[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in
message

Ten years ago, rec.audio.opinion was not the wreck it is
today. There were many active participants representing
all areas of interest, ranging from aesthetes to
engineers. But there was a hidden enemy of this beautiful
social scene. He used aliases to set people against each
other, and even sent email viruses timed to make it look
as if one participant had done it to another. He was a
human hagfish, eating the group from the inside out.
Practically no one noticed, because good people aren't
quick to discover when Absolute Evil has arrived in their
midst. And he had an interesting tactic: generate enough
disguises and enough lies, and the average Good Person
simply won't punch through the cloud.

Sounds about right. One of his public faces is the Middiot.

Our American-dominated group, rec.audio.opinion, has been
taken over by the Cult of the Lie, by grown-up children
who have the ethics of children. I could count on the
fingers of one hand the members who do not lie, and the
total participation on the fingers of both hands. It is a
wasteland for the soul.

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to accomplish. If you consider
the fact that they have even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something to
consider.

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 17, 5:23�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in
t

Ten years ago, rec.audio.opinion was not the wreck it is
today. There were many active participants representing
all areas of interest, ranging from aesthetes to
engineers. But there was a hidden enemy of this beautiful
social scene. He used aliases to set people against each
other, and even sent email viruses timed to make it look
as if one participant had done it to another. He was a
human hagfish, eating the group from the inside out.
Practically no one noticed, because good people aren't
quick to discover when Absolute Evil has arrived in their
midst. And he had an interesting tactic: generate enough
disguises and enough lies, and the average Good Person
simply won't punch through the cloud.

Sounds about right. One of his public faces is the Middiot.

Are you saying that George and Bwian are the same person?


Our American-dominated group, rec.audio.opinion, has been
taken over by the Cult of the Lie, by grown-up children
who have the ethics of children. I could count on the
fingers of one hand the members who do not lie, and the
total participation on the fingers of both hands. It is a
wasteland for the soul.

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to accomplish. If you consider
the fact that they have even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something to
consider.

Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet newsgroups when you
start your own company. Conversely, that may explain why pcabx.com no
longer exists.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" wrote in message


Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet
newsgroups when you start your own company.

When did that happen?

Conversely,
that may explain why pcabx.com no longer exists.

Given that forums like Hydrogen Audio exist, there's no need to continue to
evangelize when there are already so many converts.

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 17, 7:09�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet
newsgroups when you start your own company.

When did that happen?

When did Greg Singh start his own company?


Conversely,
that may explain why pcabx.com no longer exists.

Given that forums like Hydrogen Audio exist, there's no need to continue to
evangelize when there are already so many converts.

Prove it.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Nov 17, 7:09?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet
newsgroups when you start your own company.

When did that happen?

When did Greg Singh start his own company?

You mean you don't know, Marc?

That suggests that contrary to your many claims, you are not effectively
monitoring RAO.

Conversely,
that may explain why pcabx.com no longer exists.

Given that forums like Hydrogen Audio exist, there's no
need to continue to evangelize when there are already so
many converts.

Prove it.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=59


Read for yourself,

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=16295

"
The question is to know wether a given factor, cable, speaker stand, mp3
codec, etc, that we will call "tweak", has an effect on the sound or not,
without for the time being caring about knowing if this effect is positive.
An ABX test can give us an answer.

In this kind of test, the listener has access to three sources labeled A, B,
and X. A and B are the references. They are the audio source with and
without the tweak. For example the wav file and the MP3 file. X is the
mystery source. It can be A or B. The listener must guess it comparing it to
A and B.

But if the listener says that X is A, and that X is actually A. What does
this prove ?
Nothing of course. If you flip a coin in my back and a state that it's
heads, and I'm right, it doesn't prove the existence of my para-psychic
abilities that allow me to see what's in my back. This is just luck, nothing
more !
That's why a statistical analysis is necessary.

Let's imagine that after the listener has given his answer, the test is run
again, choosing again X at random 15 times. If the listener gives the
correct answer 16 times, what does it prove ? Can it be luck ?
Yes it can, and we can calculate the probability for it to happen. For each
test, there is one chance out of two to get the right answer, and 16
independant tests are run. The probability to get everything correct by
chance is then 1/2 at the power 16, that is 1/65536. In other words, if no
difference is audible, the listener will get everything correct one time out
of 65536 in average.
We can thus choose the number of trials according to the tweak tested. The
goal being to get a success probability inferior to the likelihood, for the
tweak, to actually have an audible effect.
For example if we compare two pairs of speakers. It is likely that they
won't have the same sound. We can be content doing the test 7 times. There
will be 1 chance out of 128 to get a "false success". In statistics, a
"false success" is called a "type I error". The more the test is repeated,
the less type I errors are likely to happen.
Now, if we put an amulet besides a CD player. There is no reason that it
changes the sound. We can then repeat the test 40 times. The success of
probability will then be one out of one trillion (2 to the power 40). If it
ever happens, there is necessarily an explanation : the listener hears the
operator moving the amulet, or the operator always takes more time to launch
the playback once the amulet is away, or maybe the listener perceives a
brightness difference through his eyelids if it is a big dark amulet, or he
can smell it when it is close to the player...

