In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

MINe 109 wrote:

Why should I know what "the MT view" is?

Stephen here's what seems to be a new concept for you - if
you talk authoritiatively about something, have a at least a
clue about it.

You brought it up.

I remember you
explained your workaround. Maybe it was renaming the file
in the edit list or something, but it's up to you to show
how that changes the fundamental nature of CEP.

Not at all. Audition/CEP is generally recognized software
that hardly needs me to explain or defend it.

For the Mac? What little experience I have is in Pro Tools and Sonic.

Arny is being disingenuous here, Stephen. The original
disucssion to which Arny is referring concerned plain
Cool Edit Pro, which is a "destructive" 2-channel editor.
"Destructive" is not a perjorative term, it merely means
that the program rewrites the data files.

This is completely wrong. Audition/CEP has been, since
release 1.0 been both a stereo editor and a multitrack
editor. The stereo editor is in some sense destructive,

Bingo.

while the multitrack editor is non-destructive. Both editing
styles have their moments for different applications.

BTW, the MT view edits up to 99 tracks concurrently. I
currently use it with up to 20 track mulitrack recordings.

What Arny is now pretending he was referring to back then
in his arguments with Paul Bamborough is the Multi-Track
(MT) editing function, which used to be sold separately
as the "Cool Edit Studio" module but is now integrated in
Adobe Audition. (Adobe bought CEP from Syntrillium a
couple of years back.)

This is a complete and total false claim. The Multitrack
view and its nondestructive editing has been part of CEP
going back to release 1.0. I still have an old copy of CEP
1.0 kicking around. I used it when it was new. It don't run
too good under XP. ;-)

Atkinson is highly confused to say the least. CEP predates a
version of CoolEdit that was called "Cool Edit 2000". As
this article clarifies:

http://asia.cnet.com/downloads/pc/sw...062455s,00.htm

"The Cool Edit Studio Plug-In adds a four-track mixing
studio to Cool Edit 2000 (see screen shot). The Studio
Plug-In features mutem solo, record, pan, and volume faders
and envelopes for each track; punch-in recording with
support for Multiple Takes Wave Grouping; and more. The full
commercial version of the Studio Plug-In is $49."

Cool Edit 2000 was a sequel to the basic Cool Edit that
broke out some of the more popular features of its big
brother CEP (which had been very popular for several years
before CE2000 was introduced) into separately sold modules
that could be plugged into the CE2000 base.

This is a true non-destructive or
rendering workstation. It leaves the original files
unchanged and writes its "rendered" output to a new file.

This exactly describes how both CEP and Audition have worked
in their Multitrack view since their respective 1.0
versions.

That's the "MT view" dodge.

It actually works very well in this mode. I used it to
create drum and bass guitar tracks to add to a preexisting
vocal recording on the CD that I mentioend is being
released next week. But no, I didn't use the equalizer to
"revoice" chords :-)

Apparently some people have the touch and some people don't.
;-)

It's very strange that Atkinson has the Cool Edit, CE2000,
CEP and Audition stories screwed up this much.

Maybe he's caught whatever rotted Bamborough's brain. ;-)

Maybe you keep playing the same losing cards.

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
.com,
"John Atkinson"
wrote:


"Disingenuous" is right. Withholding information to score
"debating" points is apparently something he's willing to
do.

...the prerequisite radical subjectivist whine

The contentless sneer...

It actually works very well in this mode. I used it to
create drum and bass guitar tracks to add to a
preexisting vocal recording on the CD that I mentioend
is being released next week. But no, I didn't use the
equalizer to "revoice" chords :-)

That would be quite the trick!

...the prerequisite radical subjectivist suck up

We're laughing at you, not with you.

Stephen

MINe 109 said:

I don't think the Basik did anything the Rega competition wasn't doing

Who turned this into an audio thread? The Krooborg is having a major
meltdown, Little **** is growling at Lord Atkinson, and some lesser 'borgs
are trumpeting aBxism borgma all over the place.

Quite a strange turn of events.

sam said:

I guess I didn't notice them because they were so tiny and packed to the
gills with vehicles.

LOL

Is Arnii admitting he was wrong when he Kroo-klaimed midtown Manhattan has
no parking lots? Please parse the Kroologic for the rest of us.

Is that damn horse dead? Never mind, Stewbie is beating it anyway.

the 'subjectivists' have so far shown *zero* reliable and
repeatable evidence in support of their beliefs

I'm a subjectivist and proud of it, and I have no 'beliefs'. I do have
certain knowledge that aBxism is a cure for a nonexistent disease, and one
of shockingly poor efficacy at that.

Sander deWaal said:

There was no question from Harry, just a simple declaration
of his anti-scientific beliefs.

I meant Torresist's question 3 paragraphs up.
Forget it, meanwhile he clarified it himself.

Torrie****s is still wondering how Arnii scores such massive quantities of
pre-processed manure. ;-)

dave weil said:

If Harry had any critical reasoning capabilities, any
ability to do independent thinking and fact-gathering,

Turns out that Mr. Atkinson COULD be more insulting. He would only
have to copy this sentence and replace the name "Harry" with "Arnold".

My thought exactly. Or "Mikey" for that matter.

MINe 109 said:

It's amazing that you're nostalgic for Bamborough.

Now you've done it. Krooger just **** himself.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message

Arny Krueger also mailed me to make much the same point, yet
both of you _missed_ the point of my posting.

Not at all, John. I just uppped the ante by one joke which this post shows
that you completely missed.


everybody else missed it too.



