[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg lectures its latest turd-sniffing Kroopologist.

The real person behind [Krooger's paranoid blather] knows far more than he lets on.
This particular[sic] persona[sic] is all about ridicule. Unless you're particularly
fond of being ridiculed, don't bother.

Quite right, Arnii (except for the paranoid raving). Kroopologists are
just as asinine as you are, and hence just as deserving of ridicule.

The other Normals will figure this out it time. Until then, Ollie can get
his jollies by playing "debating trade" games.

[George M. Middius]

duh-Scottie barked:

The Krooborg lectures its latest turd-sniffing Kroopologist.

The real person behind [Krooger's paranoid blather] knows far more than he lets on.
This particular[sic] persona[sic] is all about ridicule. Unless you're particularly
fond of being ridiculed, don't bother.

Quite right, Arnii.

One

Karnak: "What is Scottie's IQ?"

[George M. Middius]

duh-Scottie choruses with the voices in his head.

I nominate Molly Ollie for the RAO First Quarter Obtuseness Award.

We'll take that

Thank you for admitting that you suffer from MPD.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 23, 2:03*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

Yapper barked:

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Who WOOF! YAP! he's YAPPITY-YAP! whoever he WOOF! BARK! WOOF-WOOF!

Are you talking to me, Scottie? Bad dog! WHAP Roll over! Sit! WHAP
WHAP!

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Proof that Atkinson can't determine a person's intelligence without knowing
their ID. Probably somehow related to his apparent inability to hear
differences between audio amps without knowing their ID.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 23, 1:05 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's defense. They are probably
buds.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg reminisces fondly about good times.

Proof that Atkinson can't determine a person's intelligence without knowing
their ID. Probably somehow related to his apparent inability to hear
differences between audio amps without knowing their ID.

Arnii, you sound whiny and bitter again. I thought you were grateful to
Mr. Atkinson for the "all expenses paid" trip to New York to which he
treated you. Afterward, you preened and gloated about your "victory". And
recently you "proved" that your aBxism website is, despite appearances to
the contrary, a marvel of brilliant organization, chock-full of priceless
data, and beloved of "scientists" throughout the world.

It seems as though everything is going swimmingly for you. Why are you so
grumpy?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 23, 1:05 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's defense.

He did?

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 23, 6:17 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Proof that Atkinson can't determine a person's intelligence
without knowing their ID.

Huh? I was merely asking, Mr. Krueger, because
now that you have admitted you were wrong to have
claimed that ""The JAES has published a number of
works that [you] authored or co-authored," I thought
you might want to come clean about this other
oft-repeated troll of yours.

So I ask again: who is this "real person" who you
claim animates George Middius? Or is this just
another of your imaginings?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 23, 3:14*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 23, 1:05*pm, John Atkinson wrote:

On Jan 23, 2:03*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

* *Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

I'm glad to see your recent admission of error has made you more
humble and less judgmental.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

So I ask again: who is this "real person" who you
claim animates George Middius? Or is this just
another of your imaginings?

Speaking of imaginary friends, Scottie seems to have acquired a passel of
them who chime in when he bitches about certain RAOers. By contrast,
Mister Krooger is far too siuntiffickated to indulge in a device as tired
as the editorial "we". Krooger's forays into MPD-land are more likely a
manifestation of the paranoid "we".

I'm sure you're still at the top of the Krooger Enemies List, John. Don't
let Turdy's snarling in my direction persuade you that he's lost any of
his love for you. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 23, 5:17*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



On Jan 23, 1:05 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

(Asked JA, with knife drawn and a sanguine look in his eye, while
deploying the secret Stereophile army that GOIA "knows" exists in Area
51...)

* *Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

(Stated 2pid emphatically, reversing his self-proclaimed and not-at-
all hypocritical 'usual' role of one who bitterly opposes name-calling
and insults or other non-audio-related 'discussion' on RAO.) (lol Lol
LoL lOl LOL!)

Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's defense. They are probably
buds.

(Said GOIA insanely, imagining that a question about a claim that he's
made means something other than a question about a claim that he's
made.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 23, 2:49*pm, ScottW wrote:

*We'll take that as admission of your inability to support your false
claim.....again.
Do you ever tire of piddling on a thread like a spoiled brat child?

So he should take lessons from you on how to do it like an 'adult'?

Speaking of "inability" and "admissions", 2pid, isn't there something
you should admit?

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 23, 7:42*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

It's ironic that they should hasten to call other people liars, when they
are habitual liars. Actually it all fits - they are usually lieing (sic) when they
call other people liars.

Sorry, GOIA, but you've missed the mark.

You've just described 2pid to a tee.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 22, 5:12*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:57:41 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to

Reason!" wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:51*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:01:21 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to

Reason!" wrote:
On Jan 21, 1:00*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:54:17 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to

Reason!" wrote:
On Jan 19, 3:10*am, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:19:23 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote

By the way, I don't use lamp cord or Home Depot interconnects in my
system.

I do not use expensive wires or cables in my system. I just don't
really care if others do.

I don't care what they use. I do care that they want to justify it
with sloppy logic and BS.

I haven't seen any justifications, though I haven't read all the posts
in this thread.

As a matter of curiosity, what would happen to the results if, out of
a sample of 100 participants, 50 selected a certain product correctly
100% of the time and the other 50 selected incorrectly 100% of the
time?

Would it be unusual to get 50 heads when flipping a coin 100 times?
Getting 50 correct answers out of 100 participants is exactly what you
would expext from random guessing (flipping coins).

Sorry, I didn't state my question clearly.

Assume a test with 100 participants and 10 trials. 50 of the
participants score 100% on all 10 trials (or correct at a
statistically significant level). 50 score 0% (or at some
statistically insignificant level) on all 10 trials. Would not the
overall results still show "random guessing"? Is so, could you still
reasonably attribute the results of those 50 that got it correct 100%
of the time to random guessing?

What exactly are you testing? If it is whether individuals can
corectly determine what you are testing, the for those who got the all
correct, you can support the claim they are right more than half the
time (guessing). For the others you can support that they are wrong
more than half the time. Alternatively you could be testing the whole
population with 1000 trials, and 50 people get their 500 right and 50
others you'd toss the experiment as simply too bizarre. What do you
think is the likelihood of a randomly selected sample giving that
outcome? You'd look for other factors to explain the results. Maybe a
statistics course is in order

I've taken statistics.

I think a true "random" population is counterproductive for perception
tests, as I said. In a true random sample of which painting someone
preferred, I'd expect the distribution of the random population sample
to approximate the percentages of colorblind, or totally blind, people
found in the general population, for example. One or two of that
sample may even know something about art.

I'm not suggesting that this was the case here, or relating this in
any way to the WSJ article. I'm just curious. It seems to me that for
issues of perception a truly "random" population is counterproductive.

It is unless you are looking to home in on the truth. I don't know of
any statistical method for drawing conclusions about population
parameters from sample statistics that doesn't require that samples be
simple random samples. Randomness alone is not enough. It has to be
simple random which in this particualr case means that every group of
39 has an equally likely chance of being selected. One of the problems
with this test is that the "respondents" were self-selected or
otherwise not randomly selected.

You are going down a road I just specifically excluded. Why?

It's like taking a poll on the death
penalty by asking people who walk by your front door. If the test was
sponsored by anyone who has an interest in speaker cable differences
being heard, then agoin the test is suspect. Virtually every
elementary statisitics text gives similare examples of faulty data
collection.

Tell that to the opponents of global warming here. They do not
understand that. One of those people is even now claiming "proofs" in
this very thread, Isn't that ironic?

I understand that. Critical listening is not something people are born
with. Arny, for example, has stated that several times. So have
several others who are actually involved in audio testing. So you
necessarily have to select from a group of those who are interested in
the thing being tested if you use audio or some other related area of
perception as an example.

