"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.opinion Arny Krueger
wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message


Vinyl, on the best day of it's life, is around 12 bits
equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a
properly dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the
problem?

The problem is that too many newbies have been
mis-educated by high end ragazines with the lie that
analog has infinite resolution. I wonder how many times
that lie has been published in say Stereophile or TAS?

And too, the impression a newbie would likely get from
Stereophile is that *of course* cables sound different,

I read it in Stereophile & TAS and on any number of
golden-ear web sites.

need break in,

I read it in Stereophile & TAS and on any number of
golden-ear web sites.

and OF COURSE amps sound different,

Every last one of them, I read it in Stereophile & TAS and
on any number of golden-ear web sites.

need break-in and

I read it in Stereophile & TAS and on any number of
golden-ear web sites.

OF COURSE digital can be very good but it doesn't beat
vinyl.

I read it in Stereophile & TAS and on any number of
golden-ear web sites.

A sort of irritating foundational
*presumption*
of the truth of these scientifically dubious propositions,

Known as: "(some of) The BIG LIES OF AUDIO"

coupled with an often sneering rejection of the *contrary*
opinion on these issues,

Everybody who can't hear these things is deaf, has cheap
substandard equipment or is blinded by envey.

is what distinguishes TAS and Stereophile's content
and readership from the mainstream mags, and I suspect
it's what e.g., encouraged Aczel to take the
equal-but-opposite tack in his puplication.

It's ironic that the simple truth can be so elusive and
rare.

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:

What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about
a car race, starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he
really capable of outrunning a 500 hp AMG Mercedes with
his little Audi?

There are a number of hidden agendas in any street race,
including the skills of the drivers and their willingness to
take risks.

There is definately a sort of primacy of the cheaper car.


I'm sure Stewart will weigh in on this as well, but heya!
Despite the fact that an Audi A3 looks like little more than a
rebadged Golf, the superb V6 engine, DSG gearbox, the 4-wheel drive
system and a finely tuned suspension will make for a very fast and
agile car, that will outperform most other, heavier vehicles in the
hands of a skilled driver, under the circumstances that Stewart wrote
about.

Exactly... its all about the circumstance. When I was in high school
I had a '74 Civic with that silly 2 speed semi-auto tranny. There was
this big wide 4 lane one way road running through downtown that was
always empty late at night. People would cruise it looking for a race.
About a couple hundred yards from the first light there was a wicked S
curve and then a long straight. I zipped past a 'vette sitting at the
light (I caught it turning green). The vette punched it an laid rubber
to catch me going into the curve. I was on the inside of the first
curve and he just got past me on the outside but I was able to duck low
and get back inside into the second turn and good thing as his back end
broke free and he spun out.

So my lowly 1170 cc civic dusted that 'vette .

ScottW

MINe 109 wrote:
In article P3VLe.4278$Ji.867@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

A legit question. I had no firm idea of where you stood on the subject.

"Will you do anything that aids the enemy when our soldiers are at risk?"

No, still don't like that. Political dissent doesn't 'aid the enemy' as
such.

I think that depends upon the manner of dissent. As I said, not all
manner of dissent is aiding the enemy.


If you find that post personally insulting there is nothing I
can do about it.

Just a neutral question to which I chose to take offense?

Its just a question. Try to take them literally.

It's a 'when did you stop bearing your wife' question.

I think a simple "no" is a good answer. It says you realize there are
limits to legitimate dissent activities. How about the sailor who
refused to board ship on a transport mission to Iraq. Cindy Sheehan
was in SD supporting him during his court martial. Is his dissent
legit?

ScottW

The Krooborg is on the warpath.

Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type of
distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if severe
could be audible.

You've got me confused with a stopped-up toilet.

Don't be hurt, Arnii. It's a natural mistake to make. ;-)

In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article P3VLe.4278$Ji.867@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

A legit question. I had no firm idea of where you stood on the subject.

"Will you do anything that aids the enemy when our soldiers are at risk?"

No, still don't like that. Political dissent doesn't 'aid the enemy' as
such.

I think that depends upon the manner of dissent. As I said, not all
manner of dissent is aiding the enemy.

Thank you.

If you find that post personally insulting there is nothing I
can do about it.

Just a neutral question to which I chose to take offense?

Its just a question. Try to take them literally.

It's a 'when did you stop bearing your wife' question.

I think a simple "no" is a good answer. It says you realize there are
limits to legitimate dissent activities.

