Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"EddieM" wrote in message
t...


If you have decided to, yet again, neatly but deeply tuck the tail
(and this is just my assumption) between the legs,


It's a phrase you like to use when people don't behave the way you want
them too.



Yes, I do not like the way you behave towards audiophiles.


Answering questions as accurately as I can?

Particularly
to those that are newcomers to this hobby.

Giving them the best information I can?
Letting people know where I think the best values lie?
If you think I've treated some newcomer badly, please find a quote and post
it.



surely Arnii would
welcome this fine opportunity and render his services in forcibly
yanking
the said tail out of its seclusion..


Why don't you forcibly yank your head from where ever it is and realize
that one person's score on an ABX test is relevant primarily for that one
person. If a person hears a difference, it can also be verified by
measurements.



Oh, ok.... ;-) ;-)


See above.


I wasn't talking about an audio test. I was talking about subjective
evaluation.



An audio test is a subjective evaluations.




LoL !

Indicating you still haven't grasped the truth of listening tests.


An instance where Michael Fremer admits to detecting
positive subtle differences that is audible to him. Could this mean
that he's hearing things ?



If it's a non-bias controlled, sighted, non-level matched one, almost
certainly yes. This would be true for anyone trying to determine
anything about subtle differences. If the differences are large enough
and ABX test is not really required. The problem is that many of the
differences reported tend to unexplainable when the equipment is
measured.
Some people actually beleive that measurements, aren't revealing enough
to tell you what is true about a component.



You know, you are confusing and misdirecting no one else here
but yourself.

I'm not misdirecting anything, you set up the premise.
You are the one who is so confused that you don't understand that listening
tests are ALL subjective.

Before, when someone admit to detecting subtle differences, you do
not hesitate to give your answer promptly, decisively, and conclusively.

But not anymore.

I have maintained for a very long time, that subtle differences are not
likely to be discovered by sighted listening.



But before, when someone admit to detecting subtle differences, you do
not hesitate to give your answer promptly, decisively, and conclusively

But this is no more.

Nothing has changed. Sighted listening for subtle difference is unreliable.

So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
rather simple question is :


What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
things ?



In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be
true for anyone doing that kind of listening.




YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a
positive
subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is very
likely hearing things ?

Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be
an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer.

If Sean Olive wantedf to know about differences of any kind in audio
equipment, he has more than enough resources to do so.

Try and understand, ALL evaluations of audio equipment carried out by
listening, ARE SUBJECTVE. That includes ABX and ABC/hr.

WHAT is the matter with you ?

I don't like idiotic questions

WHAT is the matter with your head ?

Why do ask idiotic questions?




So what do you think if someone whom you thought was dignified
as her says that she could easily tell the subtle sound differences
among her hi-end audio components in her house ?

What does dignity have to do with hearing?

There shouldn't be. And that is why I'm simply wondering why
you're not so forthright and tell what you think.


I did tell you what I think, several times.
You just don't like the answer.



You mean that it is "stupid" for someone dignified as Rosa Parks
to tell that they can hear subtle sound differences among their
hi-end audio components ?

I mean it's a stupid question.

I mean her place in history has nothing to do with any ability to hear
subtle differences in either sighted or blind comparisons.

Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.


  #82   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean

nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote







Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
Feel free to repaste though.



So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
rather simple question is :


What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
things ?

In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be
true for anyone doing that kind of listening.


YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a
positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is
very likely hearing things ?


Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be
an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer.



Changing ? You wish.

I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle
difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself when
using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any
Subjective "listening" Evaluation.

So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio
"saloon" and detect positive subtle diff, he is very likely hearing things.

But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.


Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things?









I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.

But feel free to re-paste.




  #83   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


wrote in message
ink.net...


Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.



Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.


  #84   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean



Clyde Slick said:

Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.


Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.


Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening"
and "testing"? TIA.




  #85   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"EddieM" wrote in message
t...
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote






Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
Feel free to repaste though.



So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
rather simple question is :


What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
things ?

In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would
be true for anyone doing that kind of listening.

YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a
positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he
is very likely hearing things ?


Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would
be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer.



Changing ? You wish.


It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago: What if
Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
things ?





I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle
difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself
when
using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any
Subjective "listening" Evaluation.

It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing
a blind comparison, level matched, is best.

So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio
"saloon" and detect positive subtle diff, he is very likely hearing
things.

