"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

[snip[

Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid people.

How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their
amps
against something you think is better.

Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding

Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?

If their specifications are correct as stated, they are very clean. There'
no reason to assume they would sound different that any other SS amp capable
of driving 2 ohm loads.

You can check the specs for their 2 channel amps he
http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm


Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.

But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest?

Have you considered that your comments regarding QSC amps is pure crapola?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.

What did he lie about?

He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result. That
is
simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.

He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
intelligence quotient.

Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
it all sound the same.

If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a lie
and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:


Letting them off as deadly bores is a bit too easy. Lurking beneath
their
glassy eyed personas are human monsters, where mere mere machinery
replaces
human virtue.

LOL. Such melodrama! Now you're getting *hysterical*, sir.

This seems as good a high-comedy note as any to revert back to
lurking.
Let me suggest, Mr. Morein, that if you enjoy 'exaggerated praise'
(i.e., sarcasm directed your way) feel free to post to RAHE,
hydrogenaudio.org, and any other forum where poorly-reasoned
claims get the treatment they deserve.

Here, here!

Then why did you investigate Ludovic's MD degree?
What possible relevance could there be to the discussion?
Why did you assume that, since Ludovic disagrees with your opinion
about
ABX, that his personal veracity was in question?

That's evil!

Attempts to find out the truth are evil?
Sheesh, you really are ****ed in the head.

Mikey, you are evil too.

Snore.

Robert Morein wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:

This means that for me, relays cannot
be accepted without examination for comparator construction.

Did Lionel write this?

Why do you say that?

Remarkable comeback, Bob. Your writing is top drawer, as I would expect
from a person of your remarkable intellect. Keep it up and the resistance
will give you a medal for valorous service. If only the objectivists had
such potent advocacy!

ScottW

Thank's Scott. I knew I always liked you.

Stop fantasizing about me you perve.

ScottW

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...



I said:
He will not find any
there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX
makes
it all sound the same.

Sullivan answered:
Except when it doesn't:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm

You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain
one.
Back into the killfile you go.

I answered:
This is the second time in one week Sullivan responds
by
assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going mute
when things get hot.
Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true believer-
ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible.
This
is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days (
his
stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th) that
the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
evidence
that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
So let us see once more (I've done it three times
before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the defunct
"Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research" report
dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the early
eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
beggars...

The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers.
They
had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of 10
comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
Now listen carefully because you will be inclined to
doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
"research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts and
one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it
shows
ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation at
the
loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
Next they compared something called Paoli 60M (no
data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
difference.
The third "positive" result was a comparison of
ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they offer
that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with *audible*
clipping.
The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect
that
no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100 (I
have
one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP
they
heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against a
a
cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
(One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at
that
time)- yes, they heard a difference.
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

NYOB rushes to help out:
I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.

Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars. A
good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc. and
like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?

Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the truth.
I
doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.

You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had executive
powers over me!!!

I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real living,
thinking being.

Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you must
demean the messenger.

Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test ending
invariably in " It all sounds the same"

See, you still continue to lie.

would make the already

SNIP of irrelevant crap.

Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons done
where
people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's. When
you
stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least about
that
subject.

Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly mismatched in
power and technology.
But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby in
order
to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.

Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all sound the
same.
It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
comparison reveals it to be so.

Robert Morein wrote:
Stereophile attempts to relate to readers in a human way, connecting with
their dreams and fantasies,

and we shall call it... audioporn.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:

This means that for me, relays cannot
be accepted without examination for comparator construction.

Did Lionel write this?

Why do you say that?

Remarkable comeback, Bob. Your writing is top drawer, as I would
expect
from a person of your remarkable intellect. Keep it up and the
resistance
will give you a medal for valorous service. If only the objectivists had
such potent advocacy!

ScottW

Thank's Scott. I knew I always liked you.

Stop fantasizing about me you perve.

ScottW

Scott, why you sensitive guy, you!

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

[snip[

Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid
people.

