On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:14:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If Paul by "I don't like the sound of" you are referring to
your opinons, biases and prejudices, then I don't have a
problem.

If by "I don't like the sound of" you are referring to
actual component inherent sound quality, then you're
obviously speaking speculatively.

If only one could separate the human hearing apparatus from the
equation...

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


paul packer said to duh-Mikey:

For them ABX is a solution.

Not as good as suicide though.

To which Ingnorant George replied:

Now you're getting into the spirit.


Give us a demonstration.

Futile. Neither Satan nor demons can die.


So, George's suggestion that you
walk in front of a city bus was a bad idea.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:14:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

And who are these people? I certainly realize that one
JVC integrated sounds pretty much like another JVC
integrated, and pretty much like an Akai integrated as
well. It just happends that I don't like the sound of any
of them.

If Paul by "I don't like the sound of" you are referring to
your opinons, biases and prejudices, then I don't have a
problem.

If by "I don't like the sound of" you are referring to
actual component inherent sound quality, then you're
obviously speaking speculatively.

Actually, Arnie, by "I don't like the sound of," I mean "I don't like
the sound of". That means "I don't like the sound of" those components
whenever I hear them--in the morning, the afternoon, behind a curtain,
gleaming in the sun....I just don't like the sound of them. I fail to
see why that's so difficult to understand.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:


The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in fact.

They have a basis in the listener's ears. As far as the listener is
concerned, everything else is irrelevant.

If
there were freal evidence to suggest that there's some difference between
most solid state components then it would be a major selling point.

There's certainly "freal" evidence that components in the same price
range sound different; hence the continued popularity of certain
brands (NAD, Rotel, Marantz in the budget range) and the continuing
neglect of most others (check Ebay).

However, since nobody is stepping forward with their DBT results to show
those differences, it seems fair to conclude that such differences are very
rare.

And how does the average punter "step forward with a DBT"? Are you
saying that because one rarely sees a donkey sneeze, donkey's never
sneeze? I've already outlined how I and most other people buy hi-fi,
and DBT has nothing to do with. And I'm sure if I asked a dealer to
set up a DBT, he'd rightly say, "Why don't you just listen?" Fancy
that.

For them ABX is a solution.

Not as good as suicide though.

Then don't use ABX, use some other form of bias controlled, level matched,
blind listening. Rely on your ears, but only on your ears.

Yep, already doing that. It's great.

paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:


The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in fact.

They have a basis in the listener's ears. As far as the listener is
concerned, everything else is irrelevant.

Not 'the' listener, by any means. *Some* listeners.

Rational, informed people realize that there are good reasons
why seeing isn't always believing, and neither is hearing.
Some of those people are listeners, too.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



duh-Mikey demonstrates, yet again, how difficult it is for him to pass for
a
regular person.
It's also doubtful whether Joe Audiophile can simply sit down and do a
"test" and reach a meaningful decision for the intended purpose of his
purchase, which is listening to music for pleasure. If you take the
pleasure part out of the equation and try to treat the exercise as
"research", how do you translate the results into a meaningful
conclusion
for the real context?

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to back up that assertion

Speaking of evidence, a Normal could easily be swayed into believing
you're a
freako-geeko experiment in AI enslaved to a religious proselytizer.


And they could just as easily be talked inot believing you're an intelligent
gas from Venus. They tend not to be very dilligent in their investigations.

We have emotions and feelings and
moods. Our response to music varies according to our emotional state. On
a
given day, you might be more receptive to one aspect of a recording
because of some connotation of a particular sound. Such subtleties
are completely masked by the roboticism of the "tests".

And your tests that show this to be true are where?

I'm sorry, Mickey. I should have noted I was speaking on behalf of human
beings
and not robots.

George, just because somebody does research into what and how humans hear,
doesn't mean they cease to be human. If anything they are more human since
they are using their ablity to reason, which is a very human thing to do.
Animals tend to work from feelings.

You should consider yourself excluded from all generalizations
about how human beings use their stereos.



And you should exclude your self from all discussion about Normal.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:


The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in fact.

They have a basis in the listener's ears. As far as the listener is
concerned, everything else is irrelevant.

Since we know enough about psychology to know that human hearing can be
influenced by outside stimuli, taking what we hear in an non-bias controlled
comparison is unwise at the very least.

Those who aren't aware of this fact are being ill-served by the audio press.
One of the frequent arguemnts against DBT's is that they don't account for
the mood of the listeners, so it should be obvious that non-sonic factors
can influence what we hear.



If
there were freal evidence to suggest that there's some difference between
most solid state components then it would be a major selling point.

There's certainly "freal" evidence that components in the same price
range sound different; hence the continued popularity of certain
brands (NAD, Rotel, Marantz in the budget range) and the continuing
neglect of most others (check Ebay).

Those are reputations they are not the same as reliable listening tests.
Reilable listening tests have so far shown that devices that fall within a
certain group of parameters sound indentical. How else do you explain not
being able to tell the diiference between a Yammy integrated amp and Pass
monoblocks?


However, since nobody is stepping forward with their DBT results to show
those differences, it seems fair to conclude that such differences are
very
rare.

And how does the average punter "step forward with a DBT"?

Audio comapnies that wanted to sell more product could publish the results
of their DBT's that showed listeners being able to tell their gear from
others, and then demonstrating how it made them better.

Are you
saying that because one rarely sees a donkey sneeze, donkey's never
sneeze? I've already outlined how I and most other people buy hi-fi,
and DBT has nothing to do with.

For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their new gear
will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to believe that the
evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is little to no difference
between most audio gear.

I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other form of
DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle difference. If you
are convinced there is a difference from some sighted comparison, it
behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure you aren't letting your self
be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If you don't believe there's any
reason for things to sound a bit difference, then you'd have no need to do
such a comparison.

And I'm sure if I asked a dealer to
set up a DBT, he'd rightly say, "Why don't you just listen?" Fancy
that.

Of course he'd say that he knows how unrelaible such listening is, and how
people can be sold by suggestions of how much better the thing he wants to
sell sounds.

For them ABX is a solution.

Not as good as suicide though.

Then don't use ABX, use some other form of bias controlled, level matched,
blind listening. Rely on your ears, but only on your ears.

Yep, already doing that. It's great.

No you're not unless you're doing it in a level matched, blind comparison.
Any other way opens the door wide open to being fooled by factors that don't
have anything to do with sound at all.

