[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Brave Sir Robin speaketh thus:

ScottW wrote:

as opposed to the cowards who stand around and do nothing.

"When danger reared its ugly head, Sir Robin bravely turned tail and
fled..."

....because he wanted others to face the danger for him.

RIP ;-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" arnyk_at_comcast_dot_net wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" arnyk_at_comcast_dot_net wrote in message
...



snip


It's a strange nontest whose outcome that Atkinson and Lavo wish to
distort into a conclusion that ringing is audible in every piece of
16/44 equipment.

snip

http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index1.html

Please note that I was talking about this phenomenon since
mid-2005....long before the Stereo review article came out.

Stereo Review? Now we know for sure that you aren't watching the game,
Harry. Post again when you wake up!


Yawwwwnnnnn!!

Yes sir.

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

Good luck on getting through Scooter's impenetrable anti-reason armor. One
may readily recall that when a certain troll posted my address and phone
number on RAO, Scottie was at the front of the cheerleading squad.

Prove it.
...though one could argue you reap what you sow.

So....no proof offered by George. No surprise.

ScottW


Let it be known that George is being a complete and total
hypocrite for whining about needing to unlist his number.
Why don't you treat others how you want to be
treated?

Miraculsouly, Scooter spelled "sow" correctly.

PS Not my words.

Good retrieval. Glad to see Goggle„¢ is over its lying compulsion.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Here in Ohio wrote:
On 22 Nov 2006 16:18:42 -0800, "
wrote:


I found that I did hear differences between some electronic components
like CD players, preamps, and amplifiers. They tended to be rather
slight though, and (other than the difference between an old tube amp
and a modern SS amp), weren't of a magnitude such as to make choosing
between preamps nearly as important as choosing between speakers.

So you heard differences but none that mattered to you Disappointing.
Pianists can hear major differences between a Yamaha and a Bluthner.
Can you?

I didn't say the differences didn't matter to me. Just that the
differences were much less than those found with speakers.


I can hear differences between pianos of various makes and types, but
I am not familiar enough with them to assign a brand name after
listening to a recording in most cases.



Now about speakers. Which renowned, decent speakers did you compare by
ABXing with what results?

Speakers systems don't lend themselves well to ABX testing. They're
even rather difficult to blind test at all.

Happily, differences between speaker systems are quite obvious to most
listeners and are real, so there isn't much need to do any debunking.




With names please. We already know the theory but we'd like some help
with our choices.

Names of what?

Of components. Next time I'll be more careful to remember that I'm
being read by a close reader.

http://www.avahifi.com/

I've been using Frank's electronics since the mid '80s.
=================================

Mr. Ohioan (? is this a correct adjective?) says:
" Happily, differences between speaker systems are quite obvious to
most
listeners and are real, so there isn't much need to do any debunking.

It does not cease to amaze me how willing the average mechanic (you're
an EE, right?) is to spout his undergrad textbook certainties about
things far beyond his horizon.

Here is what Sean Olive has to say in the introduction to his excellent
loudspeaker research:
article ( "Differences in performance and preference....." JAES, vol.
51, #8, 2003, p.806):
"Significant differences in performance... were found among the
different categories of listeners...Performance differences aside
loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent across all categories
of listeners" On p.808 he defines "performance" as "...the listeners
ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings.."

So much for having to be able to differentiate before being able to
prefer.
I read that one at least 20 times in the chapel's collected sermons.
The less learning the more assured the doctrine spouting.
Ludovic Mirabel.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com...

Mr. Ohioan (? is this a correct adjective?) says:
" Happily, differences between speaker systems are quite obvious to
most listeners and are real, so there isn't much need to do any
debunking.

This is of course true. Speakers differ in frequency response and nonlinear
distortion characteristics, far more than good amplifiers and CD players.
We're talking orders of magnitudes larger differences.

It does not cease to amaze me how willing the average mechanic (you're
an EE, right?) is to spout his undergrad textbook certainties about
things far beyond his horizon.