Let p be the probability of getting a success by chance. It is generally
admitted that a result whose p value is inferior to 0.05 (one out of 20)
should be seriously considered, and that p 0.01 (one out of 100) is a very
positive result. However, this must be considered according to the context.
We saw that for very suspectful tweaks, like the amulet, it is necessary to
get a very small p value, because between the expected probability for the
amulet to work (say one out of a billion, for example), and the probability
for the test to succeed by chance (1 out of 100 is often chosen), the choice
is obvious : it's the test that succeeded by chance !
Here's another example where numbers can fool us. If we test 20 cables, one
by one, in order to know if they have an effect on the sound, and if we
consider that p 0.05 is a success, then in the case where no cable have
any actual effect on the sound, since we run 20 tests, we should all the
same expect in average one accidental success among the 20 tests ! In this
case we can absolutely not tell that the cable affects the sound with a
probability of 95%, even while p is inferior to 5 %, since anyway, this
success was expected. The test failed, that's all.

But statistic analyses are not limited to simple powers of 2. If, for
example, we get 14 right answers out of 16, what happens ? Well it is
perfectly possible to calculate the probability that it happens, but mind
that what we need here is not the probability to get exactly 14/16, but the
probability to get 16/16, plus the one to get 15/16, plus the one to get
14/16.
An Excel table gives all needed probabilities :
http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/bino_dist.zip . It is based on a binomial
distribution.

Now, how to setup the listening test so that its result, if positive, is
really convincing ? There are rules to observe if you don't want, in case of
a success, have all your opponent laugh at you.

Rule 1 : It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exists. The burden
of the proof is on the side of the one pretending that a difference can be
heard.
If you believe that a codec changes the sound, it is up to you to prove it,
passing the test. Someone pretending that a codec is transparent can't prove
anything.

2. The test should be performed under double blind conditions (*).
In hardware tests, this is the most difficult requirement to meet. Single
blind means that you can't tell if X is A or B otherwise than listening to
it. Double blind means that nobody in the room or the imediate surrounding
can know if X is A or B, in order to avoid any influence, even unconcious,
on the listener. This complicates the operations for hardware testing. A
third person can lead the blindfolded listener out of the room while the
hardware is switched. High quality electronic switches have been made for
double blind listening tests ( http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm ) :
a chip chooses X at random, and a remote control allows to compare it to A
and B at will.
Fortunately, in order to double blind test audio files on a computer, some
ABX programs are freely available. You can find some in our FAQ.

3. The p values given in the table linked above are valid only if the two
following conditions are fulfilled :
-The listener must not know his results before the end of the test, exept if
the number of trials is decided before the test.
....otherwise, the listener would just have to look at his score after every
answer, and decide to stop the test when, by chance, the p value goes low
enough for him.
-The test is run for the first time. And if it is not the case, all previous
results must be summed up in order to get the result.
Otherwise, one would just have to repeat the serial of trials as much times
as needed for getting, by chance, a p value small enough.
Corollary : only give answers of which you are absolutely certain ! If you
have the slightest doubt, don't answer anything. Take your time. Make
pauses. You can stop the test and go on another day, but never try to guess
by "intuition". If you make some mistakes, you will never have the occasion
to do the test again, because anyone will be able to accuse you of making
numbers tell what you want, by "starting again until it works".
Of course you can train yourself as much times as you whish, provided that
you firmly decide beforehand that it will be a training session. If you get
50/50 during a training and then can't reproduce this result, too bad for
you. the results of the training sessions must be thrown away whatever they
are, and the results of the real test must be kept whatever they are.
Once again, if you take all the time needed, be it one week of efforts for
only one answer, in order to get a positive result at the first attempt,
your success will be mathematically unquestionable ! Only your hifi setup,
or your blind test conditions may be disputed. If, on the other hand, you
run again a test that once failed, because since then, your hifi setup was
improved, or there was too much noise the first time, you can be sure that
there will be someone, relying on statistic laws, to come and question your
result. You will have done all this work in vain.

4. The test must be reproducible.
Anyone can post fake results. For example if someone sells thingies that
improve the sound, like oil for CD jewel cases of cable sheath, he can very
well pretend to have passed a double blind ABX test with p 0.00001, so as
to make people talk about his products.
If someone passes the test, others must check if this is possible, by
passing the test in their turn.


We saw what is an ABX test, with the associated probability calculus, that
is perfectly suited for testing the transparency of a codec, or the validity
of a hifi tweak. But this is only the ABC of statistic tests.
For example, in order to compare the quality of audio codecs like MP3, in
bigger scaled tests, ABC/HR test are used (see
http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html ), that are more sophisticated. Each
listener has two sliders and three buttons for every audio codec tested. A
and B are the original and the encoded file. The listener doesn't know which
one is which. C is the original, that stands as a reference. He must give,
using the sliders, a mark between 1 and 5 to A and B, the original getting 5
in theory.
A probability calculation allows then not only to know if the tested codec
audibly alters the sound, but also to estimate the relative quality of the
codecs for the set of listeners involved, and this, still under double blind
conditions, and with a probability calculus giving the relevance of the
result. These calculus, according to the needs of the test, can be performed
with the Friedman method, for example, that gives a ranking for each codec,
or also with the anova one, that gives an estimation of the subjective
quality perceived by the listeners on the 1 to 5 scale.

Note that this kind of statistical analysis is mostly used in medicine, and
that to get an aothorization, any drug must prove its efficiency in double
blind tests (both the physicians and the patients ignore if the pill is a
placebo or a medication) against placebo (the drug must not only prove that
it works, but that it works better than a placebo, because a placebo alone
works too), and the decision is based on mathematical analyses such as the
one we just saw. Thus they are not quickly made guidelines for hifi tests.
They are actually general testing methods used in scientific research, and
they remain entierely valid for audio tests.