Excerpt from: http://www.csicop.org/si/9505/belief.html#emotional

Experiences accompanied by strong emotion may leave an unshakable belief in
whatever explanation appealed to the individual at the time. If one is
overwhelmed by an apparent case of telepathy, or an ostensible UFO, then
later thinking may well be dominated by the awareness that the emotional
reaction was intense, leading to the conclusion that something unusual
really did happen. And emotion in turn may directly influence both
perception and learning. Something may be interpreted as bizarre or unusual
because of the emotional responses triggered.

There is ample evidence that people can be fooled into thinking they hear
something that isn't really there, audio salesmen count on it.

There is some very good stuff about hearing what's not there he
http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm

And also he http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...o/subjectv.htm

In the end it comes down to using the brains that we have to understand that
the research is valid and that we have relaible knowledge about how human
hear and how their hearing can be fooled. It's not a conspiracy by anybody
to take the fun out of audio, any more than Consumer Reports can take the
fun out the car or any other thing you buy.

Look at the list of things related to sound audio that the BBC has
researched and the AES papers on the subject of psycho-accoustics.

The question I have is why does anybody doubt that they can be fooled about
what they hear or that their mood has an effect on what they hear, since
almost every audiophile has at least one story about listening to something
for the umpteenth time and hearing some little detail they missed until
then.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:14:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

And who are these people? I certainly realize that one
JVC integrated sounds pretty much like another JVC
integrated, and pretty much like an Akai integrated as
well. It just happends that I don't like the sound of any
of them.

If Paul by "I don't like the sound of" you are referring to
your opinons, biases and prejudices, then I don't have a
problem.

If by "I don't like the sound of" you are referring to
actual component inherent sound quality, then you're
obviously speaking speculatively.

Actually, Arnie, by "I don't like the sound of," I mean "I don't like
the sound of". That means "I don't like the sound of" those components
whenever I hear them--in the morning, the afternoon, behind a curtain,
gleaming in the sun....I just don't like the sound of them. I fail to
see why that's so difficult to understand.

But until you do a biasd controlled comparison you won't know if you really
heard something bad or if it was the result of something else.

Signal wrote:

Rational, informed people realize that there are good reasons
why seeing isn't always believing, and neither is hearing.
Some of those people are listeners, too.

Now we have to gouge out our hearing organs too?

Nah, but I can think of a few cases where losing the typing
fingers would help.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:


The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in fact.

They have a basis in the listener's ears. As far as the listener is
concerned, everything else is irrelevant.

Since we know enough about psychology to know that human hearing can be
influenced by outside stimuli, taking what we hear in an non-bias
controlled comparison is unwise at the very least.


RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we listen to
music

Those who aren't aware of this fact are being ill-served by the audio
press. One of the frequent arguemnts against DBT's is that they don't
account for the mood of the listeners, so it should be obvious that
non-sonic factors can influence what we hear.




RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we listen to
music


Those are reputations they are not the same as reliable listening tests.
Reilable listening tests have so far shown that devices that fall within a
certain group of parameters sound indentical. How else do you explain not
being able to tell the diiference between a Yammy integrated amp and Pass
monoblocks?


thar was someone else, not me!!!


Audio comapnies that wanted to sell more product could publish the results
of their DBT's that showed listeners being able to tell their gear from
others, and then demonstrating how it made them better.


that would be whether the listeners liked it better!


For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their new
gear will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to believe that
the evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is little to no
difference between most audio gear.


The critical evidence is waht they prefer under normal conditions.


I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other form
of DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle difference.
If you are convinced there is a difference from some sighted comparison,
it behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure you aren't letting your
self be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If you don't believe there's
any reason for things to sound a bit difference, then you'd have no need
to do such a comparison.


GREAT! The differences I usually here are not at all subtle.
no need for DBT for me.



No you're not unless you're doing it in a level matched, blind comparison.
Any other way opens the door wide open to being fooled by factors that
don't have anything to do with sound at all.


Yes, to be 'fooled' by waht you actually prefer under real world conditions!


The question I have is why does anybody doubt that they can be fooled
about what they hear or that their mood has an effect on what they hear,
since almost every audiophile has at least one story about listening to
something for the umpteenth time and hearing some little detail they
missed until then.

that statement certainly throws DBT's in the dusbin of history.
Well, there are still a few Commie and DBT dinosaurs still out there.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:14:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

And who are these people? I certainly realize that one
JVC integrated sounds pretty much like another JVC
integrated, and pretty much like an Akai integrated as
well. It just happends that I don't like the sound of any
of them.

If Paul by "I don't like the sound of" you are referring to
your opinons, biases and prejudices, then I don't have a
problem.

If by "I don't like the sound of" you are referring to
actual component inherent sound quality, then you're
obviously speaking speculatively.

Actually, Arnie, by "I don't like the sound of," I mean "I don't like
the sound of". That means "I don't like the sound of" those components
whenever I hear them--in the morning, the afternoon, behind a curtain,
gleaming in the sun....I just don't like the sound of them. I fail to
see why that's so difficult to understand.

But until you do a biasd controlled comparison you won't know if you
really heard something bad or if it was the result of something else.

when I sit at home and listen to music, that
'something else' is always there.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:09:18 GMT, wrote:



The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in fact.

Why? Because it acknowledges that people have moods?


It is amazing , what I find when I look down my pants.
I find that in the right mood things get bigger, especially if a sexy
guy like Brian is nearby.

ooohhhhh

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:


The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in fact.

They have a basis in the listener's ears. As far as the listener is
concerned, everything else is irrelevant.

Since we know enough about psychology to know that human hearing can be
influenced by outside stimuli, taking what we hear in an non-bias
controlled comparison is unwise at the very least.


RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we listen to
music

Those who aren't aware of this fact are being ill-served by the audio
press. One of the frequent arguemnts against DBT's is that they don't
account for the mood of the listeners, so it should be obvious that
non-sonic factors can influence what we hear.




RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we listen to
music

Fine listen that way but evaluate in a more relaible way.


Those are reputations they are not the same as reliable listening tests.
Reilable listening tests have so far shown that devices that fall within
a certain group of parameters sound indentical. How else do you explain
not being able to tell the diiference between a Yammy integrated amp and
Pass monoblocks?


thar was someone else, not me!!!


