| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... long overdue snip inserted : If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded : different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there : would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. : : evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. : : Really? Your evidence of this is what? : : the same stuff you sent me yesterday. : If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could : use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements : you currently use. : : : Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on : imaging. : : : : Thanks for making my point. : There aren't any such measurements : Learn how to snip ;-) R. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... : Learn how to snip ;-) R. I snip when it suits my purpose. I don't snip when not snipping suits my purpose. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Since imaging is the job of the speaker/room interface, such measurements would be impossible. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. Its merely useless, for assisting in comsumer preferences and choices. It's purpose was never meant for preference, only for difference. Of course if there's no sonic difference, it's hard to claim a sonic preference. It has no purpose with respect to the High End at all. Sure it does, just not your high end, which consists of faith and magic ears. Audio reproduction by High End componentry transcends the capability of Arny's cheap apparatus to transmit it correctly. So now you will offer up proof that an ABX box hides differences. I didn't think so. Hink whatever you want. And you never fail to disappoint. Wild claims, and no proof, not even anything remotely like evidence. You're a very bad scientist Bob. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. Its merely useless, for assisting in comsumer preferences and choices. It's purpose was never meant for preference, only for difference. Of course if there's no sonic difference, it's hard to claim a sonic preference. It has no purpose with respect to the High End at all. Sure it does, just not your high end, which consists of faith and magic ears. Audio reproduction by High End componentry transcends the capability of Arny's cheap apparatus to transmit it correctly. So now you will offer up proof that an ABX box hides differences. I didn't think so. Hink whatever you want. And you never fail to disappoint. Wild claims, and no proof, not even anything remotely like evidence. You're a very bad scientist Bob. Keep hinking, Mikey. You are very good at hinking. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. Its merely useless, for assisting in comsumer preferences and choices. It's purpose was never meant for preference, only for difference. Of course if there's no sonic difference, it's hard to claim a sonic preference. It has no purpose with respect to the High End at all. Sure it does, just not your high end, which consists of faith and magic ears. Audio reproduction by High End componentry transcends the capability of Arny's cheap apparatus to transmit it correctly. So now you will offer up proof that an ABX box hides differences. I didn't think so. Hink whatever you want. And you never fail to disappoint. Wild claims, and no proof, not even anything remotely like evidence. You're a very bad scientist Bob. Keep hinking, Mikey. You are very good at hinking. And like all sock puppets, you're good at being hinky. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message news  "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Since imaging is the job of the speaker/room interface, such measurements would be impossible. Thank you once more for making my point, sort of. Amps do have differences in amging. We haven't been able to measure it yet, as you stated.. Without measurements, you are so sure of yourself. You say that all amps measuring the same sound the same, yet you concede that we cannot measure all aspects of an amps performance. so, you cannot say that they sound the same. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. Its merely useless, for assisting in comsumer preferences and choices. It's purpose was never meant for preference, only for difference. Of course if there's no sonic difference, it's hard to claim a sonic preference. It has no purpose with respect to the High End at all. Sure it does, just not your high end, which consists of faith and magic ears. Audio reproduction by High End componentry transcends the capability of Arny's cheap apparatus to transmit it correctly. So now you will offer up proof that an ABX box hides differences. I didn't think so. Hink whatever you want. And you never fail to disappoint. Wild claims, and no proof, not even anything remotely like evidence. You're a very bad scientist Bob. Keep hinking, Mikey. You are very good at hinking. And like all sock puppets, you're good at being hinky. Mikey, it remains as a sad fact that you have an inferior mind. Have you figured out who you are talking to? |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "dn" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. Golly! A quote from the "Earth is Flat" debate from hundreds of years ago... Plus ça change... Or as Bob Dylan wrote: "When you ain't got nothin' you got nothin to lose." Better yet, when you don't know what you don't know, you don't know what you're missing. Irony? Mikey's limited brain capacity puts most of the world permanently out of reach. Only from Morin world, which is a lonely place that I have no wish to visit. Mikey, I inhabit intellectual spheres completely beyond your grasp, as do many other people on this newsgroup. You're correct, I'm stuck here in the real world, not your intellectual dung heap. Yes, Mikey, I'm sure beer makes your mind more acute. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Since imaging is the job of the speaker/room interface, such measurements would be impossible. Thank you once more for making my point, sort of. Amps do have differences in amging. We haven't been able to measure it yet, as you stated.. Without measurements, you are so sure of yourself. You say that all amps measuring the same sound the same, yet you concede that we cannot measure all aspects of an amps performance. so, you cannot say that they sound the same. Mikey can't even tell whether he's talking to a sockpuppet. His abilities of discrimination are limited by his inferior mind. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. It is not for you, a near illiterate, to challenge our right. ABX masks differences. Then prove it. No need to. Bad science alert. It contradicts the experience of a vast number of audiophiles. Thank you for the Flat Earth Society viewpoint. The burden is on you, if you wish to impose new rules and obligations. The burden is met, the entirety of those doing audio research ,use and rely on ABX or some variant all the time. I'm sure people use it all the time for study of Hindi phonemes. It is useless to high fidelity. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Since imaging is the job of the speaker/room interface, such measurements would be impossible. Thank you once more for making my point, sort of. Amps do have differences in amging. Amaging? Nope, or imaging either. We haven't been able to measure it yet, as you stated.. Ever see a polar plot for a loudspeaker? Without measurements, you are so sure of yourself. You say that all amps measuring the same sound the same, yet you concede that we cannot measure all aspects of an amps performance. so, you cannot say that they sound the same. I can say that amps that measure close enough have never been shown to sound different in a bias controlled, level matched comparison. Unless you can prove that amps have some effect on imaging, your whole point is meaningless. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Since imaging is the job of the speaker/room interface, such measurements would be impossible. Thank you once more for making my point, sort of. Amps do have differences in amging. We haven't been able to measure it yet, as you stated.. Without measurements, you are so sure of yourself. You say that all amps measuring the same sound the same, yet you concede that we cannot measure all aspects of an amps performance. so, you cannot say that they sound the same. Mikey can't even tell whether he's talking to a sockpuppet. His abilities of discrimination are limited by his inferior mind. How big was that telescope? |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. It is not for you, a near illiterate, to challenge our right. ABX masks differences. Then prove it. No need to. Bad science alert. It contradicts the experience of a vast number of audiophiles. Thank you for the Flat Earth Society viewpoint. The burden is on you, if you wish to impose new rules and obligations. The burden is met, the entirety of those doing audio research ,use and rely on ABX or some variant all the time. I'm sure people use it all the time for study of Hindi phonemes. It is useless to high fidelity. So why is it the standard for audio researchers? |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. Its merely useless, for assisting in comsumer preferences and choices. It's purpose was never meant for preference, only for difference. Of course if there's no sonic difference, it's hard to claim a sonic preference. It has no purpose with respect to the High End at all. Sure it does, just not your high end, which consists of faith and magic ears. Audio reproduction by High End componentry transcends the capability of Arny's cheap apparatus to transmit it correctly. So now you will offer up proof that an ABX box hides differences. I didn't think so. Hink whatever you want. And you never fail to disappoint. Wild claims, and no proof, not even anything remotely like evidence. You're a very bad scientist Bob. Keep hinking, Mikey. You are very good at hinking. And like all sock puppets, you're good at being hinky. Mikey, it remains as a sad fact that you have an inferior mind. Have you figured out who you are talking to? A dip****, who may or may not be Robt. Morein. |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Since imaging is the job of the speaker/room interface, such measurements would be impossible. Thank you once more for making my point, sort of. Amps do have differences in amging. Amaging? Nope, or imaging either. I haven't been belittling your recent series of typos, maybe I should start getting on you for them. I haven't been