Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
Arny Krueger wrote: "GregS" wrote in message In article .com, wrote: I have no doubt you learned "much" from this group of beanie heads. About the technical side of audio. Although "Dick" is one of the biggest dicks on the audio newsgroups, he does know something or other about this technical nature of audio. Unfortunately, he doesn't know jack **** about how to get audio to sound like real music. Neither does anyone else on this group. Knowing the ****ing "damping factor" or Either you post under different names or somethings up. Its hard to believe one just listens to newsgroups and does not reply, untill ALL OF A SUDDEN just creating a big stir are ya!!!??? (senseless crap snipped) Say.... arent you the fat chicken**** faggot that pretends to be a big brave newsgroup bully but STILL cant seem to find at least one of your balls in order to debate or even address me directly? Sure you are, Arnold/Arny Krueger/KRuger/Krooger or whatever your name is this week. And arent you the same Arnold/Arny Krueger/KRuger/Krooger chicken**** little weasel that made up a thousand stupid excuses to get out of a debate with Atkinson? Oh, now I recognize you! I guess I should have already by the smell of **** and pizza boxes next to you, you fat ****ing loser. |
#242
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
I. Care wrote: In article . com, How easily we forget. The burden of proof is upon the person making the original claim to a group (no or re-oriented fuses sound better or even different). Yes in this case I understand the OP was giving background info along with the original question (see the header), but; this thread has gone well past that particular issue. One person stating I heard something, and someone else says they did too, is anecdotal evidence at best, not proof. Anecdotal evidence is fine but should then lead to scientifically valid investigation and trials by the person(s) making the claim. A proper test to be remotely believable would require repeatable tests by the claimant (OP) witnessed using multiple subjects and multiple trials and/or monitoring signals with properly calibrated and setup test equipment. Where is this scientifically valid data from the OP? Where is the link to the scientifically valid data or trials the OP is using for the claim? What is offered instead is the typical troll response effectively saying, scientifically prove I didn't or can't hear a difference (prove a negative), and a bunch of name calling (a tool of the weak mind). Why don't the "techs" on RAT repeat the test using their ears like the OP did? It is a scientifically invalid way to perform bias controlled test(s) as has been proven over and over again (read past postings here), and it's not their job to provide valid tests for someone else's claim. If the OP so strongly believes scientific testing is not necessary and just listen for yourself, why doesn't the OP collect the money from the "million dollar challenge" from Randi? http://www.randi.org/ I do not necessarily believe the OP is wrong. It's just that I was one of those people that believed expensive cable and cable direction and green pens on cd's, and spending big $$ on Krell gear was easily heard by anyone, after all I heard it (I really like my Krell gear). I repeated some of my informal listening tests for cables etc., I wasn't going to get rid of my Krell stuff after all, and couldn't hear the difference anymore. So I too have become skeptical of some claims, after all Krell used green led's to flood the cd's in some of their players, so it must be true :-P. So flame away, curse and throw a tantrum like a 3 year old. Cover your eyes and say "you can't see me!", after all that's a valid test right? Actually, I respect your response, so you'll get no flames from me. The others, I can't speak for. I can respect it for the fact that you show, unlike others here, that at the very least, you're troubling to pay attention to what's been said. Most here just speak out of their asshole, and their replies show it. So you're right to say I was only giving background info when I talked about running my amp without a fuse, and that the thread has goen well past that issue. Had no one said anything to me about how ridiculous I was to even suggest fuses could possibly have an audible effect, I assure you, the thread would have ended almost as quickly as it began. I don't much care for it when ignorants have the arrogance to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, on an area of knowledge they have no knowledge of. Your RAT buddies made false claims to me, such as stating as fact that I was a "troll", and also claims related to audio. Well I could make the same statement you did. That anecdotal evidence (which I don't even think they provided THAT MUCH to back their claims), is not PROOF. I agree I did not prove anything to anybody here. But nor did ANYONE on this technical group of wanna-be scientists, provide proof of ANY claim they made to me. What everyone so far, after 240 messages, seems to fail to understand, despite my having explained this to about 15 squatters here, is that I do not have to prove anything to anyone, and I do not care to "prove" any claim of audio that I make, to anyone here. My position, as I've stated it about 120 times to about as many posters in this thread, is that if you want proof, FIND IT ON YOUR OWN. God, YOU people are supposed to be the techie scientists! Act like one! If you can't figure out how to open up an amp and try the fuse tweak yourself, you have no business on this group. And if you can and don't want to, you still have no business on this group. At the very least, you have no business asking me to prove what you're curious to find out about. I've already done the tests, no one else here in 240 posts has. If you don't like my standard of proof, I have no problem with that. I've described how to do the tweak. So prove it yourself using your OWN standard of proof. Be that DBTs, ABXs, or voodoo witch rituals. I didn't say you couldn't use your own standard, whatever you consider valid, DID I?!! What I DID say was that its NOT MY JOB to prove anything to anyone here, particularly when they are already predisposed to disbelieve it, out of their arrogant ignorance. Unlike most everyone here, I don't just sit on a computer all day on my lazy ass, posting to a clique I have on a newsgroup, and pretending I'm a genius of audio. No, rather, I do a LOT of actual audio tests. And since life is too short for silly ABX/DBT tests, my preferred method of proof is good old fashioned LISTENING, as God intended it (or as audio component engineers intended it). I suggest that if LISTENING to a given DUT doesn't work for you, then attempting to replicate medical standards of experimentation is not going to cut it either. Raw listening should tell you all you need to know about anything in audio. Most people here don't even have the skills to pass something as stressful as a DBT, simply because they don't even do much raw listening tests. As for "scientifically valid data", please... don't make me laugh. You don't anything about what is valid, you're just making assumptions and believing in "religions of theory" (that have long since been debunked), when you cite that blind or double blind audio tests are "scientifically valid", and the only thing that is valid, when testing audio. If you wanna talk bout "tools of the weak mind", well, we can mention all the name calling made gainst me in this thread, but I'd much rather use this example to exemplify the "weak mind": I would define "weak minds" as woefully ignorant people who will mock, ridicule, deride or criticize those with different beliefs, without ever having tested their arguments, or without even having the will to try. That pretty much describes everyone who participated in this 240 message thread (thank you for showing my friends and proving to them what I've said all along about predictable audio techies), besides me. As for the alleged "James Randi", please.. dont make me laugh again! That fruitcakes only job in life is to act as an attention whore, attempting to emulate the great Houdini, and the only money he makes is from what little publicity he can generate and appeal to ignorant skeptics (as opposed to intelligent skeptics like myself, who realize that half of what Randi says is utter bull****, and full of misinformation). So I strongly doubt the fruitcake in question even has a million dollars to give away. And if he does, are you really that naive to think he'll ever part with it voluntarily? Apparently, you are. He sure ain't gonna give it to me because I just said my fuses are audible. Read the fine print. Its about as possible to collect that money under randis terms, than it is for Bush to get a third term. Let me get this straight: You heard the audible significance of high end cables, cable direction, green pens on cds and Krell gear. Which are all things that I've heard as well. And then one day, 'poof!'. You no longer "heard" it? How in the **** does that happen, I wonder? Do you really think that all the people who buy anything better than dollar store cables or Krell gear for that matter, really can't hear the differences they believe they can,t because YOU can no longer hear them in one of your "informal tests" (who knows how stoned you were that day?). Look, either you're wrong, or 50 million audio enthusiasts who do hear these things are wrong. You do the math. (I'll give you a hint: You're wrong). Krell used green led's to flood the cd's in some of their players, so it must be true It doesn't really matter whether the bloody LEDs are significant or not. What matters is how the Krell player sounds to other players in its price range, and if you think it is good. Geez! I said I wasn't going to flame you, but you're making it really hard, with comments as ignorant as this one... |
#243
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
What does it take to stop the big troll around here?