Sorry, I sent the response to the first part prematurley.

Otherwise, I would expect the test results to show "random guessing"
100% of the time.

Why? Do you think people who have no interest can't hear?

It's not fair to ask me that question, because I don't think cables
make any difference at all, unless they're made from an insulator or
the RLC is vastly different. For the short runs in a typical home
system, I personally don't think it would matter much, if at all, if
the cable itself was made from aluminum or cast iron, let alone five-
nines copper, silver, or gold.

So I'm biased. :-)

If any differences do exist, I would expect them to be very subtle.
(So subtle, in fact, that they would not be worth any extra money to
me, hence my attitude). Again, from what I've read in the archives
here and in other discussions on audio testing, detecting subtle audio
differences is difficult. I would expect inexperienced listeners to
show random guessing as a result. Perhaps I'm wrong, but since it
really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I'll leave it to
somebody else to test that hypothesis.

Again, I don't really care. If cables were important to me, I'd buy
what I liked regardless. It's just not that big of a deal to me.

That's fine, but a different issue. I also buy what I like. I have
heard cables that sound different from one another and it's usually
due to some measureable characteristic of the cable. Better/worse is
harder.

I would think that once a difference is detected, better/worse would
be easier.

The population need not be the whole world but just limiting it to
people who think you can tell would still give a huge population
relative to 39. It's interesting that even in this population, which I
assume contained the 39 tested, the results are insufficient to
support that hypothesis.

Perhaps Arny should go down this path. He could take out an ad in
Stereophile looking for people who claim to be able to hear the
differences in cables. Once he got, say, 250 people that he trained as
critical listeners he could randomly select 50 of them to take the
test. He could hold the test at one of the hotels around CES. He could
hold a drawing out of the entire population for a set of really
expensive cables as an ironic twist to generate interest (he should
buy these cables at retail so that nobody can cast aspersions).

How would you select the 250 people? If they volunteer, biased data
once again. In site of that why not test all 250 people and use the
bigger sample. Results from that would allow you to make statistical
conclusions about ALL people who claim the be able to choose correctly
even if you have no idea who they all are.

I would think the best way to test those who claim to be able to hear
a difference is to ask them if they think they can. So yes, they would
volunteer. As I said, if the population is just "random Joes" I would
expect the result to show guessing 100% of the time. I don't know how
else you'd get around that. Even those who volunteered would need to
be trained in detecting differences from what I've read.

I think Arny should go for it. Don't you?

If he wants to, but I don't think the results would influence the
"true believers" in any case.

Then what's the point of discussing/insulting/otherwise belittling
those who will believe what they believe regardless? That seems very
silly. (Not that you are, but there are others here who do.)

I'd rather focus that discussion on the truly religious. People who
buy cables don't really affect me. Those other ones are in politics
and they do. ;-)

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 23, 6:56 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
I'm sure you're still at the top of the Krooger Enemies List,
John.

It is my honor, George, to be thus singled out.

Don't let Turdy's snarling in my direction persuade
you that he's lost any of his love for you. ;-)

Yet the disconnect with reality seems more pronounced
these days.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"Well-informed" - The Wall Street Journal

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Ian, 08:42, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Oliver Costich" wrote in
messagenews:ub6dp3tljgft5dqprbgm6mf7uf2bccms6p@4ax .com





On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:37 -0500, George M. Middius
cmndr _ *george @ comcast . net wrote:

McInturd said:

If you are suggesting that the population of concern is
not everyone who can hear, fine. Is it people who
listen to music? How narrow do you want to make it? It
depends what you are out to test.

[snip]

You can restrict the population that way if you choose
but then you can't extend the conclusion of the test to
larger ones. Everyone wants to eliminate people who
firmly believe you cannot dsitiguish between the
cables. You are left with people who believe you can
tell and those that don't know. *You could further
narrow it to people who don't know and toss everyone
with prejudices.