Links



(*) The double blind setting may be replaced by a carefully set simple blind
setting. I saw two accounts of simple blind listening tests that failed,
proving that, when done carefully, a simple blind setting is enough to fool
the listener.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...ST&f=21&t=7953

?"The question is to know wether a given factor, cable, speaker stand, mp3
codec, etc, that we will call "tweak", has an effect on the sound or not,
without for the time being caring about knowing if this effect is positive.
An ABX test can give us an answer.

In this kind of test, the listener has access to three sources labeled
A, B, and X. A and B are the references. They are the audio source with and
without the tweak. For example the wav file and the MP3 file. X is the
mystery source. It can be A or B. The listener must guess it comparing it to
A and B.

But if the listener says that X is A, and that X is actually A. What
does this prove ?
Nothing of course. If you flip a coin in my back and a state that it's
heads, and I'm right, it doesn't prove the existence of my para-psychic
abilities that allow me to see what's in my back. This is just luck, nothing
more !
That's why a statistical analysis is necessary.

Let's imagine that after the listener has given his answer, the test
is run again, choosing again X at random 15 times. If the listener gives the
correct answer 16 times, what does it prove ? Can it be luck ?
Yes it can, and we can calculate the probability for it to happen. For
each test, there is one chance out of two to get the right answer, and 16
independant tests are run. The probability to get everything correct by
chance is then 1/2 at the power 16, that is 1/65536. In other words, if no
difference is audible, the listener will get everything correct one time out
of 65536 in average.
We can thus choose the number of trials according to the tweak tested.
The goal being to get a success probability inferior to the likelihood, for
the tweak, to actually have an audible effect.
For example if we compare two pairs of speakers. It is likely that
they won't have the same sound. We can be content doing the test 7 times.
There will be 1 chance out of 128 to get a "false success". In statistics, a
"false success" is called a "type I error". The more the test is repeated,
the less type I errors are likely to happen.
Now, if we put an amulet besides a CD player. There is no reason that
it changes the sound. We can then repeat the test 40 times. The success of
probability will then be one out of one trillion (2 to the power 40). If it
ever happens, there is necessarily an explanation : the listener hears the
operator moving the amulet, or the operator always takes more time to launch
the playback once the amulet is away, or maybe the listener perceives a
brightness difference through his eyelids if it is a big dark amulet, or he
can smell it when it is close to the player...

Let p be the probability of getting a success by chance. It is
generally admitted that a result whose p value is inferior to 0.05 (one out
of 20) should be seriously considered, and that p 0.01 (one out of 100) is
a very positive result. However, this must be considered according to the
context. We saw that for very suspectful tweaks, like the amulet, it is
necessary to get a very small p value, because between the expected
probability for the amulet to work (say one out of a billion, for example),
and the probability for the test to succeed by chance (1 out of 100 is often
chosen), the choice is obvious : it's the test that succeeded by chance !
Here's another example where numbers can fool us. If we test 20
cables, one by one, in order to know if they have an effect on the sound,
and if we consider that p 0.05 is a success, then in the case where no
cable have any actual effect on the sound, since we run 20 tests, we should
all the same expect in average one accidental success among the 20 tests !
In this case we can absolutely not tell that the cable affects the sound
with a probability of 95%, even while p is inferior to 5 %, since anyway,
this success was expected. The test failed, that's all.

But statistic analyses are not limited to simple powers of 2. If, for
example, we get 14 right answers out of 16, what happens ? Well it is
perfectly possible to calculate the probability that it happens, but mind
that what we need here is not the probability to get exactly 14/16, but the
probability to get 16/16, plus the one to get 15/16, plus the one to get
14/16.
An Excel table gives all needed probabilities :
http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/bino_dist.zip . It is based on a binomial
distribution.

Now, how to setup the listening test so that its result, if positive,
is really convincing ? There are rules to observe if you don't want, in case
of a success, have all your opponent laugh at you.

Rule 1 : It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exists. The
burden of the proof is on the side of the one pretending that a difference
can be heard.
If you believe that a codec changes the sound, it is up to you to
prove it, passing the test. Someone pretending that a codec is transparent
can't prove anything.

2. The test should be performed under double blind conditions (*).
In hardware tests, this is the most difficult requirement to meet.
Single blind means that you can't tell if X is A or B otherwise than
listening to it. Double blind means that nobody in the room or the imediate
surrounding can know if X is A or B, in order to avoid any influence, even
unconcious, on the listener. This complicates the operations for hardware
testing. A third person can lead the blindfolded listener out of the room
while the hardware is switched. High quality electronic switches have been
made for double blind listening tests (
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm ) : a chip chooses X at random, and
a remote control allows to compare it to A and B at will.
Fortunately, in order to double blind test audio files on a computer,
some ABX programs are freely available. You can find some in our FAQ.