Joe Blough wrote: Ladbury, you need to get a clue. The one who makes the assertion has the burden of proof in a debate. You made the looney assertion that bypassing a fuse will change the sound of audio. Prove it, and state why. QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 1: What kind of an ignorant ****WIT do you have to be, to ask that? QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 2: To begin with, sockpuppet, if I did "prove it" to you using whatever the hell you think is "proof", how would you know I'm not lying? How would you know anyone else isn't, who tells you the same? QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 3: How do you establish what "proof" is? By YOUR idiot standard? How says that YOUR standard, is any more valid than mine? QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 4: Given that your standard is DBTs, and that I didn't lie to you about doing them, how the hell do you know whether I or anyone who does a DBT of my fuse test can even hear worth a damn, you shallow-thinking small-minded ****-for-brains fool? Since you don't trust your own ears to "prove" whether something is valid, I'm sure you research all your audio equipment upgrades based on whatever DBTs that you've read that people have undertaken on the particular model of equipment you're thinking of buying (let's just say its speakers, since thats likely the only thing you think is audible, in audio - if anything!). You're certainly stupid enough to buy your equipment that way, fool. And if you don't, that means you listen to speakers raw before buying them. Which is no PROOF that one model is better than another, according to your idiotic retarded non-understanding of all matters audio. Now shut your ****ing face and eat my gob, you stupid retard. (chaptooey!) And stop asking stupid questions, fool. p.s. Since you're the one that called my assertion "loony", let's see you PROVE THAT IT IS. |
#245
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
wrote in message
oups.com And arent you the same Arnold/Arny Krueger/KRuger/Krooger chicken**** little weasel that made up a thousand stupid excuses to get out of a debate with Atkinson? Ladbury or whatever your real name is, you're about a year out of touch with reality. I debated Atkinson in New York about a year ago. http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/8885.html |
#246
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
Ladbury or whatever your real name is, you're about a year out of touch with reality. More than that I think. The fuse fantasy is at least 10 years old. I remember at least that long ago sitting around lunch with my cow-orkers and joking about selling gold-plated fuses. We thought it was a joke until somebody else started making money at it. Maybe the same people that sell the magic bricks? |
#247
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
Richard Crowley wrote:
The fuse fantasy is at least 10 years old. I remember at least that long ago sitting around lunch with my cow-orkers and joking about selling gold-plated fuses. We thought it was a joke until somebody else started making money at it. Maybe the same people that sell the magic bricks? The aluminum ones that absorb eddy currents? I remember those. //Walt |
#248
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
"Walt" wrote in message
Richard Crowley wrote: The fuse fantasy is at least 10 years old. I remember at least that long ago sitting around lunch with my cow-orkers and joking about selling gold-plated fuses. We thought it was a joke until somebody else started making money at it. Maybe the same people that sell the magic bricks? The aluminum ones that absorb eddy currents? I remember those. Brace yourself - here comes the prerequisite subjectivist personal attack! ;-) |
#249
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
Fat Arny Krueger wrote : wrote in message oups.com And arent you the same Arnold/Arny Krueger/KRuger/Krooger chicken**** little weasel that made up a thousand stupid excuses to get out of a debate with Atkinson? Ladbury or whatever your real name is, you're about a year out of touch with reality. I debated Atkinson in New York about a year ago. http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/8885.html My real name is written in all my posts, you stupid fat Nazi ****. If you claim it isn't my name, then where the hellis all that hard factual PROOF that you keep talking about, necessary before you can make claims on this newsgroup? While we're on the subject, I also want to hear where the **** is your hard factual proof that blue LEDs don't have any influence on the sound? I don't mean your ignorant half-assed theories and anecdotal evidence, I mean the scientifically acceptable tests you undertook - you know, the only ones that are acceptable to you when someone else makes a groundless bull**** audio claim - ABX tests? Now Arny/Arnold Krueger/Kruger/Krooger or whatever your real name is, since you go under so many variations of this name, don't try your smoke and mirrors routine on me. I predicted that your massive ego would show up to quote the Atkinson debate, if anyone called you a fat ****ing crying whimp for trying to bail out of it. And there you show up, first thing in the morning, with a link for all to see, like the predictable little imbecile you are, KKKrueger. Although I note that you're still ignoring my challenge to you to debate your arguments against me, like the chicken**** you are. You, me and Google all know that I'm not talking about the debate you DID finally show up at, after they had to drag your ego through the mud to get you to attend. No, I'm talking about all the PREVIOUS attempts where JA challenged you to a debate, and like the cowardly faggot you are, you came out with lie after lie as to why you wouldn't attend. So what finally gave you the guts to make a fool out of yourself in front of the high end community? Did your wife just get sick of seeing your ugly hairy back for all these years, while you spend your entire life trolling audio newsgroups on your computer in this holy anti-audio war of yours, and demand that you go to that debate and give her a break? |
#251
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
What does it take to stop the big troll around here?