But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.


Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things?

Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend
to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.





I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.

But feel free to re-paste.


You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are.
I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue
being the moron I always knew you were.




  #86   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
ink.net...


Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.



Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.

No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
pleasure any way you so desire.

Of course listen for pleasure blind is not a totally bad idea, but it does
make it harder to find the remote if it's not in your hand already.


  #87   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


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


Clyde Slick said:

Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.


Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.


Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening"
and "testing"? TIA.



You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to
listen.
If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind
is going to give reliable results, while sighted non-bias controlled
listening tests for subtle differences are a waste of time.


  #88   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
ink.net...


Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.



Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.

No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
pleasure any way you so desire.


Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
WHILE listening for pleasure.


  #89   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean

nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote



Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
Feel free to repaste though.



So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
rather simple question is :


What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in
L.A.
and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
things ?

In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be
true for anyone doing that kind of listening.

YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a
positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is
very likely hearing things ?


Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would
be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer.



Changing ? You wish.


It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago:



What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
things ?



And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon."



I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle
difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself
when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any
Subjective "listening" Evaluation.


It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing
a blind comparison, level matched, is best.



I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
Evaluation.



So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio
"saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing
things.

But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.


Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things?



Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend
to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.



I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective
Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to
describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.

I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally precise:

What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the
"ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?



What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect"
has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?



I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.

But feel free to re-paste.


You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are.



I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip.




I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue
being the moron I always knew you were.



( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the
presence of imminent danger.)


  #90   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
ink.net...


Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.



Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.

No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
pleasure any way you so desire.


Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
WHILE listening for pleasure.
Go ahead.
Doesn't change the fact that it is aless relaible way to detect subtle
differnces.




  #91   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"EddieM" wrote in message
. com...
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote



Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
Feel free to repaste though.



So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And
that
rather simple question is :


What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
two
two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in
L.A.
and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's
hearing
things ?

In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would
be true for anyone doing that kind of listening.

YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a
positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he
is very likely hearing things ?


Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation
would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for
Fremer.


Changing ? You wish.


It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago:



What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in
L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a
positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that
he's hearing things ?



And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon."



I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle
difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself
when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for
any Subjective "listening" Evaluation.


The ability to hear doesn't change, that is ther is no difference in the
working of the ear, but there is a differnce in the mind. That's why using
only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus
on sound alone.

It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and
doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best.



I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
Evaluation.

It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion. The
consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that people can
be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2 different sources
when in fact they are only listening to one.

So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at
audio
"saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing
things.


Same stupid question.
The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle
differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are
very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there.


But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.

I have never said that.


Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing
things?


It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them and
can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for determing
subtle differences, they control bias.

Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They
tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.



I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective
Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to
describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.

See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX.

I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally
precise:

God no, not that well known Eddie precision.

What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the
"ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?

See the list of publications I mentioned.

What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect"
has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?

Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it
doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will very
likely lead to unreliable results.

I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.
But feel free to re-paste.


You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are.



I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip.




I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue
being the moron I always knew you were.



( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the
presence of imminent danger.)

From what? Are you going to bore me to death?


  #92   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean

Why oh why was I ever born sighted? Oh woe is me!

  #93   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
ink.net...


Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.



Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.

No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
pleasure any way you so desire.


Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
WHILE listening for pleasure.

Go ahead.
Doesn't change the fact that it is aless relaible way to detect subtle
differnces.


Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based
upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode.


  #94   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean



All together now: "duh! duh! duh!" Mikey, go to the end of the line and start
again. Some people seem to need an infinite amount of practice for the simplest
exercises in rote recall.

Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening"
and "testing"? TIA.


You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to listen.


Is that what you call an explanation? I ask because it's like saying you don't
need eyeballs to distinguish blue from red.

If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind


You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about "tests"
and aBx this and DBT that?


..
..
..
..

  #95   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
ink.net...


Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.



Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.

No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
pleasure any way you so desire.


Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
WHILE listening for pleasure.

Go ahead.
Doesn't change the fact that it is a less relaible way to detect subtle
differnces.


Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based
upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode.

I'm sure you believe that.




  #96   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


All together now: "duh! duh! duh!" Mikey, go to the end of the line and
start
again. Some people seem to need an infinite amount of practice for the
simplest
exercises in rote recall.

Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening"
and "testing"? TIA.


You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to
listen.


Is that what you call an explanation? I ask because it's like saying you
don't
need eyeballs to distinguish blue from red.

If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind


You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about
"tests"
and aBx this and DBT that?


mikey, stop spinning.
just give a drect answer to the question.


  #97   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
ink.net...


Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted
conditions.



Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.

No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
pleasure any way you so desire.


Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
WHILE listening for pleasure.
Go ahead.
Doesn't change the fact that it is a less relaible way to detect subtle
differnces.


Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based
upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode.

I'm sure you believe that.


I am sure you believe otherwise. But its not for you
to care one iota about how I go about making my decisions.
"At least" I am consistent and not hypocritical, as you are.
you keep yammering on about the need for the rest of us to undergo the same
kind of tests you have not participated in yourself.
yourself do not participate in


  #99   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


All together now: "duh! duh! duh!" Mikey, go to the end of the line and
start
again. Some people seem to need an infinite amount of practice for the
simplest
exercises in rote recall.

Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening"
and "testing"? TIA.


You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to
listen.


Is that what you call an explanation? I ask because it's like saying you
don't
need eyeballs to distinguish blue from red.

If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind


You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about
"tests"
and aBx this and DBT that?

Because other people are always yammering about how they believe they can
hear things for which there is no known reason to exist.

.

Paul said: Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound
the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?


I said he was. I have and others have explained many times what the
criteria are for SS amps to sound the same


  #100   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean



Mickey's dander is up. Even the scorpions should be wary now.

You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about
"tests" and aBx this and DBT that?


Because other people are always yammering about how they believe they can
hear things for which there is no known reason to exist.


So what? How does that affect you? Why do you insist on an irrelevant
explanation for phenomena that you are unable to perceive or comprehend?

You 'borgs love to stutter about Occam's Razor. Here's a straightforward
application of that principle: The fact that you nitwits don't perceive what is
easily perceptible by Normals is because your auditory acuity is substandard.
This is a far more likely explanation than all of your ignorant babbling about
"science" and "tests".

If it weren't pointless, I'd advise you to "grow a brain", as your idol Arnii
Kroofeces loves to say. But it is pointless, so instead I'll just second the
motion that you have your head removed surgically.


..
..
..



  #101   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Arny=nasty guy


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


The Krooborg is kornered and krazed with rage.

Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the
years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then
is the problem with you?


On the contrary, Turdy -- Morein has only recently embraced the truth
about you.
Namely, and to wit, that you are a very obnoxious individual who is
afflicted
with mental problems that go begging for treatment.

Why do ascribe your characteristics to others George? Is it because you are
convinced that everyone esle is corrupt and dishonest as you are?

Up until the recent past, Morein tried to reason with you on many
occasions, and
also overlooked your snotty attacks in the hope of persuading you to
behave like
a real person. He gave you far more latitude that most Normals do, and far
more
than you deserve. You should be thanking him for his undue and unrewarded
kindnesses toward your ****ful self.


Thank him for his dishonesty?

You really are an idiot.


  #102   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"EddieM" wrote in message
m...
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote



Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
Feel free to repaste though.



snip....................

Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation
would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for
Fremer.

Changing ? You wish.

It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago:


What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation
between two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over
there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that
there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could
this mean that he's hearing things ?


And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon."


I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern
subtle
difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear
itself when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not
change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation.


The ability to hear doesn't change, that is ther is no difference in the
working of the ear, but there is a differnce in the mind. [...]



Yes, the ability to hear doesn't change. Let me add additional explanation
as to what I meant by that "level of ability to detect." Ex.: Our ability
to
detect the color red will not diminish even if, say, you add the color
blue
to the red and mix them completely together. You will have trouble
distinguishing the color red in that mix BUT, your "level of ability to
detect" the color red in that instance has not change.


Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you
that
you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the
stimulus
(sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that.

How many times this have to be explain to you.

Your "explanation" is in direct dontradiction with what is known about
hearing.

The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth.


[...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about,
allowing the listener to focus on sound alone.




How about this:

Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to
focus their altered perception on sound alone.

Yes?

Yes.

It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and
doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best.


I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
Evaluation.



It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion.
The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that
people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2
different sources when in fact they are only listening to one.



Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for
you above.

IOW you can't confirm with any research becausethere is none.

