[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


It raises another point as well. And that is that even
a seemingly simple dbt is extremely taxing to do well
in a home setting.

I think we can take this comment as showing that there
are vast differences
in the technical resources that various people bring to
bear on problems that seem to vex many audiophiles.
We're just trying to help and shed light.

Obviously some of us have resources that other's don't
have. Disqualifying listening tests because casual
audiophiles can't do them for themselves seems to make
no sense.

...making such tests totally impractical in
most home situations.

Nobody is saying that every casual audiophile can do
what some of us can do
as a matter of course.

Then your friends need to learn to hold their tongues
whenever one of those casual audiophiles makes comment
reflecting his opinion about the "sound" of a piece of
gear, or his enjoyment of a piece of gear above minimum
price point.

Harry, what's unclear to you about the concept of freedom of speech and
respect for differences of opinons?

On occasion some of us disagree with something that is said, and we voice
that disagreement.

You have a problem with me expressing my opinon?

Nope, not at all. I have a problem with the tone that often creeps into
the "opinion". As well as the fact that the
"opinion" is often asserted as fact not to be subject to counter-argument.


It is one thing to point out common
understanding; it is another to do it in a way that
accuses the casual audiophile of being a fool who is
deluding himself, which often seems to be the tone in
many audio newsgroups.

Here's your next challenge Harry - show me calling anybody a fool or
delusional.

If you can't then you would of course owe me a public apology.

You assume too much, Arny. Where in my post did I single YOU out? In
fact,
I said "your friends". I specifically left you out in favor of a few
others
who are more consistent in their response. And I also specifically mention
audio newsgroups, in general, not specifically this one which is because of
its moderation is one of the more civilized audio newgroups around, as you
well know.


If tests are disqualified because they require resources
that every casual audiophile may not be able to have
access to automatically disqualifies virtually every
evaluation that is done by any of the various audio
magazines.

If Harry wants to disqualify each and every issue and
every review ever done
by TAS and Stereophile on the grounds that their
listening evaluations are too sophisticated for the
average audiophile to duplicate, then he can be my
guest! ;-)

Stereophiles reviews are not "tests",

Harry, you really need to learn how to read. I did not say anything in the
paragraph about Stereophile's reviews being tests.

Let's see if I can straighten out and clarify the garbled syntext of your
statement above:

"if tests are disqualified because they require resources (beyond)"

... then

"(this fact) automatically disqualifies virtually every evaluation that is
done by any of the various audio magazines." Sure sounds you are calling
Stereophile magazine reviews a "test" to me.

Harry, if you want to make up statements and then argue with them, please
be
my guest but don't expect me to take such posts very seriously! ;-)

Your own garbled logic when straightened out stands revealed.

they are subjective
evaluations of the sound and functionality of the gear
under review.

That would be a parphrase of what I just said. I used the exact word
evaluation and I did not use the word test.

??????????????

Using a near-synonym doesn't change the logic of the paragraph you wrote
(If...then..). If that is what you meant it sure isn't clear from your
writing. Perhaps you could rephrase your argument for us?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

It is one thing to point out common
understanding; it is another to do it in a way that
accuses the casual audiophile of being a fool who is
deluding himself, which often seems to be the tone in
many audio newsgroups.

Here's your next challenge Harry - show me calling
anybody a fool or delusional.

If you can't then you would of course owe me a public
apology.

You assume too much, Arny. Where in my post did I single
YOU out?

You addressed what you said to me.

In fact, I said "your friends".

OK, then name any of "my friends" who said such a thing.

If you can't name such a person Harry, then you are a no-show.

If the person you name is not actually a friend of mine, then you still owe
me an apology.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

It is one thing to point out common
understanding; it is another to do it in a way that
accuses the casual audiophile of being a fool who is
deluding himself, which often seems to be the tone in
many audio newsgroups.

Here's your next challenge Harry - show me calling
anybody a fool or delusional.

If you can't then you would of course owe me a public
apology.

You assume too much, Arny. Where in my post did I single
YOU out?

You addressed what you said to me.

In fact, I said "your friends".

OK, then name any of "my friends" who said such a thing.

If you can't name such a person Harry, then you are a no-show.

If the person you name is not actually a friend of mine, then you still
owe
me an apology.

I have already, to the moderators. Since I cannot say more here without
spending hours going back to look for exact quote, I choose not to. I have
better things to do with my time (my photography hobby, as the most
important of this), my family, and my consulting work.