel,
online _city_ cooking by moi
;-)


I'll let this post speak for itself. QED.


Looks like you got your head handed to you again, debating trade wise,
Slick. LOL!




Thank's for, demonstrating "George" or whatever, your calling you're
self this week that you're necesay knowlege of Latin, expresions is
limited to "non-sequitur" only , Lot;S! ;-(

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
  #172   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission




paul packer wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:22 GMT, wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, wrote:

I don't care what the truth is, I just like
knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buy equipment that can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
different
than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.

Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped.


I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It
ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?"
Your post brought it back to mind. :-)


Let me try and rephrase.

The truth about audio electronics is that except for speakers, it is a
simple matter to obtain equipment that reproduces exactly the source
material. This assumes CD playback and SS equipment.

That this is true, is verified by reams of reliable research.

I don't know why this fact confounds some people.
I don't understand why knowing the facts and repeating them should bother
people.
Something is either true or not.


Things are not as "true" as you imagine. Everything cannot be reduced
to measurement. The brain is not well understood and auditory science
is by no means complete. People tend to believe what they actually
hear rather than what a machine tells them they should be hearing
according to "logic".

I have no interest in buying equipment that does anything other than
reproduce what is on the source media, without any audible change.


Yep, same here.

Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They
can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There
are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and
very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless
you're sitting very close.


Speakers probably are the weakest link in the sense of most obviously
variable. There was a time back in the 70s when the "garbage in,
garbage out" doctrine ruled and people swore that a Linn turntable
could make even crap speakers sound sweet. That was rubbish as was
eventually recognised. Nevertheless a good source is vital, and I can
never agree that all CD players and well-measuring amps sound the same
because my ears tell me otherwise. Therefore I have to go on
listening.

I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't
control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want
what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence
a purchase.


"Fair" to what? We're talking listening for pleasure in the home here.
Therefore what sounds best to the purchaser in his listening
environment is the only "fair" that matters. As for salespeople, no
doubt they do play with purchaser's heads, and that's why it's
necessary to be as well-armed as possible when one goes into the shop.
This is were hi-fi mags came in, or used to before they went over to
HT. Only an idiot believed every word, but they were great for
compiling short lists. Beyond that it's a case of listening carefully
and ignoring most of the salesman's waffle. Live concerts are useful
too, to get the sound of live instruments. That after all is your
touchstone.

I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about it, partly because I have
the benefit of knowing how reliably accurate most gear is, and because I can
get reliable data on he build quality of anything I might be considering.


Hmmm...

I'm also lucky enough to know that there is a lot of pro audio equipment
that meets and/or exceeds the quality of so-called high end equipment that
costs much less than the high end stuff.


Hmmm...

I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial, let
alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here.


There's never any need for vitriol. The emotion is engendered by the
concept that audio as a hobby and a passion can be reduced to
measurerment. Our ears tell us it can't, sighted listening and
controlled SPLs notwithstanding.

I don't
understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening to
music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the
master.

I understand there are people who choose to go with what sounds good to them
and that's all well and good, so long as they don't make claims about
performance that are at odds with reality.


Yes, but what is reality? What you've measured, or what you actually
hear? You talk about the bias of sighted listening, but measurement
can itself create bias. If you see that an amp has vanishingly low
distortion, and believe that such distortion cannot be audible, likely
you'll hear that amp as "perfect"--that's real bias.

Clear enough?


Yes, very clear. Putting aside content, I have to admit that your post
is a model of literate clarity. Therefore I can't help wondering why
all your posts aren't like this, why you insist on giving Robert and
George so much ammunition for their "Special Person" campaign. Did all
your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply
himself" etc?
In any case if you can do it once you can do it always, and I expect
to see a similar standard in all future posts. Here's one star * to
start you off. You can wear it on your forehead. :-)

__________________________________________________ _
Nyob concedes that loudspeakers sound different.
Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They
can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There
are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and
very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless
you're sitting very close.


