HE2005: The Great Debate [Archive]

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 11:21 AM

wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile

> John, sorry, that debate was a waste of money.

I think it was worth the $140 or so I had to put up to
participate in it.

>The problem with it was
> it totally lacked structure and in the end lacked
direction.

My attempt at giving it structure with a simple concise
opening argument was kicked in the teeth by the wandering
anecdotal response of my opponent.

> You guys spent half the "debate" figuring out what you
were arguing about.

Wrong, I spent my half of the debate following the cow's
trails that my opponent wandered down.

>Then when you found something to argue about one of you
would go off in
> another direction.

The audience was a continuous source of distractions and
blind alleys, led by Harry Lavo who tried to present a 4
hour discussion of his childish audio philosophies as a
question. Regrettably Mr Atkinson was fooled by Lavo.

> By the time you guys went down the road of altered
> states of mind the "debate" had become comepletely
derailed.

...and that was fairly early in the debate.

> The general complaints Arny was going to argue against
Stereophile were no
> longer in the picture.

Atkinson was essentially unable to cogently respond to them.
His only relevant excuse was that they were too hard for
someone at his primitive level of audio subjective testing
expertise and experience.

>Next time you do somehting like this I suggest
> you pick a specific topic and run a traditional debate
with two minute
> points and one minute rebuttals and counter rebuttals.

Hard to do when you allow audience "questions" that are
rhetorical declarations that run several minutes all by
themselves.

>Get panels so
> participants can be well prepared and to the point. There
is a good
> reason this sort of structure is commonly used.

Panel discussions are not a guarantee that the participants
are prepared. Our debate was preceeded by a sort of a panel
discussion, and it was pretty disappointing, as well.

I came to this debate with a prepared presentation, and a
short list of relevant points. Due to infrastructure
problems that weren't my fault, not even the presentation
could be done as intended. Things went downhill rapidly from
there. My opponent's response was a decade's old anecdote
about the bad listening tests that he had been party to in
the distant past. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

But rain aside, it was a nice weekend in NYC. The best sound
I heard that weekend was a one-man band playing in one of
the subway stations. Nousaine went to the conference Jazz
concert, and reported back to me that it was another
snoozer.

The major structural problem of the so-called HE2005 debate
was that the alleged moderator was one of the protagonists.
Duuuhhhh!

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 11:52 AM

John Atkinson wrote:

> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>

The web page itself is both funny and more than a little
factual:

"By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."

Hyperbole, anybody?

Bad theology aside, I have to admit that posting this
article on the web puts John Atkinson in my "Good Loser"
hall of fame for all audio history, and foreseeable future
times.

I can now why RAO's self-proclaimed subjectivist clique are
whining about the debate. Their champion got his clock
cleaned, pure and simple.

dave weil

May 9th 05, 02:07 PM

On Mon, 9 May 2005 06:21:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> Due to infrastructure
>problems that weren't my fault, not even the presentation
>could be done as intended.

So you couldn't project the words you were saying on a screen. Big
deal.

Lionel

May 9th 05, 04:00 PM

"8 hz" dave :

> So you couldn't project the words you were saying on a screen. Big
> deal.

LOL !!!
....Just to see how *you* are desperate since he doesn't read anymore the
words you are trying to project on his screen.

:-D

Lionel

May 9th 05, 04:02 PM

In om>, John Atkinson
wrote :

> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

Does this recording answer to *THE* question ?
Nasal or not nasal ?

dave weil

May 9th 05, 04:20 PM

On Mon, 09 May 2005 17:00:46 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>"8 hz" dave :
>
>> So you couldn't project the words you were saying on a screen. Big
>> deal.
>
>LOL !!!
>...Just to see how *you* are desperate since he doesn't read anymore the
>words you are trying to project on his screen.
>
>:-D

This concludes a test of The Emergency Pavlov Response Testing System.
If this had been an actual emergency, someone would have been tasked
to clean up the mass of exploded French brains.

PS, what's depserate is your fixation on me and your monitoring of my
posts on RAO. I'm glad to have filled an obvious void in your life,
although you should probably look to work and family to fill that
void.