I. Care a écrit : In article .com, says... Joe Blough wrote: wrote in news:1139157220.975816.217990 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: I remind you that I am still the current champ and winner of any ofthe audio debates in this thread, as not a single ONE of you chicken**** whiners ever proved me wrong abotu ANYTHING, with anything even close to solid factual evidence (and not simply faulty theories). Ladbury, you need to get a clue. The one who makes the assertion has the burden of proof in a debate. You made the looney assertion that bypassing a fuse will change the sound of audio. Prove it, and state why. Otherwise, stop making foolish claims. Oh nice. An ignorant sockpuppet ****wit telling me I need to get a clue. First of all, since your sockpuppet name is Joe Blough, you can suck my dick. Second of all, I was just informed by one of your RAT buddies this wasn't a debate, but a discussion. You can argue that one out amongst yourselves. Third of all, the only loony assertions are coming from you, kook, and from the other sockpuppets on this group. If you claim that mine is a loony assertion, then the burden of proof is now on your shoulders, to PROVE your claim and state why. Otherwise, STOP MAKING FOOLISH CLAIMS. And suck my dick. Typical side-stepping of someone that cannot or will not back-up their original claim. I didn't "sidestep" anything, Chumly. I thought you said you read my posts? I always made it very clear in this thread that I did not intend to prove anything to anyone here, if they were not willing to prove it for themselves. Why do you have such a difficult time wrapping your little brain around that, you don't have confidence in your own hearing? I already gave very clear instructions on how to replace a fuse with an alternative, so you can prove the effect for yourself. Do you need help in figuring out how to remove the screws, for chrissakes?! (hint: you turn them anti-clockwise to remove) Its not my job in life to "prove" things to presumptious imbeciles who make false claims (audio and otherwise), to or about me, but don't feel the need to "prove" a single one of them after 250 posts in a single thread. I didn't see you saying anything to that fat Nazi ******* who calls himself Arny/Arnold Krueger/Kruger etc., when he made the claim that YBAs blue diodes, that the engineer goes to great expense to include in his equipment, could not possibly work, providing no ABX test evidence that he demands of others, to back up his claims. I didn't see you chiming in when several of your RAT beanie heads made the unsupported claim that I came only to troll you freaks and geeks, and never made a sincere inquiry (although I'm not surprised at the accusation, given how paranoid and insecure wanna-be audio engineers on audio newsgroups are). I didn't see you opening your big mouth and demanding "proof" of Arny/Arnold Krueger/Kruger when he just finished saying recently I'm not using my real name? So obviously, according to you, everyone else can get away with saying anything they want in this thread, without having to "prove" it, because they,re your little RAT buddies. Which is typical of religious audio zealots on the technical audio newsgroups, but God forbid if one of your opponents does the same... then that's "typical sidestepping" according to you. Seriously, why do you think anyone should listen to a self-contradicting hypocrite like you? YOU are the one who "sidestepped" my entire last response to you, and a reasoned one at that. How's it feel to be a diode? I don't know, but I'm sure you can answer me on "how does it feel to be a presumptious ignorant hypocrite"? You DEMAND credible "proof" of everyone with a differing opinion, yet you can't back-up your own opinion with "proof". I already have. Since I addressed most of your criticisms already in my recent response to you, here it is again in case you didn,t understand the first time: Your RAT buddies made false claims to me, such as stating as fact that I was a "troll", and also claims related to audio. Well I could make the same statement you did. That anecdotal evidence (which I don't even think they provided THAT MUCH to back their claims), is not PROOF. I agree I did not prove anything to anybody here. But nor did ANYONE on this technical group of wanna-be scientists, provide proof of ANY claim they made to me. What everyone so far, after 240 messages, seems to fail to understand, despite my having explained this to about 15 squatters here, is that I do not have to prove anything to anyone, and I do not care to "prove" any claim of audio that I make, to anyone here. My position, as I've stated it about 120 times to about as many posters in this thread, is that if you want proof, FIND IT ON YOUR OWN. God, YOU people are supposed to be the techie scientists! Act like one! If you can't figure out how to open up an amp and try the fuse tweak yourself, you have no business on this group. And if you can and don't want to, you still have no business on this group. At the very least, you have no business asking me to prove what you're curious to find out about. I've already done the tests, no one else here in 240 posts has. If you don't like my standard of proof, I have no problem with that. I've described how to do the tweak. So prove it yourself using your OWN standard of proof. Be that DBTs, ABXs, or voodoo witch rituals. I didn't say you couldn't use your own standard, whatever you consider valid, DID I?!! What I DID say was that its NOT MY JOB to prove anything to anyone here, particularly when they are already predisposed to disbelieve it, out of their arrogant ignorance. Unlike most everyone here, I don't just sit on a computer all day on my lazy ass, posting to a clique I have on a newsgroup, and pretending I'm a genius of audio. No, rather, I do a LOT of actual audio tests. And since life is too short for silly ABX/DBT tests, my preferred method of proof is good old fashioned LISTENING, as God intended it (or as audio component engineers intended it). I suggest that if LISTENING to a given DUT doesn't work for you, then attempting to replicate medical standards of experimentation is not going to cut it either. Raw listening should tell you all you need to know about anything in audio. Most people here don't even have the skills to pass something as stressful as a DBT, simply because they don't even do much raw listening tests. As for "scientifically valid data", please... don't make me laugh. You don't anything about what is valid, you're just making assumptions and believing in "religions of theory" (that have long since been debunked), when you cite that blind or double blind audio tests are "scientifically valid", and the only thing that is valid, when testing audio. If you wanna talk bout "tools of the weak mind", well, we can mention all the name calling made gainst me in this thread, but I'd much rather use this example to exemplify the "weak mind": I would define "weak minds" as woefully ignorant people who will mock, ridicule, deride or criticize those with different beliefs, without ever having tested their arguments, or without even having the will to try. That pretty much describes everyone who participated in this 240 message thread (thank you for showing my friends and proving to them what I've said all along about predictable audio techies), besides me. As for the alleged "James Randi", please.. dont make me laugh again! That fruitcakes only job in life is to act as an attention whore, attempting to emulate the great Houdini, and the only money he makes is from what little publicity he can generate and appeal to ignorant skeptics (as opposed to intelligent skeptics like myself, who realize that half of what Randi says is utter bull****, and full of misinformation). So I strongly doubt the fruitcake in question even has a million dollars to give away. And if he does, are you really that naive to think he'll ever part with it voluntarily? Apparently, you are. He sure ain't gonna give it to me because I just said my fuses are audible. Read the fine print. Its about as possible to collect that money under randis terms, than it is for Bush to get a third term. Let me get this straight: You heard the audible significance of high end cables, cable direction, green pens on cds and Krell gear. Which are all things that I've heard as well. And then one day, 'poof!'. You no longer "heard" it? How in the **** does that happen, I wonder? Do you really think that all the people who buy anything better than dollar store cables or Krell gear for that matter, really can't hear the differences they believe they can,t because YOU can no longer hear them in one of your "informal tests" (who knows how stoned you were that day?). Look, either you're wrong, or 50 million audio enthusiasts who do hear these things are wrong. You do the math. (I'll give you a hint: You're wrong). Krell used green led's to flood the cd's in some of their players, so it must be true It doesn't really matter whether the bloody LEDs are significant or not. What matters is how the Krell player sounds to other players in its price range, and if you think it is good. Geez! I said I wasn't going to flame you, but you're making it really hard, with comments as ignorant as this one... -- I. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} |
#252
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
Richard Crowley a écrit : "Arny Krueger" wrote ... Ladbury or whatever your real name is, you're about a year out of touch with reality. More than that I think. The fuse fantasy is at least 10 years old. The fantasy that you anti-audio techie freaks have about everything sounding the same in audio, is at least 50 years old. Doesn't make you any less stupider or ignorant. I remember at least that long ago sitting around lunch with my cow-orkers and joking about selling gold-plated fuses. We thought it was a joke until somebody else started making money at it. Maybe the same people that sell the magic bricks? Okay, now you done did it. Where is your scientific PROOF that the "magic bricks" don't work. I want to see evidence of properly conducted tests. Next, where is your scientific PROOF that the "gold fuses" don't work. I want to see evidence of properly conducted tests. Otherwise, where is the proof that you are not a deluded, ignorant ****wit? |
#253
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
Walt wrote: wrote: ... you stupid fat Nazi ****. Godwin's Law - "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." ... once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. You lose. //Walt He (rladbury) doesn't grasp the laws of physics, why would you expect him to acknowlege Godwin's Law. Thermodynamics would have had him spontaneously self combust by now. |
#254
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
What does it take to stop the big troll around here?
QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 1: What kind of an ignorant ****WIT do you have to be, to ask that? QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 2: To begin with, sockpuppet, if I did "prove it" to you using whatever he hell you think is "proof", how would you know I'm not lying? How would you know anyone else isn't, who tells you the same? QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 3: How do you establish what "proof" is? By YOUR idiot standard? How says that YOUR standard, is any more valid than mine? QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS TECHIE ZEALOT SOCKPUPPET No. 4: Given that your standard is DBTs, and that I didn't lie to you about doing them, how the hell do you know whether I or anyone who does a BT of my fuse test can even hear worth a damn, you shallow-thinkingsmall-minded ****-for-brains fool? :-) Per |
#255
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
"Walt" wrote in message
wrote: ... you stupid fat Nazi ****. What did I say about bracing ourselves for the prerequisite subjectivist personal attack? Godwin's Law - "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." ... once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. You lose. Again. |
#256
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
|
#257
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
|
#258
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
I. Care wrote: In article .com, says... SNIP I enjoyed your post, found it quite refreshing in the comparison of criteria. I have a question, not meant to be dis-respectful. Do you know if Dan D'Agostino would go back to the lab after he had listened and made his circuit modifications from his design specified circuit to determine what had changed to create the desired aural result? Thanks for your consideration. I'm not sure I understand your question. I would think if circuit modifications were made, and listening tests performed, he would know what mods produced what results. Does that make any sense? I don't know for a fact that Dan D'Agostino personnaly specified in detail every change. I believe he has a group of talented engineers working on various aspects of the products Krell produces, and I think he is quite involved in the process. I also believe the, your job is to please the "Boss" rule most likely exists. I'm not sure when I will have an opportunity to speak with him again, I only see him every couple of years. I will try to remember to ask when I do however. -- I. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} What I was wondering was if circuit A produced undesired experience A and testing produced A graphed results then B circuit was created which produced B desired experience and was tested to produce B graphed results which were compared to A and the resultant data applied to improve existing products? I hope that explained my question more precisely. |
#259
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
From what I know about the CD readout mechanism, the laser beam is
bright and tightly focused, whereas the LED is an extended source incapable of being focused to a small spot. The LED would produce a small DC offset, and the noise it produces would be buried in the shot noise produced by the laser itself. And there would be no interference because the blue light is incoherent and of a different wavelength. Another way of putting it is that the readout detector and electronics probably don't have the dynamic range to pick up anything from the LED. |
#260
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
I. Care a écrit : In article . com, says... Thanks for your relatively temperate response. Have you had an opportunity to read a book by Robert Harley titled "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio"? Harley was/is the Editor-In-Chief of "The Absolute Sound" magazine, and has, I think, an interesting and entertaining view of audio and listening. He seems to give a fair listen to comments from both sides of the subjectivist objectivist argument. Some might call it being "wishy-washy" or "fence sitting". I'm familiar with Harley, but no, I haven't read anything he's ever written, as far as I know. There's nothing wishy washy about me, and that's because I don't like wishy washy types. But believe it or not, I've also given a fair listen to both sides of the subjectivist-objectivist argument. I ended up choosing what was true, rather than what sounded true. I've met him several times and have been reading one of his books. I asked him about the "objectivists" claim all cables, competently designed amps, CD players etc. sound the same and he pointed me to Appendix "D" of his book and also stated "we will probably find that the truth is somewhere in the middle". I disagree completely. In fact, I find it surprising a once reviewer for Stereophile, which is a subjectivist high end magazine if I'm not mistaken, would even suggest things like cables, amps and CD players might all sound the same. Competently designed or not! The truth is in ourselves, not anywhere in a dichotomy. To give you a little flavor of his writing let me quote a couple of passages from the third edition of the book I referenced. Appendix D "The Role of Critical Listening"-- "Central to 'The Great Debate' is the question of science's capacity to encompass within its domain all forms of knowledge. The objectivists hold that understanding reality is a formalized process, which, if its rules are followed, will establish an unambiguous, universal truth. Adherence to the prescribed methods is the only way of revealing nature's secrets. This belief is reflected in the blind-testing methodology, detailed later in this paper.........I propose that other forms of knowing are possible. Many skills, including critical observational listening, fall outside the domain of formalized method and cannot be quantified: these forms of knowledge are 'tacit', 'unspecifiable', and 'inarticulate'." I would agree that listening skills cannot be quantified, or at least replicated by test equipment, in most cases. But that doesn't mean you can't use test equipment in some cases, to help substantiate an observational listening condition. Further to that, I propose that there are areas of science little understood, in the audio domain. Contrary to technophiles who seem to think that we now understand everything there is to know about audio and the experience of music reproduction. I'm only beginning to understand them myself, but as there are absolutely no current ways to measure these phenomenon, and even no DBT tests ever on record, listening is absolutely the only way to understand this application of science. Objectivists generally claim that electronic test instruments are far more sensitive to audio signals than our ears, therefore if "it" cannot be measured and quantified "it" can't be audible. Truthfully, I am on the fence about this. I enjoy music, have heard differences with cables, amps, line conditioners etc., but I also worked in electronics for 30+ years, the last 10 years as an electronics supervisor of several specialty areas including a calibration laboratory. My technical expertise required adherence to rigid standards of documentation, testing and "proof". While at home or during car audio competition, I competed in IASCA (International Auto Sound Challenge Association) 1995 World Finals, I trusted my ears with a little ..hmmmm.. what does the Real Time Analyzer show compared to what I think I heard? I can see now why I didn't read Harley's guide to audio. If Robert Harley after 30+ years in audio, still can't decide whether amps, cd players and cables sound different to each other, the man has no business writing an "audio guide", for pete's sake... Moreover, he does not appear to be a particularly skilled listener (so i have no idea what business he had writing audio reviews), and his problem is that he is still in the grips of technophile "religions" about audio; ie. you can and have to measure what is heard, to prove it is heard. This undermines his confidence in his own ears, which seriously impairs his ability to hear real differences in audio, that test instruments don't pick up. I'm sorry to say, but with poor skills like that, you don't learn much of anything new of merit in audio over a lifetime. Your ability to perceive differences cannot be any less limited than your mind. OK, yeah I stated you (OP) had the burden of scientific proof for your claim. I then stated I thought I had heard differences in similar unscientific listening experiments. The reason I asked for your scientific "proof" is because it appeared you required scientific proof of your detractors, and I felt you should be held to the same standard. In truth, I require no proof of anyone's claim to me. I simply demanded proof from my detractors, in response to the fact that they arrogantly demanded proof from me. Particularly as I never felt as though I was ever making any claims that required me to prove them to anyone. Anyone has the right to make any claim about anything, and anyone else has the right to believe or disbelieve him, or verify that claim following whichever standard they adhere, if they require further proof