3. The p values given in the table linked above are valid only if the
two following conditions are fulfilled :
-The listener must not know his results before the end of the test,
exept if the number of trials is decided before the test.
...otherwise, the listener would just have to look at his score after
every answer, and decide to stop the test when, by chance, the p value goes
low enough for him.
-The test is run for the first time. And if it is not the case, all
previous results must be summed up in order to get the result.
Otherwise, one would just have to repeat the serial of trials as much
times as needed for getting, by chance, a p value small enough.
Corollary : only give answers of which you are absolutely certain ! If
you have the slightest doubt, don't answer anything. Take your time. Make
pauses. You can stop the test and go on another day, but never try to guess
by "intuition". If you make some mistakes, you will never have the occasion
to do the test again, because anyone will be able to accuse you of making
numbers tell what you want, by "starting again until it works".
Of course you can train yourself as much times as you whish, provided
that you firmly decide beforehand that it will be a training session. If you
get 50/50 during a training and then can't reproduce this result, too bad
for you. the results of the training sessions must be thrown away whatever
they are, and the results of the real test must be kept whatever they are.
Once again, if you take all the time needed, be it one week of efforts
for only one answer, in order to get a positive result at the first attempt,
your success will be mathematically unquestionable ! Only your hifi setup,
or your blind test conditions may be disputed. If, on the other hand, you
run again a test that once failed, because since then, your hifi setup was
improved, or there was too much noise the first time, you can be sure that
there will be someone, relying on statistic laws, to come and question your
result. You will have done all this work in vain.

4. The test must be reproducible.
Anyone can post fake results. For example if someone sells thingies
that improve the sound, like oil for CD jewel cases of cable sheath, he can
very well pretend to have passed a double blind ABX test with p 0.00001,
so as to make people talk about his products.
If someone passes the test, others must check if this is possible, by
passing the test in their turn.


We saw what is an ABX test, with the associated probability calculus,
that is perfectly suited for testing the transparency of a codec, or the
validity of a hifi tweak. But this is only the ABC of statistic tests.
For example, in order to compare the quality of audio codecs like MP3,
in bigger scaled tests, ABC/HR test are used (see
http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html ), that are more sophisticated. Each
listener has two sliders and three buttons for every audio codec tested. A
and B are the original and the encoded file. The listener doesn't know which
one is which. C is the original, that stands as a reference. He must give,
using the sliders, a mark between 1 and 5 to A and B, the original getting 5
in theory.
A probability calculation allows then not only to know if the tested
codec audibly alters the sound, but also to estimate the relative quality of
the codecs for the set of listeners involved, and this, still under double
blind conditions, and with a probability calculus giving the relevance of
the result. These calculus, according to the needs of the test, can be
performed with the Friedman method, for example, that gives a ranking for
each codec, or also with the anova one, that gives an estimation of the
subjective quality perceived by the listeners on the 1 to 5 scale.

Note that this kind of statistical analysis is mostly used in
medicine, and that to get an aothorization, any drug must prove its
efficiency in double blind tests (both the physicians and the patients
ignore if the pill is a placebo or a medication) against placebo (the drug
must not only prove that it works, but that it works better than a placebo,
because a placebo alone works too), and the decision is based on
mathematical analyses such as the one we just saw. Thus they are not quickly
made guidelines for hifi tests. They are actually general testing methods
used in scientific research, and they remain entierely valid for audio
tests.

Links



(*) The double blind setting may be replaced by a carefully set simple
blind setting. I saw two accounts of simple blind listening tests that
failed, proving that, when done carefully, a simple blind setting is enough
to fool the listener.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...ST&f=21&t=7953



Full Edit
Quick Edit
Pio2001 Apr 14 2006, 01:43 Post #2


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3876
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Interpretation of a blind listening test

Of course ABX test are not infaillible.
Chaudscisse gave an excellent summary of the drawback of ABX testing
in a french forum :
http://chaud7.forum-gratuit.com/view...start=450#5543
However, since even for french native speakers the text is almost
incomprehensible, I'll have to make a summary.

Most often, it is admitted that an event whose probability of not
occuring is smaller than 1/20 is "statistically significant". No
interpretation, this p value is the result of a mathematical calculus
relying only on what have been observed. Former results from similar tests,
the quality of the test, and other statistic calculations are not taken into
account. However, these events have an influence on the probability that the
observed difference is real.
a.. Number of testers : Studies made with a small umber of listeners
are more sensitive to mistakes occuring in the test setup. Wrong stimulus
presented, mistakes copying the results etc. For this reason, when the
result depends on one or two people, conclusions must be cautious.
b.. Predictability level : there are more chances to have got a
success after N tests have been performed, than performing only one test.
For example, if we want to test something that has no effect, the result
that we get will be decided by chance only. Imagine that 20 people run
independant tests. According to chance, in average, one of them should get a
"false positive" result, since a positive result is by definition something
that occur no more than one time out of 20. The p calculation of each test
does not take this into account.
c.. Multiple comparisons : if we select two groups in the
population, using one criterion, there will be less than 1 chance out of 20
to get a "statistical difference" between the two. However, if we consider
20 independant criterions, the probability to get a significant difference
according to one of them is much higher than 1/20.
For example, if people are asked to rate the "dynamics",
"soundstage", and "coloration" of an encoder, the probability to get a false
positive is about thrice as high as with one criterion only, since there are
three possibilities for the event to occur. Once again, the p value
associated with each comparison is inferior to the real probability to get a
false positive.


The original text is much longer, with some repetitions, and other
ideas that I didn't translate, because they are not directly related with
ABX tests reliability.

I would like however to add an important point. The interpretation of
the p value.
It is by convetion admitted that p5 % is an interesting result, and
p1% a very significant one. This does not take into account the tested
hypothesis itself.