PPS, I rather doubt that he "doesn't read anymore the words" that I
project on his screen. But it's irrelevant anyway. Whether or not he
comments is not really an issue. What's funny is the way he uses you
to repspond anyway, and that you are content with your current lot in
life in this regard (talk about lapdogs! <g>). I guess it gives you
the sense of purpose that fatherhood can't fill.

Lionel

May 9th 05, 04:30 PM

dave weil a écrit :
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 17:00:46 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"8 hz" dave :
>>
>>
>>>So you couldn't project the words you were saying on a screen. Big
>>>deal.
>>
>>LOL !!!
>>...Just to see how *you* are desperate since he doesn't read anymore the
>>words you are trying to project on his screen.
>>
>>:-D
>
>
> This concludes a test of The Emergency Pavlov Response Testing System.
> If this had been an actual emergency, someone would have been tasked
> to clean up the mass of exploded French brains.
>
> PS, what's depserate is your fixation on me and your monitoring of my
> posts on RAO. I'm glad to have filled an obvious void in your life,
> although you should probably look to work and family to fill that
> void.
>
> PPS, I rather doubt that he "doesn't read anymore the words" that I
> project on his screen. But it's irrelevant anyway. Whether or not he
> comments is not really an issue. What's funny is the way he uses you
> to repspond anyway, and that you are content with your current lot in
> life in this regard (talk about lapdogs! <g>). I guess it gives you
> the sense of purpose that fatherhood can't fill.

PPPS, ???

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 04:39 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> >> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> >> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> >> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> >>
> >> John Atkinson
> >> Editor, Stereophile
>
> > John, sorry, that debate was a waste of money.
>
> I think it was worth the $140 or so I had to put up to
> participate in it.

Well. I'm glad you feel you that way. I was actually refering to the
cost of flying you out there and putting you up.

>
> >The problem with it was
> > it totally lacked structure and in the end lacked
> direction.
>
> My attempt at giving it structure with a simple concise
> opening argument was kicked in the teeth by the wandering
> anecdotal response of my opponent.

I found your opening statement neither simple nor concise. You wasted a
lot of time on material that was not the least bit relevant to your
points. Unfortunately you saved your points to the end of your opening
statement then offered no support for them. That's just bad structure.
You could have skipped your ramblings on personal philosophies, made
your three points about what is wrong with Stereophile and then
supported those points with specific evidence. Maybe had you spent time
supporting your points Atkinson might have felt compelled to rebut
them.You left him with nothing to rebut. That left him the oppurtunity
to talk about whatever he wanted to. Part of that is your fault since
you are not an experienced public speaker and seem to lack basic debate
experience in general. I suspected this would be a big problem for you
and it was. I must say your lack of preparedness to support your
attacks on Stereophile seemed particularly amatuerish. How can you make
"what's wrong with Stereophile" your theme for the debate and fail to
bring any actual examples of your points with you in the form of
offending Stereophile articles? But it wasn't entirely your fault. You
both walked into a debate with no set agenda? If that isn't determined
ahead of time debates will wander as this one did.

>
> > You guys spent half the "debate" figuring out what you
> were arguing about.
>
> Wrong, I spent my half of the debate following the cow's
> trails that my opponent wandered down.

Same thing only with you not accepting partial responsibility for the
problem.

>
> >Then when you found something to argue about one of you
> would go off in
> > another direction.
>
> The audience was a continuous source of distractions and
> blind alleys, led by Harry Lavo who tried to present a 4
> hour discussion of his childish audio philosophies as a
> question. Regrettably Mr Atkinson was fooled by Lavo.

I should have said so in advance but I was specifically speaking of the
"debate" that took place before the audience got hold of it. Once a
debate is opened to the audience the participants are not the least bit
responsible for any wanderings.

>
> > By the time you guys went down the road of altered
> > states of mind the "debate" had become comepletely
> derailed.
>
> ..and that was fairly early in the debate.

yeah.

>
> > The general complaints Arny was going to argue against
> Stereophile were no
> > longer in the picture.
>
> Atkinson was essentially unable to cogently respond to them.

No. You were unable to support them. That lead to a very simple basic
exchange. You would make a charge and Atkinson would say if you read
the magazine you would see that charge isn't true. That was your
achillies heel. If you are going to make charges against Stereophile in
your debate you needed to support them with specific examples.