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

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


Margaret von B. said:

I don't necessarily think that is the best solution. It definitely would
be
a major loss to the group. If a coworker of yours called your wife a
whore
I'm sure you'd deal with it right there and then. And you'd be justified
in
doing so. But if a mentally ill drugged out street person did the same,
would you engage him too? I'm guessing you'd just walk away without
giving
it a second thought. Right?

That's a sensible choice for that situation. But is that really the best
comparison for Little ****? I'd say he's more like the Unabomber except he
throws stones instead of mailing bombs. He's persistent, too, as if he has
an inexhaustible supply of anger and malice.

As you observed, Margaret, Thing's demonization of Mr. Atkinson is
irrational. Accusing the editor of a hobby magazine of criminal acts
strains credulity. Thing has publicly threatened JA and others with
malicious acts. These are the words of a person in need of help.


He's more in need of a lawsuit.



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

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



johnebravo836 said to the Krooborg:

For example, I've never heard two performances of the same
work performed by the same musicians in the same venue that
I couldn't differentiate via ABX almost instantly.

Are you saying that you've actually done this, or that you're confident
that you *could* do it? You've actually compared, via ABX, two distinct
performances of the same work performed by the same musicians? I'm
curious as to what the circumstances were, if you have actually done so.


Of course the suggestion that musical performances could be aBxed is
ridiculous.
What Krooger said above sounds like a claim that he actually did this. But
here
Mr. **** will invoke "debating trade" rules and claim that by the use of
"never", he was actually claiming the opposite -- that he never
experienced the
impossible situation of aBxing two live performances. Language is a virus
for
Audio 'Borgs.


Expectation effects rears its ugly head again!



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

"Margaret von B." wrote in message
...

I've never seen him display anything else, none whatsoever. I think that
is all he has left which would also explain how a relatively obtuse
individual like Arnii could so easily manipulate him. I think any
comparisons to the Unabomber are flattery. The Unabomber may have been
misguided but at least he was fighting his own fight and, I believe, fully
cognizant of his actions. Our thing here doesn't even realize that his
intended victims aren't the real ones - he is!


"At least" the Unabomber gets the math right.



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

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:54:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Arny, I studied micing techniques under John Woram in NYC
in 1970, when you were still in shortpants (of course,
you probably wore them until you were twenty).

In 1970 I was 24 - so you're wrong again Harry.

I see. You wore them until you were 24.

Consider him corrected.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.opinion Sander deWaal wrote:
"John Atkinson" said:

Where in the debate recording can I hear Harry's bad
manners displayed?

In the Q&A session near the end. Harry pretended to ask a
question, but in fact he made a declaration that was several
minutes long. Atkinson refused to moderate Harry's abuse of
the valuable time.

I allowed Harry the time to make his point, which he did,
just as I allowed you the time to make your points, Mr.
Krueger. You appear to be complaining about this
even-handedness.

Even though people were waiting with questions, Atkinson
cut the session off.

This is simply not true, Mr. Krueger. The recording of the
debate at http://stereophile.com/news/050905debate reveals
that I wrapped things up in the usual manner, several minutes
after the alloted time. There weren't any people waiting to ask
questions, other than those such as Steven Sullivan, who had
already asked a public question and subsequently wanted to
talk to you in person.

Why do I get the impression that all this is more about
politics than about audio?

In the case of Arny Krueger, I believe you are correct Sander.


I wasn't present at the HE2005 debate, and the recording probably
doesn't tell the whole story.

Well, I wonder if it can convey the atmosphere of bristling
*hostility* towards Arny, and the idea of controlled comparison
in general, that permeated the room from the git-go. The actual
questions , and the lopsided way they were directed at what AK
said and not at what JA said, perhaps give some flavor of that.
It was a capacity audience, and I'd guess that the vast majority
of attendees were not particularly 'objectivist' by inclination.
Hence the vast amounts of flooby on display in the demo rooms.


But given the amount of objectivist heavyweights that are brought in
on this thread, it sure looks like some kind of "end game" to me.

LOL. Objectivist heavyweights? Do any of 'us' edit a national
magazine about audio? Where are my invitations to consumer
shows? ;

Truly "heavyweight" objectivists...
i.e., psychoacousticians and
other scientists, and engineers...have about as
much time for audiophile claims as they do for astrologers.
Much as I'd love to have Sean Olive or Floyd Toole or John Dunlavy
or Diana Deutsch posting here regularly, I don't expect it to happen.

MAybe we could persuade Peter Aczel to go head-to-head with JA.
That would be fun. snip

Wow, there's a name that I haven't heard for a while! "The Audio
Critic" was kind of my introduction to high-end audio back around '80.
I now see that the mag is online; I'll check it out. Gee, coming back
to the audio hobby is full of nostalgia.

In rec.audio.opinion wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
OK, so I have problems keeping my nuts straight.

Notice that when Arny has absolutely nothing to say, he still
has to say something.

Pretty soon Harry, Arny will be accusing you of attacking
Christianity, as he flails around, trying to sort out what
he has said to whom. :-)

Which raises a point that should concern Mike McKelvy and
Steven Sullivan and the others who defend Arny's verbal
excesses on the grounds that he is only defending himself
from similar attacks

I may have done that from time to time, but I certainly haven't
done it generally, for anyone. Apparently you've noticed these
'defenses' much more than I have.


how the heck is Arny justified in stating
that I attack Christanity or his family based on what I have said
to him on the newsgroups?

Frankly, I haven't attention to it and
have no idea what either of you are on about, any
more than I do of the weird accusations thrown
Arny's way. I gave up trying to sort that
stuff out back when Wheeler was threatening
to *sue* people.