So from this we can conclude that Mirabel thinks that all undergraduate
textbooks are 100% hogwash? LOL!

Here is what Sean Olive has to say in the introduction to his excellent
loudspeaker research:
article ( "Differences in performance and preference....." JAES, vol.
51, #8, 2003, p.806):

"Significant differences in performance... were found among the
different categories of listeners...Performance differences aside
loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent across all categories
of listeners" On p.808 he defines "performance" as "...the listeners
ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings.."

This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

So much for having to be able to differentiate before being able to
prefer.

This is Mirabel's conclusion which seems to bear no relationship to the
texts he quoted.

I read that one at least 20 times in the chapel's collected sermons.
The less learning the more assured the doctrine spouting.

I think that this is intended to be either an insult or some kind of
important point of philosophy, but ???????

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
ups.com

Arny Krueger a scris:

In contrast we have a great collection of Art's
meltdowns - they are simply full quotes of other
people's posts with no additional comments.

The only thing melting down in my house is my mouse.

Come on Art. On occasions you've admitted that it was operator failure.

You want us to believe that you're the only guy on Usenet with a mouse that
bad?

Oh, I get it Art, you have thousands of dollars invested in your audio gear,
and can't afford a new mouse? LOL!

Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past year
or so:

It is a Mitsumi model S6702.

http://acortech.com/Mitsumi_Optical_...d-3214737.html

Net price: $7.20.

get me good deal on a track ball, its what I had been using.
I have no interest in reverting to a mouse.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com

Even where you agree with him, you're still wrong.

It is not just that you agree, it is also how you agree. In your case
you're so poorly-informed that even correct information sounds incorrect
when you present it.

It is almost like someone who knows what they are doing is telling you what
to type in the next room, and by the time you walk next door and type it in,
your addled mind has scrambled it.

Rule #1

Never, ever share a room with a sockpuppet

[Clyde Slick]

a scris:

a scientist


'nuff said!

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:59:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice.

I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech
are IME better tools.

MS has several levels of quality. The stuff they supply
as an OEM is horrible, but the stuff they sell at retail
is quite a bit better.

I'm considering both.

Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk.

Agreed.

Can't beat the price for something at least halfways
decent.

The Mitsumi stuff I evaluated in the mid '90s was not
even halfway decent, it was just inexpensive.

That was a long, long time ago.

As I said, perhaps they have improved. But my first
impulse would be to spend the extra $10 and get a
Logitech mouse.

Been there done that, and it wasn't bad. More than that, it was very good.
But when there are a lot of systems in the buy, well something that works
well for a lot less has its charms.

Remember that the reason I brought this up was that Art blames a lot of crap
posts on a bad mouse, and there's no economic excuse for using a bad mouse.
Personally, I think that he just gets so excited that he sends in those
posts that are 100% copies of the post he was responding to, in a fit of
pique.

Its the damn cat!
cat hairs clogging up the mose (track ball)
Logitech, no less1

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
"John Atkinson" wrote


As usual, Shain had his brown-colored spectacles on when he tried to foist
his highly-biased analysis off on RAO. In addition, he seemed so pleased
with himself when it was all over. It's almost like we never anticipated
that dealers would show so little regard for consumers who wished to inform
themselves.

Fact of the matter is that the issue with dealers is not anything as
sophisticated as ABX. They pretty universally fall flat on their face when
addressing the far simpler requirement of say, level-matching. They usually
fall flat on their face on even simpler grounds.

Bottom line is that even level-matched listening tests would require that
dealers step up to levels of accountibility that they are neither motivated
nor technically capable of addressing. There's really no reason to bring up
testing requirements as sophisticated as ABX, when neither dealers nor
consumers are interested or capable of doing something as basic as
level-matching.

Furthermore, even the issue of level-matching is moot compared to the degree
to which dealers and consumers rush into purchase decisions based on
fragmentary evidence. We recently threw around what it would take for
dealers to provide reasonably exact comparisons of high end turntables.
Mission impossible.