> His only relevant excuse was that they were too hard for
> someone at his primitive level of audio subjective testing
> expertise and experience.

"They " what? dbts? Your attack on Stereophile was that they don't do
dbts? That was not clear at all. You didn't even bring that up in your
opening statement. You just made some very general charges against
Stereophile. John brought up dbts in *his* opening statement. You guys
rambled a bit about them but you never tied them to a problem with
Stereophile. Gosh if you had, John had an easy rebuttal for that since
none of the audio journals out there regularly do dbts your attack
would be arbitrary unless leveled against all audio publications.

>
> >Next time you do somehting like this I suggest
> > you pick a specific topic and run a traditional debate
> with two minute
> > points and one minute rebuttals and counter rebuttals.
>
> Hard to do when you allow audience "questions" that are
> rhetorical declarations that run several minutes all by
> themselves.

That can always be saved for the end as it was this time.

>
> >Get panels so
> > participants can be well prepared and to the point. There
> is a good
> > reason this sort of structure is commonly used.
>
> Panel discussions are not a guarantee that the participants
> are prepared.

True but it makes it easier.

Our debate was preceeded by a sort of a panel
> discussion, and it was pretty disappointing, as well.

IYO. I didn't see that panel discussion so I would reserve my opinion
on that.

>
> I came to this debate with a prepared presentation, and a
> short list of relevant points. Due to infrastructure
> problems that weren't my fault, not even the presentation
> could be done as intended.

I know you don't like to take responsibility for anything but your lack
of preparedness was your fault. Fact is John set himself up for a fal
and you fell on your sword on the way to the battle field. *You* had
the opportunity to make this debate about anything. There is no way to
prepare for a debate about anything. You had John over a barrel. Your
basic theme was "what i think is wrong with Stereophile" and you
brought no evidence via actual excerpts from Stereophile to support
your case. This should have been a turkey shoot for you.

Things went downhill rapidly from
> there. My opponent's response was a decade's old anecdote
> about the bad listening tests that he had been party to in
> the distant past. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

And yet you managed to lose most of the points. You got shot by a fish
in a barrel. The really sad thing is John's anecdote does raise a lot
of interesting questions. None of which were explored.

>
> But rain aside, it was a nice weekend in NYC. The best sound
> I heard that weekend was a one-man band playing in one of
> the subway stations. Nousaine went to the conference Jazz
> concert, and reported back to me that it was another
> snoozer.

Of course your biases have nothing to do with your view on the show.

>
> The major structural problem of the so-called HE2005 debate
> was that the alleged moderator was one of the protagonists.
> Duuuhhhh!

No, That wasn't one of the problems at all.

Scott Wheeler

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 04:41 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
> > The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> > Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> >
>
> The web page itself is both funny and more than a little
> factual:
>
> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
>
> Hyperbole, anybody?
>
> Bad theology aside, I have to admit that posting this
> article on the web puts John Atkinson in my "Good Loser"
> hall of fame for all audio history, and foreseeable future
> times.
>
> I can now why RAO's self-proclaimed subjectivist clique are
> whining about the debate. Their champion got his clock
> cleaned, pure and simple.

Not even close.

Scott Wheeler

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 04:50 PM

Lionel wrote:
> In om>, John
Atkinson
> wrote :
>
> > The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> > Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>
> Does this recording answer to *THE* question ?
> Nasal or not nasal ?
>
>
I was wondering just where that "squeaky", "whiny", "high-pitched",
etc., voice of Arny's all the "Normals" claimed to have heard on "The
Tape" went.
>
Among the possibilities:
>
a)"The Tape" never existed at all
>
b)The "Normals" lied about the sound of Arny's voice on "The Tape"
>
c)The psychotic posting as "the Devil" altered Arny's voice on "The
Tape"
>
d)"The Tape" existed but was a complete fabrication by "the Davil" that
had absolutely no basis in reality, but was merely "the Devil" playing
both parts and, perhaps, using a digital pitch change device to alter
the "Arny" parts
>
>
I'm going with "d". ;-)

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 05:10 PM

wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>>> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>>>> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>>>
>>>> John Atkinson
>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>
>>> John, sorry, that debate was a waste of money.
>>
>> I think it was worth the $140 or so I had to put up to
>> participate in it.