I mainly hang out on RAHE. RAO is notoriously
a cesspool. So when I go through a phase of
contributing regularly here, I
*try* (maybe not with 100% success)
to tune it out, not participate in it, and stay
focused on the issue of audible difference.
Killfiling the loathsome few who reliably contribute
*nothing* to discussion of that issue except
personal attacks is the only pro-active
step I've taken. Arny still makes the cut,
as do you, obviously.


Come on, explain it to me. There is
nothing that I have said in any posting in this thread or others
that equates with that falsehood he threw out.

If I had to spend time researching every vicious claim and
counterclaim you guys have tossed at each other for the
past ten years, there'd be no time to actually
read the posts that are more signal than noise.

Suffice it to say I take all the extraodinarily
*personal* accusations with a big grain of salt, to
the extent I follow them at all. But if
anyone wants to email me gossip, feel free. ;



--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

In rec.audio.opinion Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" said:

Where in the debate recording can I hear Harry's bad
manners displayed?

In the Q&A session near the end. Harry pretended to
ask a question, but in fact he made a declaration that
was several minutes long. Atkinson refused to moderate
Harry's abuse of the valuable time.

I allowed Harry the time to make his point, which he did,
just as I allowed you the time to make your points, Mr.
Krueger. You appear to be complaining about this
even-handedness.

Even though people were waiting with questions,
Atkinson cut the session off.

This is simply not true, Mr. Krueger. The recording of
the debate at http://stereophile.com/news/050905debate
reveals that I wrapped things up in the usual manner,
several minutes after the alloted time. There weren't
any people waiting to ask questions, other than those
such as Steven Sullivan, who had already asked a public
question and subsequently wanted to talk to you in
person.

Why do I get the impression that all this is more about
politics than about audio?

In the case of Arny Krueger, I believe you are correct
Sander.


I wasn't present at the HE2005 debate, and the recording
probably doesn't tell the whole story.

But given the amount of objectivist heavyweights that are
brought in on this thread, it sure looks like some kind
of "end game" to me.

No, what really happened is that some denizens of RAHE of
both persuasions are getting bored and looking for a little
action.

Heh. Guilty as charged. Who else, though? Stewart's been
here forever. I don't see Chung posting here.


How can any one talk about "amount of objectivist
heavyweights" with such tiny numbers, and the absence of
Nousaine?

True. FWIW, Nousaine lost Usenet access along with all other AOL users.
He doesn't appear interested in reaccessing it by other means.





--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

Message 1196 Aug 10, A.Krueger says:
"Note that the ante has been upped from any validation ever, to a
requirement that the whole ABX methodology be
re-verified every time it is used. How Mirabel-like can
Atkinson get?"

Arny, you are more fun every day . When did Mirabel want
"the whole ABX methodology re-verified every time it is used"?
Mirabel wanted you to show that ABX did - just ONCE-
repeat- just ONCE what you say it is supposed to do. Since you
substitute the fruits of your imagination I'll quote myself. (Message
1114)
"Arny, one small question. If ABX works so well detecting
small changes (differences L.M.) why can't you quote one single,
report where such a detection took place?
You want definition? Here is what I said: "Such a
published paper would show that, at least, most members of a randomized
(ie. participants collected without regard to age, gender,training)
audiophile group- of sufficient size to allow meaningful statistics,
(minimum 15),- comparing any high-end components ( any kind including
roughly comparable loudspeakers and cartridges) were able to
distinguish between them with statistical validity when using ABX
protocol.."
Just ONE paper, just ONCE Arny.
Did you answer? Did you argue with my outline and
suggested modifications that would satisfy you? No, you kept prudent
silence- on this one issue. Till today
:
I asked next:
Arny, one small question. If ABX works so well
detecting small changes why can't you quote one single, report where such a detection took place?
You answered:

"I can, aside from the endless unreasonable qualifications that you've
placed on such a report. "

Surely enough scientific research attitude brushed off
on you to know that if you propose a method for a purpose (detecting
differences between components) YOU have to produce evidence that it
works for that purpose BEFORE you demand evidence that it does not. If
you claim conquest of a new route up Mt. Everest YOU document it before
shouting: "Prove that I did not"
Surely you know that what I proposed was the very, very
minimum research requirement- in all likelihood less than a
peer-reviewed journal would demand of you.
You know what? All this might make people suspect that
you are smoke-screening complete absence of any research validation for
your "test".
I said to you: "Arny- why do you insist on putting
yourself in such transparently ridiculous position? You are asked
umpteenth time for evidence that the method you promote WORKS. Your
count so far is zero. So what do you do? You say I did not ask you
proper-like, Sir! You go into a corner, sulk and will not answer.
Arny disclose your secrets- don't hold your trumps
back- you don't like my criteria, tell us what yours are and astound
your audience waiting with bated breath for evidence that ABX has been
showing differences between audio components readily and better than
mere experienced listening.. You are a scientist-yes?. You know what
constitutes a valid research. Out with it."
There was silence till today.
Now that you mentioned my name in connection with
things I never said , why not reply to what I DID say? Ther is still
time.
Ludovic Mirabel

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Isn't it interesting how so many of the "Normals" post in lock-step?



It takes an army to clean up your ****.



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

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

Plus, I'm not too cowardly to address Arnold directly like he is of
addressing ME directly. He's stuck with answering with through his
stooges.

Tor, Tom and duh..Mikey



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

In rec.audio.opinion Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
But this is not a hit against DBT qua DBT, but a possible
implementation issue.

