RAHE challenges Stereophile.to a DBT contest

[ludovic mirabel]

I challenged:

"It would if you could quote JUST ONE such test that was done on
ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, (see S. Olive's article
that I quoted to begin with) that had a POSITIVE result. > N.B. *
Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned methods), >
statistically valid (significant numbers),randomised
( not a preselected, trained group) and truly double blind.*
So far whenever people are tested by DBT/ABX method the reported
result is: "It all sounds the same"
How gross the difference has to be to overcome the ABX/DBT hurdle and
be > heard by us peasants, the crossection of listeners?"

You dug up one reference dated #August 1984#!
"Here's one. http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm"

This was prof. S. Lip****z testing in 1984 one single witness:
Tiefenbrun developer and manufacturer of all of the Linn stuff:
loudspeakers, turntables and cartridges. Still active. A typical "
statistically valid crosssection of audio listeners, typically random
(not a preselected, trained group)". Right Mr. McKelvy? And they were
NOT comparing components but testing some rash Tiefenbrun statements
on matters of not the slightest importance to an average audiophile.
Right Mr. McKelvy?
And what was the upshot of this one and only ( you remember you said
you had "many")1984 test you managed to dig up from the bottom of the
barrel?
Lipschitz said:

"In summary, then, ****no**** evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun
during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify
reliably:
(a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room,
(b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio
chain, or
(c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the
circuit."
Experienced, trained manufacturer-developer Tiefenbrun failed.
Another NEGATIVE ABX\DBT test.
What exacxtly was the point? Did you undergo a conversion and
tried to strengthen my hand? Or are you so desperate that you quote-
hoping that no one will check?
Ludovic Mirabel

[Clyde Slick]

"ludovic mirabel" > wrote in message
m...
>I challenged:
>
> "It would if you could quote JUST ONE such test that was done on
> ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, (see S. Olive's article
> that I quoted to begin with) that had a POSITIVE result. > N.B. *
> Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned methods), >
> statistically valid (significant numbers),randomised
> ( not a preselected, trained group) and truly double blind.*
> So far whenever people are tested by DBT/ABX method the reported
> result is: "It all sounds the same"
> How gross the difference has to be to overcome the ABX/DBT hurdle and
> be > heard by us peasants, the crossection of listeners?"
>
> You dug up one reference dated #August 1984#!
> "Here's one.
> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm"
>
> This was prof. S. Lip****z testing in 1984 one single witness:
> Tiefenbrun developer and manufacturer of all of the Linn stuff:
> loudspeakers, turntables and cartridges. Still active. A typical "
> statistically valid crosssection of audio listeners, typically random
> (not a preselected, trained group)". Right Mr. McKelvy? And they were
> NOT comparing components but testing some rash Tiefenbrun statements
> on matters of not the slightest importance to an average audiophile.
> Right Mr. McKelvy?
> And what was the upshot of this one and only ( you remember you said
> you had "many")1984 test you managed to dig up from the bottom of the
> barrel?
> Lipschitz said:
>
> "In summary, then, ****no**** evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun
> during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify
> reliably:
> (a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room,
> (b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio
> chain, or
> (c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the
> circuit."
> Experienced, trained manufacturer-developer Tiefenbrun failed.
> Another NEGATIVE ABX\DBT test.
> What exacxtly was the point? Did you undergo a conversion and
> tried to strengthen my hand? Or are you so desperate that you quote-
> hoping that no one will check?


Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
religious preconceptions regarding his worship
of bad science.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message


> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
> of bad science.

Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?

[Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro]

ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> I challenged:

> "It would if you could quote JUST ONE such test that was done on
> ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, (see S. Olive's article
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that I quoted to begin with) that had a POSITIVE result. > N.B. *
> Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned methods), >
> statistically valid (significant numbers),randomised
> ( not a preselected, trained group) and truly double blind.*

Part Two:Making a good loudspeaker - imaging, space and great sound in rooms.
By Dr. Floyd E. Toole
Vice President Acoustical Engineering
Harman International Industries, Inc.

http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf

See page 17, 18 and following pages:

"Four expensive and highly regarded loudspeakers are evaluated in
the shuffler room, in a double-blind test. These are the
measurements. The listeners, of course, do not get to see them
until it is all over."

"After several rounds of listening to different kinds of music,
several listeners yielded subjective preference ratings that were
processed in a statistical analysis program. One of the results is
a bar graph showing the average rating for the group of listeners,
for each of the loudspeakers. The tiny lines on top of the bars
show the 95% confidence intervals. If the differences in the ratings
are greater than these lines, the differences are probably
statistically significant, and not due to chance. The two top-rated
speakers are not significantly different from each other, according
to this rule. The other two are truly less good."

The test room is described at:

A New Laboratory for Evaluating Multichannel Audio Components and Systems
By Sean E. Olive, Brian Castro, and Floyd E. Toole
Harman International Industries, Inc.

http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1018
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/HarmanWhitePaperMLLListeningLab.pdf

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>> of bad science.
>
> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?


I love good science; if only you could show me some.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>> of bad science.
>>
>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>
>
> I love good science; if only you could show me some.

You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>> of bad science.
>>>
>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>
>>
>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>
>You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>
>
Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>> of bad science.
>>>
>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>
>>
>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>
> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>

That's cause we don't see any from your gargantuam volume of posts

[Clyde Slick]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Arny Krueger"
>>Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>
>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>
>>>
>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>
>>You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>
>>
> Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis.
>
>
Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth.

[Michael McKelvy]

"ludovic mirabel" > wrote in message
m...
>I challenged:
>
> "It would if you could quote JUST ONE such test that was done on
> ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, (see S. Olive's article
> that I quoted to begin with) that had a POSITIVE result. > N.B. *
> Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned methods), >
> statistically valid (significant numbers),randomised
> ( not a preselected, trained group) and truly double blind.*
> So far whenever people are tested by DBT/ABX method the reported
> result is: "It all sounds the same"
> How gross the difference has to be to overcome the ABX/DBT hurdle and
> be > heard by us peasants, the crossection of listeners?"
>
> You dug up one reference dated #August 1984#!
> "Here's one.
> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm"
>
> This was prof. S. Lip****z testing in 1984 one single witness:
> Tiefenbrun developer and manufacturer of all of the Linn stuff:
> loudspeakers, turntables and cartridges. Still active. A typical "
> statistically valid crosssection of audio listeners, typically random
> (not a preselected, trained group)".

Why would you want to exclude a pretrained group? You don't wanthe most
likely people able to hear what is being compared?