Audio comapnies that wanted to sell more product could publish the
results of their DBT's that showed listeners being able to tell their
gear from others, and then demonstrating how it made them better.


that would be whether the listeners liked it better!


For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their new
gear will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to believe that
the evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is little to no
difference between most audio gear.


The critical evidence is waht they prefer under normal conditions.


I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other form
of DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle difference.
If you are convinced there is a difference from some sighted comparison,
it behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure you aren't letting your
self be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If you don't believe there's
any reason for things to sound a bit difference, then you'd have no need
to do such a comparison.


GREAT! The differences I usually here are not at all subtle.
no need for DBT for me.

Well you like tubes though, so there probably are big differences.

No you're not unless you're doing it in a level matched, blind
comparison.
Any other way opens the door wide open to being fooled by factors that
don't have anything to do with sound at all.


Yes, to be 'fooled' by waht you actually prefer under real world
conditions!

Doing any kind of A/B comparison could be considererd not real world. If
you are going to compare remove all the factors that have nothing to with
hearing.


The question I have is why does anybody doubt that they can be fooled
about what they hear or that their mood has an effect on what they hear,
since almost every audiophile has at least one story about listening to
something for the umpteenth time and hearing some little detail they
missed until then.

that statement certainly throws DBT's in the dusbin of history.

Why? Because it acknowledges that people have moods?


Well, there are still a few Commie and DBT dinosaurs still out there.


You mean realists.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:14:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

And who are these people? I certainly realize that one
JVC integrated sounds pretty much like another JVC
integrated, and pretty much like an Akai integrated as
well. It just happends that I don't like the sound of
any of them.

If Paul by "I don't like the sound of" you are referring
to your opinons, biases and prejudices, then I don't
have a problem.

If by "I don't like the sound of" you are referring to
actual component inherent sound quality, then you're
obviously speaking speculatively.

Actually, Arnie, by "I don't like the sound of," I mean
"I don't like the sound of". That means "I don't like the
sound of" those components whenever I hear them--in the
morning, the afternoon, behind a curtain, gleaming in the
sun....I just don't like the sound of them. I fail to see
why that's so difficult to understand.

Paul, your devotion to excruciatingly shallow thinking is
really quite impressive. Its one reason why I'm sure that
your IQ can't be much over 115.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:


The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in fact.

They have a basis in the listener's ears. As far as the listener is
concerned, everything else is irrelevant.

Since we know enough about psychology to know that human hearing can be
influenced by outside stimuli, taking what we hear in an non-bias
controlled comparison is unwise at the very least.


RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we listen
to music

Those who aren't aware of this fact are being ill-served by the audio
press. One of the frequent arguemnts against DBT's is that they don't
account for the mood of the listeners, so it should be obvious that
non-sonic factors can influence what we hear.




RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we listen
to music

Fine listen that way but evaluate in a more relaible way.


Those are reputations they are not the same as reliable listening tests.
Reilable listening tests have so far shown that devices that fall within
a certain group of parameters sound indentical. How else do you explain
not being able to tell the diiference between a Yammy integrated amp and
Pass monoblocks?


thar was someone else, not me!!!


Audio comapnies that wanted to sell more product could publish the
results of their DBT's that showed listeners being able to tell their
gear from others, and then demonstrating how it made them better.


that would be whether the listeners liked it better!


For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their new
gear will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to believe that
the evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is little to no
difference between most audio gear.


The critical evidence is waht they prefer under normal conditions.


I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other
form of DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle
difference. If you are convinced there is a difference from some sighted
comparison, it behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure you aren't
letting your self be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If you don't
believe there's any reason for things to sound a bit difference, then
you'd have no need to do such a comparison.


GREAT! The differences I usually here are not at all subtle.
no need for DBT for me.

Well you like tubes though, so there probably are big differences.

No you're not unless you're doing it in a level matched, blind
comparison.
Any other way opens the door wide open to being fooled by factors that
don't have anything to do with sound at all.


Yes, to be 'fooled' by waht you actually prefer under real world
conditions!

Doing any kind of A/B comparison could be considererd not real world. If
you are going to compare remove all the factors that have nothing to with
hearing.


The question I have is why does anybody doubt that they can be fooled
about what they hear or that their mood has an effect on what they hear,
since almost every audiophile has at least one story about listening to
something for the umpteenth time and hearing some little detail they
missed until then.

that statement certainly throws DBT's in the dusbin of history.

Why? Because it acknowledges that people have moods?


Its just as easy, if not easier, to miss that detail
in DBT.

wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:

For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their new gear
will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to believe that the
evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is little to no difference
between most audio gear.

I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other form of
DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle difference. If you
are convinced there is a difference from some sighted comparison, it
behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure you aren't letting your self
be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If you don't believe there's any
reason for things to sound a bit difference, then you'd have no need to do
such a comparison.

And I'm sure if I asked a dealer to
set up a DBT, he'd rightly say, "Why don't you just listen?" Fancy
that.

Of course he'd say that he knows how unrelaible such listening is, and how
people can be sold by suggestions of how much better the thing he wants to
sell sounds.

You know, I'm sure you're sincere in all this but it just doesn't
compute. For one thing, I'm not impressed by price, I'm intimidated by
it. I don't like paying a lot, one because I don't have a lot, and two
because I think it's much more clever to spend less and still get a
satisfying result. So when I listen to two amps, one much cheaper than
the other, I always hope that the cheaper will sound at least as good,
and when the cheaper is a test winner in several mags I have every
expectation that that hope will be fulfilled. So if I have sighted
bias, it's bias toward the budget item, not the luxury item. And yet,
as I experienced recently with my budget Rotel 931 mkII and
not-so-budget Marantz PM8200, as much as I wanted the Rotel to win, as
much as I tried to convince myself the Rotel sounded as good, or near
enough to, in the end I just had to accept that the Marantz was a
superior product. I was disappointed, sure, but that's how it was. And
the Marantz didn't sound better on Wednesday but maybe not so good on
Thursday; it sounded clearly better every day under all conditions. And
no, there was nothing wrong with the Rotel; the Marantz just uses
better components in a more sophisticated circuit, as a glance inside
confirmed. So now...now I can now listen to and enjoy a number of
recordings that hitherto were harsh and grating, while the good ones
all sound less like good recordings and more like real music. And
surely that's the test of a great amp, the only real test the consumer
should be interested in: not whether it can be distinquished in a DBT,
but whether it makes listening to music a more realistic and
pleasurable experience.