How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their
amps
against something you think is better.

Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding

Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?

If their specifications are correct as stated, they are very clean.
There'
no reason to assume they would sound different that any other SS amp
capable
of driving 2 ohm loads.

You can check the specs for their 2 channel amps he
http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm


Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.

But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest?

Have you considered that your comments regarding QSC amps is pure crapola?

They are PA quality amps, Mikey, nothing more. Some people can hear the
difference, and others cannot.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.

What did he lie about?

He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result.
That
is
simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.

He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
intelligence quotient.

Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
it all sound the same.

If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a lie
and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.

No, Mikey. He means it as a "figure of speech." Do you know what that means?

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


Robert Morein said:

Then why did you investigate Ludovic's MD degree?
What possible relevance could there be to the discussion?
Why did you assume that, since Ludovic disagrees with your opinion about
ABX, that his personal veracity was in question?

In Sillybot's defense, RAO has the odious precedent of the Krooborg. With
a creature like that in our midst, it's not entirely unreasonable to take
precautions when dealing with everybody else.

Is Krueger a graduate of the University of the Pacific?

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...



I said:
He will not find any
there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX
makes
it all sound the same.

Sullivan answered:
Except when it doesn't:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm

You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain
one.
Back into the killfile you go.

I answered:
This is the second time in one week Sullivan
responds
by
assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going
mute
when things get hot.
Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
believer-
ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible.
This
is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days (
his
stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th)
that
the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
evidence
that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
So let us see once more (I've done it three times
before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
defunct
"Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research" report
dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the
early
eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
beggars...

The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers.
They
had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of 10
comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
Now listen carefully because you will be inclined
to
doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
"research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts
and
one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it
shows
ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation
at
the
loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
Next they compared something called Paoli 60M (no
data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
difference.
The third "positive" result was a comparison of
ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they
offer
that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
*audible*
clipping.
The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will
say
that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect
that
no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100 (I
have
one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP
they
heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against
a
a
cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
(One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at
that
time)- yes, they heard a difference.
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

NYOB rushes to help out:
I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.

Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars.
A
good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc. and
like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?

Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the
truth.
I
doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.

You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had executive
powers over me!!!

I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
living,
thinking being.

Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you must
demean the messenger.

Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
ending
invariably in " It all sounds the same"

See, you still continue to lie.

would make the already

SNIP of irrelevant crap.

Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons done
where
people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's.
When
you
stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least about
that
subject.

Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly mismatched in
power and technology.
But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby in
order
to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.

Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all sound
the
same.
It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
comparison reveals it to be so.

I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.
Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi poloi that
a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is. You do not seem to
understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in a
heartbeat. It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not. Some amplifiers
sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room. Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
and early Aragons.

Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and call
it rain?" This is what you're doing. You're acting like a colorblind person
in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that you
cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in your
stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.

You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your brain.

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
Stereophile attempts to relate to readers in a human way, connecting
with
their dreams and fantasies,

and we shall call it... audioporn.

ScottW

Hahahahahhahahaaa!
I don't agree, but it's a good one!

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...



I said:
He will not find any
there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX
makes
it all sound the same.

Sullivan answered:
Except when it doesn't:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm

You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you
remain
one.
Back into the killfile you go.

I answered:
This is the second time in one week Sullivan
responds
by
assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going
mute
when things get hot.
Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
believer-
ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible.
This
is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days (
his
stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th)
that
the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
evidence
that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
So let us see once more (I've done it three times
before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
defunct
"Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research"
report
dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the
early
eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
beggars...

The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers.
They
had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of
10
comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
Now listen carefully because you will be inclined
to
doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
"research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts
and
one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it
shows
ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation
at
the
loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
Next they compared something called Paoli 60M
(no
data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
difference.
The third "positive" result was a comparison of
ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they
offer
that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
*audible*
clipping.
The other 7 comparisons produced "no
difference"
outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will
say
that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect
that
no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100
(I
have
one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP
they
heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against
a
a
cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
(One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at
that
time)- yes, they heard a difference.
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

NYOB rushes to help out:
I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.

Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars.
A
good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc.
and
like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?

Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the
truth.
I
doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.

You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had
executive
powers over me!!!

I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
living,
thinking being.

Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you must
demean the messenger.

Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX.
What
he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
ending
invariably in " It all sounds the same"

See, you still continue to lie.

would make the already

SNIP of irrelevant crap.

Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons done
where
people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's.
When
you
stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least about
that
subject.

Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly mismatched
in
power and technology.
But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby in
order
to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.

Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all sound
the
same.
It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
comparison reveals it to be so.

I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.

And your evidence of this is what?

Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi poloi
that
a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is.

The best there is is something that reproduces the input as an inaudibley
different output. A trivially easy task.

You do not seem to
understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in a
heartbeat.

I understand there are people who believe this, so far I don't know of
anyone who has proven to have this ability. The only way they ould
demoisntrate it would be to compare their sighted listening to a DBT.

It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not.

Bul****.

Some amplifiers
sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room.

SET's?

Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
and early Aragons.


A statement that you can't prove and won't becuase you know you're full of
****.

Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and call
it rain?" This is what you're doing.

No, I'm just telling you a scientific fact, sighted listening is inherently
flawed, unless the differences are gross.

You're acting like a colorblind person
in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that you
cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in your
stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.



Then it should be a simple matter to demosnstrate this abiltiy by doing a
comparison of sighted bs. blind listening. I predict you won't ever do it,
because you know you're full of ****.

You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your brain.

I'm smart enough to know you're full of ****.
I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
differences sighted aren't able to so blind.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.

What did he lie about?

He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result.
That
is
simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.

He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
intelligence quotient.

Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
it all sound the same.

If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a lie
and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.

No, Mikey. He means it as a "figure of speech." Do you know what that
means?

Yes, it's what you are trying to cop out with, when you know he's lying.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

[snip]

You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain one.
Back into the killfile you go.

[snip]
The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect that
no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
[snip]
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

Thank you, Ludovic, for a systematic deconstruction of the tainted logic of
ABX. The leader of the ABX batallion might be tempted to reply with a
contemptuous "ROTFL",

I'm not the 'leader', AFAIK, but I will happily contribute a hearty 'ROTFL'.

Ludovic asks for positive ABX results, but doesn't like it when he's
pointed to them. This is his pattern.

Of course, *Meyer's* 1991 article *also* reports positive
ABX test results, and explains underw what circumstances they tend
to arise.

As currently constituted, "ABX" does not pass a reality check.

Curiously, the AES pays not the slightest attention to such pronouncements
from such 'leaders' as yourself. Oh, how deluded they are! If
only they would listen to you!

Quote a few COMPONENT COMPARISONS from JAES that used ABX and had a
positive outcome

It
contradicts widely held experience among the audio community.

A community rather notorious for embracing reality-challenged beliefs.

Let's be patient and start once more da capo.
It all began with a hypothesis that ABX is the right tool for telling
differences between components as reproducers of music. Not codecs, not
phase differences, not any other artifact, properly researched in
laboratories, but MUSIC.
It was promoted as a tool suitable for use by the generality of
audiophiles- not just for laboratory use.
Hypotheses need validation by research. The proper place for such
research is a professional, peer-reviewed journal such as JAES.
Acceptance means that the peers considered the protocol, the
statistical criteria, the panel selection etc. consistent with
scientific research standards. Such systematic research was never done.