While the ABX partners were organizing themselves, the question of possible
sales of the ABX Comparator was raised. I figured that with heroic efforts
and everything going our way, maybe we could sell a thousand units. We never
put forth the heroic efforts and everything didn't go our way. Se la vie.

Heroic efforts????
read, selling them at a loss and losing their shirts.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

get me good deal on a track ball, its what I had been using.
I have no interest in reverting to a mouse.

I thought the problem was arthritic in nature. Krooger doesn't have such
problems because of, you know, the prosthetics.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Clyde Slick wrote:

get me good deal on a track ball, its what I had been using.
I have no interest in reverting to a mouse.

LOL! Like itrs not legacy equipment when you use antiuqes like
trackballs Not! LoT';S!

Give mr a clue when you get one, Mr Slyke. Poreve that the Trackball
is syopuerior to the CD like it or not.

Mouses (or mice as some poeple mistajeknely refer to tham as) can be
had for a goodly amousnt less than an goodly used LP and will dsound
better. Much! Tarckvballs are like toobs for boobs.

Get in to this last year or even the poast 10 of technology, mR
SlsimeK. LOL!

;-)

(Any improvement, Sander? I've been reading the manual that kame with
the deKoder.)

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[Sander deWaal]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" said:


(Any improvement, Sander? I've been reading the manual that kame with
the deKoder.)


I'd suggest Telefunken ECC803S gold-pins next.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" said:


Se la vie.


Heroic efforts????
read, selling them at a loss and losing their shirts.


K' serra, monsieur Slique.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" said:


(Any improvement, Sander? I've been reading the manual that kame with
the deKoder.)


I'd suggest Telefunken ECC803S gold-pins next.

Too good for Arns.

I know that you know more than me, but to deKode Arns, I'm thinking
something from China might work better.

Or as an alternative, maybe a 12AT7?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Mr. Ohioan (? is this a correct adjective?) says:
" Happily, differences between speaker systems are quite obvious to
most listeners and are real, so there isn't much need to do any
debunking.

This is of course true. Speakers differ in frequency response and nonlinear
distortion characteristics, far more than good amplifiers and CD players.
We're talking orders of magnitudes larger differences.

It does not cease to amaze me how willing the average mechanic (you're
an EE, right?) is to spout his undergrad textbook certainties about
things far beyond his horizon.

So from this we can conclude that Mirabel thinks that all undergraduate
textbooks are 100% hogwash? LOL!

Here is what Sean Olive has to say in the introduction to his excellent
loudspeaker research:
article ( "Differences in performance and preference....." JAES, vol.
51, #8, 2003, p.806):

"Significant differences in performance... were found among the
different categories of listeners...Performance differences aside
loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent across all categories
of listeners" On p.808 he defines "performance" as "...the listeners
ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings.."

This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

So much for having to be able to differentiate before being able to
prefer.

This is Mirabel's conclusion which seems to bear no relationship to the
texts he quoted.

I read that one at least 20 times in the chapel's collected sermons.
The less learning the more assured the doctrine spouting.

I think that this is intended to be either an insult or some kind of
important point of philosophy, but ???????
==============================:


More from Krueger:

I quoted the relevant sentences from Sean Olive's summary of his
loudspeaker paper with dots to indicate omission of the inessential. A
normal ppractice to avoid sore typing finger and boredom.

Krueger got something to latch on - the dots:
This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

Quite typical of his wriggle when faced with inconvenient facts.
He does not quote one sentence of Olive's to show that I did not quote
his conclusions faithfully namely that:
the listeners who consistently plumped for the better sounding
speakers performed badly when asked to listen for difference.and
identification

You'd think that this audio expert would have a copy of this important
paper handy.. Or that he could go to any Public Library and ask for a
library interchange copy. Or that he would take a trip to the
Engineering Dept. library. They have them in Detroit . don't they?

He could show me up for quoting: "just a collection of disjoint
sentences lifted from context and justapositioned in what appears to
be a random pattern".

Not our Krueger. He knows that he would come back emptyhanded..