Right Mr. McKelvy? And they were
> NOT comparing components but testing some rash Tiefenbrun statements
> on matters of not the slightest importance to an average audiophile.

I guess I'm not average. I thought it was interesting that a loudmouthed
anti-digital idiot was shot down.

> Right Mr. McKelvy?
> And what was the upshot of this one and only ( you remember you said
> you had "many")1984 test you managed to dig up from the bottom of the
> barrel?
> Lipschitz said:
>
I've been busy. I'll look more when I have a chance. Have you checked
witht he AES, BBC. any makers of hearing aid equipment or other groups that
have been using ABX?

Is it your contention that none of the above use ABX or DBT?

> "In summary, then, ****no**** evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun
> during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify
> reliably:
> (a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room,
> (b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio
> chain, or
> (c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the
> circuit."
> Experienced, trained manufacturer-developer Tiefenbrun failed.
> Another NEGATIVE ABX\DBT test.
> What exacxtly was the point?

Maybe things sound more alike than you care to admit.

Did you undergo a conversion and
> tried to strengthen my hand?

What hand?

Or are you so desperate that you quote-
> hoping that no one will check?
> Ludovic Mirabel

I thought you wanted a good ABX test.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" > wrote in message
...
> ludovic mirabel > wrote:
>> I challenged:
>
>> "It would if you could quote JUST ONE such test that was done on
>> ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, (see S. Olive's article
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> that I quoted to begin with) that had a POSITIVE result. > N.B. *
>> Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned methods), >
>> statistically valid (significant numbers),randomised
>> ( not a preselected, trained group) and truly double blind.*
>
> Part Two:Making a good loudspeaker - imaging, space and great sound in
> rooms.
> By Dr. Floyd E. Toole
> Vice President Acoustical Engineering
> Harman International Industries, Inc.
>
> http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121
> http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf
>
> See page 17, 18 and following pages:
>
> "Four expensive and highly regarded loudspeakers are evaluated in
> the shuffler room, in a double-blind test. These are the
> measurements. The listeners, of course, do not get to see them
> until it is all over."
>
> "After several rounds of listening to different kinds of music,
> several listeners yielded subjective preference ratings that were
> processed in a statistical analysis program. One of the results is
> a bar graph showing the average rating for the group of listeners,
> for each of the loudspeakers. The tiny lines on top of the bars
> show the 95% confidence intervals. If the differences in the ratings
> are greater than these lines, the differences are probably
> statistically significant, and not due to chance. The two top-rated
> speakers are not significantly different from each other, according
> to this rule. The other two are truly less good."
>
> The test room is described at:
>
> A New Laboratory for Evaluating Multichannel Audio Components and Systems
> By Sean E. Olive, Brian Castro, and Floyd E. Toole
> Harman International Industries, Inc.
>
> http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1018
> http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/HarmanWhitePaperMLLListeningLab.pdf
>
> --
> http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/
>
> .pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
> Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Ludo doesn't really want this sort of information, he's been posturing for
years. If he is actually exposed to what he already knows exists, he's not
going to admit it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>>
>>>
>> Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis.
>>
>>
> Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth.

No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating crap, and
your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact, BTW. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I thought you wanted a good ABX test.
>


I'd rather have a jumbo shrimp.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Ludo doesn't really want this sort of information, he's been posturing for
> years. If he is actually exposed to what he already knows exists, he's
> not going to admit it.
>

If you were not as immune to irony as Arny is.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> I thought you wanted a good ABX test.

> I'd rather have a jumbo shrimp.

Middius tells us you do.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net

> Ludo doesn't really want this sort of information, he's been
> posturing for years. If he is actually exposed to what he already
> knows exists, he's not going to admit it.

Agreed. It's just a troll.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>>>
>>>> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis.
>>>
>>>
>> Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth.
>
> No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating crap, and
> your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact, BTW. ;-)
>

Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>>>>
>>>>> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth.
>>
>> No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating
>> crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact,
>> BTW. ;-)

> Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt.

No Art, I've used you for my experimental subject.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth.
>>>
>>> No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating
>>> crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact,
>>> BTW. ;-)
>
>> Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt.
>
> No Art, I've used you for my experimental subject.
>

I'm way too old to be one of your trainees.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > I thought you wanted a good ABX test.
>
>> I'd rather have a jumbo shrimp.
>
> "At least" you didn't lug in a reference to gay marriage.
>
>
>
>

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > I thought you wanted a good ABX test.
>
>> I'd rather have a jumbo shrimp.
>
> "At least" you didn't lug in a reference to gay marriage.
>

"at least" you are on topic: oxymorons.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>> Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>>>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>>>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth.
>>>>
>>>> No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating
>>>> crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact,
>>>> BTW. ;-)
>>
>>> Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt.
>>
>> No Art, I've used you for my experimental subject.
>>
>
> I'm way too old to be one of your trainees.

Sorry Art, but the fact is that Middius already had you very well trained.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>>> Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>>>>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>>>>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating
>>>>> crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact,
>>>>> BTW. ;-)
>>>
>>>> Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt.
>>>
>>> No Art, I've used you for my experimental subject.
>>>
>>
>> I'm way too old to be one of your trainees.
>
> Sorry Art, but the fact is that Middius already had you very well trained.
>

Sorry Arny, George doesn't even have a basement.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> >> > I thought you wanted a good ABX test.
>> >
>> >> I'd rather have a jumbo shrimp.
>> >
>> > "At least" you didn't lug in a reference to gay marriage.
>
>> "at least" you are on topic: oxymorons.
>
> Failure to notice thuddingly subtle irony noted, note.
>

you got me on that one.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>>>> Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>>>>>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>>>>>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating
>>>>>> crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific
>>>>>> fact, BTW. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt.
>>>>
>>>> No Art, I've used you for my experimental subject.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm way too old to be one of your trainees.
>>
>> Sorry Art, but the fact is that Middius already had you very well
>> trained.
>
> Sorry Arny, George doesn't even have a basement.

True, I've never heard of a room in a jail or mental hospital with its own
basement. But, I never said he did.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>
>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>
>>>
>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>
>> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>
>
> That's cause we don't see any from your gargantuam volume of posts
>
Try opening your eyes.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>>
>>
>> That's cause we don't see any from your gargantuam volume of posts
>>
> Try opening your eyes.
>

Open yours.
Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his
>>>>>>> religious preconceptions regarding his worship
>>>>>>> of bad science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I love good science; if only you could show me some.
>>>>
>>>> You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's cause we don't see any from your gargantuam volume of posts
>>>
>> Try opening your eyes.
>>
>
> Open yours.
> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>
How do you know?
In what areas?
Examples?