bothering you about them because I am not a good typist, and I don't expect you to be one either. We haven't been able to measure it yet, as you stated.. Ever see a polar plot for a loudspeaker? ever see one for an amp? Maybe there should be head to head tests of amps for imaging, where everything else stays the same, just to see. I think there would be differences, but not anywhere nearly as much as for speakers, where, say, waterfall plot differences are enormous. Without measurements, you are so sure of yourself. You say that all amps measuring the same sound the same, yet you concede that we cannot measure all aspects of an amps performance. so, you cannot say that they sound the same. I can say that amps that measure close enough have never been shown to sound different in a bias controlled, level matched comparison. that's meaningles both as to the tests and to the subjects being someone other than myself. Unless you can prove that amps have some effect on imaging, your whole point is meaningless. I don't have to 'prove' anything. Its my opinion as well as the opinion of a substantial number of others. And you can't prove the negative. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:25:13 GMT, "
wrote: Thank you once more for making my point, sort of. Amps do have differences in amging. Amaging? Nope, or imaging either. If you're going to correct a typo at least copy it correctly. It was "amging" not "Amaging". |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Since imaging is the job of the speaker/room interface, such measurements would be impossible. Thank you once more for making my point, sort of. Amps do have differences in amging. Amaging? Nope, or imaging either. I haven't been belittling your recent series of typos, maybe I should start getting on you for them. I haven't been bothering you about them because I am not a good typist, and I don't expect you to be one either. We haven't been able to measure it yet, as you stated.. Ever see a polar plot for a loudspeaker? ever see one for an amp? Maybe there should be head to head tests of amps for imaging, where everything else stays the same, just to see. I think there would be differences, but not anywhere nearly as much as for speakers, where, say, waterfall plot differences are enormous. Without measurements, you are so sure of yourself. You say that all amps measuring the same sound the same, yet you concede that we cannot measure all aspects of an amps performance. so, you cannot say that they sound the same. I can say that amps that measure close enough have never been shown to sound different in a bias controlled, level matched comparison. that's meaningles both as to the tests and to the subjects being someone other than myself. Unless you can prove that amps have some effect on imaging, your whole point is meaningless. I don't have to 'prove' anything. Its my opinion as well as the opinion of a substantial number of others. And you can't prove the negative. It's not even an opinion, it's an article of faith. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. It is not for you, a near illiterate, to challenge our right. ABX masks differences. Then prove it. No need to. Bad science alert. It contradicts the experience of a vast number of audiophiles. Thank you for the Flat Earth Society viewpoint. The burden is on you, if you wish to impose new rules and obligations. The burden is met, the entirety of those doing audio research ,use and rely on ABX or some variant all the time. I'm sure people use it all the time for study of Hindi phonemes. It is useless to high fidelity. So why is it the standard for audio researchers? It is not. |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. Its merely useless, for assisting in comsumer preferences and choices. It's purpose was never meant for preference, only for difference. Of course if there's no sonic difference, it's hard to claim a sonic preference. It has no purpose with respect to the High End at all. Sure it does, just not your high end, which consists of faith and magic ears. Audio reproduction by High End componentry transcends the capability of Arny's cheap apparatus to transmit it correctly. So now you will offer up proof that an ABX box hides differences. I didn't think so. Hink whatever you want. And you never fail to disappoint. Wild claims, and no proof, not even anything remotely like evidence. You're a very bad scientist Bob. Keep hinking, Mikey. You are very good at hinking. And like all sock puppets, you're good at being hinky. Mikey, it remains as a sad fact that you have an inferior mind. Have you figured out who you are talking to? A dip****, who may or may not be Robt. Morein. Mikey, it is to be expected that, as you have an inferior mind, you would resort to obscenity. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message hlink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Since imaging is the job of the speaker/room interface, such measurements would be impossible. Thank you once more for making my point, sort of. Amps do have differences in amging. Amaging? Nope, or imaging either. I haven't been belittling your recent series of typos, maybe I should start getting on you for them. I haven't been bothering you about them because I am not a good typist, and I don't expect you to be one either. We haven't been able to measure it yet, as you stated.. Ever see a polar plot for a loudspeaker? ever see one for an amp? Maybe there should be head to head tests of amps for imaging, where everything else stays the same, just to see. I think there would be differences, but not anywhere nearly as much as for speakers, where, say, waterfall plot differences are enormous. Without measurements, you are so sure of yourself. You say that all amps measuring the same sound the same, yet you concede that we cannot measure all aspects of an amps performance. so, you cannot say that they sound the same. I can say that amps that measure close enough have never been shown to sound different in a bias controlled, level matched comparison. that's meaningles both as to the tests and to the subjects being someone other than myself. Unless you can prove that amps have some effect on imaging, your whole point is meaningless. I don't have to 'prove' anything. Its my opinion as well as the opinion of a substantial number of others. And you can't prove the negative. It's not even an opinion, it's an article of faith. As Clyde said, it is the opinion of a substantial number of other people. What ever else it is, it is an opinion. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:25:13 GMT, " wrote: Thank you once more for making my point, sort of. Amps do have differences in amging. Amaging? Nope, or imaging either. If you're going to correct a typo at least copy it correctly. It was "amging" not "Amaging". Huh, a typo of the typo he was ridiculing! |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Since imaging is the job of the speaker/room interface, such measurements would be impossible. Thank you once more for making my point, sort of. Amps do have differences in amging. Amaging? Nope, or imaging either. I haven't been belittling your recent series of typos, maybe I should start getting on you for them. I haven't been bothering you about them because I am not a good typist, and I don't expect you to be one either. We haven't been able to measure it yet, as you stated.. Ever see a polar plot for a loudspeaker? ever see one for an amp? Maybe there should be head to head tests of amps for imaging, where everything else stays the same, just to see. I think there would be differences, but not anywhere nearly as much as for speakers, where, say, waterfall plot differences are enormous. Without measurements, you are so sure of yourself. You say that all amps measuring the same sound the same, yet you concede that we cannot measure all aspects of an amps performance. so, you cannot say that they sound the same. I can say that amps that measure close enough have never been shown to sound different in a bias controlled, level matched comparison. that's meaningles both as to the tests and to the subjects being someone other than myself. Unless you can prove that amps have some effect on imaging, your whole point is meaningless. I don't have to 'prove' anything. Its my opinion as well as the opinion of a substantial number of others. And you can't prove the negative. It's not even an opinion, it's an article of faith. As Clyde said, it is the opinion of a substantial number of other people. What ever else it is, it is an opinion. You frequently form opinons based on the most flawed evidence available? |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "dn" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. Golly! A quote from the "Earth is Flat" debate from hundreds of years ago... Plus ça change... Or as Bob Dylan wrote: "When you ain't got nothin' you got nothin to lose." Better yet, when you don't know what you don't know, you don't know what you're missing. Irony? Mikey's limited brain capacity puts most of the world permanently out of reach. Only from Morin world, which is a lonely place that I have no wish to visit. Mikey, I inhabit intellectual spheres completely beyond your grasp, as do many other people on this newsgroup. You're correct, I'm stuck here in the real world, not your intellectual dung heap. Yes, Mikey, I'm sure beer makes your mind more acute. I wouldn't know, I don't normally drink beer. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. Its merely useless, for assisting in comsumer preferences and choices. It's purpose was never meant for preference, only for difference. Of course if there's no sonic difference, it's hard to claim a sonic preference. It has no purpose with respect to the High End at all. Sure it does, just not your high end, which consists of faith and magic ears. Audio reproduction by High End componentry transcends the capability of Arny's cheap apparatus to transmit it correctly. So now you will offer up proof that an ABX box hides differences. I didn't think so. Hink whatever you want. And you never fail to disappoint. Wild claims, and no proof, not even anything remotely like evidence. You're a very bad scientist Bob. Keep hinking, Mikey. You are very good at hinking. And like all sock puppets, you're good at being hinky. Mikey, it remains as a sad fact that you have an inferior mind. Have you figured out who you are talking to? A dip****, who may or may not be Robt. Morein. Mikey, it is to be expected that, as you have an inferior mind, you would resort to obscenity. Gotta call 'em like I see 'em. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:49:15 GMT, "