First, consider how it is you know that a 2 dB diff in
that
range is likely to be audible. How was that determined?

Based on how Atkinson reacted when I presented the JAES
graph, it was a surprise to him. I've cited this graph many
times when Atkinson was maintaining a day-to-day presence
on RAO. Nevertheless he acted surprised when I pointed it
out for the umty-unth time.

What I meant by this was, by what method have human
thresholds for perceiving real differences in frequency
response been determined in the first place....might
it have been by...(drumroll) scientifically controlled
listening tests? Dare I say...double blind ones?

JA is relying on that which he deems inadequate for
validating differences between amps.


was actually measured. TN usually advises a multipoint
level match.

I've described how that is done in another post. Clark and
Ziemba knew the fire drill and executed it properly all the
time. Yes, we're talking a multipoint level match.

If so then the question is whether they included the range
where the deviation shows up, or whether the 2 dB
difference really existed at all.

I suspect that the definitive answers, for a seventeen-year old
test, might be hard to come by.



--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

In rec.audio.opinion Steven Sullivan wrote:
Well, I wonder if it can convey the atmosphere of bristling
*hostility* towards Arny, and the idea of controlled comparison
in general, that permeated the room from the git-go.

Rereading this, I should have noted that Mr. Atkinson himself
did not exude bristling hostility -- I was talking about
the feeling in the audience.


--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:44:34 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Clyde Slick wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

But what do they *claim* about the sound?


That they like it.

You're being disingenuous.
If they did *only* that, there'd be no debate.


That is EXACTLY what they are saying, that they prefer the
sound of that aprticular equipment.

However, they have no way of knowing that it actually sounds different
from the one they don't prefer, so in *fact*, they're not uttering a
preference on the basis of *actual* sound quality at all.......


Actually, there is no such thing as "actually sounds different".
It's what one perceives,at any particular
time, under any particular conditions, knowledge aforethought,
or not.


(origianl reference was to this:
Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost
vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
the gear, just as YOU aren't)

Indeed, and they also have no idea whether it sounds different from a
$600 equivalent. Perhaps they don't care.

to the point, they "actually' do have an idea.



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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 23:25:14 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
Indeed, and they also have no idea whether it sounds different from a
$600 equivalent. Perhaps they don't care.

Of course they don't care!

Interesting that you are claiming that someone will spend $60,000 on
an amplifier, and not care about its actual sound quality........

In some cases they do I guess. The buyer of a $60k valve amp would not
want
it to sound like a solid state amp. The fact that it's technically worse
is
not relevant to their purchase, just as the purchaser of a Rolls Royce
does
not expect it to beat a Subaru WRX around a race track. The Rolls has much
better pose value though. Same with the $60k amp.

But suppose in a blind test it *did* sound the same as a SS amp (as
the Ongaku does at low/medium listening levels), what then?


Idiot! Buy the one you prefer in a sighted test.




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

Sulliborg slithers into the shadows.

Frankly, I haven't attention to it and
have no idea what either of you are on about, any
more than I do of the weird accusations thrown
Arny's way. I gave up trying to sort that
stuff out back when Wheeler was threatening
to *sue* people.

You really are seriously out of it, Sulliborg. Your first mistake is that
Wheeler didn't sue "people", he sued the Krooborg.

Do you think it's "weird" to label somebody a liar who is, demonstrably, a
prolific liar? How about noting the hypocrisy of somebody who has caused
Webster's to redefine the word in order to acknowledge a hitherto unknown
degree of hypocrisy -- is that "weird" too?

Do you not even realize why Krooger is so widely despised? I mean really,
just how clueless are you? Here's your first clue: The nearly universal
distaste for the Krooborg has nothing to do with his "audio opinions". Do
you have any idea what I'm talking about?

In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Maybe we could persuade Peter Aczel to go head-to-head with
JA. That would be fun.

Actually, both Peter Aczel and I were invited by the Audio
Engineering Society to appear on a panel at the 1990
Washington Conference. As we got to the podium, Aczel refused
to take part unless my invitation was withdrawn. He was
persuaded to take part and did so under protest. Which was
indeed amusing, as Aczel is the magazine editor whose
dishonest behavior became a matter of public record. :-)

He *is* an irascible one, isn't he.

(FYI, he gave a rave review to a speaker manufactured
by a company that it subsequently emerged he first had a
50% ownership interest in, then 100%.)

Yes. I've heard this before. As I rarely pay attention to
what *any* reviewer says about the *sound* of components,
as an influence on my buying habits, I wouldn't be
too put off by that.

However, Mr. Aczel,a s best I can tell from reading a
pile of back issues of Audio Critic, has , since the
early 90's, nearly always qualified his claims about sound
with the observation to the effect that absent
controlled comparison conditions, perceived difference
can readily turn out to be false.

*That* matters to me. It's the simple truth about
'reviewing' that Stereophile fails to acknowledge
forthrightly, and it earns Aczel huge points with me.
Stereo Review (Sound & Vision)
acknowledges it when Dave Ranada is writing, but
'forgets' it otherwise. As for TAS, well,
they make little pretense of being connected to reality
anyway.


That was also the conference where erstwhile Stereo Review
technical editor Larry Klein admitted editing Julian
Hirsch's equipment reports to satisfy manufacturers'
objections.

It seems it can be a dirty business, this audio journalism.


Anad again, Mr. Sullivan, I ask you why you think Arny's
fabrication of bad behavior on my part, in a number of
recent postings, is in any way justified by anything I
have written? I understand that you share his criticisms of
Stereophile (though probably not his envy), but why do you
excuse his mendacity?