If we are testing the existence of Superman, and get a positive
answer, that is "Superman really exists because the probability of the null
hypothesis is less than 5%". Must we accept the existence of Superman ? Is
it an infaillible, scientific proof of its existence ?
No, it's just chance. Getting an event whose probability is less than
5% is not uncommon.
However, when a listening test about MP3 at 96 kbps gives a similar
significant result, we accept the opposite conclusion ! That it was not
chance. Why ?
Why does the same scientific result should be interpreted in two
opposite ways ? This is because we always keep the most probable hypothesis.
The conclusion of an ABX test is not the p value alone, it is its comparison
with the subjective p value of the tested hypothesis.

Testing MP3 at 96 kbps, what do we expect ? Anything. We start with
the assumption that the odds of success are 1/2. The ABX result then tells
us that the odds of failure are less than 1/20. Conclusion, the success is
the most probable hypothesis.
Testing the existence of Superman, what do we expect ? That he does
not exists. We start with the assumption that the odds of success are less
than one in a million. The ABX result then tells us that the odds of failure
are less than 1/20. Conclusion, the failure is still the most probable
hypothesis.

That's why, in addition with all the statistical bias already
mentionned above we should not always take 1/20 or 1/100 are a target final
p value. This is correct for tests where we don't expect a result more than
another, but for tests where scientific knowledge already gives some
information, smaller values can be necessary.
Personnaly, in order to test the existence of Superman, i'd rather
target p1/100,000,000

Examples of false positive results :
Regular ABX, 12/13 right answers by chance.
Sequencial ABX, many results with p 0.01


This topic can be discussed here :
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...opic=43516&hl=


"



Full Edit
Quick Edit
Pio2001 Apr 14 2006, 01:43 Post #2


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3876
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Interpretation of a blind listening test

Of course ABX test are not infaillible.
Chaudscisse gave an excellent summary of the drawback of ABX testing in a
french forum : http://chaud7.forum-gratuit.com/view...start=450#5543
However, since even for french native speakers the text is almost
incomprehensible, I'll have to make a summary.

Most often, it is admitted that an event whose probability of not occuring
is smaller than 1/20 is "statistically significant". No interpretation, this
p value is the result of a mathematical calculus relying only on what have
been observed. Former results from similar tests, the quality of the test,
and other statistic calculations are not taken into account. However, these
events have an influence on the probability that the observed difference is
real.
Number of testers : Studies made with a small umber of listeners are more
sensitive to mistakes occuring in the test setup. Wrong stimulus presented,
mistakes copying the results etc. For this reason, when the result depends
on one or two people, conclusions must be cautious.
Predictability level : there are more chances to have got a success after N
tests have been performed, than performing only one test. For example, if we
want to test something that has no effect, the result that we get will be
decided by chance only. Imagine that 20 people run independant tests.
According to chance, in average, one of them should get a "false positive"
result, since a positive result is by definition something that occur no
more than one time out of 20. The p calculation of each test does not take
this into account.
Multiple comparisons : if we select two groups in the population, using one
criterion, there will be less than 1 chance out of 20 to get a "statistical
difference" between the two. However, if we consider 20 independant
criterions, the probability to get a significant difference according to one
of them is much higher than 1/20.
For example, if people are asked to rate the "dynamics", "soundstage", and
"coloration" of an encoder, the probability to get a false positive is about
thrice as high as with one criterion only, since there are three
possibilities for the event to occur. Once again, the p value associated
with each comparison is inferior to the real probability to get a false
positive.


The original text is much longer, with some repetitions, and other ideas
that I didn't translate, because they are not directly related with ABX
tests reliability.

I would like however to add an important point. The interpretation of the p
value.
It is by convetion admitted that p5 % is an interesting result, and p1% a
very significant one. This does not take into account the tested hypothesis
itself.

If we are testing the existence of Superman, and get a positive answer, that
is "Superman really exists because the probability of the null hypothesis is
less than 5%". Must we accept the existence of Superman ? Is it an
infaillible, scientific proof of its existence ?
No, it's just chance. Getting an event whose probability is less than 5% is
not uncommon.
However, when a listening test about MP3 at 96 kbps gives a similar
significant result, we accept the opposite conclusion ! That it was not
chance. Why ?
Why does the same scientific result should be interpreted in two opposite
ways ? This is because we always keep the most probable hypothesis. The
conclusion of an ABX test is not the p value alone, it is its comparison
with the subjective p value of the tested hypothesis.

Testing MP3 at 96 kbps, what do we expect ? Anything. We start with the
assumption that the odds of success are 1/2. The ABX result then tells us
that the odds of failure are less than 1/20. Conclusion, the success is the
most probable hypothesis.
Testing the existence of Superman, what do we expect ? That he does not
exists. We start with the assumption that the odds of success are less than
one in a million. The ABX result then tells us that the odds of failure are
less than 1/20. Conclusion, the failure is still the most probable
hypothesis.

That's why, in addition with all the statistical bias already mentionned
above we should not always take 1/20 or 1/100 are a target final p value.
This is correct for tests where we don't expect a result more than another,
but for tests where scientific knowledge already gives some information,
smaller values can be necessary.
Personnaly, in order to test the existence of Superman, i'd rather target
p1/100,000,000

Examples of false positive results :
Regular ABX, 12/13 right answers by chance.
Sequencial ABX, many results with p 0.01


This topic can be discussed here :
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...opic=43516&hl=

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 11:28�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



On Nov 17, 7:09?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet
newsgroups when you start your own company.

When did that happen?

When did Greg Singh start his own company?

You mean you don't know, Marc?

I'm suggesting you didn't understand the original comment. I was
right.


That suggests that contrary to your many claims, you are not effectively
monitoring RAO.

State where I say that I'm effectively monitoring RAO.