That Sullivan offers the risible contents of the ancient PCABX
website as his lone piece of "evidence" for near to 40 years since
the ABX was revealed from on high can mean one of two things: !) He
is a fanatic who'll reach for anything in desperation or 2) that
while posing as a self-appointed representative of "science", he
does not have a clue what constitutes legitimate research to validate a
hypothesis and be acceptable to any self-respecting editorial pencil.
Most likely it is a combination of 1 and 2.
On the other hand that he, in all seriousness, gloats because
inspite of ABXing PCABX "researchers" managed to hear the
difference between a 7 watt kit amp and a 400 watt transistor or
between a functioning and a broken down amp. (loud hurrahs!)* may mean
that he is not simply clueless. True it looks like it when he offers
it as "proof" that ABXing helps to distinguish amp from amp. But
maybe he has such contempt for his readers that he counts on them being
even more clueless than he is though idiocy, (depending on
circumstances) may be a more serious crime than lying.
Ludovic Mirabel
*P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
"golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
"Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!


--

-S

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

[snip[

Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid
people.

How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their
amps
against something you think is better.

Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding

Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?

If their specifications are correct as stated, they are very clean.
There'
no reason to assume they would sound different that any other SS amp
capable
of driving 2 ohm loads.

You can check the specs for their 2 channel amps he
http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm


Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.

But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest?

Have you considered that your comments regarding QSC amps is pure
crapola?

They are PA quality amps, Mikey, nothing more. Some people can hear the
difference, and others cannot.

That's what all the cowards say, when they don't wish to do a comparison
that relies only one's ears.

But then we already knew you were posturing.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...



I said:
He will not find any
there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria,
ABX
makes
it all sound the same.

Sullivan answered:
Except when it doesn't:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm

You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you
remain
one.
Back into the killfile you go.

I answered:
This is the second time in one week Sullivan
responds
by
assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going
mute
when things get hot.
Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
believer-
ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is
irresistible.
This
is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days
(
his
stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th)
that
the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
evidence
that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
So let us see once more (I've done it three times
before) why it remained a private website and not an article-
not
acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
defunct
"Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like
JAES.
And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research"
report
dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the
early
eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
beggars...

The first report (the 1977 one) is about
amplifiers.
They
had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of
10
comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard
it.
Now listen carefully because you will be
inclined
to
doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
"research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10
watts
and
one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it
shows
ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with
indignation
at
the
loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
Next they compared something called Paoli 60M
(no
data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
difference.
The third "positive" result was a comparison
of
ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they
offer
that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
*audible*
clipping.
The other 7 comparisons produced "no
difference"
outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan
will
say
that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so
perfect
that
no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100
(I
have
one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony
CDP
they
heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15
against
a
a
cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the
same
(One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line
at
that
time)- yes, they heard a difference.
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

NYOB rushes to help out:
I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
liar.

Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you
liars.
A
good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc.
and
like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of
an
answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?

Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the
truth.
I
doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.

You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan
took
the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to
prove
that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had
executive
powers over me!!!

I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
living,
thinking being.

Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you
must
demean the messenger.

Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against
John
Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX.
What
he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
ending
invariably in " It all sounds the same"

See, you still continue to lie.

would make the already

SNIP of irrelevant crap.

Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons
done
where
people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's.
When
you
stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least
about
that
subject.

Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly mismatched
in
power and technology.
But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby in
order
to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.

Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all sound
the
same.
It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
comparison reveals it to be so.

I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.

And your evidence of this is what?

Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi poloi
that
a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is.

The best there is is something that reproduces the input as an inaudibley
different output. A trivially easy task.

You do not seem to
understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in a
heartbeat.

I understand there are people who believe this, so far I don't know of
anyone who has proven to have this ability. The only way they ould
demoisntrate it would be to compare their sighted listening to a DBT.

It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not.

Bul****.

Some amplifiers
sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room.

SET's?

Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
and early Aragons.


A statement that you can't prove and won't becuase you know you're full of
****.

Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and
call
it rain?" This is what you're doing.

No, I'm just telling you a scientific fact, sighted listening is
inherently
flawed, unless the differences are gross.

You're acting like a colorblind person
in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that
you
cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in
your
stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.


Then it should be a simple matter to demosnstrate this abiltiy by doing a
comparison of sighted bs. blind listening. I predict you won't ever do
it,
because you know you're full of ****.