before they will believe. In other words, you can believe or disbelieve anything in life, as you can intellectually rationalize anything. When I want proof of someone's claim about audio, I don't sit there on a computer and demand DBTs from them. I reproduce the experiment. I've never found these things complicated to reproduce, as those here seem to, given the excuses they come up with to tell me they don't know how to replicate my simple experiment of using an alternate fuse. If I did require so-called "proof" of some claim someone made on usenet, first off, how do I know they aren't making it up? Maybe they have a link to provide me to a website's DBTests backing up their claim. Great. Now how do I know the website isn't making it up? Let's say I take it on "faith" they aren't. Great. Now how do I know what the listening skills or mental composure is of those who took the test? All I know is I wasn't one of them! Or let's say it wasn't a listening test at all, but some sort of attempt to measure a diffrence using test instruments, which yields no results. Great. Now how do I know what to measure? And if I could measure what I hear, how do I know which equipment test to apply? If I don't find any results on any of my test equipment, how do I know that I happen to own or have access to equipment than can measure what I know I hear? So it is utterly foolish to ask for scientific proof of someone's audio claim from across the internet. If you are really interested to know whether they're nuts or whether you're just ignorant (as ahem, they might say you are...), then you prove it to yourself. If you're just too lazy to try it yourself, and you'd rather be spoon-fed what you should believe in, then you deserve to be lied to (as most technophiles seem eager to do to themselves on a daily basis). Which is right? Can both ways be right? Is there really an absolute right and wrong in the "Great Debate"? Maybe you are correct, it comes down to what "you" hear No, both ways are not right, and I say there really is an absolute right and wrong in The Great Debate; which is that it comes down to what you hear. Let me expand on why: The usual boring predictable argument you'll get from the objectivists, is that what you hear may be autosuggestion (ie. placebo). Extremist agenda-peddling control-freak objectivists like Arnold Krueger/Kruger, will insist on 0.1db level-matched, double-blind ABX-comparator equipped tests. All in an attempt to control the parameters during a test. But you are kidding yourself if you think you can control everything; especially if we're talking about the human mind. Its a little like trying to measure love. We know it exists in the human mind, but how do we know it exists in scientific terms, if you can't measure it? You'd be a fool to argue that love doesn't exist because it can't be measured, as foolish as one is to argue that differences that can be readily heard by millions (ie. cables, cd players, amps, etc) don't exist, and that those millions are all under a giant mass delusion; promulgated by the high end industry (this last line is basically Krueger's reason for getting up in the morning, the last 35 years). Fact is, few comparator controlled DBTs result in positive confirmations of almost anything in audio. Rather than look at the so-called scientific method that so many having built religious beliefs upon, to see how accurate and truthful it actually is in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence, extremist control-freak technophiles will then proceed to argue that almost nothing in audio is distinguishable from anything else (except for the usual blah blah blah about speakers and some faulty amps). Even if 50 million Elvis fans are wrong, and there is no real difference between one audio component or another, or one cable direction or another, or one polarity or another... but you can hear the difference, then the difference is valid. I stress, ***even its only valid for YOU***. The most extreme act of foolishness, is to forego the idea of listening to one thing or another, because you read that DBTs have already disproven differences. Especially as the participants in those tests represent the tiniest fraction of 1% of those who've heard the differences in their living rooms. If you let others make up your mind for you, you might as well be DEAD. Does it make any difference what the testing procedures, DBT or electronic measurements show, or should you just enjoy the music you hear? It makes no difference, and it is precisely why I keep insisting people here do their own listening tests. No attempt at so-called "scientific tests" is valid for music reproduction, in place of human listening. However, I think you have to admit that you posted in a technical group that by its very nature would require a valid technical explanation. I know, you were asking about safety try to explain what you are doing, and get hammered. Yes, and as I said before, I really did not post in order to debate whether what I was doing was audible or not. I didn't ask for, nor did I want a second opinion about whether what I was doing was audible. I posted because the question of whether I should leave my fuse tweak as is (that is running gear without a fuse), came up in my mind. I already knew it was risky to leave the amp sans fuse. I just wanted a better idea of what the risk was (how possible a fault is, and what the likely damage is), so I could make up my mind about how to proceed. I didn't care to be told what I should do by people who have no clue as to what I know or don't know about audio to begin with, nor did I care to be told I had no clue about anything to do with audio, from people who know less of merit than I did twenty five years ago. But because I did get those sort of arrogant and ignorant responses, I decided to stick around and play "pin the tail on the technophile". And now, some 265 mesages later... it seems, no one wants me to leave. Every time I think I'm finally off the hook for this thing and I can move on.... some ignorant **** proceeds to add to my thread. And then the process starts all over again... Truth be told, an intelligent RAT member (bless his heart), emailed me with a complete answer to my query about 260 messages ago. He knew exactly what I was doing, as he had done the same himself. He knew exactly what I wanted from a response, and he gave me exactly what I needed to know, without insulting me or condescending to me. It helped me make a decision, and that issue is long since dead for me. So I'm not sticking around because I'm still looking for an answer to my question. I've stuck it out, because the very first answer I got was a condescending insult. You aren't going to convert or convince those that don't trust their ears and need validation of what they are hearing. I know that all too well. I don't have any hope of doing so, and there's no more hope that they'd ever convert me into their techno-religion. That is precisely why I won't waste me time trying to offer proof, to people who have already made up their primitive, closed minds about what I'm saying. There really is no substitute for experience, and this especially applies to audio. If you try to live in a world of theory, thinking yourself so very clever about audio matters, you will end up not really knowing much of any import. But you'll never realize that, because rather than learn about audio via experience, technophiles learn through books. Which can tell you a lot about how to design a circuit, but not how to design a circuit so it reproduces sounds that closely approximate real music. (Real music" is full of emotion, and the reproduction must transmit this emotional content. Just try to find an instrument in your lab that can measure the emotional content of music!). I do believe electronic engineers design audio equipment using "objectivist" methods, but some of them, the owner of Krell (Dan D'Agostino) whom I met at a Krell seminar for example, also listen to the equipment and make circuit changes until his ears are happy. Of couse. Good high end designers always listen to their designs, and most use both subjective and objective methods. But for the audio hobbyist who isn't designing gear, the only criteria necessary is, does it work for you? |
#261
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
|
#262
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