And he repeats the catechism:
I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't


control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want
what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence
a purchase


What he should have said was that loudspeakers sound different *even to
me*
Bercause nothing else does. According to him manufacture of audio
reached such perfection that no matter what you put together it will
sound the same.
Again what he should have said was: "TO ME"
He knows he is right because indeed under "bias- controlled
conditions" (read: ABX) everything does sound the same..To him that
is.
But the loudspeakers should not, right? Even to him they sound
different.
Except... In Sean Olive's double-blind, "bias controlled" study most
panelists failed to distinguish four very different loudspeakers from
each other when comparing "different or not". And that was just
DBT- imagine what would happen if they were ABXed (which Sean Olive
rejected as "unsuitable" for his test..)
(JAES, vol.51.#9, p.806-825)
But the same panelists when asked a straightforward question: "Which
one do you like better?" plumped for the ones with the smoothest
frequency response.
I pointed this out to our local "scientists" ten times if I pointed
it once. The replies ranged from silence to inarticulate, gutter
profanity.
I doubt if our one and only NYOB will do any better.
So much for "bias- controlled" "tests" of human likes and
dislikes.
Next: bias-controlled DBT/ABX test of a Stradivarius against a
Guarnieri,
Ludovic Mirabel

  #173   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
ups.com...



paul packer wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:22 GMT, wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, wrote:

I don't care what the truth is, I just like
knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buy equipment that
can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
different
than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.

Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped.


I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It
ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?"
Your post brought it back to mind. :-)

Let me try and rephrase.

The truth about audio electronics is that except for speakers, it is a
simple matter to obtain equipment that reproduces exactly the source
material. This assumes CD playback and SS equipment.

That this is true, is verified by reams of reliable research.

I don't know why this fact confounds some people.
I don't understand why knowing the facts and repeating them should
bother
people.
Something is either true or not.


Things are not as "true" as you imagine. Everything cannot be reduced
to measurement. The brain is not well understood and auditory science
is by no means complete. People tend to believe what they actually
hear rather than what a machine tells them they should be hearing
according to "logic".

I have no interest in buying equipment that does anything other than
reproduce what is on the source media, without any audible change.


Yep, same here.

Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain.
They
can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of.
There
are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large
and
very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels,
unless
you're sitting very close.


Speakers probably are the weakest link in the sense of most obviously
variable. There was a time back in the 70s when the "garbage in,
garbage out" doctrine ruled and people swore that a Linn turntable
could make even crap speakers sound sweet. That was rubbish as was
eventually recognised. Nevertheless a good source is vital, and I can
never agree that all CD players and well-measuring amps sound the same
because my ears tell me otherwise. Therefore I have to go on
listening.

I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't
control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I
want
what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to
influence
a purchase.


"Fair" to what? We're talking listening for pleasure in the home here.
Therefore what sounds best to the purchaser in his listening
environment is the only "fair" that matters. As for salespeople, no
doubt they do play with purchaser's heads, and that's why it's
necessary to be as well-armed as possible when one goes into the shop.
This is were hi-fi mags came in, or used to before they went over to
HT. Only an idiot believed every word, but they were great for
compiling short lists. Beyond that it's a case of listening carefully
and ignoring most of the salesman's waffle. Live concerts are useful
too, to get the sound of live instruments. That after all is your
touchstone.

I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about it, partly because I
have
the benefit of knowing how reliably accurate most gear is, and because I
can
get reliable data on he build quality of anything I might be
considering.


Hmmm...

I'm also lucky enough to know that there is a lot of pro audio equipment
that meets and/or exceeds the quality of so-called high end equipment
that
costs much less than the high end stuff.


Hmmm...

I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial,
let
alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here.


There's never any need for vitriol. The emotion is engendered by the
concept that audio as a hobby and a passion can be reduced to
measurerment. Our ears tell us it can't, sighted listening and
controlled SPLs notwithstanding.