Can't put it any plainer, Mike.

Sillybot has a wetware problem.

Rational, informed people realize that there are good reasons
why seeing isn't always believing, and neither is hearing.
Some of those people are listeners, too.

That doesn't need to be a crippling disability. Have you tried rebooting
yourself?



..
..
..

wrote:

wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:

For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their new gear
will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to believe that the
evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is little to no difference
between most audio gear.

I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other form of
DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle difference. If you
are convinced there is a difference from some sighted comparison, it
behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure you aren't letting your self
be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If you don't believe there's any
reason for things to sound a bit difference, then you'd have no need to do
such a comparison.

And I'm sure if I asked a dealer to
set up a DBT, he'd rightly say, "Why don't you just listen?" Fancy
that.

Of course he'd say that he knows how unrelaible such listening is, and how
people can be sold by suggestions of how much better the thing he wants to
sell sounds.

You know, I'm sure you're sincere in all this but it just doesn't
compute. For one thing, I'm not impressed by price, I'm intimidated by
it. I don't like paying a lot, one because I don't have a lot, and two
because I think it's much more clever to spend less and still get a
satisfying result. So when I listen to two amps, one much cheaper than
the other, I always hope that the cheaper will sound at least as good,
and when the cheaper is a test winner in several mags I have every
expectation that that hope will be fulfilled. So if I have sighted
bias, it's bias toward the budget item, not the luxury item. And yet,
as I experienced recently with my budget Rotel 931 mkII and
not-so-budget Marantz PM8200, as much as I wanted the Rotel to win, as
much as I tried to convince myself the Rotel sounded as good, or near
enough to, in the end I just had to accept that the Marantz was a
superior product. I was disappointed, sure, but that's how it was. And
the Marantz didn't sound better on Wednesday but maybe not so good on
Thursday; it sounded clearly better every day under all conditions. And
no, there was nothing wrong with the Rotel; the Marantz just uses
better components in a more sophisticated circuit, as a glance inside
confirmed. So now...now I can now listen to and enjoy a number of
recordings that hitherto were harsh and grating, while the good ones
all sound less like good recordings and more like real music. And
surely that's the test of a great amp, the only real test the consumer
should be interested in: not whether it can be distinquished in a DBT,
but whether it makes listening to music a more realistic and
pleasurable experience.

Can't put it any plainer, Mike.

Unconscious bias is called unconscious for a reason, you know.

It's not the biases we're aware of or admit to
that are necessarily the problem.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:


The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in fact.

They have a basis in the listener's ears. As far as the listener is
concerned, everything else is irrelevant.

Since we know enough about psychology to know that human hearing can be
influenced by outside stimuli, taking what we hear in an non-bias
controlled comparison is unwise at the very least.


RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we listen
to music

Those who aren't aware of this fact are being ill-served by the audio
press. One of the frequent arguemnts against DBT's is that they don't
account for the mood of the listeners, so it should be obvious that
non-sonic factors can influence what we hear.




RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we listen
to music

Fine listen that way but evaluate in a more relaible way.


Those are reputations they are not the same as reliable listening
tests.
Reilable listening tests have so far shown that devices that fall
within a certain group of parameters sound indentical. How else do you
explain not being able to tell the diiference between a Yammy
integrated amp and Pass monoblocks?


thar was someone else, not me!!!


Audio comapnies that wanted to sell more product could publish the
results of their DBT's that showed listeners being able to tell their
gear from others, and then demonstrating how it made them better.


that would be whether the listeners liked it better!


For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their new
gear will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to believe
that the evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is little to
no difference between most audio gear.


The critical evidence is waht they prefer under normal conditions.


I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other
form of DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle
difference. If you are convinced there is a difference from some
sighted comparison, it behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure
you aren't letting your self be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If
you don't believe there's any reason for things to sound a bit
difference, then you'd have no need to do such a comparison.


GREAT! The differences I usually here are not at all subtle.
no need for DBT for me.

Well you like tubes though, so there probably are big differences.

No you're not unless you're doing it in a level matched, blind
comparison.
Any other way opens the door wide open to being fooled by factors that
don't have anything to do with sound at all.


Yes, to be 'fooled' by waht you actually prefer under real world
conditions!

Doing any kind of A/B comparison could be considererd not real world. If
you are going to compare remove all the factors that have nothing to with
hearing.


The question I have is why does anybody doubt that they can be fooled
about what they hear or that their mood has an effect on what they
hear, since almost every audiophile has at least one story about
listening to something for the umpteenth time and hearing some little
detail they missed until then.

that statement certainly throws DBT's in the dusbin of history.

Why? Because it acknowledges that people have moods?


Its just as easy, if not easier, to miss that detail
in DBT.

And the research that demonstrates this is where?
One of the reasons that trainig of listeners is important, is sos they don't
miss details, that combined with one of the most sensitive methods for
hearing differences audio ABX, helps insure that any differences heard are
real and not wishful thinking.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:

For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their new
gear
will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to believe that the
evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is little to no
difference
between most audio gear.

I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other form
of
DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle difference. If
you
are convinced there is a difference from some sighted comparison, it
behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure you aren't letting your
self
be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If you don't believe there's any
reason for things to sound a bit difference, then you'd have no need to
do
such a comparison.

And I'm sure if I asked a dealer to
set up a DBT, he'd rightly say, "Why don't you just listen?" Fancy
that.

Of course he'd say that he knows how unrelaible such listening is, and
how
people can be sold by suggestions of how much better the thing he wants
to
sell sounds.

You know, I'm sure you're sincere in all this but it just doesn't
compute. For one thing, I'm not impressed by price, I'm intimidated by
it. I don't like paying a lot, one because I don't have a lot, and two
because I think it's much more clever to spend less and still get a
satisfying result.

Sales people often get spiffs, extra money for selling a particular
company's products.
This gives them an incentive to sell you what ehy make more money from,
rather tan what is best.

So when I listen to two amps, one much cheaper than
the other, I always hope that the cheaper will sound at least as good,
and when the cheaper is a test winner in several mags I have every
expectation that that hope will be fulfilled. So if I have sighted
bias, it's bias toward the budget item, not the luxury item. And yet,
as I experienced recently with my budget Rotel 931 mkII and
not-so-budget Marantz PM8200, as much as I wanted the Rotel to win, as
much as I tried to convince myself the Rotel sounded as good, or near
enough to, in the end I just had to accept that the Marantz was a
superior product.