So he takes shelter in his usual preference for slander and
personalities.
Ludovic Mirabel

P.S. A reminder. Where are those references to positive ABX component
listening tests.with summary of results.? ..
It's been a good few years. Do you need more time?

[Sander deWaal]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" said:


(Any improvement, Sander? I've been reading the manual that kame with
the deKoder.)


I'd suggest Telefunken ECC803S gold-pins next.


Too good for Arns.

I know that you know more than me, but to deKode Arns, I'm thinking
something from China might work better.


Firecrackers? Have some KT88s on me ;-)


Or as an alternative, maybe a 12AT7?


Nahh, novals are too wimpy anyway.
A 6SL7 in SRPP might do it, or a mu stage.
Google on "Alan Kimmel" and "Mu stage".


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" said:


(Any improvement, Sander? I've been reading the manual that kame with
the deKoder.)


I'd suggest Telefunken ECC803S gold-pins next.


Too good for Arns.

I know that you know more than me, but to deKode Arns, I'm thinking
something from China might work better.


Firecrackers? Have some KT88s on me ;-)


Or as an alternative, maybe a 12AT7?


Nahh, novals are too wimpy anyway.
A 6SL7 in SRPP might do it, or a mu stage.
Google on "Alan Kimmel" and "Mu stage".

What will a lower-gain tube, like a 6SN7, do to the deKoder? A mu of
100 may amplify Arns too much. That's why I thought a 12AT7 (or maybe a
12AY7, or a 5751) might work better. Besides, then I don't have to put
a new socket in.:-)

[Sander deWaal]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" said:


Or as an alternative, maybe a 12AT7?


Nahh, novals are too wimpy anyway.
A 6SL7 in SRPP might do it, or a mu stage.
Google on "Alan Kimmel" and "Mu stage".


What will a lower-gain tube, like a 6SN7, do to the deKoder? A mu of
100 may amplify Arns too much. That's why I thought a 12AT7 (or maybe a
12AY7, or a 5751) might work better. Besides, then I don't have to put
a new socket in.:-)


A SRPP has an amplification factor of 0.5 mu.
Amplifying Arns isn't the problem, any number times 0 still equals 0.

12AY7 or 6072 could work, you'd only have to adjust for 2nd
Kroomonics. The higher Kroomonics aren't that high anyway.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[ScottW]

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Mr. Ohioan (? is this a correct adjective?) says:
" Happily, differences between speaker systems are quite obvious to
most listeners and are real, so there isn't much need to do any
debunking.

This is of course true. Speakers differ in frequency response and nonlinear
distortion characteristics, far more than good amplifiers and CD players.
We're talking orders of magnitudes larger differences.

It does not cease to amaze me how willing the average mechanic (you're
an EE, right?) is to spout his undergrad textbook certainties about
things far beyond his horizon.

So from this we can conclude that Mirabel thinks that all undergraduate
textbooks are 100% hogwash? LOL!

Here is what Sean Olive has to say in the introduction to his excellent
loudspeaker research:
article ( "Differences in performance and preference....." JAES, vol.
51, #8, 2003, p.806):

"Significant differences in performance... were found among the
different categories of listeners...Performance differences aside
loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent across all categories
of listeners" On p.808 he defines "performance" as "...the listeners
ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings.."

This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

So much for having to be able to differentiate before being able to
prefer.

This is Mirabel's conclusion which seems to bear no relationship to the
texts he quoted.

I read that one at least 20 times in the chapel's collected sermons.
The less learning the more assured the doctrine spouting.

I think that this is intended to be either an insult or some kind of
important point of philosophy, but ???????
==============================:


More from Krueger:

I quoted the relevant sentences from Sean Olive's summary of his
loudspeaker paper with dots to indicate omission of the inessential. A
normal ppractice to avoid sore typing finger and boredom.

Krueger got something to latch on - the dots:
This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

Quite typical of his wriggle when faced with inconvenient facts.
He does not quote one sentence of Olive's to show that I did not quote
his conclusions faithfully namely that:
the listeners who consistently plumped for the better sounding
speakers performed badly when asked to listen for difference.and
identification

You'd think that this audio expert would have a copy of this important
paper handy.. Or that he could go to any Public Library and ask for a
library interchange copy. Or that he would take a trip to the
Engineering Dept. library. They have them in Detroit . don't they?