I nominate Ollie the Collie for this month's RAO
Obtuseness Award.

According to Ollie's illogic, haute cuisine should be
judged by people who never dine at fine restaurants. And
art should be judged by people who can barely read their
comic books. And jewelry should be judged by those who
never purchase it and never wear it, and fine wine by
those who customarily knock back boilermakers and
Thunderbird.

Let's hear it for the uninitiated, says Ollie the Molly,
their opinions are every bit as valuable as people who
have spent years appreciating the best goods on the
market.
Point out exactly where I said that.

The Middiot lies profusely, just like borglet.

It's ironic that they should hasten to call other people liars, when they
are habitual liars. Actually it all fits - they are usually lieing when they
call other people liars.- Ascunde citatul -

What does one call someone who willfully and knowingly
falslely accuses a host of RAO regulars of sending
him kiddie porn emails. Oh, one calls him Arny Krueger,
World Class Liar. Yes Oliver, your compatriot
Arny Kruger actually did do that.

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Ian, 12:47, Oliver Costich wrote:



If you have the time and enjoy doing it, why not? The silliness comes
in with the cables in the thousands of dollars range. In particular
cables are an area of the system where you get the least bang for the
buck (at retail - have you seen the obscene dealer margins of the
exotic cables?)-


In that I agree, I would spend my money on better equipment rather
than on super high cost cables. But I wouldn't
be using zip cord and cheap common RCA
jacks, either.

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Ian, 12:49, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:58:10 GMT, Andy C wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson wrote:

Okay, I was reading the article and noticed some strange things. *The
article says the following:

"I set up a room with two sound systems, identical except for one
component. Everything except the speakers was hidden behind screens."

So he is saying that there were actually two separate systems - two source
components, two amplifiers, etc. *But were there two different sets of
speakers too? *One would hope not! *Using a single set of speakers, there
would need to be a switching arrangement to switch the speakers between the
outputs of the two different amplifiers through the two different speaker
cables. *But if there were a properly designed switching network, there
would be no need for two different systems at all. *There could just be a
transfer switch using the highest quality relays to switch between the two
speaker cables. *That is, a two-throw at the amplifier end and a two-throw
at the speaker end of each speaker cable. *This would hold everything else
constant. *If there were really two different sets of speakers, then the
experiment was so poorly designed it isn't even worth discussing. *Just the
speaker position difference alone would likely cause differences in the
sound that would be measureably far greater than any cable could cause.

Then it also says:

"Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of
Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your
thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable."

Two identical CD players and what else? *This guy is being very vague. *I
guess he is just addressing the typical WSJ reader who isn't familiar with
or does not care about this stuff. *There just isn't enough info provided
to evaluate whether the test setup is valid or not.

All good points. This particualr test was badly enough designed to be
flawed from the start, never mind what the data actually conclude.- Ascunde citatul -



Actually, it was entirely useless in concept. All such tests are.

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Ian, 12:56, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:11:46 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick

wrote:
On 22 Ian, 23:50, "JBorg, Jr." wrote:

What happen if enough participants refuse to make correct choices
because the sound supplied during testing didn't suit their taste ?

they are not even given the option to provide aq correct respone,
in such cases where they cannot discern a difference.

Use a different test in which the outcomes are "I hear a difference"
and "I don't hear a difference".


That's fine, I have been saying the same thing.
Play Either A and A, A and B, or B and B,
and ask if you hear a difference.
Much better than asking to identify A or B.
Remember, the issue in question is if
there is a difference, not whether one can icorrectly identify a
source as either A or B.
However, there are still a bunch of other probelms
still unadresed. Such as not eliminating
the bias of it all sounds the same.

This becomes a two-tailed hypothesis
test which requires a higher proportion (than a choose the better one
test) of people to detect a differnce to support that they can tell.