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...

>>
>> Open yours.
>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>
> How do you know?
> In what areas?
> Examples?
>

For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>
>>> Open yours.
>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>
>> How do you know?
>> In what areas?
>> Examples?

> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.

Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head.

The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker could dodge
questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored a little less
deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective.

I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the week,
especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the fine control over
cussing that one might pick up with military service.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> .net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Open yours.
>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>> In what areas?
>>> Examples?
>
>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>
> Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head.
>
> The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker could dodge
> questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored a little less
> deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective.
>
> I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the week,
> especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the fine control
> over cussing that one might pick up with military service.
>

Typical Arny, he has his head handed to him on a platter,
then he declares victory.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> .net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>> In what areas?
>>>> Examples?
>>
>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>
>> Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head.
>>
>> The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker could
>> dodge questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored a little
>> less deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective.
>>
>> I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the
>> week, especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the fine
>> control over cussing that one might pick up with military service.
>>
>
> Typical Arny, he has his head handed to him on a platter,
> then he declares victory.

I can't claim victory because Zelnicker ran too fast for me to catch him and
beat him.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>
>>> Open yours.
>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>
>> How do you know?
>> In what areas?
>> Examples?
>>
>
> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>
You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker went
off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that he's very
nasty.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> .net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Open yours.
>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>> In what areas?
>>> Examples?
>>>
>>
>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>
> You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time,
> Zeliniker went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved
> only that he's very nasty.

Well, there's that, and then there is a raft of non-answers to a variety of
relevant technical questions. I believe his final answer was that he was
afraid I was going to work some of my debating trade mojo on him, so he was
afraid to give an answer.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>> .net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>> In what areas?
>>>>> Examples?
>>>
>>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>
>>> Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head.
>>>
>>> The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker could
>>> dodge questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored a little
>>> less deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective.
>>>
>>> I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the
>>> week, especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the fine
>>> control over cussing that one might pick up with military service.
>>>
>>
>> Typical Arny, he has his head handed to him on a platter,
>> then he declares victory.
>
> I can't claim victory because Zelnicker ran too fast for me to catch him
> and beat him.

Yes, he's way too fast for you. You'll never catch up.
>

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> .net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Open yours.
>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>> In what areas?
>>> Examples?
>>>
>>
>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>
> You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker
> went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that he's
> very nasty.
>

He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick.

[Schizoid Man]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > dither ... Zeliniker
>
> > He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick.
>
> He also proved Krooger doesn't know dither from blither.

Jorge,

It seems to me that you have been consumed by your feelings towards Arny.
Apart from belittling him as often as possible, you really do have very
little to say.

Remember: Hate leads to anger, and we all the know the rest...

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>> .net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>>> In what areas?
>>>>>> Examples?
>>>>
>>>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>>
>>>> Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head.
>>>>
>>>> The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker
>>>> could dodge questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored
>>>> a little less deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective.
>>>>
>>>> I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the
>>>> week, especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the
>>>> fine control over cussing that one might pick up with military
>>>> service.
>>>
>>> Typical Arny, he has his head handed to him on a platter,
>>> then he declares victory.
>>
>> I can't claim victory because Zelnicker ran too fast for me to catch
>> him and beat him.
>
> Yes, he's way too fast for you. You'll never catch up.

The choice to run rather than stand his ground was up to him.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> .net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>> In what areas?
>>>> Examples?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>
>> You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time,
>> Zeliniker went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially
>> proved only that he's very nasty.
>>
>
> He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick.

That's just your prejudices speaking, Art. By then I'd sent you off whipped,
screaming for help, many times.

[Schizoid Man]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Schizoid Man said:

> > > He also proved Krooger doesn't know dither from blither.
> > Jorge,
>
> ?

Forgive me. I've lived in Texas too long.

> > It seems to me that you have been consumed by your feelings towards
Arny.
>
> Your diagnosis is erroneous.
>
> > Apart from belittling him as often as possible, you really do have very
> > little to say.
>
> And the job is nowhere near being finished.
>
> > Remember: Hate leads to anger, and we all the know the rest...
>
> We do?

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>>> .net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>>>> In what areas?
>>>>>>> Examples?
>>>>>
>>>>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker
>>>>> could dodge questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored
>>>>> a little less deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the
>>>>> week, especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the
>>>>> fine control over cussing that one might pick up with military
>>>>> service.
>>>>
>>>> Typical Arny, he has his head handed to him on a platter,
>>>> then he declares victory.
>>>
>>> I can't claim victory because Zelnicker ran too fast for me to catch
>>> him and beat him.
>>
>> Yes, he's way too fast for you. You'll never catch up.
>
> The choice to run rather than stand his ground was up to him.
>

Intellectually, he blew right by you

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>> .net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>> In what areas?
>>>>> Examples?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>>
>>> You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time,
>>> Zeliniker went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially
>>> proved only that he's very nasty.
>>>
>>
>> He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick.
>
> That's just your prejudices speaking, Art. By then I'd sent you off
> whipped, screaming for help, many times.
>

Meglomaniacal delusions noted.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> .net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>> In what areas?
>>>> Examples?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>
>> You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time,
>> Zeliniker went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved
>> only that he's very nasty.
>
> Well, there's that, and then there is a raft of non-answers to a variety
> of relevant technical questions. I believe his final answer was that he
> was afraid I was going to work some of my debating trade mojo on him, so
> he was afraid to give an answer.

Zelnicer was not very reasonable as I recall those exchanges.

Let's face Arny, you can be hell to talk to, even when it's with people who
basically agree with you, such as Stewart and JJ, and even they have gotten
very ****ed at you. While I generally agree with you on the tech stuff, it
doesn't mean you couldn't brush up on the style thing a bit.

BTW, I hope I didn't overstep when I asked JA about a debate between you
two. My thoughts at the time were that it would be more of a AES thing
than a SP thing. Either way, I hope it comes to fruition, even if I won't
be able to attend.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> .net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>> In what areas?
>>>> Examples?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>
>> You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker
>> went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that
>> he's very nasty.
>>
>
> He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick.
Quote a passage that you believe proves that.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
>> Schizoid Man said:
>
>> > > He also proved Krooger doesn't know dither from blither.
>> > Jorge,
>>
>> ?
>
> Forgive me. I've lived in Texas too long.
>
>> > It seems to me that you have been consumed by your feelings towards
> Arny.
>>
>> Your diagnosis is erroneous.
>>
>> > Apart from belittling him as often as possible, you really do have very
>> > little to say.
>>
>> And the job is nowhere near being finished.
>>
>> > Remember: Hate leads to anger, and we all the know the rest...
>>
>> We do?
>
> Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering.
>
>
And suffering is what Middius lives to inflict. He really has nothing much
to say about anything to do with audio.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>> .net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>> In what areas?
>>>>> Examples?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>>
>>> You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker
>>> went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that
>>> he's very nasty.
>>>
>>
>> He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick.
> Quote a passage that you believe proves that.