You keep coming back round to this paper....
is Stephens summary incorrect?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...1e884cd?hl=en&

And did not Olive say the speakers used in his trials
were objectively and subjectively different?

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Mr. Ohioan (? is this a correct adjective?) says:
" Happily, differences between speaker systems are quite obvious to
most listeners and are real, so there isn't much need to do any
debunking.

This is of course true. Speakers differ in frequency response and nonlinear
distortion characteristics, far more than good amplifiers and CD players.
We're talking orders of magnitudes larger differences.

It does not cease to amaze me how willing the average mechanic (you're
an EE, right?) is to spout his undergrad textbook certainties about
things far beyond his horizon.

So from this we can conclude that Mirabel thinks that all undergraduate
textbooks are 100% hogwash? LOL!

Here is what Sean Olive has to say in the introduction to his excellent
loudspeaker research:
article ( "Differences in performance and preference....." JAES, vol.
51, #8, 2003, p.806):

"Significant differences in performance... were found among the
different categories of listeners...Performance differences aside
loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent across all categories
of listeners" On p.808 he defines "performance" as "...the listeners
ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings.."

This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

So much for having to be able to differentiate before being able to
prefer.

This is Mirabel's conclusion which seems to bear no relationship to the
texts he quoted.

I read that one at least 20 times in the chapel's collected sermons.
The less learning the more assured the doctrine spouting.

I think that this is intended to be either an insult or some kind of
important point of philosophy, but ???????
==============================:


More from Krueger:

I quoted the relevant sentences from Sean Olive's summary of his
loudspeaker paper with dots to indicate omission of the inessential. A
normal ppractice to avoid sore typing finger and boredom.

Krueger got something to latch on - the dots:
This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

Quite typical of his wriggle when faced with inconvenient facts.
He does not quote one sentence of Olive's to show that I did not quote
his conclusions faithfully namely that:
the listeners who consistently plumped for the better sounding
speakers performed badly when asked to listen for difference.and
identification

You'd think that this audio expert would have a copy of this important
paper handy.. Or that he could go to any Public Library and ask for a
library interchange copy. Or that he would take a trip to the
Engineering Dept. library. They have them in Detroit . don't they?

You keep coming back round to this paper....
is Stephens summary incorrect?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...1e884cd?hl=en&

And did not Olive say the speakers used in his trials
were objectively and subjectively different?

ScottW

===========================================

I don't know if engineer Sullivan's tortured, scholastical exegesis of
a straightforward scientific paper is correct or not because he lost me
somewhere quarter way down (and I'm not counting the mature and witty
way he changed my name to Dr.Mirabilis and seemed so delighted with his
humorous invention that he repeated it again a dozen times).

I prefer Olive's own summary to Sullivan's inept, confusing account in
which he tries desperately to torture Olive's nonABX reserch into the
ABX chapel canon.

Yes the speakers were subjectively and objectively different. That's
why the listensrs plumped for some when listening to music like human
beings do and not bothering about "different or the same".

I don't see why I have to be pestered by Sullivan and you to keep
repeating what S. Olive said very clearly in his introductory summary.

This time the quote is verbatim for your benefit since the last time
you were spouting about it you had not yet read it: Did you get to it
yet?

" Listening tests on four different loudspeakers were conducted over
the course of 18 months using 36 different groups of listeners. The
groups includewd 256 untrained listeners whose occupations fell into
one of four categories: audio retailers, marketing and sales,
professional audio reviewer and college student. The loudspeaker
preference and performance of these listeners were compared to those of
a panel of 12 trained listeners.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE (My capitals L.M ). expressed
in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F statisti Fl were found
among different categories of listeners. The trained listeners were the
most DISCRIMINATING and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27
times higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE
DIFFERENCES ASIDE, LOUDSPEAKER PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT
ACROSS ALL CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS, providing evidence that the
PREFERENCES of trained listeners can be safely extrapolated to a larger
population. The highest rated had the flattest measured frequency
response maintained uniformly off axis. Effects and interactions
between training, programs, and loudspeakers are discussed "

I don't know what I'm being punished for to have to type
miles of text for the benefit of functional illiterates. Stick to
copying columnists.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

wrote:

I don't know what I'm being punished for to have to type
miles of text for the benefit of functional illiterates. Stick to
copying columnists.