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Ian, 14:03, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Oliver Costich" wrote in
messagenews:n50fp3tf29ijgieqr0c520n9nrge0fsdi6@4ax .com

Your knowledge of what real scientists do using
statistics is underwhelming.

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows far more than he lets on.
This particular persona is all about ridicule. Unless you're particularly
fond of being ridiculed, don't bother.

Oliver, Are you like Arny? Do you enjoy being
ridiculed as much as he does?

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Ian, 16:05, John Atkinson wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Me today
You tomorrow
Shhh! on tuesday.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

What does one call someone who willfully and knowingly
falslely accuses a host of RAO regulars of sending
him kiddie porn emails. Oh, one calls him Arny Krueger,
World Class Liar. Yes Oliver, your compatriot
Arny Kruger actually did do that.

Indeed he did. Will Ollie rise to the level of Ferstler, who declared that
pedophile or no, Arnii Krooger is still a noble warrior in the eternal
battle against the E.H.E.E.?

[George M. Middius]

Poor Scottie wants his treat.

I'm sure you're still at the top of the Krooger Enemies List,
John.

It is my honor, George, to be thus singled out.

As it is apparently your honor to associate yourself with the vile
scum of Middius.

Arnii, why do you need Witlessmongrel to fight your battles for you?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:




What happen if enough participants refuse to make correct choices
because the sound supplied during testing didn't suit their taste ?

they are not even given the option to provide aq correct respone,
in such cases where they cannot discern a difference.

Use a different test in which the outcomes are "I hear a difference"
and "I don't hear a difference".


That's fine, I have been saying the same thing.
Play Either A and A, A and B, or B and B,
and ask if you hear a difference.
Much better than asking to identify A or B.
Remember, the issue in question is if
there is a difference, not whether one can icorrectly identify a
source as either A or B.

Initial reaction:

I understand and accept the rules imposed above.
The fact that the participant need only to identify
whether there is sound difference between A and B.



Nuclear reaction:

What would be the type of differences in sound will
the participant be required to identify that are NOT
based on subjective prefrerence ?





However, there are still a bunch of other probelms
still unadresed. Such as not eliminating
the bias of it all sounds the same.

This becomes a two-tailed hypothesis
test which requires a higher proportion (than a choose the better one
test) of people to detect a differnce to support that they can tell.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr.wrote:



snip


You are admitting that, for the purpose of statistical analysis,
it would make no difference whether the participant determine
or discern subtle differences based on sound differences
or sound preferences during audio testing.

Mr. Costich, do you still meant to say that mixing differences with
preferences during testing would make no difference for the purpose
statistical analysis ?


Yes or No ?


Yes. Preference is a one-tailed test. Difference is a 2-tailed test.


That's two separate experiment. Mr. Costich, which part of
"mixing differences with preference during a test" do you not
understand ?


But who cares if they can tell a difference if you're trying to sell
expensive cable.



I knew it! This is all about MONEY problems.

You are out of order!

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:



What happen if enough participants refuse to make correct choices
because the sound supplied during testing didn't suit their taste ?

they are not even given the option to provide a correct respone,
in such cases where they cannot discern a difference.

Right. What if the participant got tired of ogling for differences
and decide to just listen to the sound they prefer and forgot
they were taking a test after a while.


Yes indeed, I have NO MONEY and all I can do is propose an experiment that
can only
get more absurd.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote




Mr. Costich opined that disproving the sound differences
heard by audiophiles do not physically exist is -- a
certainty not in the realm of statistical analysis.

(1) Statistical analyses do not prove or disprove anything with
absolute certainty.

(2) Negative hypothesis are practically impossible to prove.

Following borglet's thinking - we should all sell everything we own
and spend it all on a wild night in Law Vegas, because we cannot
prove with absolute certainty that the world will end tomorrow.


Did you meant to say in following Mr. Costich's thinking ? It was him
who commented about certainty of statistical analysis, not me.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr.wrote:
Shhhh! wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:





In other words, that 61% of a sample of 39 got the correct
result isn't sufficient evidence that in the general
population of listeners more than half can pick the better
cable.