> Well. I'm glad you feel you that way. I was actually
refering to the
> cost of flying you out there and putting you up.

Since you never made a corresponding offer Scott, you never
got the pleasure of my company! ;-)

>>> The problem with it was
>>> it totally lacked structure and in the end lacked
>> direction.

>> My attempt at giving it structure with a simple concise
>> opening argument was kicked in the teeth by the wandering
>> anecdotal response of my opponent.

> I found your opening statement neither simple nor concise.

Sorry that is was over your head, Scotty. Next time I'll try
to work at your level, which is something like
cosmetologist, right?

> You wasted
> a lot of time on material that was not the least bit
relevant to your
> points.

It was sufficient to make Atkinson look like a deer that was
caught in my headlights.

> Unfortunately you saved your points to the end of your
opening
> statement then offered no support for them.

Hopefully that support would have come out in the debate. I
think it did, but again they may have gone over your head,
Scotty. Cosmetology courses are generally given at the
6th-grade reading level, right?

>That's just bad structure.

No, its good debating style. You provide a concise list of
points for debate and let your opponent stumble around them
as they can. Worked for everybody, even the two golden-ears
who published articles about it.

> You could have skipped your ramblings on personal
philosophies, made
> your three points about what is wrong with Stereophile and
then
> supported those points with specific evidence.

Those weren't my personal philosophies Scott, but formal
definitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Thanks for
showing that cosemtology classes aren't exactly heavy with a
discusison of philosophy, Scotty.

> Maybe had you spent
> time supporting your points Atkinson might have felt
compelled to
> rebut them.

Anybody with a brain who has read Stereophile would know
what I'm talking about, Scotty. Many who were there seemed
to get my points right away.

>You left him with nothing to rebut.

He managed to blather on quite extensively, as did several
from the audience. Don't get me wrong, some relevant points
were raised as well.

> That left him the oppurtunity to talk about whatever he
wanted to.

If Atkinson had prepared for the debate then his opening
points would have been the same no matter what I said.

>Part of that is your
> fault since you are not an experienced public speaker and
seem to
> lack basic debate experience in general.

I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is not
the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
cosemtology shop you work in.

> I suspected this would be a
> big problem for you and it was. I must say your lack of
preparedness
> to support your attacks on Stereophile seemed particularly
> amatuerish.

That's why even the Sterophile writer, who seems to be a
well-known whistler
http://www.planeteria.net/home/whistler/ granted me
vicrtory, before any number of Harry-Lavo-like unrebuttable
comments about his philosophies about love, life and you
guessed it, soy sauce. What is it about you radical
subjectivists and soy sauce? ;-)

<snip remaining childish prattle>

MINe 109

May 9th 05, 05:19 PM

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> In om>, John Atkinson
> wrote :
>
> > The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> > Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>
> Does this recording answer to *THE* question ?
> Nasal or not nasal ?

Same voice, not as nasal because it wasn't recorded over a telephone.

Stephen

dave weil

May 9th 05, 06:06 PM

On Mon, 09 May 2005 17:30:35 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Mon, 09 May 2005 17:00:46 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"8 hz" dave :
>>>
>>>
>>>>So you couldn't project the words you were saying on a screen. Big
>>>>deal.
>>>
>>>LOL !!!
>>>...Just to see how *you* are desperate since he doesn't read anymore the
>>>words you are trying to project on his screen.
>>>
>>>:-D
>>
>>
>> This concludes a test of The Emergency Pavlov Response Testing System.
>> If this had been an actual emergency, someone would have been tasked
>> to clean up the mass of exploded French brains.
>>
>> PS, what's depserate is your fixation on me and your monitoring of my
>> posts on RAO. I'm glad to have filled an obvious void in your life,
>> although you should probably look to work and family to fill that
>> void.
>>
>> PPS, I rather doubt that he "doesn't read anymore the words" that I
>> project on his screen. But it's irrelevant anyway. Whether or not he
>> comments is not really an issue. What's funny is the way he uses you
>> to repspond anyway, and that you are content with your current lot in
>> life in this regard (talk about lapdogs! <g>). I guess it gives you
>> the sense of purpose that fatherhood can't fill.
>
>PPPS, ???