wrote: You're correct, I'm stuck here in the real world, not your intellectual dung heap. Yes, Mikey, I'm sure beer makes your mind more acute. I wouldn't know, I don't normally drink beer. Well, you wouldn't have time really after posting here. In fact you must be on a drip. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. It is not for you, a near illiterate, to challenge our right. ABX masks differences. Then prove it. No need to. Bad science alert. It contradicts the experience of a vast number of audiophiles. Thank you for the Flat Earth Society viewpoint. The burden is on you, if you wish to impose new rules and obligations. The burden is met, the entirety of those doing audio research ,use and rely on ABX or some variant all the time. I'm sure people use it all the time for study of Hindi phonemes. It is useless to high fidelity. So why is it the standard for audio researchers? It is not. Like you'd know. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message news  "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. It is not for you, a near illiterate, to challenge our right. ABX masks differences. Then prove it. No need to. Bad science alert. It contradicts the experience of a vast number of audiophiles. Thank you for the Flat Earth Society viewpoint. The burden is on you, if you wish to impose new rules and obligations. The burden is met, the entirety of those doing audio research ,use and rely on ABX or some variant all the time. I'm sure people use it all the time for study of Hindi phonemes. It is useless to high fidelity. So why is it the standard for audio researchers? It is not. Like you'd know. Bad grammar, Mikey McKelviphibian. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. Its merely useless, for assisting in comsumer preferences and choices. It's purpose was never meant for preference, only for difference. Of course if there's no sonic difference, it's hard to claim a sonic preference. It has no purpose with respect to the High End at all. Sure it does, just not your high end, which consists of faith and magic ears. Audio reproduction by High End componentry transcends the capability of Arny's cheap apparatus to transmit it correctly. So now you will offer up proof that an ABX box hides differences. I didn't think so. Hink whatever you want. And you never fail to disappoint. Wild claims, and no proof, not even anything remotely like evidence. You're a very bad scientist Bob. Keep hinking, Mikey. You are very good at hinking. And like all sock puppets, you're good at being hinky. Mikey, it remains as a sad fact that you have an inferior mind. Have you figured out who you are talking to? A dip****, who may or may not be Robt. Morein. Mikey, it is to be expected that, as you have an inferior mind, you would resort to obscenity. Gotta call 'em like I see 'em. We understand that, but as you have an inferior mind, your brain is incapable of processing very much information. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:49:15 GMT, " wrote: You're correct, I'm stuck here in the real world, not your intellectual dung heap. Yes, Mikey, I'm sure beer makes your mind more acute. I wouldn't know, I don't normally drink beer. Well, you wouldn't have time really after posting here. In fact you must be on a drip. Perhaps Mikey is into absinthe. Mikey, do you worship the Green Goddess? |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:49:15 GMT, " wrote: You're correct, I'm stuck here in the real world, not your intellectual dung heap. Yes, Mikey, I'm sure beer makes your mind more acute. I wouldn't know, I don't normally drink beer. Well, you wouldn't have time really after posting here. In fact you must be on a drip. No, no, I'm not even related to any Australians. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:49:15 GMT, " wrote: You're correct, I'm stuck here in the real world, not your intellectual dung heap. Yes, Mikey, I'm sure beer makes your mind more acute. I wouldn't know, I don't normally drink beer. Well, you wouldn't have time really after posting here. In fact you must be on a drip. Perhaps Mikey is into absinthe. Mikey, do you worship the Green Goddess? Salad Dressing? You are a sick puppy. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, Mikey, Arny did the job for us, with an ABX device that uses inferior ruthenium relays that have 27.5 times the resistance of silver. you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, Actually, we don't. It's an excellent tool for studying Hindi phonemes. and you can't claim it masks differences. Here your thinking is clearly confused. Not my thinking, not my writing. You're so desparate that you're forging again. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. But your claims are made of nothing. No evidence, no science, nothing but unfounded claims, which once again fly in the face of all the real scientists doing audio research that rely on ABX or some variant. See? We MADE THE CLAIM. What are you going to do? Erase it? Pretend we didn't do it? No reason to, it's the usual unsupported bull****. Once again, Mikey says, "and you can't claim it masks differences." And we reply, Here your thinking is clearly confused. We can, and we do, claim it masks differences. BINGO! We made the claim AGAIN. I love this illiteracy: " the moon is made from green chees too, but it won't make sound any smarter" The word that was left out and which people of normal intelligence would have assumed, is legitimate. Nobody can legitmately claim that ABX masks differences. Mikey, you cannot apriori remove the legitimacy of your opponents. What legitmacy? You don't have any, none of the criticisms hold water, they are simple bull**** from people who don't like what the science reveals. That's a dirty tactic you learned from Arny Krueger. Calling liars for what they are? I don't think it's his tactic, it's the tactic of anybody who desoises liars. We are legitimately entitled to express our opinions. Go ahead and express them, but that is not what you're doing, you are claiming that it's a fact that ABX is invalid. You have no poof of that claim. Its merely useless, for assisting in comsumer preferences and choices. It's purpose was never meant for preference, only for difference. Of course if there's no sonic difference, it's hard to claim a sonic preference. It has no purpose with respect to the High End at all. Sure it does, just not your high end, which consists of faith and magic ears. Audio reproduction by High End componentry transcends the capability of Arny's cheap apparatus to transmit it correctly. So now you will offer up proof that an ABX box hides differences. I didn't think so. Hink whatever you want. And you never fail to disappoint. Wild claims, and no proof, not even anything remotely like evidence. You're a very bad scientist Bob. Keep hinking, Mikey. You are very good at hinking. And like all sock puppets, you're good at being hinky. Mikey, it remains as a sad fact that you have an inferior mind. Have you figured out who you are talking to? A dip****, who may or may not be Robt. Morein. Mikey, it is to be expected that, as you have an inferior mind, you would resort to obscenity. Gotta call 'em like I see 'em. We understand that, but as you have an inferior mind, your brain is incapable of processing very much information. Seems to be better than yours, I don't confuse 2.4 meters with 40 inches. |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Time for the anti-ABXers to admit the Truth
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:16:24 GMT, "
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:49:15 GMT, " wrote: You're correct, I'm stuck here in the real world, not your intellectual dung heap. Yes, Mikey, I'm sure beer makes your mind more acute. I wouldn't know, I don't normally drink beer. Well, you wouldn't have time really after posting here. In fact you must be on a drip. No, no, I'm not even related to any Australians. Tell me, Mike, how DO you find time for all these posts? Very fast typing? I wouldn't like to sugest any other possibilities for fear of being intrusive. |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Time for the anti-ABXers to admit the Truth
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Because there is no such effect as amplifier imaging. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Time for the anti-ABXers to admit the Truth
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... You can't debunk ABX, you can't discredit it, without discrediting every branch of audio research, and you can't claim it masks differences. Why not relax and keep buying what you want, we won't stop you. Just keep quiet about the staggering differences between your new Lirpa fuel cel driven SET and how much bigger the sound stage is compared to your old Edsel cold fusion amp. Because it may be the case. And you don't know that iis is not. I know there's no reason to suspect one amp may be that much different than another. I know the burden of proof is on you if you believe it to be true, it is you who must present the evidence. If you find some, I'll be happy to hear about it. you don't have to accept any evidence, it is only an opinion. Either way. Once again you confirm your idiocy. If there were amps that measured similarly enough, but sounded different it would for some sort of demonstrable reason, and there would be some demonstrable evidence of it. There is none. evidently, your measurements are not up to snuff. Really? Your evidence of this is what? the same stuff you sent me yesterday. If you standardized everything else in the setup, you could use that as one better tool for measuring amps than the measurements you currently use. Please post the excerpt that deals with amplifiers and their effect on imaging. Thanks for making my point. There aren't any such measurements Because there is no such effect as amplifier imaging. How do you 'know' that? |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Time for the anti-ABXers to admit the Truth
Clyde Slick said: Because there is no such effect as amplifier imaging. How do you 'know' that? It's in his Krooble. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Powerful Argument in Favor of Agnosticism and Athetism | Audio Opinions | |||
| Black History Month, It's Time For The Truth | Car Audio | |||
| OK, time to face the truth | Audio Opinions | |||
| What is a Distressor ? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