Impossible, given that, according to Stereophile, Arny's ABX device uses
undersized relays.

You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your
brain.

I'm smart enough to know you're full of ****.
I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
differences sighted aren't able to so blind.

Let's analyze this. We have a dumb guy who asserts he is smart enough to
know certain things. But dumb people are dumb because they make mistakes.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be dumb. Ergo, Mikey is not smart enough to know
the things he mistakenly thinks he knows.

wrote in message
oups.com...

*P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
"golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
"Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!


Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient confidence
to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps of good
quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to see if the "Golden Ear" can
improve his score. If so and if he could reach the 95% confidence level
needed for a positive, then there's reason to study this individual in order
to find out what is different in the way his hearing works. There could be
all kinds of possibilities that such research might apply to, audio
equipment being a rather insignificant one.

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


Robert Morein said:

Then why did you investigate Ludovic's MD degree?
What possible relevance could there be to the discussion?
Why did you assume that, since Ludovic disagrees with your opinion about
ABX, that his personal veracity was in question?

In Sillybot's defense, RAO has the odious precedent of B.J. Richman. With
a creature like that in our midst, it's not entirely unreasonable to take
precautions when dealing with everybody else.



I agree, one can't be too cautious. There are vermin hiding behind aliases.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

[snip[

Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid
people.

How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of
their
amps
against something you think is better.

Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding

Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?

If their specifications are correct as stated, they are very clean.
There'
no reason to assume they would sound different that any other SS amp
capable
of driving 2 ohm loads.

You can check the specs for their 2 channel amps he
http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm


Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.

But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest?

Have you considered that your comments regarding QSC amps is pure
crapola?

They are PA quality amps, Mikey, nothing more. Some people can hear the
difference, and others cannot.

That's what all the cowards say, when they don't wish to do a comparison
that relies only one's ears.

But then we already knew you were posturing.

Mikey, I'm sorry, but QSC amps are junk.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
liar.

What did he lie about?

He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result.
That
is
simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.

He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
intelligence quotient.

Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
it all sound the same.

If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a
lie
and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.

No, Mikey. He means it as a "figure of speech." Do you know what that
means?

Yes, it's what you are trying to cop out with, when you know he's lying.

No, Mikey, that's not what it means. See "rhetorical device", under
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/searc...gure+of+speech.
Your language skills are subnormal.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

[snip[

Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid
people.

How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of
their
amps
against something you think is better.

Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding

Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?

If their specifications are correct as stated, they are very clean.
There'
no reason to assume they would sound different that any other SS amp
capable
of driving 2 ohm loads.

You can check the specs for their 2 channel amps he
http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm


Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.

But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest?

Have you considered that your comments regarding QSC amps is pure
crapola?

They are PA quality amps, Mikey, nothing more. Some people can hear the
difference, and others cannot.

That's what all the cowards say, when they don't wish to do a comparison
that relies only one's ears.

But then we already knew you were posturing.

Mikey, I'm sorry, but QSC amps are junk.

You're right, you're sorry.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
liar.

What did he lie about?

He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result.
That
is
simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.

He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
intelligence quotient.

Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
it all sound the same.

If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a
lie
and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.

No, Mikey. He means it as a "figure of speech." Do you know what that
means?

Yes, it's what you are trying to cop out with, when you know he's lying.

No, Mikey, that's not what it means. See "rhetorical device", under
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/searc...gure+of+speech.
Your language skills are subnormal.

I know what a rhetorical device is, I also know when I'm being lied to.

Ludo has been telling this same lie for close to a decade. If it is indeed
a rhetorical device, then he's the most boring **** on usenet. Come to
think of it he's that anyway device or not. No wonder you like each other.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...



I said:
He will not find any
there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria,
ABX
makes
it all sound the same.

Sullivan answered:
Except when it doesn't:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm

You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you
remain
one.
Back into the killfile you go.