I don't go for litmus tests, and your question was absolute, with no
implication that there are 'legitimate dissent activities." I could sign
an anti-war petition with no intent to aid the enemy, but someone could
try to claim that any petition does so.

How about the sailor who
refused to board ship on a transport mission to Iraq. Cindy Sheehan
was in SD supporting him during his court martial. Is his dissent
legit?

I don't think Sheehan's presence makes any difference. Based only on
what you've told me, the sailor was AWOL, which I don't consider a valid
form of dissent. That is, no.

Stephen

In rec.audio.opinion paul packer wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:03:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


How do I
know that? Because I only have to play one 5 minute track off any CD
through the two components in question to easily perceive the
difference--the difference that was not at all apparent on A/B
switching.

Your reasoning is a bit faulty here. You haven't proved anything
by this test, since it ignores the role of sighted bias. In fact it's
easy to 'easily perceive' differences in situations where no
difference is really likely at all (e.g. a 'phantom switch'
situation, where the user THINKS something has changed, but
realizes/is later informed that nothing was changed).

If you're saying what I hear is affected by what I see, I don't buy
it.

Alas, what you 'buy' or not doesn't change the scientific facts.
The very fact that you are comparing two different things is likely
to lead you to 'hear' a difference of some sort...even when there's
no difference.


Recently I compared two amps: a Marantz PM8200 and NAD 7020e
vintage budget receiver. I was actually hoping I'd prefer the NAD, or
at least hear little difference, as I only use headphones and the
Marantz is an extravagance; I wanted to sell it for the pretty penny
it's worth. Unfortunately the difference was only too obvious, and not
in the NAD's favour. The latter seemed shut in and very ordinary, with
none of the HF extension, precision or airiness of the Marantz. The
sound just wasn't in the same class, and though I kept repeating the
comparison on successive days, hoping to reach a different conclusion,
ultimately I just couldn't deny the evidence of my ears. So I kissed
my $300 goodbye (the difference between the value of the units on
Ebay), dried my tears and put the Marantz back in my equipment
cabinet.
If this was sighted bias, it was against my wishes!

Doesn't matter. The question is *first*, whether there was any
real audible differemce *at all*, not whether it turned your preference
one way or another. Nor, it seems, did you bother level-matching,
another elementary precaution before concluding 'difference exists'.


Which brings me to my next confusion:

No, I think you shoudl stop right here, and re-assess your current
'knowledge' in light of long-standing tenets of perceptual
psychology.

I think I "shoudl" be allowed to keep going, perceptual psychology or
no. :-)

No one can stop you from flaunting ignorance here.


--

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

In rec.audio.opinion paul packer wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:27:26 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


Of course, he can't explain why my Onkyo preamp, with actually superior
"specs" for the most part, sounds far less "real" in my system thtn does my
Audio Research preamp. I haven't done an ABX, so of course my "claim" can't
be taken seriously. Sometimes this argument gets so laughable on its face
that one just needs to walk away for awhile.

Agreed. There is something laughable when otherwise rational people
decide to deny the evidence of their ears because they can't repeat a
notable audible difference with A/B switching.


Actually, they're simply acknowledging facts of human psychology that
are *completely* uncontroversial, and which are the basis for
the use of 'controls' in all branches of scientific discovery, as
well for the use of blind testing in industry and marketing.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Use some logic and common sense, boy.
Your expectation is that
there would be no difference, either sighted or blind.

Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under
sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless.

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

The irony of it all!!
Those are the ones who spend more time and effort
taking those tests.

Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect
difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was
no possibility of difference.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"ScottW" said:

Exactly... its all about the circumstance. When I was in high school
I had a '74 Civic with that silly 2 speed semi-auto tranny. There was
this big wide 4 lane one way road running through downtown that was
always empty late at night. People would cruise it looking for a race.
About a couple hundred yards from the first light there was a wicked S
curve and then a long straight. I zipped past a 'vette sitting at the
light (I caught it turning green). The vette punched it an laid rubber
to catch me going into the curve. I was on the inside of the first
curve and he just got past me on the outside but I was able to duck low
and get back inside into the second turn and good thing as his back end
broke free and he spun out.

So my lowly 1170 cc civic dusted that 'vette .


Heh! This brings back memories, since my very first car was.....
a '75 Honda Civic 1.2 :-)

Be it that mine had a manual gearbox.
It was like riding a kart.

--

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

On 15 Aug 2005 09:57:13 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:44:04 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Shame that you know nothing about cars. No normally aspirated Ford (or
Ford-owned) stock engine is even close to 100 BHP/litre output.