It would take me 24 hours to rehash all the
info we already know you are too stupid to accept.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message


> Intellectually, he blew right by you

How would you know, Grasshopper?

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net

> Let's face Arny, you can be hell to talk to, even when it's with
> people who basically agree with you, such as Stewart and JJ, and even
> they have gotten very ****ed at you.

Controlling your emotions is your problem. If you think I'm tough to deal
with, try talking with some of the *real* experts in the business like Clark
or Lip****z. I suspect their words often fly high over Atkiinson's head, for
example.

> While I generally agree with
> you on the tech stuff, it doesn't mean you couldn't brush up on the
> style thing a bit.

Thanks for breaching that topic, Mike. Turn it around and look at yourself
for a change. It's true I write some pretty highly etched stuff. The
opposite is fuzz.

Zelniker has angrily accused me of writing at the Popular Electronics level,
which was a complement even though he obviously didn't know it at the time.

> BTW, I hope I didn't overstep when I asked JA about a debate between
> you two. My thoughts at the time were that it would be more of a
> AES thing than a SP thing. Either way, I hope it comes to fruition,
> even if I won't be able to attend.

My strategy with respect to the debate seems to have been stated very
clearly. My post to Middius on the topic should have been very clear, even
to a mental deficient such as himself. I'm just sitting here chortling away,
watching the Atkinson supporters wet themselves in public.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net

> And suffering is what Middius lives to inflict. He really has
> nothing much to say about anything to do with audio.

Exactly. Middius is interested most in "Lets you and he fight". Totally
passive-aggressive. It's probably a carefully thought-out persona.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

>
> It would take me 24 hours to rehash all the
> info we already know you are too stupid to accept.

Just 24 hours? My estimate for that job is infinity. Again, this is probably
a persona, but not so well-thought out as Middius.

[Schizoid Man]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message >

> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message

> >
> > "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> >
> >> Schizoid Man said:
> >
> >> > > He also proved Krooger doesn't know dither from blither.
> >> > Jorge,
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > Forgive me. I've lived in Texas too long.
> >
> >> > It seems to me that you have been consumed by your feelings towards
> > Arny.
> >>
> >> Your diagnosis is erroneous.
> >>
> >> > Apart from belittling him as often as possible, you really do have
very
> >> > little to say.
> >>
> >> And the job is nowhere near being finished.
> >>
> >> > Remember: Hate leads to anger, and we all the know the rest...
> >>
> >> We do?
> >
> > Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering.
> >
> >
> And suffering is what Middius lives to inflict. He really has nothing
much
> to say about anything to do with audio.

Hear! Hear! (Pun intended, before the grammar brigade starts screaming
bloody murder).

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Intellectually, he blew right by you
>
> How would you know, Grasshopper?

I can see your head on the platter.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>> Let's face Arny, you can be hell to talk to, even when it's with
>> people who basically agree with you, such as Stewart and JJ, and even
>> they have gotten very ****ed at you.
>
> Controlling your emotions is your problem. If you think I'm tough to deal
> with, try talking with some of the *real* experts in the business like
> Clark or Lip****z. I suspect their words often fly high over Atkiinson's
> head, for example.
>
Like that's a challenge.

>> While I generally agree with
>> you on the tech stuff, it doesn't mean you couldn't brush up on the
>> style thing a bit.
>
> Thanks for breaching that topic, Mike. Turn it around and look at yourself

Been there done that. I do tend to wait for somebody to draw first blood,
however.

> for a change. It's true I write some pretty highly etched stuff. The
> opposite is fuzz.
>
Is there no middle ground?

> Zelniker has angrily accused me of writing at the Popular Electronics
> level,
> which was a complement even though he obviously didn't know it at the
> time.
>
Indeed.

>> BTW, I hope I didn't overstep when I asked JA about a debate between
>> you two. My thoughts at the time were that it would be more of a
>> AES thing than a SP thing. Either way, I hope it comes to fruition,
>> even if I won't be able to attend.
>
> My strategy with respect to the debate seems to have been stated very
> clearly. My post to Middius on the topic should have been very clear, even
> to a mental deficient such as himself. I'm just sitting here chortling
> away, watching the Atkinson supporters wet themselves in public.
Smooth.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>> And suffering is what Middius lives to inflict. He really has
>> nothing much to say about anything to do with audio.
>
> Exactly. Middius is interested most in "Lets you and he fight". Totally
> passive-aggressive. It's probably a carefully thought-out persona.
>
Still, you have to wonder what person drives that persona.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message >
>
>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>
>> >
>> > "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >> Schizoid Man said:
>> >
>> >> > > He also proved Krooger doesn't know dither from blither.
>> >> > Jorge,
>> >>
>> >> ?
>> >
>> > Forgive me. I've lived in Texas too long.
>> >
>> >> > It seems to me that you have been consumed by your feelings towards
>> > Arny.
>> >>
>> >> Your diagnosis is erroneous.
>> >>
>> >> > Apart from belittling him as often as possible, you really do have
> very
>> >> > little to say.
>> >>
>> >> And the job is nowhere near being finished.
>> >>
>> >> > Remember: Hate leads to anger, and we all the know the rest...
>> >>
>> >> We do?
>> >
>> > Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering.
>> >
>> >
>> And suffering is what Middius lives to inflict. He really has nothing
> much
>> to say about anything to do with audio.
>
> Hear! Hear! (Pun intended, before the grammar brigade starts screaming
> bloody murder).
>
Don't worry, I couldn't pass the entrance exam.

[Michael McKelvy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Schizoid Man said:
>
>> Hear! Hear! (Pun intended, before the grammar brigade starts screaming
>> bloody murder).
>
> That's not a pun, simpy. To me it looks like you're rubbing salt in
> McDweeby's wounds.
>
>
Imaginary wounding noted. Would you like another for your ego?

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>> .net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>>> In what areas?
>>>>>> Examples?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>>>
>>>> You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker
>>>> went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that
>>>> he's very nasty.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick.
>> Quote a passage that you believe proves that.
>
> It would take me 24 hours to rehash all the
> info we already know you are too stupid to accept.
>
Surrender noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Intellectually, he blew right by you
>>
>> How would you know, Grasshopper?
>
> I can see your head on the platter.

