Home Menu

Menu


AudioBanter.com » rec.audio » Audio Opinions > Inclusive, not exclusive
Reply
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey admits he's a stooge of Arny!

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
news
"surf" wrote in message
. ..
" wrote ...

"Robert Morein" wrote...

The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and
that
it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.


Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
No

"Nuf said.
Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.


This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope
right,
and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly.

Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
Or are you just lying, Mikey?


My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting your
ass kicked in a moderated forum.

It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.

And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about damping
factor, or amplifers in general.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #44   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Baptize in antibacterial soap

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



Robert Morein said:

Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?

Perhaps he "pretends" that he has.

Mocking tone, noted. Thanks Robret for admitting that you like to pretend
aBxism
is, not a real testing protocol when all the big company's use it, LOt"s.


Would you consider Bang&Olafson to be a big comapany?
How about Nokia?
Harman? The BBC?

Alll of them use or have used ABX.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #47   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey admits he's a stooge of Arny!

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
news
"surf" wrote in message
. ..
" wrote ...

"Robert Morein" wrote...

The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
and
that
it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference
testing.


Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
No

"Nuf said.
Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.


This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope
right,
and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly.

Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
Or are you just lying, Mikey?


My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting your
ass kicked in a moderated forum.

It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.

And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about damping
factor, or amplifers in general.

Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the definition of
damping factor.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #48   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Baptize in antibacterial soap
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:20:30 GMT, "
wrote:


So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be bad.

You needn't participate in something to recognize it's value.

Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.

Funny, my eyes are still playing up. I wonder if any optometrists are
familiar with this effect:


Robert Morein

Robert Morein

Robert Morein

Robert Morein

Robert Morein

....probably not.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #49   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey admits he's a stooge of Arny!

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
news
"surf" wrote in message
. ..
" wrote ...

"Robert Morein" wrote...

The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
and
that
it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference
testing.


Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
No

"Nuf said.
Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.


This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope
right,
and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly.

Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
Or are you just lying, Mikey?


My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting your
ass kicked in a moderated forum.

It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.

And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about damping
factor, or amplifers in general.

Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the definition
of
damping factor.

Yawn.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #52   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey admits he's a stooge of Arny!

wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
news
"surf" wrote in message
. ..
" wrote ...

"Robert Morein" wrote...

The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
and
that
it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference
testing.


Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
No

"Nuf said.
Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.


This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope
right,
and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly.

Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
Or are you just lying, Mikey?


My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting
your
ass kicked in a moderated forum.

It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.

And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about
damping
factor, or amplifers in general.

Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the
definition
of
damping factor.

Yawn.

Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #57   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Baptize in antibacterial soap

wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
 wrote:
"surf" wrote in message
. ..
" wrote ...
"Robert Morein" wrote...
The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.

At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
[difference] testing.

Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?

No...

Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
this admission.


Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed equipment
is.

I am sorry, Mr, McKelvy. I have no idea how this response of yours
is any way connected to what I wrote.

So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be
bad.

As I said at the HE2005 debate, many of those who are the strongest
proponents of blind testing -- you, Steve Sullivan -- have little
or no experience of it. By contrast, I have taken part in or organized
literally 100s of such tests, which I why I feel, along with Sean
Olive,
whom you recently quoted, that a properly designed blind test where
the variables under tests are restricted to just that the experimenter
wishes to investigate are difficult and time-consuming.

Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.

Okay, but that technqiue does introduce interfering variables, as
has been discussed at length on r.a.o. It also has no relevance to
your not using blind or ABX testing to choose your audio system. I
would have thought, given your blind faith in blind testing, that
when it came to spending your owen money you would make use of that
technique.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #58   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"


John Atkinson said:

Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.

Okay, but that technqiue does introduce interfering variables, as
has been discussed at length on r.a.o.

The 'borgs love to claim that Arnii's ****ware site counts as "experience" in
DBTs. The Normals find that claim laughable. The best that can be said about
that software is that it can help you learn what it's like to undertake a *real*
DBT. (Not my words, but those of somebody whose experience is on a par with
yours, John.)


It also has no relevance to
your not using blind or ABX testing to choose your audio system. I
would have thought, given your blind faith in blind testing, that
when it came to spending your owen money you would make use of that
technique.

Bingo! You've put your finger on the disconnect in BorgLogic. aBxism isn't a
scientific tool for discovering truth. Rather, it's a set of rhetorical dodges
and articles of faith that are used for shoddy rationalizations of religious
beliefs. The way the 'borgs use aBxism as a crutch is a perversion of the
scientific principles that underlie both real DBTs and the technology employed
to create aBxism torture boxes.