So, I'd say "that's hardly that".

I'm curious what percent of the "best informed" got. I mean,
you could mix in hot dog vendors, the deaf, people who might
try to fail just to be contrary, you, and so on, and get
different results.

Well asked.

What population of listeners was the claim made for and how was
it defined? My guess is that however it's constructed, it a lot
bigger than 39.

No information were provided for that. Still, valid parameter
for such test should exclude participants with personal biases
and preferences and those lacking extended listening experience,
as examples.

Personal bias can be filtered out with well designed double blind
experiments. That's the whole point of that method. If neither the
tester or those tested know what they are listening to. People
with listening experience is still a large, but shrinking,
population.

Mr. Costich, how do you filter out from DBT experiments the
listeners personal biases and "preferences in sound acquired over
time through extended listening experience". As an example, a
person with strong affinity and craves the sound produced by jazz
ensemble tends to be receptive to the subtle nuance produce and
articulated by those sets of instruments. Is hiding the
components during DBT removed this adulation out ?

In other words, this is a religious argument for you, not a
scientific one. Would you decide if most people believe in God by
taking a sample of members of the Baptist Church?


YOU are out of order!


With regards to personal biases, please answer the question.

Your question is nonsense. You are assuming that there are
"preferences in sound acquired over time through extended listening
experience". Show me evidence of this outside of your belief.




Mr. Costich, what about those posters in this group who seek and enjoy
the sweet, warm and pleasing sound of tube components. Are these
not based on preference ?




What if the subject for the test is someone like Howard Ferstler
who admitted to having deeply held personal vendetta towards
high-end establishment going back in the late '70s, how would you
go about explaining that a no-difference Ferstler test result is
valid ?

The golden ear cult would like to define the population to be
those among that have a good enough run of guesses to get a
statistically significant outcome:-)

OK, fine leave him out, just like you almost always do with outliers
in sttastical dat analysis.

You are missing the point, Mr. Costich. How do you exclude
participants with hidden motives from skewing the data and test
results.

You mean like lining up 39 people off the CES high end floor? By
designing the test so that there is a RANDOM selection from the
population.


Please answer the question.

YOU are taxing my patience. Are you not man enough to go
one-on-one with me ?



Mr. Costich, please don't be so frigging sarcastic towards
audiophiles. Audiophiles who had honed and increased their
listening sensitivity from listening to live, unamplified, and
reproduced music over extended period of time.

I guess that I have been labeled an audiophile for over 40 years and
listened to countless hours of music plus auditioning, and yes
comparing, various components over the same period doesn't qualify
me because I won't accept a false conclusion from an experiment.

Mr. Costich, why are you being sarcastic to yourself and refering to
yourself to be none other a *golden cult* follower ?

Is English your ninth language? Where did I say such a thing? Go take
a statistics course. Take one in design of experiments. Take one in
Philosophy of Sciece and come back when you have a modicum of
knowledge about such things.

As of now you come off as a moron.



Mr. Costich, ARE YOU MAN ENOUGH TO GO ON-ON-ONE WITH ME ?
IF NOT, EXCUSED YOURSELF FROM THESE TRHEAD.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr.wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:
Walt wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:




Remind me again how many times Arny Krueger has been
quoted in the Wall Street Journal?

Ok. So you've been quoted in the WSJ. So have Uri Geller
and Ken Lay.

What's your point?

So has Osama Bin Laden. The point is that he's devoid of a
sound argument.

Mr. Costich, there is no sound argument to improve upon a
strawman arguments. It just doesn't exist.

Agreed.

Ok.

Incidentally Mr. Costich, how well do you know Arny Krueger if
you don't mind me asking so.

I only know of his existence from the news group, if that's his
real name:-)

He made claims that he had submitted peer-reviewed papers in AES.
He also calim to be audio engineer and well educated concerning
statistical analysis in well designed audio experiment. To be
honest, Mr. Costich, he is the worst offender of common sense and
has been pestering this group for a long, long time.

