Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:fPPQe.98990$Ep.17739@lakeread02...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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

Clyde Slick wrote:

When 'experts' submit articles to journals, they are not only edited
but
also peer-reviewed.


Stereophile is a consumer oriented magazine. It is not,
and is not meant to be, a scientific journal. Peer
review does not apply to its writers.

How about a requirement for expertise in the field?



One point would be to have the writer
actually pay a percentage of the cost of the review samples.
My criticism of SP is that we, the consumers, have to pay for
this stuff, while the writer gets it free. A writer might pay more
attention to cost/benefit issues in the 'real world' if he/she
weren't reviewing 'free samples' all the time. To them, these are
free toys to play with, so sure, they are all nice things to
have scattered around the house.


You can't charge them more than they get for the article.
And I don't think writers get to keep the stuff... do they?


I hope not.

your problem with SP is that they don't
use DBT's in an attempt to limit
preconceptions.


thats a minor knit.. that whole review language thing
of describing sound never caught on with me.
Half the time I can't tell WTF they're talking about.
That and the fact you have to really read between the
lines to pick a positive review from a neutral one.
Frankly, reading some of the subjective prose is just
as painful as a trip to a pushy sales shop.

My problem is that the reviewers sometimes seem to assume
that the readers have unlimited resources.
Reading about a $20,000 amp or $10,000 cd player is interesting, but I'll
never own one.


Never know. I saw a 16K TT go for under 5K on audiogon recently.

But AFAIAC... the bigger the price tag the more interesting the DBT.

Let's take up Howard's cause and set upper price limits on
what should be reviewed! (duh, I'm being facetious here)
But, for different reasons. Not that they all sound the same, but
how can we get the best possible sound without mortgaging the estate?


Buy used?

An entire really good stereo set up shouldn't cost any more than $20,000
for everything.


Kind of arbitrary. My main system is a lot less than that on used prices.
Now that I think about it... its less than my surround system and my
current main speakers are less expensive than my old ones now in my
surround.
I've heard more expensive systems I've liked less and less expensive systems
I could like just as much. I don't like judging stereos by their list
price.
It doesn't correlate all that much with my pleasure factor.
But if somebody wants to drop some MBL 101s on my doorstep... I'd like to
check 'em out. Only thing stopping me is the price tag and no local
dealers.

ScottW


  #602   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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

Clyde Slick wrote:

Arny, for one, purposefully
distorts what other people are saying, thus a meaningful
discussion with him is just not possible.


Arny isn't the only one. Give me a break, you've got Middius myopia.


He is by far the worst, and I said "for one"'


Not IMO. See effective purposeful distortion requires some
intellect. Arny's blatant butchering at times is just too obvious
to have any real effect. What can he accomplish when everyone
but Mike is able to see what's going on?

Its the subtle *******s you have to watch.

ScottW


  #603   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny will be accusing you next of attacking his children, Harry. :-)


After ripping McKelvy a new one you just opened the door to
pandora's box and threw yourself in.


Yes, it was a cheap shot, but


you shouldn't let your frustration drive your actions.

I am tired of Arny Krueger throwing
out such unsubtantiated accusations. I repeat, I have never
attacked Mr. Krueger's children, his wife, or his religious beliefs.
All I have done,


until now.

like Harry Lavo, is to publicly disagree with Mr.
Krueger's beliefs on audio matters, something for which he apparently
will never forgive me. :-(


My advice.. chill out dude. The more Arny goes off into these wacko
accusations the less rational he appears.
The thing that drives me nuts with Arny being the prime representative of
the objectivist camp is that he is too friggin loony to formulate a
consistent
cogent argument. Too bad too. It isn't all that big a deal.

ScottW


  #604   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Scooter, I know you're semiliterate at best, but you might try a Cliff's
Notes
version of Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet, to be specific.

Neither. My complaint is that you state that George stated that SP
writers are not experts, though he said no such thing.


and here I thought I was being quite blatantly sarcastic.


You may have thought that, but don't you think it odd that nobody else
perceived
it? Maybe you can elucidate the reasoning that we all missed.