So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at
audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely
hearing things.


Same stupid question.
The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for
subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are,
they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there.




What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying
out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon
and one is at Harman.


And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the
place.

Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?

Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson or
the place.


But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at
Harman
and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear
things.


I have never said that.


uh-oh


Uh-oh is right. I've never siad either person was more likely to hear
bettter or worse than other, it's how the listening is done, not who is
doing it, unless of course there is some reason to believe that one of them
has defective hearing. Judging by some of the things Fremer has said in
print a case could be made that his hearing is defective, but in actuality,
it's his methods that we know for sure are unrelaible. How else could he
praise the WAVAC amp with it's gross amounts of distortion?




Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing
things?



It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them
and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for
determing subtle differences, they control bias.



That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the discussion
of
bias.


It has everything to do with it, yo just won't admit it.

This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect
sound differences.


And is affected by bias.

What are the specific differences with regard to their
ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio
saloon
and when one does it at Harman?


See above.

Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?

Who said it was? Not me.


Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They
tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.


I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective
Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you
to
describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.


See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX.


You refuse to answer ? LoL!


I have answered. You just ignore it.

I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally
precise:

God no, not that well known Eddie precision.

What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the
"ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?

I was speaking of his apparent lack of sanity based on his writing and the
fact that based on those writings he can't seem to hear very well. What is
certain is that he and the other reviewers at SP do not use reliable methods
to determine if the things they review are indeed any different from other
things they've reviewed in the past or things they currently own.


See the list of publications I mentioned.


You refuse answer ? LoL!


What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect"
has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?



Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it
doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will
very likely lead to unreliable results.



I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to
NOT hear things ?

And my response is that I hasve no idea what he hears or doesn't hear, since
I don't think he personally participates in any of thte listening tests.

I think you already got this one

LoL!


I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.
But feel free to re-paste.

You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are.

I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip.

I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to
continue being the moron I always knew you were.

( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the
presence of imminent danger.)


From what? Are you going to bore me to death?



I'm footless.

Whatever that means.

I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing.


  #103   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean

nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote



Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
Feel free to repaste though.



snip....................

Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation
would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for
Fremer.

Changing ? You wish.

It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago:



What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in
L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a
positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that
he's hearing things ?



And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon."


I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle
difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself
when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any
Subjective "listening" Evaluation.


The ability to hear doesn't change, that is ther is no difference in the
working of the ear, but there is a differnce in the mind. [...]



Yes, the ability to hear doesn't change. Let me add additional explanation
as to what I meant by that "level of ability to detect." Ex.: Our ability to
detect the color red will not diminish even if, say, you add the color blue
to the red and mix them completely together. You will have trouble
distinguishing the color red in that mix BUT, your "level of ability to
detect" the color red in that instance has not change.


Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you that
you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the stimulus
(sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that.

How many times this have to be explain to you.


[...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing
the listener to focus on sound alone.




How about this:

Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to
focus their altered perception on sound alone.

Yes?



It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and
doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best.



I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
Evaluation.



It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion. The
consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that people can
be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2 different sources
when in fact they are only listening to one.



Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for
you above.



So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio
"saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing
things.


Same stupid question.
The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle
differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are
very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there.




What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying
out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon
and one is at Harman.

Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?




But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.


I have never said that.


uh-oh

Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing
things?



It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them and
can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for determing
subtle differences, they control bias.



That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the discussion of
bias.


This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect
sound differences. What are the specific differences with regard to their
ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio saloon
and when one does it at Harman?

Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?




Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They
tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.



I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective
Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to
describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.


See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX.


You refuse to answer ? LoL!


I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally
precise:

God no, not that well known Eddie precision.

What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the
"ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?

See the list of publications I mentioned.


You refuse answer ? LoL!


What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect"
has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?



Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it
doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will very
likely lead to unreliable results.



I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to
NOT hear things ?


I think you already got this one

LoL!


I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.
But feel free to re-paste.

You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are.


I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip.

I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue
being the moron I always knew you were.


( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the
presence of imminent danger.)


From what? Are you going to bore me to death?



I'm footless.









  #104   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean







Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd., PO Box 2200
Northridge, CA, 91329



McKelvy, I think you're being misdirected and should
ask Mr. Olive to refrain from using the word "Subjective"
on his title description above.