There's been no 'excusing', since
I don't presume either you or he is right about whatever
personal attacks are being flung. In fact I'm not
follwing that particular bout of ****-flinging.
Notice where my focus is instead.



--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

MINe 109 wrote:

Why should I know what "the MT view" is?

Stephen here's what seems to be a new concept for you -
if you talk authoritiatively about something, have a at
least a clue about it.

You brought it up.

No excuse for you spouting off about it.

I remember you
explained your workaround. Maybe it was renaming the
file in the edit list or something, but it's up to you
to show how that changes the fundamental nature of CEP.

Not at all. Audition/CEP is generally recognized software
that hardly needs me to explain or defend it.

For the Mac? What little experience I have is in Pro
Tools and Sonic.

Not for the Mac.

Arny is being disingenuous here, Stephen. The original
disucssion to which Arny is referring concerned plain
Cool Edit Pro, which is a "destructive" 2-channel
editor. "Destructive" is not a perjorative term, it
merely means that the program rewrites the data files.

This is completely wrong. Audition/CEP has been, since
release 1.0 been both a stereo editor and a multitrack
editor. The stereo editor is in some sense destructive,

Bingo.

You lose!

while the multitrack editor is non-destructive. Both
editing styles have their moments for different
applications.

BTW, the MT view edits up to 99 tracks concurrently. I
currently use it with up to 20 track mulitrack
recordings.

What Arny is now pretending he was referring to back
then in his arguments with Paul Bamborough is the
Multi-Track (MT) editing function, which used to be
sold separately as the "Cool Edit Studio" module but is
now integrated in Adobe Audition. (Adobe bought CEP
from Syntrillium a couple of years back.)

This is a complete and total false claim. The Multitrack
view and its nondestructive editing has been part of CEP
going back to release 1.0. I still have an old copy of
CEP
1.0 kicking around. I used it when it was new. It don't
run too good under XP. ;-)

Atkinson is highly confused to say the least. CEP
predates a version of CoolEdit that was called "Cool
Edit 2000". As this article clarifies:

http://asia.cnet.com/downloads/pc/sw...062455s,00.htm

"The Cool Edit Studio Plug-In adds a four-track mixing
studio to Cool Edit 2000 (see screen shot). The Studio
Plug-In features mutem solo, record, pan, and volume
faders and envelopes for each track; punch-in recording
with support for Multiple Takes Wave Grouping; and more.
The full commercial version of the Studio Plug-In is
$49."

Cool Edit 2000 was a sequel to the basic Cool Edit that
broke out some of the more popular features of its big
brother CEP (which had been very popular for several
years before CE2000 was introduced) into separately sold
modules that could be plugged into the CE2000 base.

This is a true non-destructive or
rendering workstation. It leaves the original files
unchanged and writes its "rendered" output to a new
file.

This exactly describes how both CEP and Audition have
worked in their Multitrack view since their respective
1.0 versions.

That's the "MT view" dodge.

No dodge, simply part of the product as long as the CEP
product existed.

It actually works very well in this mode. I used it to
create drum and bass guitar tracks to add to a
preexisting vocal recording on the CD that I mentioend
is being released next week. But no, I didn't use the
equalizer to "revoice" chords :-)

Apparently some people have the touch and some people
don't. ;-)

It's very strange that Atkinson has the Cool Edit,
CE2000, CEP and Audition stories screwed up this much.

Maybe he's caught whatever rotted Bamborough's brain. ;-)

Maybe you keep playing the same losing cards.

Yeah, Atkinson blows it big time and I'm playing losing
cards?

Get real!

Steven Sullivan said:

Rereading this, I should have noted that Mr. Atkinson himself
did not exude bristling hostility -- I was talking about
the feeling in the audience.


Krooger is a 180-lb sack of ****. It's Normal to be "hostile" to that.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


In rec.audio.opinion Arny Krueger
wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
But this is not a hit against DBT qua DBT, but a
possible implementation issue.

First, consider how it is you know that a 2 dB diff in
that
range is likely to be audible. How was that determined?

Based on how Atkinson reacted when I presented the JAES
graph, it was a surprise to him. I've cited this graph
many times when Atkinson was maintaining a day-to-day
presence on RAO. Nevertheless he acted surprised when I
pointed it out for the umty-unth time.

What I meant by this was, by what method have human
thresholds for perceiving real differences in frequency
response been determined in the first place....might
it have been by...(drumroll) scientifically controlled
listening tests? Dare I say...double blind ones?

DBTs were part of the mix.

JA is relying on that which he deems inadequate for
validating differences between amps.

Bada-Boom.

was actually measured. TN usually advises a multipoint
level match.

I've described how that is done in another post. Clark
and Ziemba knew the fire drill and executed it properly
all the time. Yes, we're talking a multipoint level
match.

If so then the question is whether they included the range
where the deviation shows up, or whether the 2 dB
difference really existed at all.

I know that Clark and Ziemba made measurements on close
intervals.

I suspect that the definitive answers, for a
seventeen-year old test, might be hard to come by.

I'm sure that Atkinson is banking on that, so he can raise a
Mirabel-like stink about it.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.opinion Steven Sullivan
wrote:
Well, I wonder if it can convey the atmosphere of
bristling *hostility* towards Arny, and the idea of
controlled comparison in general, that permeated the
room from the git-go.

Rereading this, I should have noted that Mr. Atkinson
himself did not exude bristling hostility -- I was
talking about
the feeling in the audience.

Frankly Atkinson seemed kinda flustered.