'tis just a reflection of my head resting as always on my shoulders.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
k.net
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> ink.net
>>
>>> And suffering is what Middius lives to inflict. He really has
>>> nothing much to say about anything to do with audio.
>>
>> Exactly. Middius is interested most in "Lets you and he fight".
>> Totally passive-aggressive. It's probably a carefully thought-out
>> persona.
> Still, you have to wonder what person drives that persona.

Lets put it this way - it's a person with a solid interest in dysfunctional
personalities, and an overwhelming compulsion to write fiction.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>>> .net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>>>> In what areas?
>>>>>>> Examples?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker
>>>>> went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that
>>>>> he's very nasty.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick.
>>> Quote a passage that you believe proves that.
>>
>> It would take me 24 hours to rehash all the
>> info we already know you are too stupid to accept.
>>
> Surrender noted.
>

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>>> .net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Open yours.
>>>>>>>> Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>>>> In what areas?
>>>>>>> Examples?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker
>>>>> went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that
>>>>> he's very nasty.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick.
>>> Quote a passage that you believe proves that.
>>
>> It would take me 24 hours to rehash all the
>> info we already know you are too stupid to accept.
>>
> Surrender noted.


you've seen it before, and wouldn't accept it. There is no
reason to bother to dredge the records only for you to
ignore reality yet again. If you really want to reconsider,
you go look it up.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Intellectually, he blew right by you
>>>
>>> How would you know, Grasshopper?
>>
>> I can see your head on the platter.
>
> 'tis just a reflection of my head resting as always on my shoulders.
>

It would be nice if you had a neck.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Intellectually, he blew right by you
>>>>
>>>> How would you know, Grasshopper?
>>>
>>> I can see your head on the platter.
>>
>> 'tis just a reflection of my head resting as always on my shoulders.
>>
>
> It would be nice if you had a neck.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net

> I've seen it but it's been a long time and it was such a **** fest,
> that I didn't follow the whole thing. If there's one thing you can
> use to prove that Arny was wrong on this issue, I'd love to read it.

There's at least one really funny but pathetic post where Zelniker rants on
and on about how I'm always wrong about everything, but provides no evidence
other than his say-so, that I'm wrong. I think one of these has the
Pop-tronics reference that I cherish. I'm sure that Zelniker's PhD
committee saw far better from him, and expected far better from him in the
future.

> My recollection is that he was pretty much in tune with the generally
> accepted concepts and uses of dither.

That has evolved some. The critical point that caused Zelniker maximum tummy
aches was what I called at the time "self dither". IOW, the idea that
program material that is already somehow dithered LOTs doesn't absolutely
need to be dithered again.

In those days Zelniker was pushing POW-R, which amounted to being a
allegedly-novel scheme for dithering or better stated - re-quantizing. POW-R
has now passed into the history of similar products - none of which turned
out to be earth-shaking. It remains difficult or impossible to show in a DBT
that they actually make an audible difference in the real world.

The background of the whole dispute was my debunking of some claims that
Atkinson made about the audibility of some low-level magic dither, based on
his experiences with some recordings that already had plenty of tape hiss,
mic preamp noise, room noise and etc. Classic examples of self-dithering
signals, but of course Atkinson has those golden ears that can hear
*anything*.

I challenged Atkinson to provide before and after recordings so that we
could prove his claims about this magic dither with a DBT. He admitted that
he had both recordings in his posession. Then he came up with a list of
lame excuses for hiding the evidence. If this had been a criminal court
case, in my non-legal opinion he would have run a serious risk of legal
censure and/or punishment for withholding evidence. In the world of golden
ears, it was just business as usual.

What has happened since this is that a number of writers are using the
phrase "self dither"

http://www.daqarta.com/TM07.HTM

"Where the intrinsic noise in the signal was inadequate to provide
self-dither..."

http://www.mp3-converter.com/decoders/madaudio_review.htm

"To a certain extent these signals self dither."

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=27/

"All 20-bit A/Ds self-dither somewhere around the 18-19 bit level due to
thermal noise, a basic physical limitation."

(seemingly written by the inestimable Bob Katz, no less!)

Bottom line, dither done right can cause no problems, and every once in a
while someone has some really quiet stuff that they are really quantizing
down, and dither makes an audible difference. Therfore, dither should always
be used when requantizing, just in case!

However, various flavors of dither usually have only very subtle effects,
and its hard to do a DBT infolving standard musical recordings and show that
usng ny particular kind of dither has any special audible benefits. It is
possible to shift everything down by a factor of 100 (40 dB) and show some
audible effects, but this is hardly realistic, now is it?

Ironically, in my travels I did find that there is some broken digital
equipment out there that audibly benefits from what I call over-dithering.
So, a lot of my recordings have far more dither than is absolutely needed in
accordance with traditional analysis. In general, it makes no difference,
but if some poor schmuck with a really crappy digital player gets better
tunes, then its worth the tiny amount of work involved. Note that POW-R or
any other proprietary re-quantizing scheme as usually used doesn't seem to
address this problem.

[John Atkinson]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > My recollection is that he was pretty much in tune with the
> > generally accepted concepts and uses of dither.
>
> Arny was arguing witha number of people of consequence.
> Nobody of consequence backed Arny.

I particularly liked Arny's recent statement regarding my not-
unreasonable refusal to send him master tapes, that "If this had
been a criminal court case, in my non-legal opinion [Atkinson]
would have run a serious risk of legal censure and/or punishment
for withholding evidence." :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>No matter how hard I try, my attitude is somewhat affected by the fact that
>I've had dozens of aliases, sockpuppets and hangers-on biting at my butt for
>over 10 years. Usually, about a half-dozen or more at a time.

And you see no reason as to why that happened? ;-)

>BTW, I just looked up what was probably my first RAO post - 12/7/1996. Note
>that within 2 months I was getting Derrida's full treatment.

See? ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Lets

.......are people from Letland.
Never seen one in this newsgroup, however.

<insert smarmy winky icon here>

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>"Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>No matter how hard I try, my attitude is somewhat affected by the fact that
>>I've had dozens of aliases, sockpuppets and hangers-on biting at my butt for
>
>>over 10 years. Usually, about a half-dozen or more at a time.
>
>And you see no reason as to why that happened? ;-)
>
>>BTW, I just looked up what was probably my first RAO post - 12/7/1996. Note
>>that within 2 months I was getting Derrida's full treatment.
>
>See? ;-)
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>

What has been conveniently overlooked here is the *reason* this Derrida
character decided to become one of the earliest Krueger "enemies". Did he just
pick Krueger at random to fight, or was there, perhaps, a legitimate reason for
his particular "selection"?



Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>What has been conveniently overlooked here is the *reason* this Derrida
>character decided to become one of the earliest Krueger "enemies". Did he just
>pick Krueger at random to fight, or was there, perhaps, a legitimate reason for
>his particular "selection"?

Been that, done there, Rihcmann.
Delusions of grandeur, as well as admittoing to soickpuppetry noted,
LOt;S! ;-(

The cake , look, over there as the "usual suspect's";-) endlessly
debate the snake oil "solutions" the High End Industry, comes up with
to con unsuspecting audiophile's into there tangled web sites, NOT!

Back, when, I single-handedly discovered the "Ferstler Effect" while
fixxing radar's in the snow at noon, you all laughed and said I won't
accomplish anything in the real world of audio engineers where
credential's don;'t matter MucH! at least not on usenet , which I
invented also in 1969 (sic).

Hardly, sockpuppet Bruce, if that really is you're name.


And there will be wailing, and the gnashing of teeth, indeed,
ROTFLMAO!

;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[S888Wheel]

>From: Sander deWaal
>Date: 12/18/2004 10:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>What has been conveniently overlooked here is the *reason* this Derrida
>>character decided to become one of the earliest Krueger "enemies". Did he
>just
>>pick Krueger at random to fight, or was there, perhaps, a legitimate reason
>for
>>his particular "selection"?
>
>Been that, done there, Rihcmann.
>Delusions of grandeur, as well as admittoing to soickpuppetry noted,
>LOt;S! ;-(
>
>The cake , look, over there as the "usual suspect's";-) endlessly
>debate the snake oil "solutions" the High End Industry, comes up with
>to con unsuspecting audiophile's into there tangled web sites, NOT!
>
>Back, when, I single-handedly discovered the "Ferstler Effect" while
>fixxing radar's in the snow at noon, you all laughed and said I won't
>accomplish anything in the real world of audio engineers where
>credential's don;'t matter MucH! at least not on usenet , which I
>invented also in 1969 (sic).
>
>Hardly, sockpuppet Bruce, if that really is you're name.
>
>
>And there will be wailing, and the gnashing of teeth, indeed,
>ROTFLMAO!
>
> ;-)
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>

This post should be framed and hung on a wall.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>What has been conveniently overlooked here is the *reason* this Derrida
>>character decided to become one of the earliest Krueger "enemies". Did he
>just
>>pick Krueger at random to fight, or was there, perhaps, a legitimate reason
>for
>>his particular "selection"?
>
>Been that, done there, Rihcmann.
>Delusions of grandeur, as well as admittoing to soickpuppetry noted,
>LOt;S! ;-(
>
>The cake , look, over there as the "usual suspect's";-) endlessly
>debate the snake oil "solutions" the High End Industry, comes up with
>to con unsuspecting audiophile's into there tangled web sites, NOT!
>
>Back, when, I single-handedly discovered the "Ferstler Effect" while
>fixxing radar's in the snow at noon, you all laughed and said I won't
>accomplish anything in the real world of audio engineers where
>credential's don;'t matter MucH! at least not on usenet , which I
>invented also in 1969 (sic).
>
>Hardly, sockpuppet Bruce, if that really is you're name.
>
>
>And there will be wailing, and the gnashing of teeth, indeed,
>ROTFLMAO!
>
> ;-)
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>

Delusions of gibberish noted. If iron knees killed, sockpuppet deadWalls, or
whatever your real name is. Why don't you put together a few guilders and try
to beg, steal, invent, integrate or borrow a clue? Google talks to me but not
to you and your usual band of thugs and hooligans. Prove everything, ust as I
have done.



Bruce J. Richman

[Michael McKelvy]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Sander deWaal wrote:
>
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > said:
>>
>>>No matter how hard I try, my attitude is somewhat affected by the fact
>>>that
>>>I've had dozens of aliases, sockpuppets and hangers-on biting at my butt
>>>for
>>
>>>over 10 years. Usually, about a half-dozen or more at a time.
>>
>>And you see no reason as to why that happened? ;-)
>>
>>>BTW, I just looked up what was probably my first RAO post - 12/7/1996.
>>>Note
>>>that within 2 months I was getting Derrida's full treatment.
>>
>>See? ;-)
>>
>>--
>>Sander de Waal
>>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>>
>>
>
> What has been conveniently overlooked here is the *reason* this Derrida
> character decided to become one of the earliest Krueger "enemies".

You mean because he was a complete asshole?

Did he just
> pick Krueger at random to fight,

Yes.

or was there, perhaps, a legitimate reason for
> his particular "selection"?
>
None other than he didn't want his belief system challenged with scinetific
fact.
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Well, Julian Hirsch was well known for being a very nice person Dick
>> is just a prick.

Having some personal knowledge of both men, Pierce is the far better
technologist. Furthermore, Pierce would actually personally share his
excellent and detailed knowledge with people on a one-to-one basis day in
and day out.

> Not from what I've read, he's just not about to put up with nonsense
> and pseudo science.

Agreed.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message


> Arny was arguing witha number of people of consequence.

The consequences were that they figuratively wet their pants in public.

> Nobody of consequence backed Arny.

None that were visible on Usenet.

As I proved with my self-dither references, in effect any number of people
back me against Zelniker. U think Zelniker knew and knows that. This is one
reason why he won't discuss the matter with me in public, in detail.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Arny was arguing witha number of people of consequence.
>
> The consequences were that they figuratively wet their pants in public.
>
>> Nobody of consequence backed Arny.
>
> None that were visible on Usenet.
>
> As I proved with my self-dither references, in effect any number of people
> back me against Zelniker. U think Zelniker knew and knows that. This is
> one reason why he won't discuss the matter with me in public, in detail.
>

Dear. dear, now you are reduced to conversing with
invisible people. This choir of hidden supporters
must be the same stalwart group you record on Sundays.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> I guess you missed his last post on RAHE

According to Google, he last posted there 11/12/2004 with a simple clear
technical post.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/21d5df96cbb8a347

"Standard modern multitrack techniques don't adhere to the temporal
relationships of a live concert *on any scale*. There IS no "phase
relationship" between a saxophone recorded Tuesday in Los Angeles and
a tambourine recorded Friday in Nashville, so there is nothing to
destroy."


> He's a prick through and through.

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

> Catch him lying and he shuts up and never acknowledges he
> was full of it.

???????????

> I don't know how the guy can stay in business with
> his attitude.

???????????

