wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...


There's nothing that's ever been demonstrated to be wrong with ABX as a
protocol which is why it is used so often by so many doing real audio
research.


But NOT used by people buying audio equipment.

Where's the need? Most everything is of sufficently high enough quality
that there would be no difference most of the time.


you don't know that.
Most importantly, the actual purchasers don't know that.
Whatever ABX tests were done in research are completely irrelevant to
the purchaser's decision, first, because the test was not directly
between the items under his consideration, and secondly,
because the tests were not performed by the
purchaser's own ears. Not that ABX tests indicate anything
useful, anyway.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:45:24 GMT, wrote:

You should know by now - it takes just one disagreement with Krueger
for him to harbour a lifelong grudge you. If you disagree twice,
that's grounds for a ceaseless vendetta... fa****a... whetever people
of his religious order call it.

Knowldege.

Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:24:43 GMT, wrote:


It seems that he appointed you as his mouthpiece.

We just happen to agree on this issue, we seldom comunicate on any issue.

But then of course Borgs don't actually communicate with words, do
they? :-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:45:24 GMT, wrote:

You should know by now - it takes just one disagreement with Krueger
for him to harbour a lifelong grudge you. If you disagree twice,
that's grounds for a ceaseless vendetta... fa****a... whetever people
of his religious order call it.

Knowldege.

Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)

Wrong , not how to type and then spell check.
If this were in long hand the only problem would be legabil, um lega, oh
**** you know that word thast means neat writing.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...


There's nothing that's ever been demonstrated to be wrong with ABX as a
protocol which is why it is used so often by so many doing real audio
research.


But NOT used by people buying audio equipment.

Where's the need? Most everything is of sufficently high enough quality
that there would be no difference most of the time.


you don't know that.
Sure I do, you just refuse to beleive it's poissible.

Most importantly, the actual purchasers don't know that.

A pity that.

Whatever ABX tests were done in research are completely irrelevant to
the purchaser's decision, first, because the test was not directly
between the items under his consideration, and secondly,
because the tests were not performed by the
purchaser's own ears.

People's hearing is pretyy much the same.
The equipment is pretty much all flat and can drive normal speakers.
Unless you want to include tubes bs. SS then yes, I do know that for most
equipment, and certainly for anything that qualifies as hi-fi.

Speakers are another deal altogether and that's why they should be highest
on the priority list.

Not that ABX tests indicate anything
useful, anyway.


Just keep telling yourself that.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:24:43 GMT, wrote:


It seems that he appointed you as his mouthpiece.

We just happen to agree on this issue, we seldom communicate on any issue.

But then of course Borgs don't actually communicate with words, do
they? :-)

Dunno, never spoke to any.

Indiana Jones wrote :

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: George "Micro" Middius a ecrit:
:
:
: Sander deWaal said:
:
: Ill Phalluson actually knows a thing or two about audio electronics,
: but he rarely shares his knowledge.
:
: Just an endless stream of non-original, repetitive insults.
:
: That's typical of what you pinheads say when faced with real genius, Slick. It
: amazes me that you tweakos are terrified of taking a blind test of your
precious
: tweako-freako gear. You know you'll fail, and Arnii Krooger is very smart. Get
a
: life.
:
:
: Ah, "George", it is hurt my eyeballs to much from laugh :-)
: Does I reminded you off the "connoisseurs de vin" which you always
: writes about, eh?
:
:
: Ignored post, note.
:
:
: Love you two, sweetie :-)
:
?? hm, lost a post, you will note.

how to Lionize a txt:-) Just take Normal english text, like
George's text above, as mangled by en-russian-en-korean-
en-french-english ~by babelfish~

out comes Lionised version with a distinctive religious 'tone' :
"
The pinhead which it typically extends after having spoken, you that they
see in the true normal disaster,
you are smooth.
In order to guess an examination distant the eye of the tweako-freako from
system which is to you
value that you astonish by the tweakos they,
it
will carry and all it suddenly it makes to astonish.
It this that you will fail, and ArniiKrooger completely there is the iss
which extends the thing of frantovsk. The life will obtain which extends. "
:-))
R.

BTW do you know that I accidentaly compiled your last message with my
gcc 4.02 and I got...

RUDY_VIRUS079.exe

Is there a danger for my chicken breeding ?

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:05:38 GMT, wrote:


Knowldege.

Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)

Wrong , not how to type and then spell check.
If this were in long hand the only problem would be legabil, um lega, oh
**** you know that word thast means neat writing.

Well, I know that word that means having sex, yes.

Are you fair dinkum? (George wants me to put Australianisms into my
posts so this is my chance). You mean you don't misspell in longhand
and all these howlers are just typos?

Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling? Might
I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)

paul packer said:

Are you fair dinkum? (George wants me to put Australianisms into my
posts so this is my chance).

No, paulie, that was Bobo's request, not mine.

Clyde Slick said:

But NOT used by people buying audio equipment.

Except involuntarily, in order to give some hifi snob a "lesson in class
values".


..
..
..

(paul packer) said:

Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling? Might
I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)


Humbly. In your sentence, it should be "Might I humbly suggest..."

Nit-picking tends to have that Astrayan funny-formed wood-thingy
effect, you will note.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:05:38 GMT, wrote:


Knowldege.

Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)

Wrong , not how to type and then spell check.
If this were in long hand the only problem would be legabil, um lega, oh
**** you know that word thast means neat writing.

Well, I know that word that means having sex, yes.

Are you fair dinkum? (George wants me to put Australianisms into my
posts so this is my chance). You mean you don't misspell in longhand
and all these howlers are just typos?


Pretty much. If I really don't kow how to spell something I look it up.
I'm not so vain or foolish enough on this group to try bluffing my way
through spelling. It's mostly forgetting to use the spell check to make
sure the letters I wanted my fingers to type actually made it.

Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling?

The 's' is next to the 'a', I hit it by mistake. A lot.

Might
I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)

Getting the message seems to be the last thing some people are getting,
otherwise there wouldn't be the furor nor the vitriol. You'd think I was
killing people's pets or something just because the I know the truth is the
truth and say so. Why the big deal about knowing that you can be fooled
into believing you heard something that was the result of your bias? Why
the resistance to simple facts? If it were some other way than it is, I'd be
just as honest about that. I don't care what the truth is, I just like
knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something different
than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, wrote:

Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something different
than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.

Perhaps you should remove the patch...

The Bug Eater revels in his wall-to-wall delusional fantasy world.

You'd think I was killing people's pets or something just
because the I know the truth is the truth and say so.

What is the dumbest thing Mickey ever said, Alex?
DING!
I'll take Retarded Questions for $600.

Why the big deal about knowing that you can be fooled
into believing you heard something that was the result of your bias?

Hmmm.... What is the difference between dogmatism and fanaticism?
BZZZT!
Darn.
Truisms for $400, please.

Why the resistance

Why are there 'borgs?
DING!
Delusions of Special Persons for $600, Alex.

I don't care what the truth is, I just like knowing it.

What is the worst attempt at a lie ever told?
DING!
Retarded Questions for $800 please.

Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something different
than what's on the recording?

nobody buzzes in

Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would stump you. The correct
question is: "When did Mickey McMickey ever make less sense?"

Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff Mickey now?


..
..

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: Indiana Jones wrote :
:
: "Sander deWaal" wrote in message
: ...
: : George "Micro" Middius a ecrit:
: :
: :
: : Sander deWaal said:
: :
: : Ill Phalluson actually knows a thing or two about audio electronics,
: : but he rarely shares his knowledge.
: :
: : Just an endless stream of non-original, repetitive insults.
: :
: : That's typical of what you pinheads say when faced with real genius,
Slick. It
: : amazes me that you tweakos are terrified of taking a blind test of your
: precious
: : tweako-freako gear. You know you'll fail, and Arnii Krooger is very smart.
Get
: a
: : life.
: :
: :
: : Ah, "George", it is hurt my eyeballs to much from laugh :-)
: : Does I reminded you off the "connoisseurs de vin" which you always
: : writes about, eh?
: :
: :
: : Ignored post, note.
: :
: :
: : Love you two, sweetie :-)
: :
: ?? hm, lost a post, you will note.
:
: how to Lionize a txt:-) Just take Normal english text, like
: George's text above, as mangled by en-russian-en-korean-
: en-french-english ~by babelfish~
:
: out comes Lionised version with a distinctive religious 'tone' :
: "
: The pinhead which it typically extends after having spoken, you that
they
: see in the true normal disaster,
: you are smooth.
: In order to guess an examination distant the eye of the tweako-freako
from
: system which is to you
: value that you astonish by the tweakos they,
: it
: will carry and all it suddenly it makes to astonish.
: It this that you will fail, and ArniiKrooger completely there is the
iss
: which extends the thing of frantovsk. The life will obtain which extends. "
: :-))
: R.
:
: BTW do you know that I accidentaly compiled your last message with my
: gcc 4.02 and I got...
:
: RUDY_VIRUS079.exe
:
: Is there a danger for my chicken breeding ?

sorry, Lionel, all chicks have to stay indoors in NL,
by gov'ments orders :-)
R_the bug

wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:05:38 GMT, wrote:


Knowldege.

Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)

Wrong , not how to type and then spell check.
If this were in long hand the only problem would be legabil, um lega, oh
**** you know that word thast means neat writing.

Well, I know that word that means having sex, yes.

Are you fair dinkum? (George wants me to put Australianisms into my
posts so this is my chance). You mean you don't misspell in longhand
and all these howlers are just typos?


Pretty much. If I really don't kow how to spell something I look it up.
I'm not so vain or foolish enough on this group to try bluffing my way
through spelling. It's mostly forgetting to use the spell check to make
sure the letters I wanted my fingers to type actually made it.

Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling?

The 's' is next to the 'a', I hit it by mistake. A lot.

Might
I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)

Getting the message seems to be the last thing some people are getting,
otherwise there wouldn't be the furor nor the vitriol. You'd think I was
killing people's pets or something just because the I know the truth is
the truth and say so. Why the big deal about knowing that you can be
fooled into believing you heard something that was the result of your
bias? Why the resistance to simple facts? If it were some other way than
it is, I'd be just as honest about that. I don't care what the truth is,
I just like knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment
that can't deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or
something different than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.


"kow" is not a recognized word on my spellchecker.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, wrote:

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

This one got spellchecked.

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


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

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:38:42 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(paul packer) said:

Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling? Might
I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)


Humbly. In your sentence, it should be "Might I humbly suggest..."

Nit-picking tends to have that Astrayan funny-formed wood-thingy
effect, you will note.

Not sure what that is. In any case I've already indulged in the
appropriate amount of self-castigation for that unforgivable error. It
won't happen again.

paul packer said:

In any case I've already indulged in the
appropriate amount of self-castigation for that unforgivable error. It
won't happen again.

See that it doesn't, or off comes your nose.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:38:42 +0100, Sander deWaal
: wrote:
:
: (paul packer) said:
:
: Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
: same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling? Might
: I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
: quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
: one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)
:
:
: Humbly. In your sentence, it should be "Might I humbly suggest..."
:
: Nit-picking tends to have that Astrayan funny-formed wood-thingy
: effect, you will note.
:
: Not sure what that is. In any case I've already indulged in the
: appropriate amount of self-castigation for that unforgivable error. It
: won't happen again.

the boom , yu rang ? fx , Paul please pay attention, currency is
conscious thought
R.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Looks like the title I put in this sub-thread was prescient.

DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for
having done it yourself.

I have done it myself. Now I know better.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting that "tests" are for losers. ;-)


You read but you don't comprehend. Typical.

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

Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
different
than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.

Perhaps you should remove the patch...

How empty your life must be.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:42:15 GMT, wrote:


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

Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
different
than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.

Perhaps you should remove the patch...

How empty your life must be.

You're the one who can't even get a decent English sentence out, even
when using a spellchecker.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



The Bug Eater revels in his wall-to-wall delusional fantasy world.

You'd think I was killing people's pets or something just
because the I know the truth is the truth and say so.

What is the dumbest thing Mickey ever said, Alex?
DING!
I'll take Retarded Questions for $600.

Why the big deal about knowing that you can be fooled
into believing you heard something that was the result of your bias?

Hmmm.... What is the difference between dogmatism and fanaticism?
BZZZT!
Darn.
Truisms for $400, please.

Why the resistance

Why are there 'borgs?
DING!
Delusions of Special Persons for $600, Alex.

I don't care what the truth is, I just like knowing it.

What is the worst attempt at a lie ever told?
DING!
Retarded Questions for $800 please.

Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
different
than what's on the recording?

nobody buzzes in

Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would stump you. The correct
question is: "When did Mickey McMickey ever make less sense?"

Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff Mickey now?


Thanks for once again demonstrating that you can't refute with any evidence,
that it is easy to get electonics to reproduce audio signals that are
inaudibly different from the source.