That's an opinion, which is in the name of the newsgroup.

This is indeed a newsgroup of opinion but do you think it is
proper, as Mr. Krueger has done in not so distant past, to declare
false claims and present it as FACTS ?

I'm not a judge or a censor.

But certainly, you are quick to judge and indict whether one is
devoid of sound argument, did you not?


I was referring to the particular post.

OHhh, you are referring to a particular post and YOU are'nt willing
to refer to the other post of yours to which you willingly *but falsely*
judge and indict others of being devoid of sound argument.

When I commented that the accusation you made was untrue,
YOU AGREED.

Here it was, I pasted from above:


I said:

Mr. Costich, there is no sound argument to improve upon a
strawman arguments. It just doesn't exist.

YOU replied:

Agreed.

I said:

Ok.



On the other hand, based on
your posts and ability to frame a question or provide a rational
response, there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that
you're an idiot at the 99% confidence level.


For someone who said the following:


" I spend way too much time in classrooms trying to
communicate the importance of critical thinking to today's
college students (and it ain't easy) ... "


Mr. Costich, there's still alot left more to be be desired.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
John Corbett wrote:





Well, I am a statistician.
You seem to be so confused about statistics that you can neither
perform the calculations nor understand what they mean.

Hello Mr. Corbett, I would like to know if it is appropriate to
assume that disproving sound differences heard by audiophiles
that I presume physically exist is -- a certainty not in the
realm of statistical analysis.

Then what is it in the realm of? Religion?

No, Mr. Costich. Disproving presence of subtle sound differences
heard by audiophiles is not in the realm of religion.

As a statician, how could you say that.

Your premise is "sound differences heard by audiophiles that I presume
physically exist". This is more mealy mouthed golden ears bull****.
Some things sound different, some don't. When the experiments say they
don't the true believers come up with convoluted nonsense based on
assumptions with no basis other than religion-like belief.



What is it about people hearing subtle differences that bring upon
hostility,
anger, and resentment to you, Mr. Costich ?


Is it because you have no money ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:



snip


Physics is models based on observation of events repeating, or as
David Hume calls it "bad habit". The level of "certainty" or
probability of error can be reduced to infinitesimal levels but
uncertainty is still there even if we don't behave like it is. The
less controllable experiments are, and the farther the "science"
deviates from having rigorous mathematical models, the less
certainty you have. In particular you seem to be willing to abandon
all use of statistics as to you the results don't provide certainty
(and they never do).


But clearly, such test obviously did not proved that subtle
differences did not exist, and as you said, disproving the subtle
difference that audiophiles hear is a certainty NOT in the realm of
Statistical analysis.

You seems to be saying still that statistic analysis or some other
method can be use, but stat analysis is not it.

What am I suppose to do, Mr. Costich ?

Go learn something about science and measurement, statistical design
and analysis. If test after test shows that the hypothesis that
listeners cannot identify cables, then most scientifically minded
rational people would conclude it's unlikely to be true.


But test after test shows that there is no well-designed test as it shows.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Oliver Costich wrote:
JBorg, Jr.wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:











I, for one, do care about the music and would rather just listen to
it than sit around doing badly designed tests. When you are
involved in the music, subtle differences, even if they exist,
aren't really discernable.


Mr. Costich, when you are involved in the music, how did
you came to conclude that subtle differences, even if they exist,
aren't discernable.

Please answer the question.



I wonder how it is possible to ascertain that subtle differences
aren't discernable when one is involve in the music and free from
the task of knowing whether subtle differences exist or not.

Is it because one do not care about the music ?



Another nonsensical "ponderance"

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message


Oliver Costich wrote:

Go learn something about science and measurement,
statistical design and analysis. If test after test
shows that the hypothesis that listeners cannot identify
cables, then most scientifically minded rational people
would conclude it's unlikely to be true.