When are you going to take torque curves (the true measure of a cars
performance) into consideration instead of banging endlessly on HP/liter?

Typical braindead Yank thinking.

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Interesting that you cite an article which proves that you are flat
out wrong! To take the closing quote, mentioned twice in that article:
"It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you
can take advantage of *gearing*."

Torque at high rpm = *power*.

True... but some cars torque goes into the ****ter everytime you
change gears. Peak torque vs wide band torque is often worth
considering.

Not if the gearbox is properly matched to the engine characteristics.
A perfect system drops from peak power to peak torque at every change,
or in the lower gears, from red line to peak torque, since the chances
are that the redline torque at the wheels will still be greater than
the peak torque in the next gear up, for the first two gears at least.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...


If I was going to test tubes for being microphonic, I'd
put the equipment under test in a sound field that was
created by a different set of equipment playing
different music, and listen to the equipment under test
with no music playing at all, or while playing some
other music so that any sounds that were created by the
microphonic effect, would really stand out.


Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type of
distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if severe
could be audible.

You've got me confused with someone who takes tubed
equipment seriously.


Hey.. don't be egocentric AK. The caveat would be for the benefit
of and in fairness to your users. Or is your preference all that
matters to you? Your answer should be interesting, or is it time
to duck out again?

JC the elder

On 15 Aug 2005 10:10:38 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:

What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about
a car race, starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he
really capable of outrunning a 500 hp AMG Mercedes with
his little Audi?

Yup. Given a twisty road and/or a poor surface. Obviously, I can't
outdrag one on a dry straightaway.

There are a number of hidden agendas in any street race,
including the skills of the drivers and their willingness to
take risks.

There is definately a sort of primacy of the cheaper car.

I'm sure Stewart will weigh in on this as well, but heya!
Despite the fact that an Audi A3 looks like little more than a
rebadged Golf, the superb V6 engine, DSG gearbox, the 4-wheel drive
system and a finely tuned suspension will make for a very fast and
agile car, that will outperform most other, heavier vehicles in the
hands of a skilled driver, under the circumstances that Stewart wrote
about.

I note that the muttering rotters are drooling over VW plans to make a
new R32, with an uprated 250 horse engine, advanced 4WD system,
enormous 345mm front brakes, the magic DSG box and of course the
excellent-handling Mk V Golf chassis.

Hmmmm, that'll be exactly the same as my A3, then............. :-)

Exactly... its all about the circumstance. When I was in high school
I had a '74 Civic with that silly 2 speed semi-auto tranny. There was
this big wide 4 lane one way road running through downtown that was
always empty late at night. People would cruise it looking for a race.
About a couple hundred yards from the first light there was a wicked S
curve and then a long straight. I zipped past a 'vette sitting at the
light (I caught it turning green). The vette punched it an laid rubber
to catch me going into the curve. I was on the inside of the first
curve and he just got past me on the outside but I was able to duck low
and get back inside into the second turn and good thing as his back end
broke free and he spun out.

So my lowly 1170 cc civic dusted that 'vette .

Quite so. In my case, as previously stated, it was a wet and twisty
road, and while I could apply my measly 250 horses all the time
through all four wheels, the guy in the SL looked like he couldn't
even get half of his mighty 500 down. Since he weighs about 500 lbs
more than I do, simple physics tells you the rest. I not only whipped
around the bends faster, I also outdragged him out of them (in fact,
that's how I got past him in the first place - I hung back on the
straight, and built up closing speed through the bend and blew by on
the next straight). I could tell that he was trying hard and at one
point switched off his traction control, because he pulled a *very*
lurid fishtail coming out of one bend! He dropped back a bit after
that...... :-)

After a few miles, we came onto the motorway, and I politely indicated
left on the sliproad, dropped my window and cheerily waved him by. He
was *not* a happy bunny, as he had the obligatory dolly blonde in the
passenger seat, and doubtless got lots of earache!

Probably my ear-to-ear grin and blown kiss didn't help.... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:05:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

"Margaret von B." said:

What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about a car race,
starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he really capable of outrunning a 500
hp AMG Mercedes with his little Audi?

If he's a skilled driver (and why shouldn't he be?) in the conditions
he explained, it's entirely possible IMO.

Well, I'm certainly an *experienced* driver, and I used to do road
rallies, but that was a long time ago...................

Let's just say that in those conditions, I'm glad I wasn't driving the
Honda S2000 which was also on my shopping list when I bought the A3.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , says...



You've got me confused with a stopped-up toilet.