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

Thanks for the opinion, Stephen. I've been thinking about replacing my
aged direct drive table with a decent belt drive. As you say, there are
good deals on the used market for the lesser Linns, etc. It's a
thought. I would have to hear them vs. the ProJects, Music Halls, etc.
which can be had new for around the same price as a used Axis or Basik.
To re-tread in brief my equipment "journey": Up until the mid 90s, I had
a system that I was really happy with: VPI TNT/SME/Sumiko, NYAL, CAL
CD, Martin Logan. I lost it all in my divorce (hey, it was the stereo
or my scores, so it was a no brainer for me.) I replaced it all at the
time with a, gulp, Technics system from Sears and fell out of the audio
hobby until recently. Based on listening and budget, I recently
purchased Rotel amp, pre, and CD, and Vandersteen speakers. But I had
kept over the years (boxed in storage) a Denon DP-62L. So I took it
down to the local (good) audio store and had them clean it up, check it
out, and install an Audioquest mat and Grado Red. It is bringing much
enjoyment, but the urge to compare it to a mid-line belt-drive is there.

Anyway, thanks again.

I've heard good sound from Denon turntables (and the picture I found of
the DP-62L looks familiar), so maybe you're not missing that much. A
better cart might be worth a try. If the Red works, maybe another Grado
such as the Sonata or the Platinum Reference would do. There's is
something to the concept of system balance: add a high-priced cart and
you might start looking funny at those Vandersteens that were perfectly
nice with the lesser cart!

Stephen

LOL Yeah, I hear ya. Come to think of it, long ago, not long after I
installed a Dynavector Ruby (replacing a Shure M9) I had the strong urge
to change speakers.

Sullivan says; (message 1143, Aug9):
'DBT is *of course* accepted as an excellent method for
evaluating subjective audio perception by the
scientific community, not to mention some rather
big names in the audio business."
Which ones of the "subjective audio perceptions"? Which
"scientific community" accepted ABX/DBT as an "excellent method" for
identifying and/or comparing the respective abilities of audio
components to reproduce complex musical content? Do you have the
address of this "community"? Do you have a reference to such an
endorsement? The last I heard the subject was controversial- want
references? Was there a vote since? Are Atkinson, Harley, Meitner and
D'Agostino shunned by this "community" while you are in its good graces
and appointed a spokesman?
Which "big names in business" published a report of their
ABX/DBT experiences? Are they unanimous or have you heard of equally
big "names in business" that do without it?
You say next: "The existence of sighted bias (and need to
control for it) is *utterly noncontroversial* too, in the scientific
community. Thus it really is incumbent upon naysayers such as yourself
to provide *evidence* that DBTs -- not just Tom's, but DBTs, period --
are inadequate to the task of verifying difference between audio gear,
*without* the obtuse recourse to 'data' from *sighted* experience"
Your logic is as flawed as your phrasing. Sighted bias is a bad
thing. OK. avoid it! Does it mean that you now have a fool-proof
method for identifying differences between components?
By whom? What gender?, What age? , What musical experience?
Does being blinded and "tested" make you an expert on the best
equipment to reproduce gamelin music ? Or does being "tested" and being
blinded introduce some factors of as yet uncertain importance?. May be
it does not- but it is you who has to PROVE it- not those who question
it. Only the strawmen of your creation would claim that being sighted
makes everyone an expert on difference between a Krell and a Bryston or
that their reports are of scientific validity rather than being an
expression of personal preference. AND Mr. Sullivan if I find by
experience that their taste matches mine I'd rather listen to a few of
the "Stereophile" writers sighted than to the others amongst them
double-blinded and ABXing- or to an ABX panel of car radio enthusiasts.
Only more simplistic engineers believe that complex musical
perceptions can be measured like codex and phase recognition. (Since I
read what you had to say about Brendel- even though not my favourite
pianist- I might even listen to you)
The ball is in your park. The audio world is still waiting
for one research-wise decent positive report of recognition of
difference between components using ABX/DBT.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. And "evidence" is not a poor joke like this anecdote from the
Pinkerton pen as his only proof that ABX can show up differnces.:

"I have on several occasions described an ABX test of several
amplifiers I conducted about eight years ago, in the process of buying
new speakers and amplifiers. Musical Fidelity E600, Denon POA-6600 and
Audiolab 8000A gave positive results, a Yamaha AX-570 was marginal, and
the Hafler XL-600 and Audiolab 8000P proved negative, all against a
Krell KSA-50mkII reference, driving Apogee Duetta Signatures."

Just imagine that I said "I got together with Harry Lavo and two
other pals. We ABXed cables named this and that and we decided there
are big differences between them. This *proves* cables sound
different." Deserved hoots of laughter for such "evidence" and such
"research" - essentially identical with his.
L.M.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 10 Aug 2005 13:11:34 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

Excuse me? The *stock* Honda produces 240 horses from 122 cubes, while
you're crowing about 250 from a 350 cube motor with a supercharger?
Jeez, you really are phukked in the head, aren't you?

You still can't see the point cuz you're too phuckking ego paranoid
pants****ing afraid of losing your sanity. No wonder you can't
work military anymore... probably got flagged as "unstable".

Anyway 240 horses ain't worth crowing about as demonstrated
that they CAN be had from a POS motor like a 70's era 350
with more torque and wider power band... now go ahead and
freak out...again.

ScottW

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
Arny, in the ten years I recorded in and around New York City, I recorded
Paul Stuckey (of Peter Paul and Mary fame), most of the members of the
Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center (playing under the aegis of The
SeaCliff Chamber Players), and the Sine Nomine Singers of Manhattan.