But test after test shows that there is no well-designed
test as it shows.

That's circular logic and double-talk, borglet.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote

Mr. Costich opined that disproving the sound differences
heard by audiophiles do not physically exist is -- a
certainty not in the realm of statistical analysis.

(1) Statistical analyses do not prove or disprove
anything with absolute certainty.

(2) Negative hypothesis are practically impossible to
prove. Following borglet's thinking - we should all sell
everything we own and spend it all on a wild night in
Law Vegas, because we cannot prove with absolute
certainty that the world will end tomorrow.

Did you meant to say in following Mr. Costich's thinking?

No, I'm commenting on your misrepresentation of what he said.

It was him who commented about certainty of statistical analysis, not me.

Borglet, it is you who continues to misinterpret what Costlich said. You've
obviously been studying at Stephen's school of obfuscation and double-talk.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 23, 1:05 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's defense.

He did?

Yes. It is defense by means of counter-attack. Let me guess Jenn, you never
heard of such a thing.

The Middiot and Atkinson have been playing tag team here for the better part
of a decade.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On Jan 23, 6:17 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Proof that Atkinson can't determine a person's
intelligence without knowing their ID.

Huh? I was merely asking, Mr. Krueger, because
now that you have admitted you were wrong to have
claimed that ""The JAES has published a number of
works that [you] authored or co-authored," I thought
you might want to come clean about this other
oft-repeated troll of yours.

?????????

So I ask again: who is this "real person" who you
claim animates George Middius? Or is this just
another of your imaginings?

What imaginings, John? You mean you imagining that I was wrong when I said
that
"The JAES has published a number of works that I authored or co-authored"
Come back when you have some facts to report. So far you've only shown your
inability to do good textual research.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 24, 6:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in
I was merely asking, Mr. Krueger, because
now that you have admitted you were wrong to have
claimed that ""The JAES has published a number of
works that [you] authored or co-authored," I thought
you might want to come clean about this other
oft-repeated troll of yours.

?????????

I was referring to your earlier posting to this thread
where you made that admission, Mr. Krueger.
Forgive me for taking what you wrote literally:

On Jan 21, 8:21 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
And thus you find my name in at least one paper that was
published in the JAES....The paper in question would be
the origional [sic] JAES article about ABX.

But not as author as co-author, which was the specific claim
you made, Mr. Krueger.

And
On Jan 21, 8:21 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
OK, so I'll out a little secret. The dB magazine article was
very closely related to an article that I had previously submitted
to the AES. After what I [recalled] to be a very long wait, the
AES sent me a letter that asked a number of questions about
the article, presumably from the review board. By then I had
despaired of any response from the AES and sold the related
article to dB Magazine. Regrettably, dB stiffed me and I was
never paid. So I lost both ways - I neither had any money, nor
did I have the corresponding line for my resume that would have
come from the JAES publication.

As I said, your own admission, Mr. Krueger. Having your
name mentioned in a published technical paper is not
the same as being listed as the author or co-author;
having an article published in consumer magazine is not
equivalent to having a technical paper published in an
academic journal.

This is confirmed by the fact that the AES's own index
makes no mention of you as an author or co-author of
either a published technical paper or a convention
preprint. (It does include me, BTW: perhaps that's
the underlying issue here?)

Your exact word on Usenet were "The JAES has
published a number of works that I authored or co-authored."
The context for this statement was a discussion involving
peer-reviewed technical papers. This claim of yours is
demonstrably false, as I have shown. Perhaps you
shouldn't be so quick to call others "liars," Mr.
Krueger, eh.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote

Oliver Costich wrote:

Go learn something about science and measurement,
statistical design and analysis. If test after test
shows that the hypothesis that listeners cannot identify
cables, then most scientifically minded rational people
would conclude it's unlikely to be true.

But test after test shows that there is no well-designed
test as it shows.

That's circular logic and double-talk, borglet.



Please demonstrate why it is so.