I don't
understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening
to
music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the
master.

I understand there are people who choose to go with what sounds good to
them
and that's all well and good, so long as they don't make claims about
performance that are at odds with reality.


Yes, but what is reality? What you've measured, or what you actually
hear? You talk about the bias of sighted listening, but measurement
can itself create bias. If you see that an amp has vanishingly low
distortion, and believe that such distortion cannot be audible, likely
you'll hear that amp as "perfect"--that's real bias.

Clear enough?


Yes, very clear. Putting aside content, I have to admit that your post
is a model of literate clarity. Therefore I can't help wondering why
all your posts aren't like this, why you insist on giving Robert and
George so much ammunition for their "Special Person" campaign. Did all
your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply
himself" etc?
In any case if you can do it once you can do it always, and I expect
to see a similar standard in all future posts. Here's one star * to
start you off. You can wear it on your forehead. :-)

__________________________________________________ _
Nyob concedes that loudspeakers sound different.


Nothing new. I've always said that.

Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain.
They
can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of.
There
are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large
and
very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels,
unless
you're sitting very close.


And he repeats the catechism:
I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't
control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I
want
what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to
influence
a purchase


What he should have said was that loudspeakers sound different *even to
me*
Bercause nothing else does.


But that would have been untrue.

According to him manufacture of audio
reached such perfection that no matter what you put together it will
sound the same.


Not according to me, according to the technology. It's a very simple thing
to build components that are audibly transparent. That you don't seem to
recognize that fact is not my fault.

Again what he should have said was: "TO ME"


Or anyone else when comparing similar equipment, and not diriven into
clipping. That's why there are so few positive results from ABX tests.

He knows he is right because indeed under "bias- controlled
conditions" (read: ABX) everything does sound the same..


Not everything, as you've been shown many times before. When the
differences are audible, people hear them in ABX tests.

To him that
is.
But the loudspeakers should not, right? Even to him they sound
different.
Except... In Sean Olive's double-blind, "bias controlled" study most
panelists failed to distinguish four very different loudspeakers from
each other when comparing "different or not".


Is that the end of all such testing on how loudspeakers sound, you
insufferable twit?
One research example and the whole thing is inavild in your mind?

And that was just
DBT- imagine what would happen if they were ABXed (which Sean Olive
rejected as "unsuitable" for his test..)


But not because there is a problem with ABX per se.

(JAES, vol.51.#9, p.806-825)
But the same panelists when asked a straightforward question: "Which
one do you like better?" plumped for the ones with the smoothest
frequency response.
I pointed this out to our local "scientists" ten times if I pointed
it once. The replies ranged from silence to inarticulate, gutter
profanity.
I doubt if our one and only NYOB will do any better.
So much for "bias- controlled" "tests" of human likes and
dislikes.
Next: bias-controlled DBT/ABX test of a Stradivarius against a
Guarnieri,
Ludovic Mirabel


The fact that yo use only one expample of people not being able to
distinguish speakers that you believe they should have and trying to
globalize it for all DBT's everywhere is one of the signs that you are not
bright enough to discuss this with, since you are obviously not getting it.

Have you ever bothered to discuss this with Mr. Olive via e-mail?
Perhaps if you did you might be able to get past it and move into the real
world, assuming they will let you.




Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
f.S. Tons of cheapgear Cheapgear1 Pro Audio 2 February 23rd 12 03:25 AM
shipping Rode NT2000 in carrying case Charles Peterson Pro Audio 3 June 24th 05 05:29 PM
WANTED: 6 Space Effects Rack Case Geoley Pro Audio 0 December 29th 04 10:47 PM
FS: 400 Closeouts!! Video Game, Computer, Mobile A/V, Personal A/V Nexxon Car Audio 0 April 30th 04 07:53 AM
Sherwood S-8000 Schematic and Case needed Jim Candela Vacuum Tubes 1 September 8th 03 09:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:42 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"