I didn't want to say... but you all must have your panties twisted into
some serious wad and the chafe is killing you.
That's the only possible explanation.


On the meta level, there's a recurring issue of you misunderstanding
what's
obvious to the rest of us, or of nobody understanding what you meant.


I'm sorry... it's just so damned hard to dwell at this mundane level of
technical and logical lunacy.

I know
you're a fully formed adult, so you're stuck with your limitations,
whatever
they might be.


Star pilot.

But recognizing them would make you less pugnacious.


Not my problem. Frankly, I'd rather be ignored than shackled into your
domain.

ScottW


  #605   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back,
absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under
blind conditions.

Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry,
let me say it specifically: I've personally done
laid-back, absorptive listening under blind
conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor
sensitivity to small differences.

But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a
sign of "far poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems
to occur most often with very un-laid-back A/B
listening.

But what if there were no differences to be heard? That
emans the person was as sensitve asa he needed to be.


But what if you had a test designed to tend to to produce
the result of not hearing differences. that means the test is a dud.


Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract
the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be
keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with
influences related to sight.


Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish.

What kind of "sighted test" proved small differences
were undetected?
It would have to include an element of deception.

ScottW




  #606   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" wrote in message
nk.net...

Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle
differences is a waste of time, even you.

I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it
but I fear my strength last.

Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual.
It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable
proof to others of your ability to perceive difference.

Got it?

ScottW


  #607   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message


oups.com


Even Arny Krueger has effectively agreed with my
statement by subsequently arguing that there are
different types of changes that occur and that he meant
the "bad" kind that invalidates sighted listening, not
the "good" kind that validates blind listening.


Hmm, did I just say "bad" or "good"?


Nope.


No you didn't say "bad" and "good," Mr. Krueger. You said
"coffee" and "alcohol."


Both of which are fine beverages in the appropriate
contexts.

This would be one of those Atkinson paraphrases, where he
puts the words of his choice in the purported speaker's
mouth.


You seem incapable of saying anything without framing it
as a "have you stopped beating your wife" statement, Mr.
Krueger.


You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped beating
your wife" is a question. The statement above is a
declaration.

No, this not another "Atkinson paraphrase." I
merely felt your analogy was over-stretched, Mr. Krueger.


Here's a friendly suggestion John, if your problem is that
you felt the analogy was over-stretched, try saying so
without resorting to the ethically questionable debating
trade practice of putting made-up words in my mouth.

If it bothers you that much, substitute "coffee" and
"alcohol" for "good" and "bad" in my statement above
(whichever way round you feel appropriate).


You seem to be missing the point Atkinson, which you must to
in order to pursue the travesty of an equipment testing
procedure that Stereophile seems to have relied on for its
now-flagging commercial success.

Either way, it seemed to have gone over Mr. McKelvy's
head. Your metaphor, your foot, so to speak.


I think he got my point just fine. If it went over someone's
head, I would point to the person who can't quote it
properly, one who confused a declaration with a question.


  #608   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"ScottW" wrote in message
newsa9Re.99618$Ep.21677@lakeread02
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are
designed to distract the listener from hearing small
differences. Their result is known to be keeping people
from hearing small differences by distracting them with
influences related to sight.


Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish.


You just made sure I'm not going to waste much time with
you. Scotty.


  #609   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:31:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped beating
your wife" is a question. The statement above is a
declaration.


Forgive me for butting in, Arnie, but I think you've missed the point.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a statement, not a question.
A bit like "Are you still a jerk?" "No" affirms that you used to be.
  #610   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:31:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped
beating your wife" is a question. The statement above is
a declaration.


Forgive me for butting in, Arnie, but I think you've
missed the point. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
is a statement, not a question.


No it's a question with a so-called hidden meaning.

There was nothing hidden in my declaration. I think Atkinson
is at the core of it struggling with the strength of my
presentation of the advantages of bias-controlled listening
tests. It's easy to make a strong presentation for a strong
concept, and a strong tool.

A bit like "Are you still a jerk?" "No" affirms that you
used to be.