I answered:
This is the second time in one week Sullivan
responds
by
assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going
mute
when things get hot.
Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
believer-
ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is
irresistible.
This
is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten
days
(
his
stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being
12th)
that
the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
evidence
that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
So let us see once more (I've done it three times
before) why it remained a private website and not an article-
not
acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
defunct
"Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like
JAES.
And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research"
report
dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the
early
eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
beggars...

The first report (the 1977 one) is about
amplifiers.
They
had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out
of
10
comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard
it.
Now listen carefully because you will be
inclined
to
doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
"research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400
watt
stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10
watts
and
one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
And guess what; the distinguished panel heard
a
difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says
it
shows
ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with
indignation
at
the
loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
Next they compared something called Paoli 60M
(no
data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
difference.
The third "positive" result was a comparison
of
ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they
offer
that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
*audible*
clipping.
The other 7 comparisons produced "no
difference"
outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan
will
say
that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so
perfect
that
no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
I'll quote just a few more "positive"
results.
When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips
100
(I
have
one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony
CDP
they
heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15
against
a
a
cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the
same
(One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line
at
that
time)- yes, they heard a difference.
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

NYOB rushes to help out:
I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
liar.

Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you
liars.
A
good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc.
and
like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of
an
answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a
gulag.
Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?

Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the
truth.
I
doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.

You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan
took
the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to
prove
that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had
executive
powers over me!!!

I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial
and
others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
living,
thinking being.

Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you
must
demean the messenger.

Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against
John
Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX.
What
he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
ending
invariably in " It all sounds the same"

See, you still continue to lie.

would make the already

SNIP of irrelevant crap.

Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons
done
where
people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's.
When
you
stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least
about
that
subject.

Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly
mismatched
in
power and technology.
But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby
in
order
to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.

Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all
sound
the
same.
It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
comparison reveals it to be so.

I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.

And your evidence of this is what?

Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi poloi
that
a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is.

The best there is is something that reproduces the input as an inaudibley
different output. A trivially easy task.

You do not seem to
understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in a
heartbeat.

I understand there are people who believe this, so far I don't know of
anyone who has proven to have this ability. The only way they ould
demoisntrate it would be to compare their sighted listening to a DBT.

It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not.

Bul****.

Some amplifiers
sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room.

SET's?

Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
and early Aragons.


A statement that you can't prove and won't becuase you know you're full
of
****.

Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and
call
it rain?" This is what you're doing.

No, I'm just telling you a scientific fact, sighted listening is
inherently
flawed, unless the differences are gross.

You're acting like a colorblind person
in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that
you
cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in
your
stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.


Then it should be a simple matter to demosnstrate this abiltiy by doing a
comparison of sighted bs. blind listening. I predict you won't ever do
it,
because you know you're full of ****.

Impossible, given that, according to Stereophile, Arny's ABX device uses
undersized relays.

You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your
brain.

I'm smart enough to know you're full of ****.
I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
differences sighted aren't able to so blind.

Let's analyze this. We have a dumb guy who asserts he is smart enough to
know certain things. But dumb people are dumb because they make mistakes.

Thanks for admitting you are a dumb guy.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be dumb. Ergo, Mikey is not smart enough to know
the things he mistakenly thinks he knows.

A valid syllogism is not the same as a fact.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:35:58 GMT, "
wrote:

However, I thank you for your praise, however exaggerated it may be.

Inability to recognize sarcasm noted.

Inability to recognize sarcasm noted.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
wrote:


It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different

You mean HUGELY different, don't you?

" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...

*P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
"golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
"Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!


Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
confidence
to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps of
good
quality, is AFAWK impossible,
[snip]

You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
I concur with Ludovic completely.

Robert Morein said:

You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
I concur with Ludovic completely.

So do I. All right-thinking people agree. G

Except for one detail, that is: Calling the aBxism sect "scientists" is on
a par with saying creationism is a "science". They are nonintersecting
sets.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
wrote:


It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different

You mean HUGELY different, don't you?