LOL

[ScottW]

wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Mr. Ohioan (? is this a correct adjective?) says:
" Happily, differences between speaker systems are quite obvious to
most listeners and are real, so there isn't much need to do any
debunking.

This is of course true. Speakers differ in frequency response and
nonlinear
distortion characteristics, far more than good amplifiers and CD players.
We're talking orders of magnitudes larger differences.

It does not cease to amaze me how willing the average mechanic (you're
an EE, right?) is to spout his undergrad textbook certainties about
things far beyond his horizon.

So from this we can conclude that Mirabel thinks that all undergraduate
textbooks are 100% hogwash? LOL!

Here is what Sean Olive has to say in the introduction to his excellent
loudspeaker research:
article ( "Differences in performance and preference....." JAES, vol.
51, #8, 2003, p.806):

"Significant differences in performance... were found among the
different categories of listeners...Performance differences aside
loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent across all categories
of listeners" On p.808 he defines "performance" as "...the listeners
ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings.."

This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

So much for having to be able to differentiate before being able to
prefer.

This is Mirabel's conclusion which seems to bear no relationship to the
texts he quoted.

I read that one at least 20 times in the chapel's collected sermons.
The less learning the more assured the doctrine spouting.

I think that this is intended to be either an insult or some kind of
important point of philosophy, but ???????
==============================:


More from Krueger:

I quoted the relevant sentences from Sean Olive's summary of his
loudspeaker paper with dots to indicate omission of the inessential. A
normal ppractice to avoid sore typing finger and boredom.

Krueger got something to latch on - the dots:
This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

Quite typical of his wriggle when faced with inconvenient facts.
He does not quote one sentence of Olive's to show that I did not quote
his conclusions faithfully namely that:
the listeners who consistently plumped for the better sounding
speakers performed badly when asked to listen for difference.and
identification

You'd think that this audio expert would have a copy of this important
paper handy.. Or that he could go to any Public Library and ask for a
library interchange copy. Or that he would take a trip to the
Engineering Dept. library. They have them in Detroit . don't they?

You keep coming back round to this paper....
is Stephens summary incorrect?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...1e884cd?hl=en&

And did not Olive say the speakers used in his trials
were objectively and subjectively different?

ScottW

===========================================

I don't know if engineer Sullivan's tortured, scholastical exegesis of
a straightforward scientific paper is correct or not because he lost me
somewhere quarter way down (and I'm not counting the mature and witty
way he changed my name to Dr.Mirabilis and seemed so delighted with his
humorous invention that he repeated it again a dozen times).

I prefer Olive's own summary to Sullivan's inept, confusing account in
which he tries desperately to torture Olive's nonABX reserch into the
ABX chapel canon.

Yes the speakers were subjectively and objectively different. That's
why the listensrs plumped for some when listening to music like human
beings do and not bothering about "different or the same".

I don't see why I have to be pestered by Sullivan and you to keep
repeating what S. Olive said very clearly in his introductory summary.

This time the quote is verbatim for your benefit since the last time
you were spouting about it you had not yet read it: Did you get to it
yet?