I. Care wrote: In article .com, says... I. Care a écrit : In article . com, says... Thanks for your relatively temperate response. SNIP Truthfully, I am on the fence about this. I enjoy music, have heard differences with cables, amps, line conditioners etc., but I also worked in electronics for 30+ years, the last 10 years as an electronics supervisor of several specialty areas including a calibration laboratory. My technical expertise required adherence to rigid standards of documentation, testing and "proof". While at home or during car audio competition, I competed in IASCA (International Auto Sound Challenge Association) 1995 World Finals, I trusted my ears with a little ..hmmmm.. what does the Real Time Analyzer show compared to what I think I heard? I can see now why I didn't read Harley's guide to audio. If Robert Harley after 30+ years in audio, still can't decide whether amps, cd players and cables sound different to each other, the man has no business writing an "audio guide", for pete's sake... Moreover, he does not appear to be a particularly skilled listener (so i have no idea what business he had writing audio reviews), and his problem is that he is still in the grips of technophile "religions" about audio; ie. you can and have to measure what is heard, to prove it is heard. This undermines his confidence in his own ears, which seriously impairs his ability to hear real differences in audio, that test instruments don't pick up. I'm sorry to say, but with poor skills like that, you don't learn much of anything new of merit in audio over a lifetime. Your ability to perceive differences cannot be any less limited than your mind. I must have confused you. The above paragraph was *my experience* not Harley. I stated it was *me* that worked in electronics for 30+ years in a techie type environment not Harley. I also meant I used the RTA as a visual cue for my ears. That way adjustments could be restored quickly if needed to settings I previously liked. It was also valuable to pin-point problem areas heard so proper corrections could be made. Harley has some of the same ideas you stated here so you might find him enjoyable to read. SNIP Fact is, few comparator controlled DBTs result in positive confirmations of almost anything in audio. That is also why I have some reservations about the method. I think our brains work differently when straining to hear every last nuance of sounds (critical listening) during a DBT or even our own systems. I find I don't enjoy the music I'm listening to in that situation. We should be listening to the music for our enjoyment. Just like many people enjoy driving their vehicles but not during a driving test. SNIP Yes, and as I said before, I really did not post in order to debate whether what I was doing was audible or not. I didn't ask for, nor did I want a second opinion about whether what I was doing was audible. I posted because the question of whether I should leave my fuse tweak as is (that is running gear without a fuse), came up in my mind. I already knew it was risky to leave the amp sans fuse. I just wanted a better idea of what the risk was (how possible a fault is, and what the likely damage is), so I could make up my mind about how to proceed Maybe the special "audio" fuses could give you the same result you experienced during your test without the worry of being sans fuse. -- I. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} I am also in agreement that one can't enjoy the material fully while observing the data from test equipment, or for that matter while mixing a live show. You're too busy with the details of the matter at hand to devote total concentration to the aural experience. It was nice to see that the OP had received the answer to his question, 260+ posts ago, yet failed to share that nugget of information or the details. We have come a long way in the ability to log, store,and measure data, and have the tools to be able to analyze audio, there are microphones far more sensitive than the human ear to catch those nuances, and sampling rates and software to capture the information to define the output of a system. We even have medical test equipment that can measure the brain's activity in response to the music, I personally provided the audio feeds for such research, so I actually am of the objectivist's school. What I am actually interested in is the standard of the listening skills. That in itself seems to be the largest variable. How do you determine the amount of attention being given the task? The OP had made the reference that we should be able to duplicate the device in the original post, but never provided any specific details, such as amplifier model, interconnecting cables, source device, or loudspeaker system, just the generalization that we were all to be described by rants of profanity since we couldn't grasp the concept or agree with him. |
#263
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
I. Care a écrit :
In article .com, says... I. Care a écrit : I must have confused you. The above paragraph was *my experience* not Harley. I stated it was *me* that worked in electronics for 30+ years in a techie type environment not Harley. I also meant I used the RTA as a visual cue for my ears. That way adjustments could be restored quickly if needed to settings I previously liked. It was also valuable to pin-point problem areas heard so proper corrections could be made. Harley has some of the same ideas you stated here so you might find him enjoyable to read. Oh. Frankly, I haven't read an audio magazine in... God knows, 15 years maybe. It's been longer than that since I stopped reading them for the reviews; after I found I didn't need them to judge equipment. I'm sure its because the magazines no longer had anything to teach me. Personally, I'd rather find out what audio has to offer for myself, than read someone's opinion on it. That is also why I have some reservations about the method. I think our brains work differently when straining to hear every last nuance of sounds (critical listening) during a DBT or even our own systems. I find I don't enjoy the music I'm listening to in that situation. There's much evidence out there accrued that shows how stress resulting from unnatural observational listening, which is the ABX test, changes our pattern of thinking, and messes up our cognitive abilities. Evidence that extremist objectivist control-freaks, like Krueger & Co., refuse to accept. We should be listening to the music for our enjoyment. Bingo. That's all any audio component needs to tell you. Which is why that DBTs and ABXs for consumers are one giant fallacy and a giant waste of time.Problem is, those that adhere to this artificial standard will never know what they like in audio components, because they're judging with their test reports. I started out like that myself in this business when I was a kid, thinking that the best audio equipment is the one that had the best specs. Some clown in a high end hifi store laughed at me when he saw my Sony spec sheet, telling me he started out the same. Twenty years ago I concluded that the technophile mentality, that would have you trust printed tests or specs before your own ears, is a sign of a less evolved audiophile. Behind every technophile is an audiophile, afraid to trust their own judgement! Just like many people enjoy driving their vehicles but not during a driving test. Damn, that's a good analogy. I'll have to remember that one, if Krueger ever finds out where he put his balls, and agrees to debate me. Maybe the special "audio" fuses could give you the same result you experienced during your test without the worry of being sans fuse. Don't worry, I'm not sans fuse. I reinstalled them ages ago. I thought about those high end grade fuses for my good equipment, but for the amp in question, it would cost more than the entire amp is worth. So as a compromise, I found ways to make the amp live in better harmony with the fuse. I'm SO beyond thinking of tweaking fuses, I almost forgot about that one. Between now and the time I first mentioned that tweak, I've since found so many other amazing ways to tweak my amp and the rest of my system, that it's no longer the same system I started with. I'd say I added about $3,000 dollars to the overall sound. Now if I could get my *main* system to sound this good... I mention this, because it occurs to me its something a technophile, ie. just about everyone who attacked me in this thread, would never think to do, never believe it could be done, never believe it needs to be done, and never know how to go about it, if someone paid him. That's where audiophiles differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back. That's because we have the better sounding stereo! |
#264
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
That's where audiophiles
differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back. That's because we have the better sounding stereo! It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself *think* it sounds good? Better audio through self-hypnosis? Solipsism rules! |
#265
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
wrote in message
ups.com There's much evidence out there accrued that shows how stress resulting from unnatural observational listening, which is the ABX test, changes our pattern of thinking, and messes up our cognitive abilities. It's evidence that has largely been fabricated in the minds of people who don't even do DBTs but feel highly threatened by them. We're talking closely-held personal beliefs about personally possessing superhuman hearing. In fact stress managed well tends to improve human performance. Look at the Olympics. What many golden ears profess to do on a daily basis is like running the mile in 4 seconds. We're talking multi-million dollar businesses here. There's a lot of money to be made by lying to people about what they can hear, even if it does not exist at all. Evidence that extremist objectivist control-freaks, like Krueger & Co., refuse to accept. I accept it for what it is - mostly a smoke screen by no-shows and failures. |