Mickey's admission that he never "tested" his own purchases puts him on the same
level of hypocrisy as Sillyborg. (That individual recently admitted, right here
on RAO, that he cares so little about the sound of his system that he
mail-ordered a receiver without any audition at all.) It's clear from this
behavior that Their constant harping on aBxism is nothing but a red herring. The
truth is the 'borgs don't care (or can't perceive) how good or bad Their systems
sound, and they use aBxism in an attempt to distract from the fact that Their
purchases are governed entirely by financial considerations. (As a side note,
let's remember that RAO's standard-bearer of the aBxism religion, Arnii
Krooborg, has spent more on obsolete sound cards than most of us spent on our
whole systems.)

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #59   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Baptize in antibacterial soap
On 26 Oct 2005 06:03:29 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote:

. I would have thought, given your blind faith in blind testing, that
when it came to spending your owen money you would make use of that
technique.

"Blind faith in blind testing". I like that. The blind leading the
blind, sort of.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #60   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"

George Middius wrote:
The best that can be said about [PCABX] is that it can help you
learn what it's like to undertake a *real* DBT. (Not my words, but
those of somebody whose experience is on a par with yours, John.)

I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is
any substitute for experiencing the real thing. And again, it is
astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
spending their own money.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #61   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
John Atkinson wrote :


And again, it is
astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
spending their own money.

Are you sure it is not possible to make the same astonishing constatation
ywith our Stereophile collaborators and the devices they are reviewing ?


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #62   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey admits he's a stooge of Arny!

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
news
"surf" wrote in message
. ..
" wrote ...

"Robert Morein" wrote...

The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's
invalid
and
that
it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference
testing.


Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
No

"Nuf said.
Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.


This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope
right,
and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so
badly.

Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
Or are you just lying, Mikey?


My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting
your
ass kicked in a moderated forum.

It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.

And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about
damping
factor, or amplifers in general.

Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the
definition
of
damping factor.

Yawn.

Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say.

I just get bored when you are so completely, utterly and consistently wrong
about damn near everything, Robert. Your predictability is nothing short of
stunning.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #63   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Baptize in antibacterial soap

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
 wrote:
"surf" wrote in message
. ..
" wrote ...
"Robert Morein" wrote...
The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.

At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
[difference] testing.

Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?

No...

Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
this admission.


Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed equipment
is.

I am sorry, Mr, McKelvy. I have no idea how this response of yours
is any way connected to what I wrote.

So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be
bad.

As I said at the HE2005 debate, many of those who are the strongest
proponents of blind testing -- you, Steve Sullivan -- have little
or no experience of it.

Irrelevant to it being useful and to your denail of that fact.

By contrast, I have taken part in or organized
literally 100s of such tests, which I why I feel, along with Sean
Olive,
whom you recently quoted, that a properly designed blind test where
the variables under tests are restricted to just that the experimenter
wishes to investigate are difficult and time-consuming.


Yet useful nonetheless. and they are still part of the reason why Sean Olive
chose to work where he does.

Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.

Okay, but that technqiue does introduce interfering variables, as
has been discussed at length on r.a.o. It also has no relevance to
your not using blind or ABX testing

Who said anything about blind faith, that's certainly not me. That's the
people who refuse to accept the fact that sighted testing for subtle
difference is worthless.

to choose your audio system.

I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would perform or
I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.

I
would have thought, given your blind faith in blind testing, that
when it came to spending your owen money you would make use of that
technique.

There's that crap about blind faith again, you really do seem to be
confusing you and the hearing impaired idiots you employ as reviewers,
especially Fremer, with people like me who know what their systems are
actually capable of. Otherwise you guys wouldn't keep making the stupid
mistakes you do. Also if you had any integrity, you would test things like
Shakti stones for any actual audible effect, instead of your chicken ****
cop out about how you never tried them, so you can't say for sure.





Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #65   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ps.com


I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that
PCABX is any substitute for experiencing the real thing.

How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this topic.

No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are* many cases
where PCABX *is* the real thing.

Classic examples - testing perceptual encoders and just
about anything else with digital I/O.

The most common cases where PCABX involves estimation
involve equipment that has analog inputs and/or outputs. But
only people who are paranoid about good converters suffer
with this.


And again, it is astonishing that not one of the ABX
advocates actually adheres
to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
spending their own money.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

I've ABXed a fair amount of equipment that I own including
stuff I engineered and built, and so have many others. I've
also ABXed equipment belonging to my friends. Often the
question at hand was: "Is it worth spending my time and/or
money on this?


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #67   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ps.com


I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that
PCABX is any substitute for experiencing the real thing.

How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this topic.


Apparently until he finds the integrity he keeps leaving in his other pants.
Some people are pathalogical liars. Funn how so many of them all seem to
have a problem understandig blind testing.

No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are* many cases where PCABX *is*
the real thing.


If only he were. Unless the real thing is........oh, never mind.

Classic examples - testing perceptual encoders and just about anything
else with digital I/O.