Yet another question with a hidden meaning. It functions
like a declaration on some level, but first and foremost
it's a question.




  #611   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ScottW" wrote in message
news:gf9Re.99619$Ep.29598@lakeread02...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle
differences is a waste of time, even you.

I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it
but I fear my strength last.

Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual.
It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable
proof to others of your ability to perceive difference.


I'm sorry, but sighted listening may indeed be a waste of time--even for an
individual--or it may not be. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing if it
was a waste of time until you double check the results while blinded. :-)

Norm Strong



  #612   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Arny Krueger wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
newsa9Re.99618$Ep.21677@lakeread02
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are
designed to distract the listener from hearing small
differences. Their result is known to be keeping people
from hearing small differences by distracting them with
influences related to sight.


Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish.


You just made sure I'm not going to waste much time with
you. Scotty.


I am blessed.

and your are unable to respond to my point.

"What kind of "sighted test" proved small differences
were undetected?
It would have to include an element of deception. "

ScottW

  #613   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:gf9Re.99619$Ep.29598@lakeread02...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle
differences is a waste of time, even you.

I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it
but I fear my strength last.

Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual.
It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable
proof to others of your ability to perceive difference.


I'm sorry, but sighted listening may indeed be a waste of time--even for
an individual--or it may not be. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing
if it was a waste of time until you double check the results while
blinded. :-)


So what, if there were a descrepancy, I would go with sighted.
That's my normal music listening MO, so wahtever satisfies that
would be my choice.
DBT is the time waster.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #614   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:gf9Re.99619$Ep.29598@lakeread02...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle
differences is a waste of time, even you.

I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it
but I fear my strength last.

Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual.
It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable
proof to others of your ability to perceive difference.


I'm sorry, but sighted listening may indeed be a waste of time--even for
an individual--or it may not be. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing
if it was a waste of time until you double check the results while
blinded. :-)


So what, if there were a descrepancy, I would go with sighted.
That's my normal music listening MO, so wahtever satisfies that
would be my choice.
DBT is the time waster.


Exactly, As an individual making your own choice... you get to choose
what works for you.

That's completely different than setting out to prove something to
someone other than yourself. You need to teach them probability before
you can do that .

ScottW

  #615   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
to return to the statement of mine that provoked this outbreak
of bile from Mr. Krueger, I was addressing Mr. Krueger's point
that he made at the HE2005 debate that sighted listening changes
the listener's state of mind. I have said that I agree with this,
it does. I have also said that blind listening changes the
listener's state of mind. It does, and Mr. Krueger has said that
he agrees with this.

Where I disagree with Mr. Krueger is in his raising of this change
of state of mind _without qualification_ at the debate to disqualify
sighted listening.


Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle
differences is a waste of time, even you.


Your mind-reading abilities aside, Mr. McKelvy, no I don't "know" this.

Willful ignorance is no excuse.

All I am doing is pointing out, as I did at the debate, that as
blind listening _also_ changes the listener's state of mind, that
_in itself_ is an insufficient reason to make a case against
sighted listening.


Another lie.


No, not a lie at all, Mr. McKelvy. Even Arny Krueger has effectively
agreed with my statement by subsequently arguing that there are
different types of changes that occur and that he meant the "bad"
kind that invalidates sighted listening, not the "good" kind that
validates blind listening. Except he failed to make this subtle
distinction at the debate. Perhaps you'd better let Mr. Krueger
take a glance at your postings before you post them, to make
sure you and he are on the same page.

The changes from a blind comparison are in favor of detection of subtle
differnces, consequently you should be in favor of them.




  #616   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



So what, if there were a descrepancy, I would go with
sighted.


Given how nice of a guy you've been over the years Art, I
think that would be a very good thing for you to do.

;-)


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
English lesson for Arnii Krooborg George M. Middius Audio Opinions 10 July 14th 05 09:31 AM
Lesson from "Meet the Press" Sandman Audio Opinions 1 February 9th 04 07:14 PM
Lesson Learned EganMedia Pro Audio 11 July 15th 03 04:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"