Obviously if you could do so, you would have by now.
10 years of snide comments and no evidence.
Doesn't it get stuffy with your head constantly in the sand?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:05:38 GMT, wrote:


Knowldege.

Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)

Wrong , not how to type and then spell check.
If this were in long hand the only problem would be legabil, um lega, oh
**** you know that word thast means neat writing.

Well, I know that word that means having sex, yes.

Are you fair dinkum? (George wants me to put Australianisms into my
posts so this is my chance). You mean you don't misspell in longhand
and all these howlers are just typos?


Pretty much. If I really don't kow how to spell something I look it up.
I'm not so vain or foolish enough on this group to try bluffing my way
through spelling. It's mostly forgetting to use the spell check to make
sure the letters I wanted my fingers to type actually made it.

Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling?

The 's' is next to the 'a', I hit it by mistake. A lot.

Might
I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)

Getting the message seems to be the last thing some people are getting,
otherwise there wouldn't be the furor nor the vitriol. You'd think I was
killing people's pets or something just because the I know the truth is
the truth and say so. Why the big deal about knowing that you can be
fooled into believing you heard something that was the result of your
bias? Why the resistance to simple facts? If it were some other way than
it is, I'd be just as honest about that. I don't care what the truth is,
I just like knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment
that can't deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or
something different than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.


"kow" is not a recognized word on my spellchecker.
Mine either, I have no idea how that made it past.
Still, it's not that I don't know how to spell the word, just crappy typing.

duh-Mikey can't even blow out a single flickering candle.

Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would stump you. The correct
question is: "When did Mickey McMickey ever make less sense?"

Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff Mickey now?

Thanks for once again demonstrating

Hey, look -- a variation on Mickey's mindless aping of the Krooborg. I guess
this what passes for Special Person originality.

Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're not joining in. ;-)



..
..

"George Middius" wrote in
message
duh-Mikey can't even blow out a single flickering candle.

Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would
stump you. The correct question is: "When did Mickey
McMickey ever make less sense?"

Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff
Mickey now?

Thanks for once again demonstrating

Hey, look -- a variation on Mickey's mindless aping of
the Krooborg. I guess this what passes for Special Person
originality.

Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're
not joining in. ;-)

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

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

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

This one got spellchecked.

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


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

Let me try and rephrase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial, let
alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here. I don't
understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening to
music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the
master.

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

Clear enough?

Arnii Kroo-koward whimpered:

Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're
not joining in. ;-)

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

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



..
..
..

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:42:15 GMT, wrote:


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

Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
different
than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.

Perhaps you should remove the patch...

How empty your life must be.

You're the one who can't even get a decent English sentence out, even
when using a spellchecker.

I get plenty of decent English senstences out, lots of them with no errors
and no spellcheck.

We've establsihed I suck as a typist.

We've also established that you are overly concerned with scoring some kind
of points from other people's mistakes. IMO that makes you petty.

Either get over it or don't respond.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


duh-Mikey can't even blow out a single flickering candle.

Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would stump you. The
correct
question is: "When did Mickey McMickey ever make less sense?"

Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff Mickey now?

Thanks for once again demonstrating

Hey, look -- a variation on Mickey's mindless aping of the Krooborg. I
guess
this what passes for Special Person originality.

Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're not joining in.
;-)



That's funny, the laughter I hear is all directed at the screaming queen who
doesn't know **** about audio, but haunts audio newsgroups like a ghoul.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"George Middius" wrote in
message
duh-Mikey can't even blow out a single flickering candle.

Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would
stump you. The correct question is: "When did Mickey
McMickey ever make less sense?"

Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff
Mickey now?

Thanks for once again demonstrating

Hey, look -- a variation on Mickey's mindless aping of
the Krooborg. I guess this what passes for Special Person
originality.

Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're
not joining in. ;-)

Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle school bully?
Because he acts like a middle school bully?

Never has one persona, contributed so little, with so much verbiage, over so
lengthy a time, and said absolutely nothing useful on the subject he knows
absolutely nothing about, yet pretends to be defending.

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


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

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

This one got spellchecked.

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


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

Let me try and rephrase.

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, same here.

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm...

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

Hmmm...

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

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

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

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

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

Clear enough?