The most common cases where PCABX involves estimation involve equipment
that has analog inputs and/or outputs. But only people who are paranoid
about good converters suffer with this.


Not only them, there are those who wish to pretend that they are not trying
to pull the wool over the eyes of the audio buying public.

And again, it is astonishing that not one of the ABX
advocates actually adheres
to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
spending their own money.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

Such a nice way of shaying he's full of ****, again.


I've ABXed a fair amount of equipment that I own including stuff I
engineered and built, and so have many others. I've also ABXed equipment
belonging to my friends. Often the question at hand was: "Is it worth
spending my time and/or money on this?

The blind comparisons I have done were not really ABX, because at the time I
didn't even know about it, I just knew that it was proper to try and control
bias.

That the bull**** artists like Atkinson think that those who understand the
value and the purpose of blind testing, must use it before they buy anything
shows the depths of either their stupidity, or the lengths they will go to
deceive.

Either way they still get it wrong and it ****es them off that we know it.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #68   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Baptize in antibacterial soap

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On 26 Oct 2005 06:03:29 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote:

. I would have thought, given your blind faith in blind testing, that
when it came to spending your owen money you would make use of that
technique.

"Blind faith in blind testing". I like that. The blind leading the
blind, sort of.

That's the people who trust that Shakti Stones have an audible effect.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #69   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
John Atkinson wrote:

George Middius wrote:
The best that can be said about [PCABX] is that it can help you
learn what it's like to undertake a *real* DBT. (Not my words, but
those of somebody whose experience is on a par with yours, John.)

I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is
any substitute for experiencing the real thing. And again, it is
astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
spending their own money.


What 'advice' is that?

The *advice* to keep the uncontested flaws of sighted
comparison in mind when making *claims* about audible
difference?

The *advice* to do the same when *reading* claims
of audible difference, in magazines like yours?

The *advice* to be aware that differences you perceive in
a sighted comparison of sounds, stand a significant *chance* of
being wholly imaginary, depending on the circumstances?

The *advice* that two things might sound different
for far more mundane reasons than SACD vs CD,
burned-in vs new, high-end vs. mid-fi, Shakti stone
versus 'untreated', etc.?

I suspect every ABX advocate takes all of those
pieces of advice to heart, when spending their own
money. I know I do.


Would you dismiss the 'advice' of
those who advocate DBTs of medicine
and health care products, simply because consumers
themselves aren't usually able to perform them?

If someone has the wherewithal to perform DBTs in their
home, more power to them -- they're very fortunate.
But as we average consumers routinely
depend on well-equipped labs to do the
most definitive, least biased comparisons of products,
so too might one *advise* audiophiles to agitate for, say,
*Stereophile* or some other mainstream audio magazine,
to step into the 20th century, and
perform that service for the consumers it claims to
want to inform.

The only astonishing thing is the bald-faced
sophistry you're engaging in by bringing up
this 'advice' straw man. I fear rmp has
coarsened your debating skills.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #70   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:

George Middius wrote:
The best that can be said about [PCABX] is that it can help you
learn what it's like to undertake a *real* DBT. (Not my words, but
those of somebody whose experience is on a par with yours, John.)

I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is
any substitute for experiencing the real thing. And again, it is
astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
spending their own money.


What 'advice' is that?

The *advice* to keep the uncontested flaws of sighted
comparison in mind when making *claims* about audible
difference?

The *advice* to do the same when *reading* claims
of audible difference, in magazines like yours?

The *advice* to be aware that differences you perceive in
a sighted comparison of sounds, stand a significant *chance* of
being wholly imaginary, depending on the circumstances?

The *advice* that two things might sound different
for far more mundane reasons than SACD vs CD,
burned-in vs new, high-end vs. mid-fi, Shakti stone
versus 'untreated', etc.?

I suspect every ABX advocate takes all of those
pieces of advice to heart, when spending their own
money. I know I do.


Would you dismiss the 'advice' of
those who advocate DBTs of medicine
and health care products, simply because consumers
themselves aren't usually able to perform them?

If someone has the wherewithal to perform DBTs in their
home, more power to them -- they're very fortunate.
But as we average consumers routinely
depend on well-equipped labs to do the
most definitive, least biased comparisons of products,
so too might one *advise* audiophiles to agitate for, say,
*Stereophile* or some other mainstream audio magazine,
to step into the 20th century, and
perform that service for the consumers it claims to
want to inform.

The only astonishing thing is the bald-faced
sophistry you're engaging in by bringing up
this 'advice' straw man. I fear rmp has
coarsened your debating skills.



Now, Now, you can't expect to get rational discussion about why it's bad to
do the right thing. Especially from someone who hasn't the time or the
courage to find the truth about Shakti Stones, Mpingo Disks, or Green Pens.