Conversely,
that may explain why pcabx.com no longer exists.

Given that forums like Hydrogen Audio exist, there's no
need to continue to evangelize when there are already so
many converts.
Prove it.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=59

Read for yourself,

No thanks.

But it is funny that you use words like "evangelize" and "converts" to
explain your audio philosophy. Like your other religion, it's pretty
useless to intelligent people who can use their own senses to
interpret the world around them.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

But it is funny that you use words like "evangelize" and "converts" to
explain your audio philosophy. Like your other religion, it's pretty
useless to intelligent people who can use their own senses to
interpret the world around them.

Arnii gave up hope when he realized the pinnacle he would never reach is
already occupied by an accordianist.

http://www.borgmusic.ca/

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 12:02�pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Boon said:

But it is funny that you use words like "evangelize" and "converts" to
explain your audio philosophy. �Like your other religion, it's pretty
useless to intelligent people who can use their own senses to
interpret the world around them.

Arnii gave up hope when he realized the pinnacle he would never reach is
already occupied by an accordianist.

http://www.borgmusic.ca/

That's it. I'm changing my name to Boris Borgstrom. What an awesome
moniker.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 17, 7:23*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to accomplish. If you consider
the fact that they have even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something to
consider.

All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed their ability
to discuss audio!

I think we should start a charity, don't you?

GOIA, consider: audio is essentially dead. iPods, MP3 players, and a
general lack of interest in the younger generation have caused it. I
recall when people would sell possessions to buy a pair of speakers. I
recall when people would learn about electronics in order to build
their own stereo. Those days are long gone. The beginning of the death
of audio was probably when rack systems were the rage in the 1980s.
The decline continues.

The only people left interested in any big way are those who enjoy
high-end. You are dead-set opposed to that group enjoying their hobby.
Any mention of LP gets a canned response about audio artifacts,
distrotion, or whatever. I enjoy seeing it brought up just to see you
get worked up about it. Ditto tubes or anything else that you can't
get at Guitar Center or Home Depot.

No, GOIA, you can quit trying to deflect responsibility. The true
answer about RAO is obvious.

Don't you think it would be better now if you just went to your other
area of 'expertise' (getting your ass handed to you by recording
professionals)?

LOL!

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 12:30�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:23�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to accomplish. If you consider
the fact that they have even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something to
consider.

All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed their ability
to discuss audio!

I think we should start a charity, don't you?

GOIA, consider: audio is essentially dead. iPods, MP3 players, and a
general lack of interest in the younger generation have caused it. I
recall when people would sell possessions to buy a pair of speakers. I
recall when people would learn about electronics in order to build
their own stereo. Those days are long gone. The beginning of the death
of audio was probably when rack systems were the rage in the 1980s.
The decline continues.

The only people left interested in any big way are those who enjoy
high-end. You are dead-set opposed to that group enjoying their hobby.
Any mention of LP gets a canned response about audio artifacts,
distrotion, or whatever. I enjoy seeing it brought up just to see you
get worked up about it. Ditto tubes or anything else that you can't
get at Guitar Center or Home Depot.

Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man. A happy man
doesn't insult people for their interest and hobbies. A happy man
doesn't bear false witness against his neighbors. That's the mark of
a distinctly unhappy man who hates his life. That's the mark of a man
who has reached his 60s and realizes he has done nothing with his
life. That's the mark of a man who also resorts to pointing out the
accomplishments of his children in lieu of taking pride in his own
achievements. That's the mark of a man who knows he will never see
heaven.

That's Arny!

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message

On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have even
managed to drive off some very determined posters, such
as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something
to consider.

All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could discuss audio.

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message


Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man. A
happy man doesn't insult people for their interest and
hobbies.

Well, that pretty well condemns you, Marc.

A happy man doesn't bear false witness against
his neighbors.

So does that.

That's the mark of a distinctly unhappy
man who hates his life.

You mean someone like you Marc, who has proven himself to be unable to hold
a steady job or have a stable relationship?

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 1:56�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man. �A
happy man doesn't insult people for their interest and
hobbies.

Well, that pretty well condemns you, Marc.

A happy man doesn't bear false witness against
his neighbors.

So does that.

That's the mark of a distinctly unhappy
man who hates his life.

You mean someone like you Marc, who has proven himself to be unable to hold
a steady job or have a stable relationship?

Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness? Don't you
understand that it's one of the Ten Commandments? Don't you
understand that God has placed it in the same category as murder,
theft and worshipping Satan?

Why do you still do it? Are you lying about being a Christian? Do
you secretly hate your wife, who spends so much time helping the
church? Do you realize that every time you make up lies about other
people, you cancel out the good deeds your wife performs? Do you know
that while you think you're playing around on the Internet, you're
really sealing your own damnation? Is that your intention? Do you
hate Christ and his teachings?

Do you have a real answer, or are you going to lie some more?

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 1:53�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have even
managed to drive off some very determined posters, such
as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something
to consider.
All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could discuss audio.

There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't stop you from
believing.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 17, 3:53*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have even
managed to drive off some very determined posters, such
as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something
to consider.
All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of what, GOIA? Somebody who knows the *real* reason that RAO has lost
the majority of its posters?

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could discuss audio.

Why, GOIA, the funny thing is that my last on-topic post here was far
more recently than yours! I'd have expected you to notice that, but
since you're insane you get a pass.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 17, 3:56*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man. *A
happy man doesn't insult people for their interest and
hobbies.

Well, that pretty well condemns you, Marc.