  #105   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Mickey's dander is up. Even the scorpions should be wary now.

You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about
"tests" and aBx this and DBT that?


Because other people are always yammering about how they believe they can
hear things for which there is no known reason to exist.


So what? How does that affect you? Why do you insist on an irrelevant
explanation for phenomena that you are unable to perceive or comprehend?


Why do people refuse to admit that it's unlikely that their flawed methods
aren't deceiving them?

You 'borgs love to stutter about Occam's Razor. Here's a straightforward
application of that principle: The fact that you nitwits don't perceive
what is
easily perceptible by Normals is because your auditory acuity is
substandard.


The obligatory attack on the hearing of people you don't know and denial of
the fact that fllawed comparisons lead to flawed results.

This is a far more likely explanation than all of your ignorant babbling
about
"science" and "tests".

No, it's just another denial of reality by you.

If it weren't pointless, I'd advise you to "grow a brain", as your idol
Arnii
Kroofeces loves to say. But it is pointless, so instead I'll just second
the
motion that you have your head removed surgically.

As usual, nothing of substance, just the usual personal attacks.




  #106   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
ink.net...


Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted
conditions.



Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.

No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen
for pleasure any way you so desire.


Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
WHILE listening for pleasure.
Go ahead.
Doesn't change the fact that it is a less relaible way to detect subtle
differnces.


Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based
upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode.

I'm sure you believe that.


I am sure you believe otherwise. But its not for you
to care one iota about how I go about making my decisions.
"At least" I am consistent and not hypocritical, as you are.
you keep yammering on about the need for the rest of us to undergo the
same
kind of tests you have not participated in yourself.
yourself do not participate in

So, by that logic if I haven't been up in space and seen the earth from
there, there is no way to know if the earth is flat or round.

If I haven't actually burned myself, I can't possibly know that fire could
do me harm.

If I haven't actually done something, I can't possibly know anything about
it.



  #107   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean



nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote



Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
Feel free to repaste though.



snip....................


snip



Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you
that
you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the
stimulus
(sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that.

How many times this have to be explain to you.

Your "explanation" is in direct dontradiction with what is known about
hearing.


The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth.




Hahahahaha ! I like that!





[...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about,
allowing the listener to focus on sound alone.



How about this:

Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to
focus their altered perception on sound alone.

Yes?


Yes.



LoL!


Yessss oh yesss.



It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and
doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best.


I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
Evaluation.


It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion.
The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that
people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2
different sources when in fact they are only listening to one.



Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for
you above.


IOW you can't confirm with any research because there is none.



So, you have to have your confirmation. Hmmmm.



So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at
audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely
hearing things.

Same stupid question.
The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle
differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are
very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there.




What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying
out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon
and one is at Harman.


And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the
place.



Oh my Goodness.



Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?

Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson or
the place



Oh good gracious. Now it's the method.



But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.

I have never said that.


uh-oh


Uh-oh is right. I've never siad either person was more likely to hear
bettter or worse than other, it's how the listening is done, not who is
doing it, unless of course there is some reason to believe that one of them
has defective hearing. Judging by some of the things Fremer has said in
print a case could be made that his hearing is defective, but in actuality,
it's his methods that we know for sure are unrelaible. How else could he
praise the WAVAC amp with it's gross amounts of distortion?



Your agenda is showing.... yooohooo.


Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing
things?


It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them
and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for
determing subtle differences, they control bias.



That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the discussion
of bias.


It has everything to do with it, yo just won't admit it



Holy mollusk !


This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect
sound differences.


And is affected by bias.


Hmmm, now it's about biasss...


What are the specific differences with regard to their
ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio saloon
and when one does it at Harman?


See above.



You're way up in the ozone man. .......way up


Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?

Who said it was? Not me.



Before, you said it does, now you say it doesn't.



Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They
tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.


I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective
Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to
describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.

See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX.


You refuse to answer ? LoL!


I have answered. You just ignore it.



Your terrible.


I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally
precise:

God no, not that well known Eddie precision.

What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the
"ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?

I was speaking of his apparent lack of sanity based on his writing and the
fact that based on those writings he can't seem to hear very well. What is
certain is that he and the other reviewers at SP do not use reliable methods
to determine if the things they review are indeed any different from other
things they've reviewed in the past or things they currently own.



Your agenda is showing again.



See the list of publications I mentioned.