Since none of these "recordings" was ever released commercially, we can all
conclude that these involved sneaking in a cassette recorder under your
overcoat.

torrie****s writes:

"George" will get you all the details right after he finds that photo
of the Unicorn he took last week.


did you forget your ":-D"
or do you realize that you just aren't funny....

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:52:45 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .


They're certainly usable for everyday driving in the UK, there's a gal
in our office who has an Elise as her only car, and she lives twenty
miles from the office (real twisty roads, not LA 5mph 'freeway'). Of
course, if you insist on 45 airbags, aircon, and crash protection that
will stop a HMMV, then you get an extra ton or two, and no
performance.

I guess that's the price of living in the Land of the Free, huh? :-)
--

Stewart,

Surely you must be pretending to be *that* obtuse. :-) But being a good
hearted Texas lady I'll give you another chance. Please fill out the
following.

The two main reasons why some Loti (Lotuses?) may not be all that usable in
South Texas a

#1.__Texans are pussies.

#2.__Texans are *fat* pussies who won't fit.

A ragtop Corvette or Viper is no more 'usable' than an Elise 111R, the
current model.

BTW, it's Lotuses, because ACBC said so, and he gets to have the last
word on the subject.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:02:26 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On 10 Aug 2005 13:11:34 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

Excuse me? The *stock* Honda produces 240 horses from 122 cubes, while
you're crowing about 250 from a 350 cube motor with a supercharger?
Jeez, you really are phukked in the head, aren't you?

You still can't see the point cuz you're too phuckking ego paranoid
pants****ing afraid of losing your sanity. No wonder you can't
work military anymore... probably got flagged as "unstable".

IME, it's mostly military people who are 'unstable', some are clearly
psychos.................

Anyway 240 horses ain't worth crowing about as demonstrated
that they CAN be had from a POS motor like a 70's era 350
with more torque and wider power band... now go ahead and
freak out...again.

POS 70's era motors? You're talking about the era of the mighty muscle
cars, the era of the Hemi, Boss and Rat motors. And you say that *I*
am losing my sanity? When the US of A comes anywhere *near* producing
a normally aspirated engine with the specific output of the Honda
VTECs (or indeed the BMW M-series), then you may have something to
say. Until then, just stand back and admire.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
Arny, in the ten years I recorded in and around New York City, I recorded
Paul Stuckey (of Peter Paul and Mary fame), most of the members of the
Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center (playing under the aegis of The
SeaCliff Chamber Players), and the Sine Nomine Singers of Manhattan.

Harry, I've done a great deal of work with and have a warm personal
relationship with Noel, Mary, and Peter. What great, great people they
are. Do you know that Mary has been quite ill? We need to swap
stories! I'd love to know about your work with Noel.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

MINe 109 wrote:

Why should I know what "the MT view" is?

Stephen here's what seems to be a new concept for you -
if you talk authoritiatively about something, have a at
least a clue about it.

You brought it up.

No excuse for you spouting off about it.

It actually is. Nor have I overstated my understanding of the subject.

If the criteria before talking authoritatively were having a clue about
something, you'd save yourself a lot of trouble.

I remember you
explained your workaround. Maybe it was renaming the
file in the edit list or something, but it's up to you
to show how that changes the fundamental nature of CEP.

Not at all. Audition/CEP is generally recognized software
that hardly needs me to explain or defend it.

For the Mac? What little experience I have is in Pro
Tools and Sonic.

Not for the Mac.

Then you might need to explain or defend it to Mac users.

Arny is being disingenuous here, Stephen. The original
disucssion to which Arny is referring concerned plain
Cool Edit Pro, which is a "destructive" 2-channel
editor. "Destructive" is not a perjorative term, it
merely means that the program rewrites the data files.

This is completely wrong. Audition/CEP has been, since
release 1.0 been both a stereo editor and a multitrack
editor. The stereo editor is in some sense destructive,

Bingo.

You lose!

It's only destructive when you hit "Save"?

while the multitrack editor is non-destructive. Both
editing styles have their moments for different
applications.

BTW, the MT view edits up to 99 tracks concurrently. I
currently use it with up to 20 track mulitrack
recordings.

What Arny is now pretending he was referring to back
then in his arguments with Paul Bamborough is the
Multi-Track (MT) editing function, which used to be
sold separately as the "Cool Edit Studio" module but is
now integrated in Adobe Audition. (Adobe bought CEP
from Syntrillium a couple of years back.)

This is a complete and total false claim. The Multitrack
view and its nondestructive editing has been part of CEP
going back to release 1.0. I still have an old copy of
CEP
1.0 kicking around. I used it when it was new. It don't
run too good under XP. ;-)

Atkinson is highly confused to say the least. CEP
predates a version of CoolEdit that was called "Cool
Edit 2000". As this article clarifies:

http://asia.cnet.com/downloads/pc/sw...062455s,00.htm

"The Cool Edit Studio Plug-In adds a four-track mixing
studio to Cool Edit 2000 (see screen shot). The Studio
Plug-In features mutem solo, record, pan, and volume
faders and envelopes for each track; punch-in recording
with support for Multiple Takes Wave Grouping; and more.
The full commercial version of the Studio Plug-In is
$49."

Cool Edit 2000 was a sequel to the basic Cool Edit that
broke out some of the more popular features of its big
brother CEP (which had been very popular for several
years before CE2000 was introduced) into separately sold
modules that could be plugged into the CE2000 base.

This is a true non-destructive or
rendering workstation. It leaves the original files
unchanged and writes its "rendered" output to a new
file.