A happy man doesn't bear false witness against
his neighbors.

So does that.

That's the mark of a distinctly unhappy
man who hates his life.

You mean someone like you Marc, who has proven himself to be unable to hold
a steady job or have a stable relationship?

IKYABWAI

LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 08:23, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to accomplish. If you consider
the fact that they have even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something to
consider.

Singh wasn't half the turd you are.
We still have our work cut out for us.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 14:28, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



On Nov 17, 7:09?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet
newsgroups when you start your own company.

When did that happen?

When did Greg Singh start his own company?

You mean you don't know, Marc?

That suggests that contrary to your many claims, you are not effectively
monitoring RAO.

Conversely,
that may explain why pcabx.com no longer exists.

Given that forums like Hydrogen Audio exist, there's no
need to continue to evangelize when there are already so
many converts.
Prove it.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=59

Read for yourself,

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=16295

"
The question is to know wether a given factor, cable, speaker stand, mp3
codec, etc, that we will call "tweak", has an effect on the sound or not,
without for the time being caring about knowing if this effect is positive.
An ABX test can give us an answer.

In this kind of test, the listener has access to three sources labeled A, B,
and X. A and B are the references. They are the audio source with and
without the tweak. For example the wav file and the MP3 file. X is the
mystery source. It can be A or B. The listener must guess it comparing it to
A and B.

But if the listener says that X is A, and that X is actually A. What does
this prove ?
Nothing of course. If you flip a coin in my back and a state that it's
heads, and I'm right, it doesn't prove the existence of my para-psychic
abilities that allow me to see what's in my back. This is just luck, nothing
more !
That's why a statistical analysis is necessary.

Let's imagine that after the listener has given his answer, the test is run
again, choosing again X at random 15 times. If the listener gives the
correct answer 16 times, what does it prove ? Can it be luck ?
Yes it can, and we can calculate the probability for it to happen. For each
test, there is one chance out of two to get the right answer, and 16
independant tests are run. The probability to get everything correct by
chance is then 1/2 at the power 16, that is 1/65536. In other words, if no
difference is audible, the listener will get everything correct one time out
of 65536 in average.
We can thus choose the number of trials according to the tweak tested. The
goal being to get a success probability inferior to the likelihood, for the
tweak, to actually have an audible effect.
For example if we compare two pairs of speakers. It is likely that they
won't have the same sound. We can be content doing the test 7 times. There
will be 1 chance out of 128 to get a "false success". In statistics, a
"false success" is called a "type I error". The more the test is repeated,
the less type I errors are likely to happen.
Now, if we put an amulet besides a CD player. There is no reason that it
changes the sound. We can then repeat the test 40 times. The success of
probability will then be one out of one trillion (2 to the power 40). If it
ever happens, there is necessarily an explanation : the listener hears the
operator moving the amulet, or the operator always takes more time to launch
the playback once the amulet is away, or maybe the listener perceives a
brightness difference through his eyelids if it is a big dark amulet, or he
can smell it when it is close to the player...

Let p be the probability of getting a success by chance. It is generally
admitted that a result whose p value is inferior to 0.05 (one out of 20)
should be seriously considered, and that p 0.01 (one out of 100) is a very
positive result. However, this must be considered according to the context.

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message

On Nov 17, 1:56?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man.
?A happy man doesn't insult people for their interest
and hobbies.

Well, that pretty well condemns you, Marc.

A happy man doesn't bear false witness against
his neighbors.

So does that.

That's the mark of a distinctly unhappy
man who hates his life.

You mean someone like you Marc, who has proven himself
to be unable to hold a steady job or have a stable
relationship?

Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?

??????????????????????

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message

On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
truly something to consider.
All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
discuss audio.

There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from believing.

So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message







On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
truly something to consider.
All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
discuss audio.
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from *believing.

So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?-

Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 4:11�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message







On Nov 17, 1:56?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man.
?A happy man doesn't insult people for their interest
and hobbies.

Well, that pretty well condemns you, Marc.

A happy man doesn't bear false witness against
his neighbors.

So does that.

That's the mark of a distinctly unhappy
man who hates his life.
You mean someone like you Marc, who has proven himself
to be unable to hold a steady job or have a stable
relationship?
Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?

??????????????????????-

You don't know why you do it? Don't you think you should get some
professional help then?

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 4:13�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message







On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
truly something to consider.
All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
discuss audio.
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from �believing.

So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?

No, they were primitive and superstition men who didn't understand the
physical world around them. They met an kind an enlightened prophet
who had a positive message that they liked. But I'm sure they lied
from time to time because they were human.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 5:11�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:





"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
truly something to consider.
All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
discuss audio.
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from �believing.

So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?-

Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.

That, too. Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?

??????????????????????-

You don't know why you do it? Don't you think you should get some
professional help then?

When the first ten or twenty therapists told Turdborg he's a compulsive
liar and he answered "So what?", they probably just gave up.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

No, they were primitive and superstition men who didn't understand the
physical world around them. They met an kind an enlightened prophet
who had a positive message that they liked. But I'm sure they lied
from time to time because they were human.

Supposedly, lying is appallingly common among the intellectually lazy.
There's a TV show coming on soon in which a human lie detector solves
crimes. The premise of the guy's "craft" is that people lie all the time,
even in casual conversation. I wonder how Krooger came to dominate the
study group that led to such a strange conclusion.

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 5:20�pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Boon said:

Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?

??????????????????????-

You don't know why you do it? �Don't you think you should get some
professional help then?