Don't be hurt, Arnii. It's a natural mistake to make. ;-)


The pot floweth over in the floor
And the stench is hard to ignore.
Such a terrible aroma..
Could send you in a coma
An' it flows from Arny and Tor.

Hammingaway Inc.

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...


If I was going to test tubes for being microphonic, I'd
put the equipment under test in a sound field that was
created by a different set of equipment playing
different music, and listen to the equipment under test
with no music playing at all, or while playing some
other music so that any sounds that were created by the
microphonic effect, would really stand out.


Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type
of distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if
severe could be audible.

You've got me confused with someone who takes tubed
equipment seriously.


Hey.. don't be egocentric AK.

OK, I'll leave being egocentric to you.

The caveat would be for the benefit of and in fairness to
your users.

My users????

Or is your preference all that matters to you?

For the same functionality, SS equipment reproduces music
more accurately, is far more reliable, and even costs less.
Is choosing SS all about preference, or do practical
considerations count as something else?

`Your answer should be interesting, or is it time
to duck out again?

So says someone who hides behind a silly alias.

jclause said:

You've got me confused with a stopped-up toilet.

Don't be hurt, Arnii. It's a natural mistake to make. ;-)

The pot floweth over in the floor
And the stench is hard to ignore.
Such a terrible aroma..
Could send you in a coma
An' it flows from Arny and Tor.


Now ‘borgs are as stubborn as donkeys
And smarts-wise they’re nothing but pygmies
They run quick to their mommies
In fact they’re just pussies
‘Cause their “tests” are as stinky as, uh, floobies. G

In article , says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...


If I was going to test tubes for being microphonic, I'd
put the equipment under test in a sound field that was
created by a different set of equipment playing
different music, and listen to the equipment under test
with no music playing at all, or while playing some
other music so that any sounds that were created by the
microphonic effect, would really stand out.


Good. Perhaps you should note on your website this type
of distortion is not covered by your procedure, and if
severe could be audible.

You've got me confused with someone who takes tubed
equipment seriously.


Hey.. don't be egocentric AK.

OK, I'll leave being egocentric to you.

The caveat would be for the benefit of and in fairness to
your users.

My users????


Those using your ABX test. Just answer the question please.


Or is your preference all that matters to you?

For the same functionality, SS equipment reproduces music
more accurately, is far more reliable, and even costs less.
Is choosing SS all about preference, or do practical
considerations count as something else?


Shopenhammer # ? In other words, since you prefer solid
state, you will not provide the caveat above?



`Your answer should be interesting, or is it time
to duck out again?

So says someone who hides behind a silly alias.


Are you saying no one else here has claimed you duck out?

JC the elder

In article , says...



jclause said:

You've got me confused with a stopped-up toilet.

Don't be hurt, Arnii. It's a natural mistake to make. ;-)

The pot floweth over in the floor
And the stench is hard to ignore.
Such a terrible aroma..
Could send you in a coma
An' it flows from Arny and Tor.


Now ‘borgs are as stubborn as donkeys
And smarts-wise they’re nothing but pygmies
They run quick to their mommies
In fact they’re just pussies
‘Cause their “tests” are as stinky as, uh, floobies. G


Let me say this now with a wink
“ES” could have done better I think ::G::
Your heart's in the right place
But you could use some grace,
'cause your rhymin' could drive a man to drink.

Hammingaway Inc.

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:
As Mr. Sullivan, an impassioned advocate of blind testing, had
introduced the subject of listening test experience, it seems
reasonable to ask Mr. Sullivan about his own experience?

My primary experience with ABX is in comparing sound files.
I have certainly achieved both positive (comparing re-EQed
remasters, or mediocre MP3s to source) and negative (e.g.
bit-identical 'remasters', high-quality MP3 to source) results.

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. (Though I must admit, I am not sure
what you mean by "bit-identical" MP3s. Do you mean losslessly
compressed files?)

No, I meant
1) bit identical 'remasters'
and
2) high-quality MP3s


Lacking an ABX box, or a means for quick randomized
switching, I haven't any component comparisons
worth mentioning.

And as I have been pointing out to you, arranging such a
test of _real_ components without introducing interfering
variables is difficult and time-consuming.

Yes , but so are most scientific experiments. Btu given that
your two pronged refrain in the face of a DBT advocacy seems to be
1) many DBTs you know of were poorly set up
2) even when they;re not, they're not to be believed
if they contradict the results of 'sighted listening',
especially long-term listening

I have to wonder why Stereophile doesn't back up these
claims by consuming the time and effort to do so.