#266
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
"mc" wrote in message
That's where audiophiles differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back. That's because we have the better sounding stereo! It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself *think* it sounds good? There is clearly some of that going on in some quarters. OTOH I've heard a number of golden ear audio systems that sounded pretty good. Unfortunately their price-performance ratio was horrid. Better audio through self-hypnosis? Solipsism rules! There you go. I can be the fastest runner in the world if you just let me run my own stop watch. ;-) |
#267
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
mc a écrit : That's where audiophiles differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back. That's because we have the better sounding stereo! It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself *think* it sounds good? Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid **** to say to me, anyway? Do you each discuss what you have to say in email amongst yourselves, and the person voted as having the most stupidest remark to offer in response, gets to tell it to "that Ladbury guy"? The remarks that you people make, that you even think are CLEVER, are just so mind-numbingly dumb, they're even starting to lose their humourous appeal. Just how many times can you laugh at the ignorant things said by technophile fools, anyway? Jesus, get a ****ing clue about audio and THEN try to discuss it with me. Otherwise, if you have nothing intelligent to say, you're better off not making an even greater fool out of yourself. Seeing as you don't know anything about audio except maybe some technical aspects, we can deduce that you have a system that sounds **** like warmed over. But the important thing is, YOU probably think it sounds good. Therefore, you and your technophile buddies make yourselves "think" that your piece-of-**** hifi systems sound good. Or "self-hypnosis" as you call it. In fact, because you don't know jack **** about what sounds good, you wouldn't even know how bad your systems sounds, having no point of reference as to how good a system can sound. However, I DO know what a hifi system is supposed to sound like, or NOT sound like. I have listening skill you couldn't dream of having, since about the only **** you know about audio, is what you're told. So unlike you, I don't have to make myself "think" my modest system sounds good. I know it does. And I have no doubt that your system is "better", in terms of cost and technological advancement. But that mine sounds better. WAY better. Which is one reason why I'm laughing at you. "Better living through tweaking" (tm). Better audio through self-hypnosis? It sounds like it, since that's basically what you people have done to yourselves, from having based all your knowledge of audio on theories; which are often misguided or incomplete at best. Problem is, no one who's ever followed the advice of a know-nothing wanna-be technophile audio hobbyist has ever ended up with a system that sounds good to anyone but themselves. Solipsism rules! Right... it looks more like ignorance rules, on this newsgroup of technophile geeks and audio dilletantes. |
#268
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
wrote in message
oups.com... mc a écrit : That's where audiophiles differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back. That's because we have the better sounding stereo! It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself *think* it sounds good? Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid **** to say to me, anyway? How remarkably polite, respectul, and persuasive you are. |
#269
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
mc wrote: wrote in message oups.com... mc a écrit : That's where audiophiles differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back. That's because we have the better sounding stereo! It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself *think* it sounds good? Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid **** to say to me, anyway? How remarkably polite, respectul, and persuasive you are. wrote: Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid **** to say to me, anyway? Do you each discuss what you have to say in email amongst yourselves, and the person voted as having the most stupidest remark to offer in response, gets to tell it to "that Ladbury guy"? I do believe he's starting to get a bit paranoid too. Quick, someone prove that there isn't a conspiracy against him. |
#270
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
Arny Krueger farted and it looked like this : wrote in message ups.com Krueger, you fat nazi ****. You are SO ****ing predictable. Anyone wants to troll you, all they have to do is say something against your stupid ****ing ABX obsession. Its your honeypot. More like, ABX=**** and YOU'RE THE FLY, BUZZING AROUND THE ****. So if I'm a troll as you say, what kind of a dumbass ****wit do you have to be to have declared me a troll, but you can't avoid being trolled by me? And how many sockpuppets do you have trolling this group of ignorant jack-offs, anyway? We're up to 7 now, by my count. Speaking of your sockpuppets, did you remember how to spell your name today, you hypocritical bag of ****? There's much evidence out there accrued that shows how stress resulting from unnatural observational listening, which is the ABX test, changes our pattern of thinking, and messes up our cognitive abilities. It's evidence that has largely been fabricated in the minds of people who don't even do DBTs but feel highly threatened by them. Provide factual evidence of this, or retract your statement, you fat lying gasbag. We're talking closely-held personal beliefs about personally possessing superhuman hearing. You have closely held personal beliefs about personally possessing superhuman hearing? What other personal beliefs do you have, besides the one about how the entire world is emailing child pornograhpy to you, and you don't know how it got on your hard drive, and that's your story and you're sticking to it? (for more information on this fat nazi ****'s false accusations of people sending him child pornography, see: Google group search + Arny / Arnold Krueger / Kruger + "child pornography") And if you posess superhuman hearing as you claim, why does your stereo reputedly sound like a bag of fart? Why is it, for that matter, that by your own admission, you can't pass one of your own ABX tests, unless it is with recorded sound, rather than music that audio systems are designed to reproduce? Could it be because you're a fat gay nazi ****? Or is that condition more attributable to your parents? In fact stress managed well tends to improve human performance. Look at the Olympics. What many golden ears profess to do on a daily basis is like running the mile in 4 seconds. Yeah right. Let's all just sit here and wait while KKKrueger the gay nazi audio pedophile, explains how the **** olympic track & field is related to the mind-numbing process of undergoing his torturous ABX experiments. Not holding my breath, folks.... We're talking multi-million dollar businesses here. Then surely, you're not talking about your cheesy ABX business, or your screwy little pc sound card business.... There's a lot of money to be made by lying to people about what they can hear, even if it does not exist at all. Oh I'm sure there is. In fact, the most money to be had in mass consumer mid-fi. But then, that's exactly why you were exposed years ago as being a shill for the consumer electronics industry, and as well, your own ABX and PC audio business. Evidence that extremist objectivist control-freaks, like Krueger & Co., refuse to accept. I accept it for what it is - mostly a smoke screen by no-shows and failures. Newsflash: Nearly EVERYTHING you ****ing write on the audio groups is a "smoke screen", you sleazy lying shill. As for no-shows, I'm still waiting on the evidence I asked you to provide for your claim that my fuse tweak doesn't work, hypocrite. As for failures, well once again, the spotlight turns to you, you worthless piece of ****. You're a wanna-be audio engineer who never became a real audio engineer, you've spent the last 10 years of your pathetic life in front of a PC, trolling and attacking anyone and everyone on audio newsgroups with different beliefs about audio than yours, including successful journalists and engineers, whom you immediately target if you see them posting to these groups. All driven by your FAILURE as an engineer, a successful anything, and as a father. When John Atkinson, a highly respected editor of a high end magazine that you attack relentlessly, originally challenged you to a debate, you almost died of a heart attack, in your mad, frantic efforts to come up with excuses to avoid showing up. Everyone saw what a big talking chicken**** coward you really were. It was only years later that you finally found the balls to show your fat ugly face in public, that you finally debated him. And lost, big time, to a crowd of audio enthusaists who lauged every time you opened up your ignorant cakehole and vomited out some inane crap out of this wacky anti-audio religion of yours, which rules that everything sounds alike. You sir, are the definition of a no-show and a failure. And you're the closest thing to Hitler, anyone is likely to find on audio Usenet groups. |