" Listening tests on four different loudspeakers were conducted over
the course of 18 months using 36 different groups of listeners. The
groups includewd 256 untrained listeners whose occupations fell into
one of four categories: audio retailers, marketing and sales,
professional audio reviewer and college student. The loudspeaker
preference and performance of these listeners were compared to those of
a panel of 12 trained listeners.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE (My capitals L.M ). expressed
in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F statisti Fl were found
among different categories of listeners. The trained listeners were the
most DISCRIMINATING and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27
times higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE
DIFFERENCES ASIDE, LOUDSPEAKER PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT
ACROSS ALL CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS, providing evidence that the
PREFERENCES of trained listeners can be safely extrapolated to a larger
population. The highest rated had the flattest measured frequency
response maintained uniformly off axis. Effects and interactions
between training, programs, and loudspeakers are discussed "

I don't know what I'm being punished for to have to type
miles of text for the benefit of functional illiterates. Stick to
copying columnists.

Ok, but what did this have to do with ABX?

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Mr. Ohioan (? is this a correct adjective?) says:
" Happily, differences between speaker systems are quite obvious to
most listeners and are real, so there isn't much need to do any
debunking.

This is of course true. Speakers differ in frequency response and
nonlinear
distortion characteristics, far more than good amplifiers and CD players.
We're talking orders of magnitudes larger differences.

It does not cease to amaze me how willing the average mechanic (you're
an EE, right?) is to spout his undergrad textbook certainties about
things far beyond his horizon.

So from this we can conclude that Mirabel thinks that all undergraduate
textbooks are 100% hogwash? LOL!

Here is what Sean Olive has to say in the introduction to his excellent
loudspeaker research:
article ( "Differences in performance and preference....." JAES, vol.
51, #8, 2003, p.806):

"Significant differences in performance... were found among the
different categories of listeners...Performance differences aside
loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent across all categories
of listeners" On p.808 he defines "performance" as "...the listeners
ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings.."

This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

So much for having to be able to differentiate before being able to
prefer.

This is Mirabel's conclusion which seems to bear no relationship to the
texts he quoted.

I read that one at least 20 times in the chapel's collected sermons.
The less learning the more assured the doctrine spouting.

I think that this is intended to be either an insult or some kind of
important point of philosophy, but ???????
==============================:


More from Krueger:

I quoted the relevant sentences from Sean Olive's summary of his
loudspeaker paper with dots to indicate omission of the inessential. A
normal ppractice to avoid sore typing finger and boredom.

Krueger got something to latch on - the dots:
This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

Quite typical of his wriggle when faced with inconvenient facts.
He does not quote one sentence of Olive's to show that I did not quote
his conclusions faithfully namely that:
the listeners who consistently plumped for the better sounding
speakers performed badly when asked to listen for difference.and
identification

You'd think that this audio expert would have a copy of this important
paper handy.. Or that he could go to any Public Library and ask for a
library interchange copy. Or that he would take a trip to the
Engineering Dept. library. They have them in Detroit . don't they?

You keep coming back round to this paper....
is Stephens summary incorrect?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...1e884cd?hl=en&

And did not Olive say the speakers used in his trials
were objectively and subjectively different?

ScottW

===========================================

I don't know if engineer Sullivan's tortured, scholastical exegesis of
a straightforward scientific paper is correct or not because he lost me
somewhere quarter way down (and I'm not counting the mature and witty
way he changed my name to Dr.Mirabilis and seemed so delighted with his
humorous invention that he repeated it again a dozen times).

I prefer Olive's own summary to Sullivan's inept, confusing account in
which he tries desperately to torture Olive's nonABX reserch into the
ABX chapel canon.

Yes the speakers were subjectively and objectively different. That's
why the listensrs plumped for some when listening to music like human
beings do and not bothering about "different or the same".

I don't see why I have to be pestered by Sullivan and you to keep
repeating what S. Olive said very clearly in his introductory summary.

This time the quote is verbatim for your benefit since the last time
you were spouting about it you had not yet read it: Did you get to it
yet?