I should remind
you of the parable I told at the HE2005 debate: that in
essence, the man with limited or no experience is more
confident of his knowledge than the man _with_ such
experience.

I don't recall that particular parable -- I do remember
your tale of two amps that *seemed* not sound different,
but which you decided later, did....but in
any case, alas, parables aren't proof. And as I mentioned
in my question to you about that *other* tale, it wasn't
exactly proof of your claim, either.

Now, have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes....?




--

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

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:
As Mr. Sullivan, an impassioned advocate of blind testing, had
introduced the subject of listening test experience, it seems
reasonable to ask Mr. Sullivan about his own experience?

My primary experience with ABX is in comparing sound files.
I have certainly achieved both positive (comparing re-EQed
remasters, or mediocre MP3s to source) and negative (e.g.
bit-identical 'remasters', high-quality MP3 to source) results.

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. (Though I must admit, I am not sure
what you mean by "bit-identical" MP3s. Do you mean losslessly
compressed files?)

No, I meant
1) bit identical 'remasters'
and
2) high-quality MP3s


Lacking an ABX box, or a means for quick randomized
switching, I haven't any component comparisons
worth mentioning.

And as I have been pointing out to you, arranging such a
test of _real_ components without introducing interfering
variables is difficult and time-consuming.

Yes , but so are most scientific experiments. Btu given that
your two pronged refrain in the face of a DBT advocacy seems to be
1) many DBTs you know of were poorly set up
2) even when they;re not, they're not to be believed
if they contradict the results of 'sighted listening',
especially long-term listening

I have to wonder why Stereophile doesn't back up these
claims by consuming the time and effort to do so.

I should remind
you of the parable I told at the HE2005 debate: that in
essence, the man with limited or no experience is more
confident of his knowledge than the man _with_ such
experience.

I don't recall that particular parable -- I do remember
your tale of two amps that *seemed* not sound different,
but which you decided later, did....but in
any case, alas, parables aren't proof. And as I mentioned
in my question to you about that *other* tale, it wasn't
exactly proof of your claim, either.

Now, have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes....?


Atkinson thought it a Savile Row suit! :-D

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article P3VLe.4278$Ji.867@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:


Then be specific. You didn't say "some dissent but not all".
You simply said dissent. If not all then what dissent?

Specifically Sheehan's.

As an
American, freedom of speech is important to me.

It isn't a blanket freedom and can be abused.
I posted a couple of historical sedition acts.

Sheehan doesn't qualify.

Actually... I think she would in another time.

I seriously question this. Under so weak a standard, one could simply
outlaw all political opposition. That's not the United States I want to
live in.


sheehan is an idiot, but she is not seditious.



----== 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 ...


Clyde Slick said to ****-for-Brains:

It is true that I am not all that rich. Not even close.
But I don't spend much on audio equipment.
Lots less than you do.

HardlyT Mr. Slickman when you, consider the quantity of sound cards Arnii
owns. Arnii's cost per unit is very very low. He sound cards, power
amplifiers, and microphones stacked up to the ceiling. And how much did
Mr. **** pay for all those 100's and 100's of fabulous high-tech items?
Krooger will tell you the *cost per unit* is very low. This is the
important fact. You spend as much as $2000 on a SINGLE item such as a
power amplifier, but Krooger spends the same amount and has dozens of
separate items to show for it. Who's the smarter buyer Mr. Clyde?



Let's apply Pewkie's hp/ltr analogy. LOL!



----== 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Which raises an interesting question: What is Art's real name?

John Parcher.



----== 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
.. .
What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about a car race,
starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he really capable of outrunning a
500 hp AMG Mercedes with his little Audi?


Obviously, the "Merc" driver didn't want to get too close
to the drunk, so he stayed a safe distance behind.



----== 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 =----

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:P3VLe.4278$Ji.867@lakeread02...


Worse is the question I see on the code pink page where
Cindy is asking "if the cause is so just why don't you send your twins?"
This comment really ignores the voluntary heroism of our military.


Then one could ask, "if the cause was so repugnant, why did
she send her son?"



----== 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 Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
m...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Use some logic and common sense, boy.
Your expectation is that
there would be no difference, either sighted or blind.

Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under
sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless.

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

The irony of it all!!
Those are the ones who spend more time and effort
taking those tests.

Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect
difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was
no possibility of difference.


I don't believe that your self analysis is at all honest.




----== 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 =----

Clyde Slick said:

sheehan is an idiot, but she is not seditious.