The only problem is that without a DBT, there's a 99.9% chance that they
sound identical, which is the case for every properly designed piece of
audio equipment.


I was disappointed, sure, but that's how it was. And
the Marantz didn't sound better on Wednesday but maybe not so good on
Thursday; it sounded clearly better every day under all conditions. And
no, there was nothing wrong with the Rotel; the Marantz just uses
better components in a more sophisticated circuit, as a glance inside
confirmed. So now...now I can now listen to and enjoy a number of
recordings that hitherto were harsh and grating, while the good ones
all sound less like good recordings and more like real music.

Utter nonsense. If they both provide flat response with low distortion and
low noise, which is trivially easy, then whatever differences you believe
you hear are the product of your mind and not the circuits, or, since an spl
difference of .1 db tends to make one think that the louder one sounds
better, well you know.

And
surely that's the test of a great amp, the only real test the consumer
should be interested in: not whether it can be distinquished in a DBT,
but whether it makes listening to music a more realistic and
pleasurable experience.

Can't put it any plainer, Mike.

Or be more wrong. The only results that are worthwhile are the ones that
aren't colored by sales hype, spl differences, or any of the multitude of
factors that alter your perception.

Why in the world are you messing around with toy amps that only generate 30
wpc?

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


Unconscious bias is called unconscious for a reason, you know.

When are you going to admit to your bias
that amps and cd plyers sound the same.
When are you going'to invent
a test that removes YOUR bias?

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:


The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in fact.

They have a basis in the listener's ears. As far as the listener is
concerned, everything else is irrelevant.

Since we know enough about psychology to know that human hearing can
be influenced by outside stimuli, taking what we hear in an non-bias
controlled comparison is unwise at the very least.


RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we listen
to music

Those who aren't aware of this fact are being ill-served by the audio
press. One of the frequent arguemnts against DBT's is that they don't
account for the mood of the listeners, so it should be obvious that
non-sonic factors can influence what we hear.




RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we listen
to music

Fine listen that way but evaluate in a more relaible way.


Those are reputations they are not the same as reliable listening
tests.
Reilable listening tests have so far shown that devices that fall
within a certain group of parameters sound indentical. How else do
you explain not being able to tell the diiference between a Yammy
integrated amp and Pass monoblocks?


thar was someone else, not me!!!


Audio comapnies that wanted to sell more product could publish the
results of their DBT's that showed listeners being able to tell their
gear from others, and then demonstrating how it made them better.


that would be whether the listeners liked it better!


For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their
new gear will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to
believe that the evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is
little to no difference between most audio gear.


The critical evidence is waht they prefer under normal conditions.


I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other
form of DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle
difference. If you are convinced there is a difference from some
sighted comparison, it behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure
you aren't letting your self be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If
you don't believe there's any reason for things to sound a bit
difference, then you'd have no need to do such a comparison.


GREAT! The differences I usually here are not at all subtle.
no need for DBT for me.

Well you like tubes though, so there probably are big differences.

No you're not unless you're doing it in a level matched, blind
comparison.
Any other way opens the door wide open to being fooled by factors that
don't have anything to do with sound at all.


Yes, to be 'fooled' by waht you actually prefer under real world
conditions!

Doing any kind of A/B comparison could be considererd not real world.
If you are going to compare remove all the factors that have nothing to
with hearing.


The question I have is why does anybody doubt that they can be fooled
about what they hear or that their mood has an effect on what they
hear, since almost every audiophile has at least one story about
listening to something for the umpteenth time and hearing some little
detail they missed until then.

that statement certainly throws DBT's in the dusbin of history.

Why? Because it acknowledges that people have moods?


Its just as easy, if not easier, to miss that detail
in DBT.

And the research that demonstrates this is where?

Well, if its missed, its not there in the DBT test.
So no one is looking for it!


One of the reasons that trainig of listeners is important, is sos they
don't miss details, that combined with one of the most sensitive methods
for hearing differences audio ABX, helps insure that any differences heard
are real and not wishful thinking.


The training, that's the major problem.
Is not focused on holistic and Gestalt listening.
you are actually trying to 'train' that out of your test subjects.

wrote:
wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:

For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their new gear
will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to believe that the
evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is little to no difference
between most audio gear.

I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other form of
DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle difference. If you
are convinced there is a difference from some sighted comparison, it
behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure you aren't letting your self
be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If you don't believe there's any
reason for things to sound a bit difference, then you'd have no need to do
such a comparison.

And I'm sure if I asked a dealer to
set up a DBT, he'd rightly say, "Why don't you just listen?" Fancy
that.

Of course he'd say that he knows how unrelaible such listening is, and how
people can be sold by suggestions of how much better the thing he wants to
sell sounds.

You know, I'm sure you're sincere in all this but it just doesn't
compute. For one thing, I'm not impressed by price, I'm intimidated by
it. I don't like paying a lot, one because I don't have a lot, and two
because I think it's much more clever to spend less and still get a
satisfying result. So when I listen to two amps, one much cheaper than
the other, I always hope that the cheaper will sound at least as good,
and when the cheaper is a test winner in several mags I have every
expectation that that hope will be fulfilled. So if I have sighted
bias, it's bias toward the budget item, not the luxury item. And yet,
as I experienced recently with my budget Rotel 931 mkII and
not-so-budget Marantz PM8200, as much as I wanted the Rotel to win, as
much as I tried to convince myself the Rotel sounded as good, or near
enough to, in the end I just had to accept that the Marantz was a
superior product. I was disappointed, sure, but that's how it was. And
the Marantz didn't sound better on Wednesday but maybe not so good on
Thursday; it sounded clearly better every day under all conditions. And
no, there was nothing wrong with the Rotel; the Marantz just uses
better components in a more sophisticated circuit, as a glance inside
confirmed. So now...now I can now listen to and enjoy a number of
recordings that hitherto were harsh and grating, while the good ones
all sound less like good recordings and more like real music. And
surely that's the test of a great amp, the only real test the consumer
should be interested in: not whether it can be distinquished in a DBT,
but whether it makes listening to music a more realistic and
pleasurable experience.