When the first ten or twenty therapists told Turdborg he's a compulsive
liar and he answered "So what?", they probably just gave up.

I think his response is just his way of saying that he can no longer
tell the difference between lies and the truth. That makes perfect
sense considering that he's suffering from a paranoid personality
disorder.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?

??????????????????????-

You don't know why you do it? ?Don't you think you should get some
professional help then?

When the first ten or twenty therapists told Turdborg he's a compulsive
liar and he answered "So what?", they probably just gave up.

I think his response is just his way of saying that he can no longer
tell the difference between lies and the truth. That makes perfect
sense considering that he's suffering from a paranoid personality
disorder.

Could be. In KrazyBorg's demented state of mind, the only 'truth' that
matters is the certainty that his 'enemies' are plotting against him.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 20:32, George M. Middius wrote:
Boon said:

Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?

??????????????????????-

You don't know why you do it? ?Don't you think you should get some
professional help then?

When the first ten or twenty therapists told Turdborg he's a compulsive
liar and he answered "So what?", they probably just gave up.

I think his response is just his way of saying that he can no longer
tell the difference between lies and the truth. *That makes perfect
sense considering that he's suffering from a paranoid personality
disorder.

Could be. In KrazyBorg's demented state of mind, the only 'truth' that
matters is the certainty that his 'enemies' are plotting against him.

Is the posse attacking his church this Sunday or next Sunday?
Who is bringing the bus?

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 5:44�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 17 Noi, 20:32, George M. Middius wrote:





Boon said:

Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?

??????????????????????-

You don't know why you do it? ?Don't you think you should get some
professional help then?

When the first ten or twenty therapists told Turdborg he's a compulsive
liar and he answered "So what?", they probably just gave up.

I think his response is just his way of saying that he can no longer
tell the difference between lies and the truth. �That makes perfect
sense considering that he's suffering from a paranoid personality
disorder.

Could be. In KrazyBorg's demented state of mind, the only 'truth' that
matters is the certainty that his 'enemies' are plotting against him.

Is the posse attacking his church this Sunday or next Sunday?
Who is bringing the bus?-

Those supposed threats I made about hiding in the motel room with a
sniper rifle still scare Arny nine years later. I re-read those posts
not too long ago, and it was such an obvious joke that I always
assumed Arny was bringing it up via the debating trade. But knowing
he has a paranoid personality disorder, I think he may have been
really frightened.

In other words, ixnay on the usbay. We don't want Arny to be eadyray
for us.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

In other words, ixnay on the usbay. We don't want Arny to be eadyray
for us.

Booon its like you think you,re the only one who can talk in code-ay Booen.
Thnaks Mr. Philllips for, amodintgggig Boon that Arnii's daddy can eat-bup
you're daddy Bony.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 17, 6:13*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message







On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
truly something to consider.
All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
discuss audio.
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from *believing.

So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?

What language did these folks write in, GOIA? ;-)

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 6:57�pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Boon said:

In other words, ixnay on the usbay. �We don't want Arny to be eadyray
for us.

Booon its like you think you,re the only one who can talk in code-ay Booen.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 23:25, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Nov 17, 6:13*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:





"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
truly something to consider.
All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
discuss audio.
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from *believing.

So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?

What language did these folks write in, GOIA?

Krooglish, Arny understands them perfectly well.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Boon" wrote in message

There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from believing.

So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
etc. were all lying?-

Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.

Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh? ;-)

Paranoid illusions noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message


Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every one of those
thousands of translators got it wrong?

Talk about a conspiracy theory! :-(

More like your sloppy inability to read properly Marc, as you demonstrate
daily on RAO.

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 6:05�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from believing.
So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
etc. were all lying?-
Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.

Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh? ;-)

Paranoid illusions noted.

Not a conspiracy, but a business. Concepts such as "faith" are merely
salesmanship. For intelligent people, the whole tithing thing is the
clue that this is an elaborate scam to get people's money.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 6:06�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the �sloppy �translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every one of those
thousands of translators got it wrong?

It was like playing telephone...each translation made more mistakes.
Michelangelo put horns on Moses' head in his sculpture because his
translation of the Bible substituted the word "horns" for "halo." If
they can screw up something little like that, imagine how they screwed
up the "big" messages.


Talk about a conspiracy theory! :-(

Nope, just primitive human beings doing the best they could, which
wasn't very good at all. If you want to keep basing your life on the
observations of primitive men 2000 years ago who had no concept of
physics, physiology, geography, etc., then go ahead. And you think
vinyl is obsolete! LOL!


More like your sloppy inability to read properly Marc, as you demonstrate
daily on RAO.

That sounds like a sloppy IKYABWAI. But then again we're telling you
that your whole belief system is fatally flawed, and you're choosing
not to understand that, either. You're the very definition of a fool.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 6:05�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from believing.
So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
etc. were all lying?-
Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.

Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh? ;-)

Paranoid illusions noted.

There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky and can read our
minds. If we don't follow his rules, we'll burn in a lake of fire for
all of eternity.

I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message

On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
?translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?

It was like playing telephone...each translation made
more mistakes.

As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.

Bible translations are not serial translations. Later translations aren't
based on earlier ones. BTW, that is the meaning of translation - a
translation starts out with the best available manuscripts in the original
language(s).

All translations of the Bible were based on the best original documents
available in their day.

As archeology discovered more and earlier manuscripts, the later
translations used earlier documents, and compared more documents when making
judgment calls.

But keep making up those fairy tales, Marc!