Thanks for dangling like a marionette.

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 06:21 PM

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>> In
om>, John
>> Atkinson wrote :
>>
>>> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>>> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>
>> Does this recording answer to *THE* question ?
>> Nasal or not nasal ?
>
> Same voice, not as nasal because it wasn't recorded over a
telephone.

Note that no recording is generally available for reference.
So,Stephen can say anything that he wants to. As a
co-conspirator, he's hardly a reliable source of
information.

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 06:23 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>>> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> >>>> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> >>>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> >>>>
> >>>> John Atkinson
> >>>> Editor, Stereophile
> >>
> >>> John, sorry, that debate was a waste of money.
> >>
> >> I think it was worth the $140 or so I had to put up to
> >> participate in it.
>
> > Well. I'm glad you feel you that way. I was actually
> refering to the
> > cost of flying you out there and putting you up.
>
> Since you never made a corresponding offer Scott, you never
> got the pleasure of my company! ;-)

When I am provided with air travel and lodging I come prepared. No one
has ever wasted their money flying me anywhere.

>
> >>> The problem with it was
> >>> it totally lacked structure and in the end lacked
> >> direction.
>
> >> My attempt at giving it structure with a simple concise
> >> opening argument was kicked in the teeth by the wandering
> >> anecdotal response of my opponent.
>
> > I found your opening statement neither simple nor concise.
>
> Sorry that is was over your head, Scotty. Next time I'll try
> to work at your level, which is something like
> cosmetologist, right?

Wrong, as usual. :::yawn:::

>
> > You wasted
> > a lot of time on material that was not the least bit
> relevant to your
> > points.
>
> It was sufficient to make Atkinson look like a deer that was
> caught in my headlights.

The only one with a dumb look on their face was you Arny. John looked
quite comfortable in every picture I've seen.

>
> > Unfortunately you saved your points to the end of your
> opening
> > statement then offered no support for them.
>
> Hopefully that support would have come out in the debate.

Hopefully? LOL it's up to you to support your claims dude. You failed
and yet you are now proclaiming to have cleaned John's clock. Did you
mean this literally? Did he provide you with some house hold chores
before the debate including one clock cleaning? You pretty much just
floundered in the debate.

I
> think it did, but again they may have gone over your head,
> Scotty.

Nope, it just didn't happen. You cited no examples of that which you
claimed was wrong with Stereophile. That is a lack of evidence and a
lack of preparedness on your part no matter how much posturing you do
now with claims that things went over my head. You flopped. Deal with
it.

Cosmetology courses are generally given at the
> 6th-grade reading level, right?

Gosh I don't know Arny. Never took one. But OTOH we can ask this
question of the engineering classes taught at your Alma mader.

>
> >That's just bad structure.
>
> No, its good debating style.

You had no style other than chasing your own tail. The debate in
general lacked stucture. I guess your third rate education never
provided you with the tools to understand the differences between style
and structure. Oh well.

You provide a concise list of
> points for debate and let your opponent stumble around them
> as they can.

If you want to walk away a loser sure. You make charges and fail to
support them and your opponent is free to deny the charges. That's what
happened and that's why you scored no points on *your* choice of
subject matter. Pathetic really.

Worked for everybody, even the two golden-ears
> who published articles about it.

Yeah right. Dude, not even your friends on RAHE have called your
performance a victory. What does that tell you?

>
> > You could have skipped your ramblings on personal
> philosophies, made
> > your three points about what is wrong with Stereophile and
> then
> > supported those points with specific evidence.
>
> Those weren't my personal philosophies Scott, but formal
> definitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Thanks for
> showing that cosemtology classes aren't exactly heavy with a
> discusison of philosophy, Scotty.

Well my point did go right over your head. Of course this is typical of
you Arny. You are a sore loser who resorts to personal attacks when
faced with your own failings. Business as usual. Maybe in your next
post you can start making unsavery false accusations against me and
start pointing out any typos or spelling errors. That will make your
failure to deliver magically disappear.

>
> > Maybe had you spent
> > time supporting your points Atkinson might have felt
> compelled to
> > rebut them.
>
> Anybody with a brain who has read Stereophile would know
> what I'm talking about, Scotty.