No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...

*P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
"golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
"Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!


Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
confidence
to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps of
good
quality, is AFAWK impossible,
[snip]

You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
I concur with Ludovic completely.


That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.

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


Robert Morein said:

You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
I concur with Ludovic completely.

So do I. All right-thinking people agree. G

Except for one detail, that is: Calling the aBxism sect "scientists" is on
a par with saying creationism is a "science". They are nonintersecting
sets.


No, calling sighted listening relaible or even worthwhile when listening for
subtle differences, is worthless and anybody who soys otherwise is a fool or
a liar or both.

Sullivan's straight man says:
Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
it all sound the same.

Rejoinder by R. Morein
If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a
lie
and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.

No, Mikey. He means it as a "figure of speech." Do you know what that
means?

Yes, it's what you are trying to cop out with, when you know he's lying.

No, Mikey, that's not what it means. See "rhetorical device", under
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/searc...gure+of+speech.
Your language skills are subnormal.

I know what a rhetorical device is, I also know when I'm being lied to.

Dear clown #2: while you're at it you might also ask for
information about the use of inverted commas. Like in: "It all sounds
the same"
Second thoughts: Perhaps you'd better not. It would deprive the usenet
and the posterity of your priceless rhetorical pearls like the one
below; {{For the benefit of future generations of schoolkids explain
which "device" you're talking off. Damn it -inverted commas again- I
hope you don't become insomniac over it. (Insomnia=sleeplessness but
may be you know that.)}}
Ludovic Mirabel
Ludo has been telling this same lie for close to a decade. If it is indeed
a rhetorical device, then he's the most boring **** on usenet. Come to
think of it he's that anyway device or not. No wonder you like each other.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...

*P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists
a
"golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
"Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!


Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
confidence
to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps of
good
quality, is AFAWK impossible,
[snip]

You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
I concur with Ludovic completely.


That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.

Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
Now I'm going to be generous with you, Mikey, because you are a "special"
person. You may not realize that repeating lies is as bad as originating
them. But we have to realize that for you, it may be a tremendous mental
effort to create even one lie. Nevertheless, Mikey, you have to learn that
repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it. Visit your priest in
confessional without delay.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...



I said:
He will not find any
there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's
criteria,
ABX
makes
it all sound the same.

Sullivan answered:
Except when it doesn't:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm

You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you
remain
one.
Back into the killfile you go.

I answered:
This is the second time in one week Sullivan
responds
by
assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is
Sullivan's
convenient way of producing garbage with the option of
going
mute
when things get hot.
Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
believer-
ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is
irresistible.
This
is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten
days
(
his
stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being
12th)
that
the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their
only
evidence
that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
So let us see once more (I've done it three
times
before) why it remained a private website and not an
article-
not
acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
defunct
"Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like
JAES.
And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research"
report
dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from
the
early
eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
beggars...

The first report (the 1977 one) is about
amplifiers.
They
had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out
of
10
comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard
it.
Now listen carefully because you will be
inclined
to
doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
"research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400
watt
stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10
watts
and
one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
And guess what; the distinguished panel
heard
a
difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says
it
shows
ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with
indignation
at
the
loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
Next they compared something called Paoli
60M
(no
data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
difference.
The third "positive" result was a
comparison
of
ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But...
they
offer
that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
*audible*
clipping.
The other 7 comparisons produced "no
difference"
outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan
will
say
that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so
perfect
that
no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
I'll quote just a few more "positive"
results.
When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips
100
(I
have
one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony
CDP
they
heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15
against
a
a
cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the
same
(One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the
line
at
that
time)- yes, they heard a difference.
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares
to
call
me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check
his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

NYOB rushes to help out:
I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
liar.

Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you
liars.
A
good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you
are
deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics
etc.
and
like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short
of
an
answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon.
Fortunately
you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a
gulag.
Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?

Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge
the
truth.
I
doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.