" Listening tests on four different loudspeakers were conducted over
the course of 18 months using 36 different groups of listeners. The
groups includewd 256 untrained listeners whose occupations fell into
one of four categories: audio retailers, marketing and sales,
professional audio reviewer and college student. The loudspeaker
preference and performance of these listeners were compared to those of
a panel of 12 trained listeners.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE (My capitals L.M ). expressed
in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F statisti Fl were found
among different categories of listeners. The trained listeners were the
most DISCRIMINATING and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27
times higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE
DIFFERENCES ASIDE, LOUDSPEAKER PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT
ACROSS ALL CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS, providing evidence that the
PREFERENCES of trained listeners can be safely extrapolated to a larger
population. The highest rated had the flattest measured frequency
response maintained uniformly off axis. Effects and interactions
between training, programs, and loudspeakers are discussed "

I don't know what I'm being punished for to have to type
miles of text for the benefit of functional illiterates. Stick to
copying columnists.

Ok, but what did this have to do with ABX?

ScottW
==============================
ScottW asks:

" Ok, but what did this have to do with ABX?"

.. Olive's excellent paper comparing loudspeakers , as objectively as
possible, exists as valuable research contribution.
ABX as a preoperly researched "test" for comparing anything in audio
does not. .Outside of the noises of the ABX creator and his chapel. It
is hard to discuss or prove nonexistence of nonexistence. Prove that
little people don't live 80000 feet deep.

Your point?
Ludovic Mirabel



Just this

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Mr. Ohioan (? is this a correct adjective?) says:
" Happily, differences between speaker systems are quite obvious to
most listeners and are real, so there isn't much need to do any
debunking.

This is of course true. Speakers differ in frequency response and nonlinear
distortion characteristics, far more than good amplifiers and CD players.
We're talking orders of magnitudes larger differences.

It does not cease to amaze me how willing the average mechanic (you're
an EE, right?) is to spout his undergrad textbook certainties about
things far beyond his horizon.

So from this we can conclude that Mirabel thinks that all undergraduate
textbooks are 100% hogwash? LOL!

Here is what Sean Olive has to say in the introduction to his excellent
loudspeaker research:
article ( "Differences in performance and preference....." JAES, vol.
51, #8, 2003, p.806):

"Significant differences in performance... were found among the
different categories of listeners...Performance differences aside
loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent across all categories
of listeners" On p.808 he defines "performance" as "...the listeners
ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings.."

This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

So much for having to be able to differentiate before being able to
prefer.

This is Mirabel's conclusion which seems to bear no relationship to the
texts he quoted.

I read that one at least 20 times in the chapel's collected sermons.
The less learning the more assured the doctrine spouting.

I think that this is intended to be either an insult or some kind of
important point of philosophy, but ???????
==============================:


More from Krueger:

I quoted the relevant sentences from Sean Olive's summary of his
loudspeaker paper with dots to indicate omission of the inessential. A
normal ppractice to avoid sore typing finger and boredom.

Krueger got something to latch on - the dots:
This is just a collection of disjoint sentences lifted from context and
justapositioned in what appears to be a random pattern.

Quite typical of his wriggle when faced with inconvenient facts.
He does not quote one sentence of Olive's to show that I did not quote
his conclusions faithfully namely that:
the listeners who consistently plumped for the better sounding
speakers performed badly when asked to listen for difference.and
identification

You'd think that this audio expert would have a copy of this important
paper handy.. Or that he could go to any Public Library and ask for a
library interchange copy. Or that he would take a trip to the
Engineering Dept. library. They have them in Detroit . don't they?

You keep coming back round to this paper....
is Stephens summary incorrect?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...1e884cd?hl=en&

And did not Olive say the speakers used in his trials
were objectively and subjectively different?

ScottW

========================

Just a reminder. Two days ago one ScottW asked:

is Stephens summary incorrect?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...1e884cd?hl=en&

And did not Olive say the speakers used in his trials
were objectively and subjectively different?

He also quoted Sullivan's posting defending ABX
He was answered on all those counts in this thread one day ago..

He can't think of anything to say. So typically he twists around drops
those topics and with it drops the debate about the right way to listen
to audio components.

ScottW it is waste of time discussing anything audio with you. You
don't want me to dig up the day when you demonstrated your ignorance of
things audio do you?

My advice stands. Stick to OT. copying columnists.
Ludovic Mirabel