How many of your children were killed in the oil wars after the President
lied to the American people?

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

sheehan is an idiot, but she is not seditious.

Politics rich pageantry on parade: another quarter heard from.

I live about an hour's drive from Crawford, and hanging around outside
in this weather, even under a tent, is not something I recommend.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

How about the sailor who
refused to board ship on a transport mission to Iraq. Cindy Sheehan
was in SD supporting him during his court martial. Is his dissent
legit?

I don't think Sheehan's presence makes any difference. Based only on
what you've told me, the sailor was AWOL, which I don't consider a valid
form of dissent. That is, no.

Is it seditious? If yes... isn't support of sedition, seditious?

http://www.therightiswrong.us/sheehan_4_7_04.htm

Cindy has supported a military deserter.
If that isn't sedition...

ScottW

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article P3VLe.4278$Ji.867@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:


Then be specific. You didn't say "some dissent but not all".
You simply said dissent. If not all then what dissent?

Specifically Sheehan's.

As an
American, freedom of speech is important to me.

It isn't a blanket freedom and can be abused.
I posted a couple of historical sedition acts.

Sheehan doesn't qualify.

Actually... I think she would in another time.

I seriously question this. Under so weak a standard, one could simply
outlaw all political opposition. That's not the United States I want to
live in.


sheehan is an idiot, but she is not seditious.

Supporting AWOL sailors who purposely miss ships departure isn't
seditious?

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article P3VLe.4278$Ji.867@lakeread02,

There's an early report that Sheehan's husband has filed for divorce.
Even if true and motivated by disagreement on her protest, I find
it sad.

It's probably not true. Look for more attacks on Sheehan in days ahead.

I read her blog, she admits a divorce but says it was filed before.

She has gone into full scale immediate withdrawal demands which
I think is incredibly foolish.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:57:26 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

In this case, I threw the first bomb. I really DID think that his
comments about anti-war activists motivating our current enemy was
stupid and indicative of a non-understanding of the conflict that we
are currently engaging in. It's thinking that is stuck in the past.

And everything is more complicated that it seems.

Declaring history irrelevant destines one to repeat mistakes.

Oh god, could you BE any more trite?

This isn't the US vs the Nazis, you know.

No but the anti-war movement wants a Vietnam result.
Withdrawal wasn't disastrous for us... just the Vietnamese, the Cambodians,
Hmong etc. Should we repeat that part of history?

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article P3VLe.4278$Ji.867@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

I've been trying to listen to
Air America for some time to get a leftist perspective and read a
few leftist blogs. Most of what they do is a hate Bush or hate
republicans or hate religion campaign. I really struggle to find
what they support and beyond the real nuts who want no
borders and scream rascist at minutemen and at all who attended
a local immigration forum... I don't know what they stand for.
Half the dems demand a pullout schedule and the other half are
screaming there aren't enough troops.

Shows the futility of referring to a monolithic left.

or a monolithic right. Still there are many views and only
one reality.

The Bush administration famously said they create their own reality.

I missed that one. I'd like to see the context of that statement.

(snip air america)
There isn't a coherent left wing response to the Iraq war. Support is
tainted as political expediency

Tainted? Is political expediency acceptable at all? That sort of thing
makes my skin crawl. Our gov. seems a bit prone to political expediency.

and there are precious few options to
choose from for future actions.

Since the Dems are so far out of power, they've pursued a
strategy of accommodation, thinking that staying in the game will
mitigate the effects of Republican changes. This isn't working. Social
Security is a good example of this. Every Democrat should support the
system as it is, with whatever small changes are necessary to keep it
solvent.

I don't support Bush's program. Its simply the first step to means
tests
or other benefit reductions. He stood in front of the trust fund
a practically called it a worthless pile of paper.
Still, I haven't heard a democratic proposal that actually comes
to grips with the fact that the trust fund is nothing but IOU.

The original proposal that created the program came to grips with that
fact. The government borrows money all the time. Calling government
bonds IOUs is a political ploy to diminish their reputation. Compare
"the Social Security fund is invested in Treasury bonds backed by the US
government" with "the fund is paper IOUs."

I see that. Makes one wonder why the Treasury has issued a special
series bond that only the SS Trust Fund holds. Wonder if they thought
that far ahead that they just might not ever pay it back.

Modest tinkering with the funding would be enough to solve the problem
forever.

Every independent economist I've heard has pretty much said there
is no way we can pay back those debts.

You mean the Social Security fund? That's simply not true. Perhaps they
say "without raising taxes."