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 12/19/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>
>> I guess you missed his last post on RAHE
>
>According to Google, he last posted there 11/12/2004 with a simple clear
>technical post.
>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/21d5df96cbb8a347
>
>"Standard modern multitrack techniques don't adhere to the temporal
>relationships of a live concert *on any scale*. There IS no "phase
>relationship" between a saxophone recorded Tuesday in Los Angeles and
>a tambourine recorded Friday in Nashville, so there is nothing to
>destroy."


You are right. I got him mixed up with Don Pearce. Another prick.


>
>
>> He's a prick through and through.
>
>????????????????

Those are all single syllable words Arny.


>
>> Catch him lying and he shuts up and never acknowledges he
>> was full of it.
>
>???????????

If you can't understand such simple statements I can't help you.


>
>> I don't know how the guy can stay in business with
>> his attitude.
>
>???????????

See above.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 12/19/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I guess you missed his last post on RAHE
>>
>> According to Google, he last posted there 11/12/2004 with a simple
>> clear technical post.
>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/21d5df96cbb8a347
>>
>> "Standard modern multitrack techniques don't adhere to the temporal
>> relationships of a live concert *on any scale*. There IS no "phase
>> relationship" between a saxophone recorded Tuesday in Los Angeles and
>> a tambourine recorded Friday in Nashville, so there is nothing to
>> destroy."
>
>
> You are right. I got him mixed up with Don Pearce. Another prick.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/373b9f53d30bc8a8

Don Pearce wrote on Dec 15, 5:20 pm

"The problem you have here is that this leaves two possibilities:

"1. You review team has cloth ears, and is hearing stuff that isn't
there - or failing to hear what is.

"2. Your review team is writing what it is "supposed" to write in order
to keep the advertisers coming.


"Either way the credibility of Stereophile is shot. (And yes, I bought a
copy once).

Looks to me like a very factual technical post.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> Don Pearce wrote on Dec 15, 5:20 pm
>
> "The problem you have here is that this leaves two possibilities:
>
> "1. You review team has cloth ears, and is hearing stuff that isn't
> there - or failing to hear what is.
>
> "2. Your review team is writing what it is "supposed" to write in order
> to keep the advertisers coming.
>
>
> "Either way the credibility of Stereophile is shot. (And yes, I bought a
> copy once).
>
> Looks to me like a very factual technical post.
>

Here is another very factual technical post:


1) You knowingly falsely accused others of sending
you child porn.

or the other possibility is:

2) You knowingly kept child pornography on your
hard drive for three years.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Don Pearce wrote on Dec 15, 5:20 pm
>>
>> "The problem you have here is that this leaves two possibilities:
>>
>> "1. You review team has cloth ears, and is hearing stuff that isn't
>> there - or failing to hear what is.
>>
>> "2. Your review team is writing what it is "supposed" to write in
>> order to keep the advertisers coming.
>>
>>
>> "Either way the credibility of Stereophile is shot. (And yes, I
>> bought a copy once).
>>
>> Looks to me like a very factual technical post.
>>
>
> Here is another very factual technical post:
>
>
> 1) You knowingly falsely accused others of sending
> you child porn.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

> or the other possibility is:

> 2) You knowingly kept child pornography on your
> hard drive for three years.

Inability to live with established facts noted.

Note: Art is a tubophile and is therefore well-practiced in delusions and
non-factual claims.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote on Dec 15, 5:20 pm
>>>
>>> "The problem you have here is that this leaves two possibilities:
>>>
>>> "1. You review team has cloth ears, and is hearing stuff that isn't
>>> there - or failing to hear what is.
>>>
>>> "2. Your review team is writing what it is "supposed" to write in
>>> order to keep the advertisers coming.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Either way the credibility of Stereophile is shot. (And yes, I
>>> bought a copy once).
>>>
>>> Looks to me like a very factual technical post.
>>>
>>
>> Here is another very factual technical post:
>>
>>
>> 1) You knowingly falsely accused others of sending
>> you child porn.
>
>Delusions of omniscience noted.
>
>> or the other possibility is:
>
>> 2) You knowingly kept child pornography on your
>> hard drive for three years.
>
>Inability to live with established facts noted.
>
>Note: Art is a tubophile and is therefore well-practiced in delusions and
>non-factual claims.

Are you equating tubes with pedophilia, you sick ****?

Boon

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

: Inability to live with established facts noted.*
:
: Note: Art is a tubophile and is therefore well-practiced in delusions and
: non-factual claims. *

* we can see how your 'facts' are established, yes :)
Rudy

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote on Dec 15, 5:20 pm
>>>
>>> "The problem you have here is that this leaves two possibilities:
>>>
>>> "1. You review team has cloth ears, and is hearing stuff that isn't
>>> there - or failing to hear what is.
>>>
>>> "2. Your review team is writing what it is "supposed" to write in
>>> order to keep the advertisers coming.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Either way the credibility of Stereophile is shot. (And yes, I
>>> bought a copy once).
>>>
>>> Looks to me like a very factual technical post.
>>>
>>
>> Here is another very factual technical post:
>>
>>
>> 1) You knowingly falsely accused others of sending
>> you child porn.
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>
>> or the other possibility is:
>
>> 2) You knowingly kept child pornography on your
>> hard drive for three years.
>
> Inability to live with established facts noted.
>
> Note: Art is a tubophile and is therefore well-practiced in delusions and
> non-factual claims.
>

Complete inability to accept reality noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 12/19/2004 1:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 12/19/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I guess you missed his last post on RAHE
>>>>
>>>> According to Google, he last posted there 11/12/2004 with a simple
>>>> clear technical post.
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/21d5df96cbb8a347
>>>>
>>>> "Standard modern multitrack techniques don't adhere to the temporal
>>>> relationships of a live concert *on any scale*. There IS no "phase
>>>> relationship" between a saxophone recorded Tuesday in Los Angeles
>>>> and a tambourine recorded Friday in Nashville, so there is nothing
>>>> to destroy."
>>>
>>>
>>> You are right. I got him mixed up with Don Pearce. Another prick.
>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/373b9f53d30bc8a8
>>
>> Don Pearce wrote on Dec 15, 5:20 pm
>>
>> "The problem you have here is that this leaves two possibilities:
>>
>> "1. You review team has cloth ears, and is hearing stuff that isn't
>> there - or failing to hear what is.
>>
>> "2. Your review team is writing what it is "supposed" to write in
>> order to keep the advertisers coming.
>>
>>
>> "Either way the credibility of Stereophile is shot. (And yes, I
>> bought a copy once).
>>
>> Looks to me like a very factual technical post.
>
> Then you are an idiot. Just like him.