You refuse answer ? LoL!


What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect"
has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?


Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it
doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will
very likely lead to unreliable results.



I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to
NOT hear things ?

And my response is that I hasve no idea what he hears or doesn't hear, since
I don't think he personally participates in any of thte listening tests.



Oh no! he doesn't participate !

I think you already got this one

LoL!

snip

I'm footless.


Whatever that means.

I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing.




No, just my foot. Give it back to me.




  #108   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


I am sure you believe otherwise. But its not for you
to care one iota about how I go about making my decisions.
"At least" I am consistent and not hypocritical, as you are.
you keep yammering on about the need for the rest of us to undergo the
same
kind of tests you have not participated in yourself.
yourself do not participate in

So, by that logic if I haven't been up in space and seen the earth from
there, there is no way to know if the earth is flat or round.

If I haven't actually burned myself, I can't possibly know that fire could
do me harm.

If I haven't actually done something, I can't possibly know anything about
it.


Apply that to the dieeferences the rest of us know about!


  #109   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Take Mikey to the pound.


wrote in message
nk.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


The Krooborg is kornered and krazed with rage.

Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the
years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then
is the problem with you?


On the contrary, Turdy -- Morein has only recently embraced the truth
about you.
Namely, and to wit, that you are a very obnoxious individual who is
afflicted
with mental problems that go begging for treatment.

Why do ascribe your characteristics to others George? Is it because you

are
convinced that everyone esle is corrupt and dishonest as you are?

Up until the recent past, Morein tried to reason with you on many
occasions, and
also overlooked your snotty attacks in the hope of persuading you to
behave like
a real person. He gave you far more latitude that most Normals do, and

far
more
than you deserve. You should be thanking him for his undue and

unrewarded
kindnesses toward your ****ful self.


Thank him for his dishonesty?

You really are an idiot.

Arny, do you have a choke collar for Mikey?
He can't be allowed to run loose.


  #110   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey=dumb person


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"


wrote:


"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same."

They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said

that
I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.

And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.

Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a
nasty
person

Someone should explain to you that I don't give a ****.
If I get the answers I want from him about the questions I ask, then

he's
done all I need him to do. He's never been anything but cordial to me
and
to those who have always been cordial to him.

If he gets treated less than cordially he tends to hold a grudge, sorta

like
you against McCarty, or me.

If your ego is so fragile that it can't stand somebody's criticism of
you,
especially when you're dead wrong, which happens a lot it seems, then
****
off. You're obviously too big a candy ass to be here.

See Arny's recent reply to Paul, Mikey. If you continue to copy that

kind
of
bad character, you'll end up with as bad a character as a dumb person
possibly can.

More irony.

Mikey, the only thing which limits how bad you can be is how dumb you are.
Your life could be the theme for "Disorganized Crime."




  #111   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Take Mikey to the pound.

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:36:35 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


The Krooborg is kornered and krazed with rage.

Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the
years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then
is the problem with you?

On the contrary, Turdy -- Morein has only recently embraced the truth
about you.
Namely, and to wit, that you are a very obnoxious individual who is
afflicted
with mental problems that go begging for treatment.

Why do ascribe your characteristics to others George? Is it because you

are
convinced that everyone esle is corrupt and dishonest as you are?

Up until the recent past, Morein tried to reason with you on many
occasions, and
also overlooked your snotty attacks in the hope of persuading you to
behave like
a real person. He gave you far more latitude that most Normals do, and

far
more
than you deserve. You should be thanking him for his undue and

unrewarded
kindnesses toward your ****ful self.


Thank him for his dishonesty?

You really are an idiot.

Arny, do you have a choke collar for Mikey?
He can't be allowed to run loose.

AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT JUST KILLFILE ME
YOU DUMB TWIT
  #112   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey=dumb person

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:37:27 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"


wrote:


"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same."

They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?

Something for Arny to explain to me at
length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said

that
I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.

And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.

Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a
nasty
person

Someone should explain to you that I don't give a ****.
If I get the answers I want from him about the questions I ask, then

he's
done all I need him to do. He's never been anything but cordial to me
and
to those who have always been cordial to him.

If he gets treated less than cordially he tends to hold a grudge, sorta
like
you against McCarty, or me.

If your ego is so fragile that it can't stand somebody's criticism of
you,
especially when you're dead wrong, which happens a lot it seems, then
****
off. You're obviously too big a candy ass to be here.

