Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
said:
Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle school bully? Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass in middle school. Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy. I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-) -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
Sander deWaal said: Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle school bully? Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass in middle school. Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy. I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-) That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-) |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... said: Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle school bully? Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass in middle school. Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy. I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-) When George leaves a hole that big, I'm going to drive a truck through it. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Sander deWaal said: Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle school bully? Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass in middle school. Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy. I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-) That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-) No, screaming Queen. Like the guy on Will and Grace, the one who's not Will. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
Miss Mickey needs some male lovin'. That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-) No, screaming Queen. Like the guy on Will and Grace, the one who's not Will. Thanks Ms. McMickey for, admitting you lust for sissy boys. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message : However I am well versed, while Rudy is merely an illiterate country : boy. : : His neck is still red from the boomerang he threw last week, note.. : : -- illiterate ? why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish, it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel, online _city_ cooking by moi ;-) |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Miss Mickey needs some male lovin'. That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-) No, screaming Queen. Like the guy on Will and Grace, the one who's not Will. Thanks Ms. McMickey for, admitting you lust for sissy boys. Thanks for admitting your abuse is flirting. You girls are all the same. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Ruud Broens" said:
: However I am well versed, while Rudy is merely an illiterate country : boy. illiterate ? why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish, it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel, online _city_ cooking by moi ;-) I'll let this post speak for itself. QED. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
Sander deWaal said: why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish, it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel, online _city_ cooking by moi ;-) I'll let this post speak for itself. QED. Looks like you got your head handed to you again, debating trade wise, Slick. LOL! |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish, it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel, online _city_ cooking by moi ;-) I'll let this post speak for itself. QED. Looks like you got your head handed to you again, debating trade wise, Slick. LOL! Thank's for, demonstrating "George" or whatever, your calling you're self this week that you're necesay knowlege of Latin, expresions is limited to "non-sequitur" only , Lot;S! ;-( -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
paul packer wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:22 GMT, wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, wrote: I don't care what the truth is, I just like knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buy equipment that can't deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something different than what's on the recording? This one got spellchecked. Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped. I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?" Your post brought it back to mind. :-) Let me try and rephrase. The truth about audio electronics is that except for speakers, it is a simple matter to obtain equipment that reproduces exactly the source material. This assumes CD playback and SS equipment. That this is true, is verified by reams of reliable research. I don't know why this fact confounds some people. I don't understand why knowing the facts and repeating them should bother people. Something is either true or not. Things are not as "true" as you imagine. Everything cannot be reduced to measurement. The brain is not well understood and auditory science is by no means complete. People tend to believe what they actually hear rather than what a machine tells them they should be hearing according to "logic". I have no interest in buying equipment that does anything other than reproduce what is on the source media, without any audible change. Yep, same here. Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless you're sitting very close. Speakers probably are the weakest link in the sense of most obviously variable. There was a time back in the 70s when the "garbage in, garbage out" doctrine ruled and people swore that a Linn turntable could make even crap speakers sound sweet. That was rubbish as was eventually recognised. Nevertheless a good source is vital, and I can never agree that all CD players and well-measuring amps sound the same because my ears tell me otherwise. Therefore I have to go on listening. I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence a purchase. "Fair" to what? We're talking listening for pleasure in the home here. Therefore what sounds best to the purchaser in his listening environment is the only "fair" that matters. As for salespeople, no doubt they do play with purchaser's heads, and that's why it's necessary to be as well-armed as possible when one goes into the shop. This is were hi-fi mags came in, or used to before they went over to HT. Only an idiot believed every word, but they were great for compiling short lists. Beyond that it's a case of listening carefully and ignoring most of the salesman's waffle. Live concerts are useful too, to get the sound of live instruments. That after all is your touchstone. I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about it, partly because I have the benefit of knowing how reliably accurate most gear is, and because I can get reliable data on he build quality of anything I might be considering. Hmmm... I'm also lucky enough to know that there is a lot of pro audio equipment that meets and/or exceeds the quality of so-called high end equipment that costs much less than the high end stuff. Hmmm... I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial, let alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here. There's never any need for vitriol. The emotion is engendered by the concept that audio as a hobby and a passion can be reduced to measurerment. Our ears tell us it can't, sighted listening and controlled SPLs notwithstanding. I don't understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening to music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the master. I understand there are people who choose to go with what sounds good to them and that's all well and good, so long as they don't make claims about performance that are at odds with reality. Yes, but what is reality? What you've measured, or what you actually hear? You talk about the bias of sighted listening, but measurement can itself create bias. If you see that an amp has vanishingly low distortion, and believe that such distortion cannot be audible, likely you'll hear that amp as "perfect"--that's real bias. Clear enough? Yes, very clear. Putting aside content, I have to admit that your post is a model of literate clarity. Therefore I can't help wondering why all your posts aren't like this, why you insist on giving Robert and George so much ammunition for their "Special Person" campaign. Did all your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply himself" etc? In any case if you can do it once you can do it always, and I expect to see a similar standard in all future posts. Here's one star * to start you off. You can wear it on your forehead. :-) __________________________________________________ _ Nyob concedes that loudspeakers sound different. Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless you're sitting very close. And he repeats the catechism: I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence a purchase What he should have said was that loudspeakers sound different *even to me* Bercause nothing else does. According to him manufacture of audio reached such perfection that no matter what you put together it will sound the same. Again what he should have said was: "TO ME" He knows he is right because indeed under "bias- controlled conditions" (read: ABX) everything does sound the same..To him that is. But the loudspeakers should not, right? Even to him they sound different. Except... In Sean Olive's double-blind, "bias controlled" study most panelists failed to distinguish four very different loudspeakers from each other when comparing "different or not". And that was just DBT- imagine what would happen if they were ABXed (which Sean Olive rejected as "unsuitable" for his test..) (JAES, vol.51.#9, p.806-825) But the same panelists when asked a straightforward question: "Which one do you like better?" plumped for the ones with the smoothest frequency response. I pointed this out to our local "scientists" ten times if I pointed it once. The replies ranged from silence to inarticulate, gutter profanity. I doubt if our one and only NYOB will do any better. So much for "bias- controlled" "tests" of human likes and dislikes. Next: bias-controlled DBT/ABX test of a Stradivarius against a Guarnieri, Ludovic Mirabel |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message ups.com... paul packer wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:22 GMT, wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, wrote: I don't care what the truth is, I just like knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buy equipment that can't deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something different than what's on the recording? This one got spellchecked. Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped. I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?" Your post brought it back to mind. :-) Let me try and rephrase. The truth about audio electronics is that except for speakers, it is a simple matter to obtain equipment that reproduces exactly the source material. This assumes CD playback and SS equipment. That this is true, is verified by reams of reliable research. I don't know why this fact confounds some people. I don't understand why knowing the facts and repeating them should bother people. Something is either true or not. Things are not as "true" as you imagine. Everything cannot be reduced to measurement. The brain is not well understood and auditory science is by no means complete. People tend to believe what they actually hear rather than what a machine tells them they should be hearing according to "logic". I have no interest in buying equipment that does anything other than reproduce what is on the source media, without any audible change. Yep, same here. Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless you're sitting very close. Speakers probably are the weakest link in the sense of most obviously variable. There was a time back in the 70s when the "garbage in, garbage out" doctrine ruled and people swore that a Linn turntable could make even crap speakers sound sweet. That was rubbish as was eventually recognised. Nevertheless a good source is vital, and I can never agree that all CD players and well-measuring amps sound the same because my ears tell me otherwise. Therefore I have to go on listening. I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence a purchase. "Fair" to what? We're talking listening for pleasure in the home here. Therefore what sounds best to the purchaser in his listening environment is the only "fair" that matters. As for salespeople, no doubt they do play with purchaser's heads, and that's why it's necessary to be as well-armed as possible when one goes into the shop. This is were hi-fi mags came in, or used to before they went over to HT. Only an idiot believed every word, but they were great for compiling short lists. Beyond that it's a case of listening carefully and ignoring most of the salesman's waffle. Live concerts are useful too, to get the sound of live instruments. That after all is your touchstone. I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about it, partly because I have the benefit of knowing how reliably accurate most gear is, and because I can get reliable data on he build quality of anything I might be considering. Hmmm... I'm also lucky enough to know that there is a lot of pro audio equipment that meets and/or exceeds the quality of so-called high end equipment that costs much less than the high end stuff. Hmmm... I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial, let alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here. There's never any need for vitriol. The emotion is engendered by the concept that audio as a hobby and a passion can be reduced to measurerment. Our ears tell us it can't, sighted listening and controlled SPLs notwithstanding. I don't understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening to music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the master. I understand there are people who choose to go with what sounds good to them and that's all well and good, so long as they don't make claims about performance that are at odds with reality. Yes, but what is reality? What you've measured, or what you actually hear? You talk about the bias of sighted listening, but measurement can itself create bias. If you see that an amp has vanishingly low distortion, and believe that such distortion cannot be audible, likely you'll hear that amp as "perfect"--that's real bias. Clear enough? Yes, very clear. Putting aside content, I have to admit that your post is a model of literate clarity. Therefore I can't help wondering why all your posts aren't like this, why you insist on giving Robert and George so much ammunition for their "Special Person" campaign. Did all your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply himself" etc? In any case if you can do it once you can do it always, and I expect to see a similar standard in all future posts. Here's one star * to start you off. You can wear it on your forehead. :-) __________________________________________________ _ Nyob concedes that loudspeakers sound different. Nothing new. I've always said that. Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless you're sitting very close. And he repeats the catechism: I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence a purchase What he should have said was that loudspeakers sound different *even to me* Bercause nothing else does. But that would have been untrue. According to him manufacture of audio reached such perfection that no matter what you put together it will sound the same. Not according to me, according to the technology. It's a very simple thing to build components that are audibly transparent. That you don't seem to recognize that fact is not my fault. Again what he should have said was: "TO ME" Or anyone else when comparing similar equipment, and not diriven into clipping. That's why there are so few positive results from ABX tests. He knows he is right because indeed under "bias- controlled conditions" (read: ABX) everything does sound the same.. Not everything, as you've been shown many times before. When the differences are audible, people hear them in ABX tests. To him that is. But the loudspeakers should not, right? Even to him they sound different. Except... In Sean Olive's double-blind, "bias controlled" study most panelists failed to distinguish four very different loudspeakers from each other when comparing "different or not". Is that the end of all such testing on how loudspeakers sound, you insufferable twit? One research example and the whole thing is inavild in your mind? And that was just DBT- imagine what would happen if they were ABXed (which Sean Olive rejected as "unsuitable" for his test..) But not because there is a problem with ABX per se. (JAES, vol.51.#9, p.806-825) But the same panelists when asked a straightforward question: "Which one do you like better?" plumped for the ones with the smoothest frequency response. I pointed this out to our local "scientists" ten times if I pointed it once. The replies ranged from silence to inarticulate, gutter profanity. I doubt if our one and only NYOB will do any better. So much for "bias- controlled" "tests" of human likes and dislikes. Next: bias-controlled DBT/ABX test of a Stradivarius against a Guarnieri, Ludovic Mirabel The fact that yo use only one expample of people not being able to distinguish speakers that you believe they should have and trying to globalize it for all DBT's everywhere is one of the signs that you are not bright enough to discuss this with, since you are obviously not getting it. Have you ever bothered to discuss this with Mr. Olive via e-mail? Perhaps if you did you might be able to get past it and move into the real world, assuming they will let you. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
f.S. Tons of cheapgear | Pro Audio | |||
shipping Rode NT2000 in carrying case | Pro Audio | |||
WANTED: 6 Space Effects Rack Case | Pro Audio | |||
FS: 400 Closeouts!! Video Game, Computer, Mobile A/V, Personal A/V | Car Audio | |||
Sherwood S-8000 Schematic and Case needed | Vacuum Tubes |