This exactly describes how both CEP and Audition have
worked in their Multitrack view since their respective
1.0 versions.

That's the "MT view" dodge.

No dodge, simply part of the product as long as the CEP
product existed.

Umm, isn't a plug-in by definition a non-required add-on? Your cite
doesn't even mention "destructive" or "non-destructive."

It actually works very well in this mode. I used it to
create drum and bass guitar tracks to add to a
preexisting vocal recording on the CD that I mentioend
is being released next week. But no, I didn't use the
equalizer to "revoice" chords :-)

Apparently some people have the touch and some people
don't. ;-)

It's very strange that Atkinson has the Cool Edit,
CE2000, CEP and Audition stories screwed up this much.

Maybe he's caught whatever rotted Bamborough's brain. ;-)

Maybe you keep playing the same losing cards.

Yeah, Atkinson blows it big time and I'm playing losing
cards?

Get real!

For whatever reasons, you are diverting attention from your current
losing argument by returning to a previous losing argument from 1999!

Google groups "cool edit pro" "destructive editor":

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...%22destructive
+editor%22&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en-us&sa=N&tab=wg

A blast from the past...

But you should have the last word: "(I)t is fair to call CE a
destructive editor..."

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com

MINe 109 wrote:

Why should I know what "the MT view" is?

Stephen here's what seems to be a new concept for you -
if you talk authoritiatively about something, have a at
least a clue about it.

You brought it up.

No excuse for you spouting off about it.

It actually is. Nor have I overstated my understanding of
the subject.

If the criteria before talking authoritatively were
having a clue about something, you'd save yourself a lot
of trouble.

I remember you
explained your workaround. Maybe it was renaming the
file in the edit list or something, but it's up to
you to show how that changes the fundamental nature
of CEP.

Not at all. Audition/CEP is generally recognized
software that hardly needs me to explain or defend it.

For the Mac? What little experience I have is in Pro
Tools and Sonic.

Not for the Mac.

Then you might need to explain or defend it to Mac users.

Not my job.

Arny is being disingenuous here, Stephen. The original
disucssion to which Arny is referring concerned plain
Cool Edit Pro, which is a "destructive" 2-channel
editor. "Destructive" is not a perjorative term, it
merely means that the program rewrites the data files.

This is completely wrong. Audition/CEP has been, since
release 1.0 been both a stereo editor and a multitrack
editor. The stereo editor is in some sense destructive,

Bingo.

You lose!

It's only destructive when you hit "Save"?

The original files are never altered. No backup copies of
them need be made.

while the multitrack editor is non-destructive. Both
editing styles have their moments for different
applications.

BTW, the MT view edits up to 99 tracks concurrently. I
currently use it with up to 20 track mulitrack
recordings.

What Arny is now pretending he was referring to back
then in his arguments with Paul Bamborough is the
Multi-Track (MT) editing function, which used to be
sold separately as the "Cool Edit Studio" module but
is now integrated in Adobe Audition. (Adobe bought CEP
from Syntrillium a couple of years back.)

This is a complete and total false claim. The
Multitrack view and its nondestructive editing has
been part of CEP going back to release 1.0. I still
have an old copy of CEP
1.0 kicking around. I used it when it was new. It don't
run too good under XP. ;-)

Atkinson is highly confused to say the least. CEP
predates a version of CoolEdit that was called "Cool
Edit 2000". As this article clarifies:

http://asia.cnet.com/downloads/pc/sw...062455s,00.htm

"The Cool Edit Studio Plug-In adds a four-track mixing
studio to Cool Edit 2000 (see screen shot). The Studio
Plug-In features mutem solo, record, pan, and volume
faders and envelopes for each track; punch-in recording
with support for Multiple Takes Wave Grouping; and
more. The full commercial version of the Studio
Plug-In is $49."

Cool Edit 2000 was a sequel to the basic Cool Edit that
broke out some of the more popular features of its big
brother CEP (which had been very popular for several
years before CE2000 was introduced) into separately
sold modules that could be plugged into the CE2000
base.

This is a true non-destructive or
rendering workstation. It leaves the original files
unchanged and writes its "rendered" output to a new
file.

This exactly describes how both CEP and Audition have
worked in their Multitrack view since their respective
1.0 versions.

That's the "MT view" dodge.

No dodge, simply part of the product as long as the CEP
product existed.

Umm, isn't a plug-in by definition a non-required add-on?

CEP requires no plug-ins for non-destructive editing.
Atkinson was wrong about that. I proved that in another
post.

Your cite doesn't even mention "destructive" or
"non-destructive."

That information is part of the product itself.

It actually works very well in this mode. I used it to
create drum and bass guitar tracks to add to a
preexisting vocal recording on the CD that I mentioend
is being released next week. But no, I didn't use the
equalizer to "revoice" chords :-)

Apparently some people have the touch and some people
don't. ;-)

It's very strange that Atkinson has the Cool Edit,
CE2000, CEP and Audition stories screwed up this much.

Maybe he's caught whatever rotted Bamborough's brain.
;-)

Maybe you keep playing the same losing cards.

Yeah, Atkinson blows it big time and I'm playing losing
cards?

Get real!

For whatever reasons, you are diverting attention from
your current losing argument by returning to a previous
losing argument from 1999!

Wrong.

The quote you found is irrelevant.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



I guess I didn't notice them because they were so tiny and packed to the
gills with vehicles.



That's like saying you didn't recognize your bowl, because
there were cornflakes in it, or like saying you didn't recognize
your dining room chair beacause it was covered by
a brown streak.



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