See Arny's recent reply to Paul, Mikey. If you continue to copy that

kind
of
bad character, you'll end up with as bad a character as a dumb person
possibly can.

More irony.

Mikey, the only thing which limits how bad you can be is how dumb you are.
Your life could be the theme for "Disorganized Crime."


But then again the future will be better tomorrow

  #113   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"EddieM" wrote in message
m...


nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote



Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
Feel free to repaste though.



snip....................


snip



Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you
that
you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the
stimulus
(sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that.

How many times this have to be explain to you.

Your "explanation" is in direct dontradiction with what is known about
hearing.


The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth.




Hahahahaha ! I like that!





[...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about,
allowing the listener to focus on sound alone.


How about this:

Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener
to
focus their altered perception on sound alone.

Yes?


Yes.



LoL!


Yessss oh yesss.


Let's change that to "unalterd perception."

It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them
and doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best.


I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
Evaluation.


It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion.
The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that
people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2
different sources when in fact they are only listening to one.


Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for
you above.


IOW you can't confirm with any research because there is none.



So, you have to have your confirmation. Hmmmm.



So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at
audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely
hearing things.

Same stupid question.
The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for
subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they
are, they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not
there.



What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying
out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon
and one is at Harman.


And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the
place.



Oh my Goodness.



Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?

Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson
or the place



Oh good gracious. Now it's the method.

Always was.

But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at
Harman
and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear
things.

I have never said that.

uh-oh


Uh-oh is right. I've never siad either person was more likely to hear
bettter or worse than other, it's how the listening is done, not who is
doing it, unless of course there is some reason to believe that one of
them has defective hearing. Judging by some of the things Fremer has
said in print a case could be made that his hearing is defective, but in
actuality, it's his methods that we know for sure are unrelaible. How
else could he praise the WAVAC amp with it's gross amounts of distortion?



Your agenda is showing.... yooohooo.

You mean telling the truth is an agenda?

Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing
things?


It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have
them and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method
for determing subtle differences, they control bias.


That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the
discussion of bias.


It has everything to do with it, you just won't admit it



Holy mollusk !


This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect
sound differences.


And is affected by bias.


Hmmm, now it's about biasss...

Goes along with method.

What are the specific differences with regard to their
ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio
saloon and when one does it at Harman?


See above.



You're way up in the ozone man. .......way up


Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?

Who said it was? Not me.



Before, you said it does, now you say it doesn't.

Provide a quote.

Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself.
They tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.


I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing
Subjective
Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you
to
describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.

See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX.

You refuse to answer ? LoL!


I have answered. You just ignore it.



Your terrible.


I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally
precise:

God no, not that well known Eddie precision.

What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to
the
"ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?

I was speaking of his apparent lack of sanity based on his writing and
the fact that based on those writings he can't seem to hear very well.
What is certain is that he and the other reviewers at SP do not use
reliable methods to determine if the things they review are indeed any
different from other things they've reviewed in the past or things they
currently own.



Your agenda is showing again.



See the list of publications I mentioned.

You refuse answer ? LoL!


What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to
detect"
has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?


Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that
it doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it
will very likely lead to unreliable results.


I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to
NOT hear things ?

And my response is that I hasve no idea what he hears or doesn't hear,
since I don't think he personally participates in any of thte listening
tests.



Oh no! he doesn't participate !

I think you already got this one

LoL!

snip

I'm footless.


Whatever that means.

I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing.




No, just my foot. Give it back to me.



I think it's stuck in your ear.


  #114   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..






Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd., PO Box 2200
Northridge, CA, 91329



McKelvy, I think you're being misdirected and should
ask Mr. Olive to refrain from using the word "Subjective"
on his title description above.

Why?


  #115   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean

nyob123 wrote .............



Look McKelvy, your skull is as thick as the one
that Ferstler has, but I can only come in and out
of this computer for so much especially lately.

..........I'll be back tommorow though, sometime
before PM.......







  #116   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean

nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote



Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
Feel free to repaste though.



snip

snip

snip


The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth.


Hahahahaha ! I like that!

[...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about,
allowing the listener to focus on sound alone.

How about this:

Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener
to focus their altered perception on sound alone.

Yes?

Yes.


LoL!

Yessss oh yesss.