Can't put it any plainer, Mike.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified scientist and psychoanalyst Sullivan has the answer:
"Unconscious bias is called unconscious for a reason, you know.

It's not the biases we're aware of or admit to
that are necessarily the problem."

All you need Paul is a few years of psychoanalysis. Any available in
your part of the world?. If not dribble over to Holywood . Everybody is
spending hours on the couch.
Ludovic Mirabel



--
-S

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:


The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in fact.

They have a basis in the listener's ears. As far as the listener is
concerned, everything else is irrelevant.

Since we know enough about psychology to know that human hearing can
be influenced by outside stimuli, taking what we hear in an non-bias
controlled comparison is unwise at the very least.


RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we
listen to music

Those who aren't aware of this fact are being ill-served by the audio
press. One of the frequent arguemnts against DBT's is that they don't
account for the mood of the listeners, so it should be obvious that
non-sonic factors can influence what we hear.




RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we
listen to music

Fine listen that way but evaluate in a more relaible way.


Those are reputations they are not the same as reliable listening
tests.
Reilable listening tests have so far shown that devices that fall
within a certain group of parameters sound indentical. How else do
you explain not being able to tell the diiference between a Yammy
integrated amp and Pass monoblocks?


thar was someone else, not me!!!


Audio comapnies that wanted to sell more product could publish the
results of their DBT's that showed listeners being able to tell their
gear from others, and then demonstrating how it made them better.


that would be whether the listeners liked it better!


For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their
new gear will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to
believe that the evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is
little to no difference between most audio gear.


The critical evidence is waht they prefer under normal conditions.


I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other
form of DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle
difference. If you are convinced there is a difference from some
sighted comparison, it behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure
you aren't letting your self be swayed by other non-sonic factors.
If you don't believe there's any reason for things to sound a bit
difference, then you'd have no need to do such a comparison.


GREAT! The differences I usually here are not at all subtle.
no need for DBT for me.

Well you like tubes though, so there probably are big differences.

No you're not unless you're doing it in a level matched, blind
comparison.
Any other way opens the door wide open to being fooled by factors
that don't have anything to do with sound at all.


Yes, to be 'fooled' by waht you actually prefer under real world
conditions!

Doing any kind of A/B comparison could be considererd not real world.
If you are going to compare remove all the factors that have nothing to
with hearing.


The question I have is why does anybody doubt that they can be fooled
about what they hear or that their mood has an effect on what they
hear, since almost every audiophile has at least one story about
listening to something for the umpteenth time and hearing some little
detail they missed until then.

that statement certainly throws DBT's in the dusbin of history.

Why? Because it acknowledges that people have moods?


Its just as easy, if not easier, to miss that detail
in DBT.

And the research that demonstrates this is where?

Well, if its missed, its not there in the DBT test.
So no one is looking for it!


One of the reasons that trainig of listeners is important, is sos they
don't miss details, that combined with one of the most sensitive methods
for hearing differences audio ABX, helps insure that any differences
heard are real and not wishful thinking.


The training, that's the major problem.
Is not focused on holistic and Gestalt listening.
you are actually trying to 'train' that out of your test subjects.
That must be why nobody doing audio research uses any double blind
protocols.

Except that they do use them and they do train listeniners and they do
better at hearing differences because of the training.

wrote in message
news

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:


The problem is that most claims of difference have no basis in
fact.

They have a basis in the listener's ears. As far as the listener is
concerned, everything else is irrelevant.

Since we know enough about psychology to know that human hearing can
be influenced by outside stimuli, taking what we hear in an non-bias
controlled comparison is unwise at the very least.


RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we
listen to music

Those who aren't aware of this fact are being ill-served by the
audio press. One of the frequent arguemnts against DBT's is that
they don't account for the mood of the listeners, so it should be
obvious that non-sonic factors can influence what we hear.




RIGHT, and that is the normal real world condition uber which we
listen to music

Fine listen that way but evaluate in a more relaible way.


Those are reputations they are not the same as reliable listening
tests.
Reilable listening tests have so far shown that devices that fall
within a certain group of parameters sound indentical. How else do
you explain not being able to tell the diiference between a Yammy
integrated amp and Pass monoblocks?


thar was someone else, not me!!!


Audio comapnies that wanted to sell more product could publish the
results of their DBT's that showed listeners being able to tell
their gear from others, and then demonstrating how it made them
better.


that would be whether the listeners liked it better!


For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their
new gear will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to
believe that the evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there
is little to no difference between most audio gear.


The critical evidence is waht they prefer under normal conditions.


I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other
form of DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle
difference. If you are convinced there is a difference from some
sighted comparison, it behooves you to do a DBT in order to make
sure you aren't letting your self be swayed by other non-sonic
factors. If you don't believe there's any reason for things to sound
a bit difference, then you'd have no need to do such a comparison.


GREAT! The differences I usually here are not at all subtle.
no need for DBT for me.

Well you like tubes though, so there probably are big differences.

No you're not unless you're doing it in a level matched, blind
comparison.
Any other way opens the door wide open to being fooled by factors
that don't have anything to do with sound at all.


Yes, to be 'fooled' by waht you actually prefer under real world
conditions!

Doing any kind of A/B comparison could be considererd not real world.
If you are going to compare remove all the factors that have nothing
to with hearing.


The question I have is why does anybody doubt that they can be
fooled about what they hear or that their mood has an effect on what
they hear, since almost every audiophile has at least one story
about listening to something for the umpteenth time and hearing some
little detail they missed until then.

that statement certainly throws DBT's in the dusbin of history.

Why? Because it acknowledges that people have moods?


Its just as easy, if not easier, to miss that detail
in DBT.

And the research that demonstrates this is where?

Well, if its missed, its not there in the DBT test.
So no one is looking for it!


One of the reasons that trainig of listeners is important, is sos they
don't miss details, that combined with one of the most sensitive methods
for hearing differences audio ABX, helps insure that any differences
heard are real and not wishful thinking.


The training, that's the major problem.
Is not focused on holistic and Gestalt listening.
you are actually trying to 'train' that out of your test subjects.
That must be why nobody doing audio research uses any double blind
protocols.