Riiight. IOW you expected the audience to already agree with you.
There's a winning formula for persuasion. You are just making excuses
Arny. You weren't prepared to support your points and that is a failure
in debate tactics at the most basic level. You blew it and you allowed
John to dictate the debate and in effect score far more points. You
came to a turkey shoot and walked away with lead in your ass.

Many who were there seemed
> to get my points right away.

Riiiiiight. Nousaine and whop else? What a joke.

>
> >You left him with nothing to rebut.
>
> He managed to blather on quite extensively, as did several
> from the audience.

No, he managed to take the debate in any direction he chose since you
gave him nothing to defend.

Don't get me wrong, some relevant points
> were raised as well.
>
> > That left him the oppurtunity to talk about whatever he
> wanted to.
>
> If Atkinson had prepared for the debate then his opening
> points would have been the same no matter what I said.

There is no way to prepare for an open debate like this unless you
dropped the ball. You did and that allowed Atkinson to do what he did.
If you had made your three points from the outset and then provided
specific examples from the pages of Stereophile that supported your
charges he wouldn't have been able to tell some story about his
experience with dbts. The debate would have been about your points and
you would have been armed with evidence that John would have no way of
preparing for. You blew it. You can't even shoot a fish in a barrel.

>
> >Part of that is your
> > fault since you are not an experienced public speaker and
> seem to
> > lack basic debate experience in general.
>
> I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
> doing public speaking Scotty.

Oh, that's sad. You mean you can't use lack of experience as an excuse
for your poor performance. WOW. You just suck at it anyways.

BTW, public speaking is not
> the same as what you do

No it isn't. Gosh, if I didn't do well I'd have an excuse.

- gossip around the chair in that
> cosemtology shop you work in.

Ah, making things up about me again. This won't cover your miserable
failure in this debate Arny. You can make things up about me all you
want, you still blew any easy victory that any smart person would have
easily seized.

>
> > I suspected this would be a
> > big problem for you and it was. I must say your lack of
> preparedness
> > to support your attacks on Stereophile seemed particularly
> > amatuerish.
>
> That's why even the Sterophile writer, who seems to be a
> well-known whistler
> http://www.planeteria.net/home/whistler/ granted me
> vicrtory, before any number of Harry-Lavo-like unrebuttable
> comments about his philosophies about love, life and you
> guessed it, soy sauce. What is it about you radical
> subjectivists and soy sauce? ;-)

I heard the debate Arny. You blew it.

>
> <snip remaining childish prattle>

Self serving editing noted. I can see why you never excelled at
anything Arny. You couldn't even prepare for the debate you've been
waiting for all these years.

scott Wheeler

Lionel

May 9th 05, 06:40 PM

dave weil a écrit :
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 17:30:35 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 May 2005 17:00:46 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"8 hz" dave :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So you couldn't project the words you were saying on a screen. Big
>>>>>deal.
>>>>
>>>>LOL !!!
>>>>...Just to see how *you* are desperate since he doesn't read anymore the
>>>>words you are trying to project on his screen.
>>>>
>>>>:-D
>>>
>>>
>>>This concludes a test of The Emergency Pavlov Response Testing System.
>>>If this had been an actual emergency, someone would have been tasked
>>>to clean up the mass of exploded French brains.
>>>
>>>PS, what's depserate is your fixation on me and your monitoring of my
>>>posts on RAO. I'm glad to have filled an obvious void in your life,
>>>although you should probably look to work and family to fill that
>>>void.
>>>
>>>PPS, I rather doubt that he "doesn't read anymore the words" that I
>>>project on his screen. But it's irrelevant anyway. Whether or not he
>>>comments is not really an issue. What's funny is the way he uses you
>>>to repspond anyway, and that you are content with your current lot in
>>>life in this regard (talk about lapdogs! <g>). I guess it gives you
>>>the sense of purpose that fatherhood can't fill.
>>
>>PPPS, ???
>
>
> Thanks for dangling like a marionette.

;-)

Lionel

May 9th 05, 06:42 PM

MINe 109 a écrit :
> In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>In om>, John Atkinson
>>wrote :
>>
>>
>>>The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>>>Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>>>http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>
>>Does this recording answer to *THE* question ?
>>Nasal or not nasal ?
>
>
> Same voice, not as nasal because it wasn't recorded over a telephone.