Let's change that to "unalterd perception."



Ok.

If it's unaltered, then, what does the word "blind" in the context of DBT
cognitively and visually requires to ensure that perception remain
unchanged ?


What does "using only the ears" in the context of ABX and/or DBT
cognitively requires, if, when guessing is not allowed, yet, ensure that
perception remain unchanged ?





........ snip



So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at
audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely
hearing things.

Same stupid question.
The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for
subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are,
they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not
there.



What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying
out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon
and one is at Harman.


And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the
place.



Oh my Goodness.


Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?

Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson
or the place



Oh good gracious. Now it's the method.

Always was.



Okey then, let's do the method. The method for both are the "same"
ie, they're both Subjective "listening" Evaluation.

What else is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that lead you to believe
that he isn't hearing things ?



But if Mr. Olive ...


snip .......



Holy mollusk !


This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect
sound differences.

And is affected by bias.


Hmmm, now it's about biasss...

Goes along with method.

What are the specific differences with regard to their
ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio
saloon and when one does it at Harman?


See above.



You're way up in the ozone man. .......way up


Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?

Who said it was? Not me.


Before, you said it does, now you say it doesn't.



Provide a quote.



I object to this tactical manuever of having me do the footwork
to explain each time you smack yourself on the head.


Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself.


.........snip


Oh no! he doesn't participate !

I think you already got this one

LoL!

snip

I'm footless.

Whatever that means.

I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing.


No, just my foot. Give it back to me.


I think it's stuck in your ear.



I'm footless again.



  #117   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean


nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote




Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd., PO Box 2200
Northridge, CA, 91329



McKelvy, I think you're being misdirected and should
ask Mr. Olive to refrain from using the word "Subjective"
on his title description above.



Why?





For one, because according to you, if Mr. Olive carrys out
Subjective listening Evaluation over there at Harman and discern
subtle differences, he is NOT "hearing things."

Yet, if Michael Fremer carrys out Subjective listening Evaluation
at audio saloons and discern subtle differences, he is.


What the F*** !


  #118   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean

nyob123 wrote ......."I'm choking my chicken and it won't get up !"


Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !

Anybody home ??


Well, when your done busy choking that chicken, maybe you can
have Arny lend a hand and start working on the tail neatly cleaved
in those thigh. And how strong they are!

Arny says, " Poor boy! That's some heavy-duty, sturdy legs you
got there, Mike. I might have to charge you extra
this time around. Thing is, for this job, I'll need
Ferstler services to ... like perhaps, tickle you a bit
up and down the thighs so I can work on the back and
ever so slowly eke the said bewitching tail out of
confinement..... you see, that cost me extra!
Won't you turn around here now poor boy and see
if plucking them cheeks help loosens things a bit..."


Mikey says, " Why don't you stop and help me choke the chicken
instead!"


Arny says, "....



  #119   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean

nyob123 wrote ......."I'm choking! I'm choking! and it won't get up !"


Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !

Yoooohoooo





Mikey says, " Why don't you stop and help me choke the chicken
instead!"


Arny says, ".... Easy now old boy! I'm standing here lookin at that
limpid, scintillating hole and making me forget 'bout
myself..... uhhmm."


Mikey said, "......... Moo moo moo... I like that! I Iike that ! "


  #120   Report Post  
EddieM
 
Posts: n/a
Default More from Sean

nyob123 wrote ...."I'm panting! I'm panting! and it still won't go !"


Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !

Knock.........knock .........







Arny says, ".... Easy now old boy! I'm standing here lookin at that
limpid, scintillating hole and making me forget 'bout
myself..... uhhmm."


Mikey said, "......... Moo moo moo... I like that! I Iike that ! "



Arny says, " There you go Ol' Boy..! You got me distracted!
Let me blow! Let me blow! ........
Sweet nothing in the air, and pucker things up!
You know what it's like when in the mood
........... for some Love! "


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More from Sean Olive [email protected] Audio Opinions 38 October 29th 05 02:34 PM
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive [email protected] Audio Opinions 42 October 25th 05 07:54 PM
Sean Sez [email protected] Audio Opinions 9 October 22nd 05 06:10 AM
From Sean Olive hisownself [email protected] Audio Opinions 0 October 20th 05 08:15 PM
Sean Olive on loudspeakers Nousaine High End Audio 1 September 29th 03 01:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"