I think I'm going to visit the Audio Critic website so I can be cleansed of
Atkinson's unmitigated bull****.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #71   Report Post  
dizzy
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
On 26 Oct 2005 13:47:21 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote:

I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is
any substitute for experiencing the real thing. And again, it is
astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
spending their own money.

That's pretty bad. ABX is a valuable tool for research and design,
but not "real easy" for the average Joe to partake in, and not
necessarily beneficial, either (keeping in mind that speakers differ
enough so the "ABX" isn't required).

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #72   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On 26 Oct 2005 13:47:21 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote:

I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is
any substitute for experiencing the real thing. And again, it is
astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
spending their own money.

That's pretty bad. ABX is a valuable tool for research and design,
but not "real easy" for the average Joe to partake in, and not
necessarily beneficial, either (keeping in mind that speakers differ
enough so the "ABX" isn't required).

This fact has been pointed out many times. Atkinson knows it. He also is
probably well aware that ABX double-blind protocols were used at the BBC
when they decided it was impractical to design and build their own speakers.
They ultimately decided on Dynaudio speakers.

If you like I can send you the .pdf file that outlines the entire process.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #73   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Baptize in antibacterial soap
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, wrote:


I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would perform or
I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.

This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
to each component individually, various components together, all the
components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
chose on the basis of specs?

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #74   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ps.com
it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute for
experiencing the real thing.

How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this topic.
No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are* many cases
where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic examples - testing
perceptual encoders and just about anything else with digital
I/O.

Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I have said
on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX is a perfectly
valid means of testing codecs, A/D converters, etc, where their
effects on sound quality are directly preserved as computer
data files.

But PCABX cannot be used to directly compare the components that
comprise a typical audio system -- CD players, D/A converters,
amplifiers, loudspeakers -- which was the unambiguous context
for my comment, Mike McKelvy's choosing components for his
audio system.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #75   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ps.com

it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute for
experiencing the real thing.

How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this
topic. No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are* many
cases where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic examples
- testing perceptual encoders and just about anything
else with digital I/O.

Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I
have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX
is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs, A/D
converters, etc, where their effects on sound quality are
directly preserved as computer data files.

But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
John. You continue to make pronouncements as if from on
high, pronoucements that are based on outdated and narrow
thinking.

But PCABX cannot be used to directly compare the
components that comprise a typical audio system -- CD
players, D/A converters, amplifiers, loudspeakers --

So you say, Atkinson. However as your comments at the HE2005
debate showed, when it comes to testing methodologies, your
mind is locked in a loop that has been running in place
wihtout changing in any meannigful way for more than 20
years. What's worse is the fact that the loop is a part of a
broken program.

BTW John, just for grins compare the following to the
old-fashioned stuff you publish along similar lines:

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wir...4BSTleft-z.gif

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wir...ST-left-ph.gif

John, you'll probably die before you catch up with the work
I did years ago, in terms of either technical or subjective
testing.

Very sad.





Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #76   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Baptize in antibacterial soap

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, wrote:


I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would perform
or
I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.

This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
to each component individually, various components together, all the
components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
chose on the basis of specs?

On the basis of actual performance.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #77   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ps.com
it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute for
experiencing the real thing.

How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this
topic. No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are* many
cases where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic examples
- testing perceptual encoders and just about anything
else with digital I/O.

Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I
have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX
is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs, A/D
converters, etc, where their effects on sound quality are
directly preserved as computer data files.

But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
John.

Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
selection of components for a domestic playback system.

PCABX cannot be used to directly compare the
components that comprise a typical audio system -- CD
players, D/A converters, amplifiers, loudspeakers --

So you say, Atkinson.

Just as you have said in the past, Mr. Krueger. if it
was correct when you said it, it is equally correct
when I say it, surely?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #78   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Baptize in antibacterial soap
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:32:38 GMT, wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, wrote:


I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would perform
or
I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.

This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
to each component individually, various components together, all the
components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
chose on the basis of specs?

On the basis of actual performance.

Evasive answer noted.

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #79   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:19:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


But in your %$# posturing

No swearing, Arnie. :-)
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #80   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The truth about the 'borgs and their "blind faith"
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
ps.com
it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute
for experiencing the real thing.

How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this
topic. No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are*
many cases where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic
examples - testing perceptual encoders and just about
anything else with digital I/O.

Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I
have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX
is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs, A/D
converters, etc, where their effects on sound quality
are directly preserved as computer data files.

But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
John.

Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
selection of components for a domestic playback system.

Do you read what you write, John? Did you really say that
codecs and ADCs have nothing to do with selection of
components for a domestic playback system?

(1) Dolby Digital is based on the AC-3 codec, pure and
simple.

(2) Many modern surround receivers have DSP-based signal
processing which requires there be ADCs to convert analog
inputs to digital.

Those are just the two most likely examples of
contradictions of your poorly-informed claim, John.



Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"

 

Contact Us AudioBanter Home Privacy Statement