I should have explicitly included Medicare. I saw a PBS show with an
economist who said by 2040 or so the SS and Medicare deficit will
exceed the net worth of the entire nation. There are so many numbers
swirling about it is really hard to get a handle on it.


The average savings numbers of Americans is a joke and people
need to plan to take care of themselves.

Maybe a government universal retirement insurance program with defined
benefits paid by payroll taxes could serve as a safety net.

Does it really make sense to eliminate Social Security when the savings
numbers are low?

I don't support eliminating it and I have accepted a means test as the
best way to balance the system. I don't want my kids paying ridiculous
taxes to pay for the retirement and health care of generations before
them.

There's also the possibility our economy would be in
worse shape without consumer spending that would necessarily diminish
with increased savings.

Most economists think savings results in lower cost of capital which
in turn benefits consumers and economic growth.

Others rage about the dangers of spiraling consumer debt.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/ja...debt-j15.shtml

Obviously Japans economy wasn't booming due to a high savings
rate so its hard to say.


The temptation for leadership would be to try to play for half
a loaf, to say "we'll agree to radical change so long as we can keep it
from changing even more." Fortunately for the Dems, the Republican
'non-proposals' were so politically unpopular that they found
themselves
on the winning side for once despite themselves.

Domestically I'm not happy with Bush. Energy bill is a joke.. he should
vetoed it and force them to remove the tax breaks for big oil.
I'll be interested to see if his tax plan can get out of the advisory
committe thing going on.

He'll be happy to sign the energy bill.

He already did. He did bitch a little about the tax breaks,
even called for the House not to include them but it went
unheeded.


Since they aren't in charge of anything, and can't get their proposals
recognized in Congress, it's hard to present a good picture of what the
left stands for these days.

Isn't that what the DNC should be doing? Forming an agenda?
I hear they keep talking about needing one but I guess they're
waiting for Hillary to form one for her campaign.

Unfortunately, the current leadership is trying to trade principles for
votes by going right on social issues. The really big Democratic wins,
civil rights, social security, etc, are old news, taken for granted by
the population.

They're planning a convention before the next presidential election to
discuss it.

Too bad they hardly even discuss the party platform at the conventions
anymore.

I am looking forward to the primaries. I think this next election is far
more important than the last one.

ScottW

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:41:35 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


Doesn't matter. The question is *first*, whether there was any
real audible differemce *at all*, not whether it turned your preference
one way or another. Nor, it seems, did you bother level-matching,
another elementary precaution before concluding 'difference exists'.

Level matching? I wasn't A/Bing here, I was enjoying music in the way
it was meant to be enjoyed, sitting back in a recliner eyes closed
with no thought but for how well, or otherwise, I could picture the
orchestra before me. Was I thinking of any of Arny's infernal
machines? Not on your nelly!

Which brings me to my next confusion:

No, I think you shoudl stop right here, and re-assess your current
'knowledge' in light of long-standing tenets of perceptual
psychology.

I think I "shoudl" be allowed to keep going, perceptual psychology or
no. :-)

No one can stop you from flaunting ignorance here.

Nor you.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:45:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 05:49:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


I confess I have a veritable hive of confusions about
this whole ABX thing.

Listening to Middius' prattle will do that to a naive
person.

Still on about my imagined alliance with Middius? I do my
own thinking.

OK Paul, the fact that you behave like you were programmed
like Middius kinda faked me ou.

Sound you "t"s, Arnie.


Firstly, I don't understand why
A/Bing never seems to show up any but the grossest
differences; I only know it doesn't. How do I know that?
Because I only have to play one 5 minute track off any
CD through the two components in question to easily
perceive the difference--the difference that was not at
all apparent on A/B switching.

It still gives me more pleasure and thus serves the ends
of
the hobby. In other words, if it sounds better to me, why
should it bother you?

It doesn't bother me at all. I see tons of people with far
more serious problems than amplifier mystecism all the time.
Their gun, their bullet, their foot.

Snotty, Arnie. Snotty and silly, a terrible combination

For myself I'm a cheapskate.
I'd prefer to believe that the cheapest items are as
good as the other sort given similar specs;

What's this fascination with similar specs?

Just another way of saying "All things being equal..."

Try saying something accurate and meaningful, just for
grins...

Double snotty.


Audiophile listening tests are often crap anyway, because
audiophiles tend to evaluate equipment with music that
makes it sound good, when the more difficult test often
involves music that makes it sound bad.