#271
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
mc a écrit : wrote in message oups.com... mc a écrit : That's where audiophiles differ. Technophiles can sit in front of their computers and mock the silly tweaking "audiophools", but we laugh harder, when we laugh back. That's because we have the better sounding stereo! It doesn't matter what it sounds like, as long as you can make yourself *think* it sounds good? Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid **** to say to me, anyway? How remarkably polite, respectul, and persuasive you are. If the above to you was "polite and respectful", I'm going to have to revise my assessment that you are merely a total ****ing cretin. Make that a total ****ing DELUDED cretin. Seriously, you truly are an idiot for no end of reasons. Beginning with the fact that you couldn't intelligently respond to my argument against your dumbass twaddle that you try to pass off as "audio wisdom", and so you clipped all parts of my response that defeated your arguments, and then bitch and whine about what a rude ******* I am. What a ****ing intellectual coward you are, as well as being a dumb ****tard. From this MO, I take it you're another Arny Krueger sockpuppet. About being a rude *******... I'm responding to a message from yours, where out of the blue, you write condescending, mocking and derisive words to me. What the **** kind of response were you expecting, given the attack you made on me, you stupid ****? Those who wrote to me respectfully here, got treated with respect. You wrote to me with disrespect, you get the lack of respect that you show you deserve. Now shut your ****ing gob, stop whining and crying you little ****bag, and **** right off. I don't want to hear from you again. |
#272
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
|
#273
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
wrote in message
ups.com I do believe he's starting to get a bit paranoid too. Quick, someone prove that there isn't a conspiracy against him. We all agree, there's no conspiracy against him, right? ;-) |
#274
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
wrote in message
oups.com Snip childish rants, name-calling and back-biting When John Atkinson, a highly respected editor of a high end magazine that you attack relentlessly, originally challenged you to a debate, you almost died of a heart attack, in your mad, frantic efforts to come up with excuses to avoid showing up. Prove it. Everyone saw what a big talking chicken**** coward you really were. Prove it. It was only years later that you finally found the balls to show your fat ugly face in public, that you finally debated him. It simply matter of receiving a good enough offer. I made a counter-off to Atkinson that he refused. Remember that Atkinson subsequently agreed to a debate with me in Detroit and then unilaterally cancelled it. And lost, big time, to a crowd of audio enthusiasts who lauged every time you opened up your ignorant cakehole and vomited out some inane crap out of this wacky anti-audio religion of yours, which rules that everything sounds alike. Nonsense. are the definition of a no-show and a failure. I came to New York, I saw Atkinson and his disciples, and I conquered. Note that Atkinson is not setting up a re-match. I'd gladly go for 2 out of 3 with him. |
#275
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
Good GOD you're ****ing stupid. Being ignorant and stupid, that's no
way to go through life, son. How do you people come up with this stupid **** to say to me, anyway? How remarkably polite, respectul, and persuasive you are. If the above to you was "polite and respectful", I'm going to have to revise my assessment that you are merely a total ****ing cretin. Make that a total ****ing DELUDED cretin. Seriously, you truly are an idiot for no end of reasons. Beginning with the fact that you couldn't Ever heard of such a thing as sarcasm? |
#276
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message oups.com are the definition of a no-show and a failure. I came to New York, I saw Atkinson and his disciples, and I conquered. Note that Atkinson is not setting up a re-match. I'd gladly go for 2 out of 3 with him. Is there a link to this debate? Either audio or transcribed. |
#277
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
|
#278
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
The audio transcript is much better. You get to hear the audience laughing at KKKrueger's inane responses: http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ |
#279
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
|
#280
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
Arny Krueger farted out : wrote in message oups.com Snip childish rants, name-calling and back-biting When John Atkinson, a highly respected editor of a high end magazine that you attack relentlessly, originally challenged you to a debate, you almost died of a heart attack, in your mad, frantic efforts to come up with excuses to avoid showing up. Prove it. Ah yes. The two-word "prove it" response. Which you've used about 16,000 times in the last year alone, I believe, whenever you are losing a debate. That's of course, after you snip out the parts in the other guy's post where he's asked YOU to prove your claims. Is this your favorite debating tactic/trick, KKKrueger? A google group search will verify those facts for you. I'll even post the messages in question for the eternally lazy, once you prove the claims I asked you to prove in my last response to you. By ignoring my request that you prove your false claims, you're once again showing what a fat ****ing coward you are. How ironic, don't you think? Everyone saw what a big talking chicken**** coward you really were. Prove it. Ah yes. The two-word "prove it" response. Which you've used about 16,000 times in the last year alone, I believe, whenever you are losing a debate. That's of course, after you snip out the parts in the other guy's post where he's asked YOU to prove your claims. Is this your favorite debating tactic/trick, KKKrueger? A google group search will verify those facts for you. I'll even post the messages in question for the eternally lazy, once you prove the claims I asked you to prove in my last response to you. By ignoring my request that you prove your false claims, you're once again showing what a fat ****ing coward you are. How ironic, don't you think? It was only years later that you finally found the balls to show your fat ugly face in public, that you finally debated him. It simply matter of receiving a good enough offer. With no prompting from you, he offered to have you come to one of his audio shows and debate him, giving you the opportunity to defend your stupid bull**** ABX gadget. Now either you DO or you DON'T, you lying little weasel. There's nothing complicated about that. You simply chickened out, you fat greasy yellow piece of chicken****. I made a counter-off to Atkinson that he refused. Prove it. Remember that Atkinson subsequently agreed to a debate with me in Detroit and then unilaterally cancelled it. Prove it. And lost, big time, to a crowd of audio enthusiasts who lauged every time you opened up your ignorant cakehole and vomited out some inane crap out of this wacky anti-audio religion of yours, which rules that everything sounds alike. Nonsense. Fact. Live with it, failure. are the definition of a no-show and a failure. I came to New York, I saw Atkinson and his disciples, and I conquered. Note that Atkinson is not setting up a re-match. I'd gladly go for 2 out of 3 with him. He already humiliated you in front of the entire high end industry. I believe it was a smart move on his part, planned ahead to pay you back for all the unprovoked attacks you made against him and his name. The ripple effects of your complete and utter humiliation, are STILL reverberating through the internet, on web sites and newsgroups everywhere. You're a ****ing joke, KKKreuger. You're an anti-audio nazi extremist, and the most hated audio troll on Usenet today. And now thanks to Atkinson (bless his heart for his persistence in dragging your fat, bloated, crying, whining, cowardly ass to the audio show to finally expose you to the industry for the fool that you are....), you're the biggest joke in the high end industry. Here's one joke I overheard about you: Q. "How many Kruegers does it take to screw in a light bulb?" A. "3. One to run the ABX comparator, the second administer the changing of the bulb, and the third to observe the changed bulb, to see if there is a difference, and whether the bulb needed changing at all.". Man, THAT'S a classic. Thanks for the laughs, KKKrueger! Don't be shy, keep 'em coming! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New Orleans Musicians' 'Safe List" | Pro Audio | |||
KISS 112 by Andre Jute | Vacuum Tubes | |||
KISS 113 by Andre Jute | Vacuum Tubes | |||
15 amp fuse with 20 w fuse for wire? | Car Audio | |||
Need Help with Behringer T-1953 | Pro Audio |