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

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Arnii Kroo-koward whimpered:

Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're
not joining in. ;-)

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

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



Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy.

duh-Mikey defends his alleged orthographical skill.

senstences

duh?

no spellcheck.

No! Really? Amazing!

We've also established that you are overly concerned with scoring some kind
of points from other people's mistakes.

Nobody tops you in cluelessness, Mickey. Except maybe Arnii, but I'm sure
you're not threatened by Mr. ****'s uber-dorkiness.

"George Middius" wrote in
message
Arnii Kroo-koward whimpered:

Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're
not joining in. ;-)

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

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

Whoops! Typo in my last comment.

Corrected version:

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

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:49:29 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:


the boom , yu rang ? fx , Paul please pay attention, currency is
conscious thought
R.


Eh?

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


duh-Mikey defends his alleged orthographical skill.

senstences

duh?

no spellcheck.

No! Really? Amazing!

We've also established that you are overly concerned with scoring some
kind
of points from other people's mistakes.

Nobody tops you in cluelessness, Mickey.

You're too modest.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:22 GMT, wrote:


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

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

This one got spellchecked.

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


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

Let me try and rephrase.

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, same here.

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

Speakers probably are the weakest link in the sense of most obviously
variable. There was a time back in the 70s when the "garbage in,
garbage out" doctrine ruled and people swore that a Linn turntable
could make even crap speakers sound sweet. That was rubbish as was
eventually recognised.

Don't remember Linn ever being that well thought of compared to Thorens in
those days.
Perhaps it was different there.

Nevertheless a good source is vital, and I can
never agree that all CD players and well-measuring amps sound the same
because my ears tell me otherwise. Therefore I have to go on
listening.

So listen in the way that is most revealing and most likely to reveal REAL
differences.
It's not a matter of agreeing, it's just the way it is.

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

"Fair" to what? We're talking listening for pleasure in the home here.
Therefore what sounds best to the purchaser in his listening
environment is the only "fair" that matters.

Letting one's bias over ride your ears is still a worse idea than a bit of
effort that reveals the actual truth. By fair I mean a comparison that
doesn't allow any other factor other than what you can hear cloud the issue.
The studies on the psychology of this are unequivocal, your ears can be
fooled unless bias is controlled.

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

Unfortuantely, human beings have a ****ty memnory for that sort of thing, if
that weren't the case there would be no need for test tones and an spl meter
to do a proper EQ.

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

Hmmm...

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

Hmmm...

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

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


That's why there's rational thought to deal with the errors our emotions and
slight spl differences can make us believe. Audio equipment is only
possible because of science and science has been applied to how we hear and
how our ears work. There is absoultely no doubt that unmatched spl can have
a very big impact on what we perceive.


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

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

Yes, but what is reality? What you've measured, or what you actually
hear?

We can measure far more accurately than we can hear.
In audio reality is what is on the source.

You talk about the bias of sighted listening, but measurement
can itself create bias.

In what way pray tell?

If you see that an amp has vanishingly low
distortion, and believe that such distortion cannot be audible, likely
you'll hear that amp as "perfect"--that's real bias.

Which is one reason double blind protocols are used. Nobody knows for sure
what is being used as the DUT.


Clear enough?

Yes, very clear. Putting aside content, I have to admit that your post
is a model of literate clarity. Therefore I can't help wondering why
all your posts aren't like this, why you insist on giving Robert and
George so much ammunition for their "Special Person" campaign.

Some days are better than others. Perhaps I just felt like giving a bit
more for this one just to see how it would go.

George Robert and don't need anything more than an endorsement for ABX.
Morein is in his own special person category for the idiot statements he
makes himself.
He clearly can't actually have the training he claims and then honestly make
some of the claims he does.

Did all
your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply
himself" etc?

Not when it came to reading comprehension or writing.

In any case if you can do it once you can do it always, and I expect
to see a similar standard in all future posts. Here's one star * to
start you off. You can wear it on your forehead. :-)

Don't get your hopes up. This is as much to take my mind off of other
things as it is anything else.

I shall endeavor to be more conscientious about the spell check, just for my
own satisfaction. I look at some of the things that my fingers typed and
wonder where the hell my brain went sometimes. Nobody that wants to has
ever not been able to tell what I was saying except for a couple times
when............ oh never mnd.

(paul packer) said:


Did all
your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply
himself" etc?


Mine did, and look where it got me.
My old schoolteachers were absolutely right.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005