Except that they do use them and they do train listeniners and they do
better at hearing differences because of the training.
The differences they are trained to hear, but not the differences they are
trained
not to hear.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:08:21 GMT, wrote:

For many people they are unneccessary since they already know their new gear
will sound just their old gear. Some people refuse to believe that the
evidence is the evidence, and that it shows there is little to no difference
between most audio gear.

I've never, NEVER said all purchase should include ABX or some other form of
DBT. They are only for answering the question of subtle difference. If you
are convinced there is a difference from some sighted comparison, it
behooves you to do a DBT in order to make sure you aren't letting your self
be swayed by other non-sonic factors. If you don't believe there's any
reason for things to sound a bit difference, then you'd have no need to do
such a comparison.

And I'm sure if I asked a dealer to
set up a DBT, he'd rightly say, "Why don't you just listen?" Fancy
that.

Of course he'd say that he knows how unrelaible such listening is, and how
people can be sold by suggestions of how much better the thing he wants to
sell sounds.

You know, I'm sure you're sincere in all this but it just doesn't
compute. For one thing, I'm not impressed by price, I'm intimidated by
it. I don't like paying a lot, one because I don't have a lot, and two
because I think it's much more clever to spend less and still get a
satisfying result. So when I listen to two amps, one much cheaper than
the other, I always hope that the cheaper will sound at least as good,
and when the cheaper is a test winner in several mags I have every
expectation that that hope will be fulfilled. So if I have sighted
bias, it's bias toward the budget item, not the luxury item. And yet,
as I experienced recently with my budget Rotel 931 mkII and
not-so-budget Marantz PM8200, as much as I wanted the Rotel to win, as
much as I tried to convince myself the Rotel sounded as good, or near
enough to, in the end I just had to accept that the Marantz was a
superior product. I was disappointed, sure, but that's how it was. And
the Marantz didn't sound better on Wednesday but maybe not so good on
Thursday; it sounded clearly better every day under all conditions. And
no, there was nothing wrong with the Rotel; the Marantz just uses
better components in a more sophisticated circuit, as a glance inside
confirmed. So now...now I can now listen to and enjoy a number of
recordings that hitherto were harsh and grating, while the good ones
all sound less like good recordings and more like real music. And
surely that's the test of a great amp, the only real test the consumer
should be interested in: not whether it can be distinquished in a DBT,
but whether it makes listening to music a more realistic and
pleasurable experience.

Can't put it any plainer, Mike.

Unconscious bias is called unconscious for a reason, you know.

It's not the biases we're aware of or admit to
that are necessarily the problem.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan thunders:
Unconscious bias is called unconscious for a reason, you know.
It's not the biases we're aware of or admit to
that are necessarily the problem.

-- An interview with Herr Doktor Geheimrat Sullivan, the renowned
"Psychoanalyst to the stars"
Question: Herr Doktor I understand you developed a treatment which
purges the unconscious audio biases .
A: Indeed we have. From now on by the Health Department's order it
will be compulsory for all audio consumers. The stores already have a
list of approved components which all measure "the same"
The treatment principles will be
behavioural/psychoanalytic with admixture of scientology concept of
"clear"
The audio buyers will be assessed for their preferences which we know
are just biases. Everyone will be issued a cd that he/she will have to
play for 60 days nonstop.
It will have an approved selection of music from hip-hop through to
classics (like the "Flight of the bumble-bee) and to Bartok's and
Beethoven's late quartets. After 60 days most subjects will be able
to prove that they like everything equally well. They are now
"clear" and ready for the next stage: a component listening session
using ABX.
They must now select an equal number of "X is like A" as of "X is
like B". If they fail the course is repeated.
Q: What about those who say after 30 days: "If I hear "Flight of
the bumble-bee" once more I'll vomit all over that ****ing CD"?
A: They'll be charged with insulting the state organs, fined and
resentenced to another 60 days treatment
Q: How will you find out they said it?
A. We have our ways
Q: What if they say: "Now I am 1000% sure that I hate
pop/classics/all music".
A: That's a bias. Ditto
Q: What if they start DIYing/tinkering with their approved equipment in
secret.?
A: Ditto

Ludovic Mirabel

--

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:54:55 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

ABX is a valid way to compare gear for subtle differences. It's not a
matter of opinion, it is demonstrable fact.

When was the last time YOU used it for such a purpose?

What is the relevance?
None.

You're kidding, right? It's certainly relevant if you yourself don't
use it. If it's so efficacious, why not use it yourself?

Idiot. This has already been discussed. ABX is not terribly easy for
the average jerk to do in his home. However, it's a valuable tool for
design and should be used by those in the audio press who make
recommendations that cause a lot of people to spend a lot of money.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:12:03 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

The differences they are trained to hear, but not the differences they are
trained not to hear.

Idiot.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:48:45 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:54:55 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

ABX is a valid way to compare gear for subtle differences. It's not a
matter of opinion, it is demonstrable fact.

When was the last time YOU used it for such a purpose?

What is the relevance?
None.

You're kidding, right? It's certainly relevant if you yourself don't
use it. If it's so efficacious, why not use it yourself?

Idiot. This has already been discussed. ABX is not terribly easy for
the average jerk to do in his home.

This self-deprecation of yours is charming. However, you should be
easier on yourself.

However, it's a valuable tool for
design and should be used by those in the audio press who make
recommendations that cause a lot of people to spend a lot of money.

The people as zombies. Nice image.

JA must be some Svengali to "make" people spend their rent money on
overpriced audio gear.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:47:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Paul, your devotion to excruciatingly shallow thinking is
really quite impressive. Its one reason why I'm sure that
your IQ can't be much over 115.

I'm worried by your concern over IQ levels, Arnie. I've already told
you twice that my IQ measures between 130-135 depending on the test
and probably the time of day. Do you want a certificate? Does it even
matter? Why do you keep on? What is your IQ? Can you prove it?

These are the first questions in a new IQ test I'm compiling. How many
can you answer?

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:47:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Paul, your devotion to excruciatingly shallow thinking is
really quite impressive. Its one reason why I'm sure that
your IQ can't be much over 115.

I'm worried by your concern over IQ levels, Arnie.

What, me worry?

I've already told you twice that my IQ measures between
130-135 depending on the test and probably the time of
day.

Paul, I remain amazed at your inability to reason properly,
if that is indeed the case.

Do you want a certificate? Does it even matter?

It obviously matters to you, Paul.

Why do you keep on? What is your IQ?

Quite a bit higher than even what you claim.

Can you prove it?