Just expressing my opinion, Scott. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 12/20/2004 5:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 12/19/2004 1:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> Date: 12/19/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you missed his last post on RAHE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Google, he last posted there 11/12/2004 with a
>>>>>> simple clear technical post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/21d5df96cbb8a347
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Standard modern multitrack techniques don't adhere to the
>>>>>> temporal relationships of a live concert *on any scale*. There
>>>>>> IS no "phase relationship" between a saxophone recorded Tuesday
>>>>>> in Los Angeles and a tambourine recorded Friday in Nashville, so
>>>>>> there is nothing to destroy."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are right. I got him mixed up with Don Pearce. Another prick.
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/373b9f53d30bc8a8
>>>>
>>>> Don Pearce wrote on Dec 15, 5:20 pm
>>>>
>>>> "The problem you have here is that this leaves two possibilities:
>>>>
>>>> "1. You review team has cloth ears, and is hearing stuff that isn't
>>>> there - or failing to hear what is.
>>>>
>>>> "2. Your review team is writing what it is "supposed" to write in
>>>> order to keep the advertisers coming.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Either way the credibility of Stereophile is shot. (And yes, I
>>>> bought a copy once).
>>>>
>>>> Looks to me like a very factual technical post.

>>> Then you are an idiot. Just like him.

Inability to intelligently and cogently address the issues that Don Pearce
rised, noted.

>> Just expressing my opinion, Scott. ;-)

> Thoughtless self contradicting opinions can be a sign of stupidity.

Agreed, especially when they apply to you and your clique, Scott. How many
times have I caught you contradicting yourself? How about Art, Phillips,
Richman and Middius. You guys are the lives of any self-contradiction party!

> Just my opinion. But you can always prove me wrong and correct your
> mistake. Give it some thought and see if you can figure out how you
> have contradicted yourself by agreeing with Don Pearce's post.

Why don't you give us your explanation, Scott. Looking forward to more of
your self-contradictory behavior.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 12/20/2004 8:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 12/20/2004 5:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> Date: 12/19/2004 1:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>> Date: 12/19/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you missed his last post on RAHE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to Google, he last posted there 11/12/2004 with a
>>>>>>> simple clear technical post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/21d5df96cbb8a347
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Standard modern multitrack techniques don't adhere to the
>>>>>>> temporal relationships of a live concert *on any scale*. There
>>>>>>> IS no "phase relationship" between a saxophone recorded Tuesday
>>>>>>> in Los Angeles and a tambourine recorded Friday in Nashville, so
>>>>>>> there is nothing to destroy."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right. I got him mixed up with Don Pearce. Another prick.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/373b9f53d30bc8a8
>>>>>
>>>>> Don Pearce wrote on Dec 15, 5:20 pm
>>>>>
>>>>> "The problem you have here is that this leaves two possibilities:
>>>>>
>>>>> "1. You review team has cloth ears, and is hearing stuff that isn't
>>>>> there - or failing to hear what is.
>>>>>
>>>>> "2. Your review team is writing what it is "supposed" to write in
>>>>> order to keep the advertisers coming.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Either way the credibility of Stereophile is shot. (And yes, I
>>>>> bought a copy once).
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks to me like a very factual technical post.
>
>>>> Then you are an idiot. Just like him.
>
>Inability to intelligently and cogently address the issues that Don Pearce
>rised, noted.

What, you weren't quick enough to think of this drival the first time you read
my post? Don Pearce didn't raise any issues he just made an ass of himself. Why
would you jump on that band wagon Arny? Never mind.


>
>>> Just expressing my opinion, Scott. ;-)
>
>> Thoughtless self contradicting opinions can be a sign of stupidity.
>
>Agreed,

Great, you agree that you are an idiot.

especially when they apply to you and your clique, Scott.

Especially? Good to see you are thinking logically and not getting caught up in
your hatred. LOL

How many
>times have I caught you contradicting yourself?

0

How about Art, Phillips,
>Richman and Middius.

If tyhat is a question shouldn't it be finished with a question mark?


You guys are the lives of any self-contradiction party!

This from the guy who can't even see his obvious self-contradiction on this
very thread.


>
>> Just my opinion. But you can always prove me wrong and correct your
>> mistake. Give it some thought and see if you can figure out how you
>> have contradicted yourself by agreeing with Don Pearce's post.
>
>Why don't you give us your explanation, Scott.

I will if you are conceding that you can't figure it out for yourself? Are you
conceding that? If so I'll fill you in.

Looking forward to more of
>your self-contradictory behavior.


Will that be before or after you slay the next windmill?

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> Michael McKelvy" > wrote in
>
>
>
> Having some personal knowledge of both men, Pierce is the far better
> technologist. Furthermore, Pierce would actually personally share his
> excellent and detailed knowledge with people on a one-to-one basis day in
> and day out.
>
>> Not from what I've read, he's just not about to put up with nonsense
>> and pseudo science.
>
> Agreed.


I've read some of the things he said about audio with regard to audiophiles
in
different audio ng, he's just another ****head just like the two of you.

How many times does both of your assholes need to be **** and re**** before
both assholes feel some pain. Maybe the two of you been wishing you
have a pussy. I would personally ensure to be the first one to **** each of
your
pussy. And since both of you enjoy sissy talk, get your tits ready for some
titty****.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>> Did he just pick Krueger at random to fight,
>
>> Yes.
>
> How do you know that?
>
>> or was there, perhaps, a legitimate reason for
>>> his particular "selection"?
>
>> None other than he didn't want his belief system challenged with
>> scientific fact.
>
> It was broader than that. Like Middius and his clique he dreamed of ridding
> Usenet of me.


You are mentally ill krooo****. Shut the **** up. People correspond with you
'cause it's fun poking at the head of an imbecile. You are a doormat and
a spineless pussy. Where is your friend normanstrong ?

[JBorg]

Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> Cease that quacking.


You cease your bull****, insect lover. All your nonsense talk is giving
me the itch to have to kick your ****ing ass. Shut the **** up.


Get the **** off my screen.

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cease that quacking.
>
>
> You cease your bull****, insect lover. All your nonsense talk is giving
> me the itch to have to kick your ****ing ass. Shut the **** up.
>
>
> Get the **** off my screen.
>
>
>

[Michael McKelvy]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cease that quacking.
>
>
> You cease your bull****, insect lover. All your nonsense talk is giving
> me the itch to have to kick your ****ing ass. Shut the **** up.
>
>
> Get the **** off my screen.
>
>
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Try washing your mout out with soap. Either that or get back in the sty.