You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan
took
the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to
prove
that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S.
but
thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had
executive
powers over me!!!

I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial
and
others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
living,
thinking being.

Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you
must
demean the messenger.

Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against
John
Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the
ABX.
What
he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
ending
invariably in " It all sounds the same"

See, you still continue to lie.

would make the already

SNIP of irrelevant crap.

Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons
done
where
people were able to reliably tell the difference between the
DUT's.
When
you
stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least
about
that
subject.

Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly
mismatched
in
power and technology.
But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby
in
order
to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is
not.

Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all
sound
the
same.
It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an
ABX
comparison reveals it to be so.

I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.

And your evidence of this is what?

Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi
poloi
that
a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is.

The best there is is something that reproduces the input as an
inaudibley
different output. A trivially easy task.

You do not seem to
understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in
a
heartbeat.

I understand there are people who believe this, so far I don't know of
anyone who has proven to have this ability. The only way they ould
demoisntrate it would be to compare their sighted listening to a DBT.

It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not.

Bul****.

Some amplifiers
sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room.

SET's?

Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
and early Aragons.


A statement that you can't prove and won't becuase you know you're full
of
****.

Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and
call
it rain?" This is what you're doing.

No, I'm just telling you a scientific fact, sighted listening is
inherently
flawed, unless the differences are gross.

You're acting like a colorblind person
in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that
you
cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in
your
stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.


Then it should be a simple matter to demosnstrate this abiltiy by doing
a
comparison of sighted bs. blind listening. I predict you won't ever do
it,
because you know you're full of ****.

Impossible, given that, according to Stereophile, Arny's ABX device uses
undersized relays.

You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your
brain.

I'm smart enough to know you're full of ****.
I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
differences sighted aren't able to so blind.

Let's analyze this. We have a dumb guy who asserts he is smart enough to
know certain things. But dumb people are dumb because they make
mistakes.

Thanks for admitting you are a dumb guy.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be dumb. Ergo, Mikey is not smart enough to
know
the things he mistakenly thinks he knows.

A valid syllogism is not the same as a fact.

That's correct. We must instantiate "dumb guy" to "Mikey".
The syllogism then becomes a derivation of fact: "Mikey is not smart enough
to know the things he mistakenly thinks he knows."

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
wrote:


It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different

You mean HUGELY different, don't you?

No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.

Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing amplifiers. For
some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many amplifiers to be
as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your toy of the
hearing-impaired.

Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your QSC amp is a
lousy amp.

" Silver oxide is quoted as having excellent conductivity" - Morein

"The electrical conductivity of the silver oxides formed is
negligible" -
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

Eeny meany miney mo.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
oups.com...

*P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists
a
"golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
"Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!


Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
confidence
to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps
of
good
quality, is AFAWK impossible,
[snip]

You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
I concur with Ludovic completely.


That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.

Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.

No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.

Mikey, you have to learn that
repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.

I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.

Visit your priest in
confessional without delay.

Sorry, I'm not a believer.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
wrote:


It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different

You mean HUGELY different, don't you?

No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.

Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing amplifiers. For
some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many amplifiers to be
as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your toy of
the
hearing-impaired.

Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your QSC amp is
a
lousy amp.

So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...


" Silver oxide is quoted as having excellent conductivity" - Morein

"The electrical conductivity of the silver oxides formed is
negligible" -

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

Eeny meany miney mo.

Silver oxide is commonly regarded as having excellent conductivity. The
mechanism is supposed to be the easy conversion of oxide back to free
silver.
The citation is interesting, and it actually serves to further question the
sonic transparency of silver/silver oxide relays. At low voltages, perhaps
the conversion does not readily occur.

Thank you, Goofball.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
wrote:


It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different

You mean HUGELY different, don't you?

No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.

Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing amplifiers.
For
some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many amplifiers to
be
as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your toy of
the
hearing-impaired.

Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your QSC amp
is
a
lousy amp.

So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.

I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance of a
hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.