I'm way to smart to care about what my IQ is. But since you
asked...

These are the first questions in a new IQ test I'm
compiling. How many can you answer?

I can answer any question. However, you may not like my
answers. Tough! ;-)

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:54:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:47:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Paul, your devotion to excruciatingly shallow thinking is
really quite impressive. Its one reason why I'm sure that
your IQ can't be much over 115.

I'm worried by your concern over IQ levels, Arnie.

What, me worry?

No, I'm worried, Arny. You're concerned.

I've already told you twice that my IQ measures between
130-135 depending on the test and probably the time of
day.

Paul, I remain amazed at your inability to reason properly,
if that is indeed the case.

Translation: "If he's so smart why doesn't he agree with me?"

Do you want a certificate? Does it even matter?

It obviously matters to you, Paul.

What matters to me is that someone should start proclaiming himself
superior to those around him based on his ability to read a circuit
diagram and construct a comparator.

Why do you keep on? What is your IQ?

Quite a bit higher than even what you claim.

Which only goes to prove the inadequacy of IQ tests. But then we all
knew that.

Can you prove it?

I'm way to smart to care about what my IQ is.

No, you're not, as your posts here attest. When you start guessing
other people's IQs, that sends out the message that you consider your
own superior. If you don't see that, others do.

But since you
asked...

These are the first questions in a new IQ test I'm
compiling. How many can you answer?

I can answer any question.

Indeed. Then please tell us what existed before the Big Bang, and if
the Big Bang theory is indeed correct as presently postulated. And be
quick about it.

However, you may not like my
answers.

I haven't so far, and I suspect that trend will continue.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:54:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:47:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Paul, your devotion to excruciatingly shallow thinking
is really quite impressive. Its one reason why I'm
sure that your IQ can't be much over 115.

I'm worried by your concern over IQ levels, Arnie.

What, me worry?

No, I'm worried, Arny. You're concerned.

Delusions of ability to read minds noted.

I've already told you twice that my IQ measures between
130-135 depending on the test and probably the time of
day.

Paul, I remain amazed at your inability to reason
properly, if that is indeed the case.

Translation: "If he's so smart why doesn't he agree with
me?"

No, if he's so smart why can he argue more proficiently?

Do you want a certificate? Does it even matter?

It obviously matters to you, Paul.

What matters to me is that someone should start
proclaiming himself superior to those around him based on
his ability to read a circuit diagram and construct a
comparator.

You can't get the simplist thing right, can you Paul? I drew
that circuit diagram from scratch! Big difference. But its
hardly like devising the first ABX Comparator was the extent
of what I can do.

Why do you keep on? What is your IQ?

Quite a bit higher than even what you claim.

Which only goes to prove the inadequacy of IQ tests. But
then we all knew that.

I have no problem with the idea that IQ tests are
inadequate. But they can make a good troll to use with
pseudointellectual poseurs.

Can you prove it?

I'm way to smart to care about what my IQ is.

No, you're not, as your posts here attest.

Prove it.

When you start
guessing other people's IQs, that sends out the message
that you consider your own superior. If you don't see
that, others do.

No Paul, for smart people it sends out the message that I
know how to pull your chain.

But since you
asked...

These are the first questions in a new IQ test I'm
compiling. How many can you answer?

I can answer any question.

Indeed. Then please tell us what existed before the Big
Bang, and if the Big Bang theory is indeed correct as
presently postulated. And be quick about it.

Yes and no.

However, you may not like my
answers.

I haven't so far, and I suspect that trend will continue.

That's because so many of my answers are over your head
Paul, even when I work overtime to dumb them down to your
level. BTW I have a pretty good track record for clear
explanations. But I can't explain nuclear physics or ABX to
a rock and get any recognition on its part.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:54:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Correction:

Paul, I remain amazed at your inability to reason
properly, if that is indeed the case.

Translation: "If he's so smart why doesn't he agree with
me?"

No, if he's so smart why can't he argue more proficiently?

(paul packer) said:

What matters to me is that someone should start proclaiming himself
superior to those around him based on his ability to read a circuit
diagram and construct a comparator.


Please no.
That would make Phil Allison king of the hill.

--

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

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:15:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
om
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:54:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Correction:

Paul, I remain amazed at your inability to reason
properly, if that is indeed the case.

Translation: "If he's so smart why doesn't he agree with
me?"

No, if he's so smart why can't he argue more proficiently?

If he's so smart why can't he get his posts right the first time? :-)

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:31:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


No, if he's so smart why can he argue more proficiently?

Do you want a certificate? Does it even matter?

It obviously matters to you, Paul.

What matters to me is that someone should start
proclaiming himself superior to those around him based on
his ability to read a circuit diagram and construct a
comparator.

You can't get the simplist thing right, can you Paul? I drew
that circuit diagram from scratch! Big difference. But its
hardly like devising the first ABX Comparator was the extent
of what I can do.

See my answer to Middius below about whether you're a true Christian.

Why do you keep on? What is your IQ?

Quite a bit higher than even what you claim.

Which only goes to prove the inadequacy of IQ tests. But
then we all knew that.

I have no problem with the idea that IQ tests are
inadequate. But they can make a good troll to use with
pseudointellectual poseurs.

Of which you're not one?

Can you prove it?

I'm way to smart to care about what my IQ is.

No, you're not, as your posts here attest.

Prove it.

"As your posts here attest." Learn to read, Arny.

When you start
guessing other people's IQs, that sends out the message
that you consider your own superior. If you don't see
that, others do.

No Paul, for smart people it sends out the message that I
know how to pull your chain.

Full marks for back-pedalling, Arny.

But since you
asked...

These are the first questions in a new IQ test I'm
compiling. How many can you answer?

I can answer any question.

Indeed. Then please tell us what existed before the Big
Bang, and if the Big Bang theory is indeed correct as
presently postulated. And be quick about it.

Yes and no.

Bzzzt. Not quick enough.

However, you may not like my
answers.

I haven't so far, and I suspect that trend will continue.

That's because so many of my answers are over your head
Paul, even when I work overtime to dumb them down to your
level. BTW I have a pretty good track record for clear
explanations.

Is that how you got the reputation for Krooglish?

But I can't explain nuclear physics or ABX to
a rock and get any recognition on its part.

Irrelevant, since I'm not a rock and you can't explain nuclear
physics. Try again.