See what I mean? The "favorite track" myth rides again.
Often if you want to actually hear a difference between
amps, you may easily end up listening to your
least-favorte track. You know, the one that tends to
make your system sound like **** because it stresses it
so much.

"Favourite track" is just an expression. Often I'll use a
least favourite track, as you suggest something that
stresses the system. Don't be too literal, Arnie.

Nex time try saying something accurate and meaningful, just
for grins...

Triple snotty. You're outdoing yourself, Arnie.


I don't understand,
above all, how this debate ever arose in the first
place, or what currently sustains it when the evidence
is clear.

A good rule of thumb is that other than speakers and LP
playback equipment, if the evidence of a difference is
clear, you're probably doing the evaulation wrong.

This is astonishingly silly as written.

Try saying something accurate and meaningful, just for
grins...

Well, how snotty can you get? It's all over me.

I can only assume
you had some explanatory thought you didn't actually set
down.

Paul, you're so deep into imaginary perceptions that it
would seem that there's no possible help, at least until you
wake up.

Sudden awakening? I didn't realize you were a guru, Arnie.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:49:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


Agreed. There is something laughable when otherwise
rational people decide to deny the evidence of their ears
because they can't repeat a notable audible difference
with A/B switching.

Yep Paul, the whole rest of the audio world is crazy and
some misguided audiophiles who have bought any number of
bills of goods about magic rocks, gigbuck CD players, and
funny cables know exactly how things really work.

Let's not get carried away. I've never believed expensive cable etc
makes much if any difference, and certainly isn't worth the money. I
don't know what magic rocks you're talking about, but I'd expect a
well designed gigabuck CD player to sound pretty good. Am I naive?

On another tack, Arnie assured me on aus.hi-fi that for
headphones I would be far better off with a low impedance
source, virtually ANY low impedance source, than a high
impedance one like the HP socket on my Marantz PM8200.

You know your Marantz PM8200 best. I don't now if its
headphone socket is high impedance, low impedance or what.

I claim it's taken from the output stage. Let's say high impedance.

Yet I know this isn't true, as I once auditioned an MF
X-Can v2 and was totally unimpressed.

Yup, all headphone amplifiers sound the same.

This is a flippant statement or what?

Subsequently I
bought a Marantz PM4000 budget integrated and was highly
impressed--it drove my Sennheiser 595s beautifully, and
certainly better than the X-Can.

Yup, all integated amplifiers sound the same.

This is a flippant statement or what?

So is this another
example of subjectivism denying audio science? Arnie, if
you happen to read this, please come in.

Where's to come to - the state of confusion?

Better than the state of snottiness you're currently in.

On 15 Aug 2005 08:20:09 -0700, George Middius
wrote:


Wow! Pretty good Kroodown, paulie. Mr. **** is near-apoplectic and you only made
a couple of posts.

Now, George, no open encouragement or Arnie will think we're having an
affair, and that will cause a meltdown! He's suspicious already.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:16:02 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:33:26 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
om...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Use some logic and common sense, boy.
Your expectation is that
there would be no difference, either sighted or blind.

Typical horsehit from Sad Sack. I *always* expect differnces under
sighted conditions - that's what makes it useless.

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

The irony of it all!!
Those are the ones who spend more time and effort
taking those tests.

Bull**** - we certainly *proctor* tests where we don't expect
difference, but I've never actually *taken* one where I felt there was
no possibility of difference.


I don't believe that your self analysis is at all honest.

For someone whose self-esteem is so low that he hides behind a stupid
alias, that's kinda ironic....

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:46:22 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:41:35 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Doesn't matter. The question is *first*, whether there was any
real audible differemce *at all*, not whether it turned your preference
one way or another. Nor, it seems, did you bother level-matching,
another elementary precaution before concluding 'difference exists'.

Level matching? I wasn't A/Bing here, I was enjoying music in the way
it was meant to be enjoyed, sitting back in a recliner eyes closed
with no thought but for how well, or otherwise, I could picture the
orchestra before me. Was I thinking of any of Arny's infernal
machines? Not on your nelly!

Level-matched DBTs have nothing to do with any 'infernal machine'.
They do however have to do with applying a modicum of knowledge and
intelligence to the matter of deciding whether there is a *real*
physical difference in sound quality between two items.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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


Clyde Slick said:

sheehan is an idiot, but she is not seditious.

How many of your children were killed in the oil wars after the President
lied to the American people?


Kiddie volunteered.
However, she's an idiot because she asserts that we should just leave
Iraq and that Israel should just disappear, so that the baddies will leave
us alone
and the world will be nice 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 =----