Good, "The Great Debate" has answered a question.

Margaret von B.

May 9th 05, 08:18 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
> doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is not
> the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
> cosemtology shop you work in.
>

I don't believe you. And I tell you why.

For example, being such a public speaking expert you decided to go with the
proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why am I here? Well done, Mr.
Expert.

Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of bragging and boasting
will *never* get you anywhere. Compliments/accomplishments only count if
they are aired by people who know you and have worked with you (dung beetles
don't count). Not too many of those have ever come forth as far as I can
tell (again, dung beetles don't count). How come, Arny?

I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a change to prove
yourself to be something else besides a hateful and bitter gasbag but you
keep constantly letting me down. At your advanced age your motto still seems
to be "it wasn't my fault, it was all the other guys". That *IS*
embarrassing, Arny.

Shape up!

Cheers,

Margaret

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 08:53 PM

Margaret von B. wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
> > doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is not
> > the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
> > cosemtology shop you work in.
> >
>
> I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
>
> For example, being such a public speaking expert you decided to go
with the
> proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why am I here? Well done,
Mr.
> Expert.
>
> Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of bragging and
boasting
> will *never* get you anywhere. Compliments/accomplishments only count
if
> they are aired by people who know you and have worked with you (dung
beetles
> don't count). Not too many of those have ever come forth as far as I
can
> tell (again, dung beetles don't count). How come, Arny?
>
> I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a change to
prove
> yourself to be something else besides a hateful and bitter gasbag but
you
> keep constantly letting me down. At your advanced age your motto
still seems
> to be "it wasn't my fault, it was all the other guys". That *IS*
> embarrassing, Arny.
>
> Shape up!
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>
>
Life advice from RAO's cyber-transvestite! ;-)

John Atkinson

May 9th 05, 09:07 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> MINe 109 wrote:
> > Same voice, not as nasal because it wasn't recorded
> > over a telephone.
>
> Note that no recording is generally available for
> reference.

It's obviously the same voice. As you are making an issue
of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be happy to email people an
extract of the "Devil" recording so that they can compare
it with the recording of the Debate.

It helps to get everything out in the open, don't you
agree.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 09:10 PM

wrote:
> Margaret von B. wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
> > > doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is not
> > > the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
> > > cosemtology shop you work in.
> > >
> >
> > I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
> >
> > For example, being such a public speaking expert you decided to go
> with the
> > proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why am I here? Well
done,
> Mr.
> > Expert.
> >
> > Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of bragging and
> boasting
> > will *never* get you anywhere. Compliments/accomplishments only
count
> if
> > they are aired by people who know you and have worked with you
(dung
> beetles
> > don't count). Not too many of those have ever come forth as far as
I
> can
> > tell (again, dung beetles don't count). How come, Arny?
> >
> > I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a change to
> prove
> > yourself to be something else besides a hateful and bitter gasbag
but
> you
> > keep constantly letting me down. At your advanced age your motto
> still seems
> > to be "it wasn't my fault, it was all the other guys". That *IS*
> > embarrassing, Arny.
> >
> > Shape up!
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> >
> Life advice from RAO's cyber-transvestite! ;-)

Perhaps we can get some pearls of wisdom on life from the guy that
can't manage to make it on his own and move out form his mom and dad's
home.

Scott Wheeler

Sander deWaal

May 9th 05, 09:13 PM

"John Atkinson" > said:

>It's obviously the same voice. As you are making an issue
>of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be happy to email people an
>extract of the "Devil" recording so that they can compare
>it with the recording of the Debate.

Just a note: the person known as "The Devil" objected to distribution
of said recording by third parties, and has never given anyone
permission to do so.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

John Atkinson

May 9th 05, 09:15 PM

Schizoid Man wrote:
> The 'secrecy' of your own home? Don't you mean privacy?

I was originally going to say "privacy," but "secrecy"
conveyed more of the furtive nature of the believers in
"scientism," I thought. :-)

> The former has a pretty negative connotation.

Yes it does. What's your point? My point is that tests
performed in private with no-one observing are meaningless
for anything other than personal gratification. And as
Jason Serinus wrote, Arny's PC-ABX tests of amplifiers
are meaningless, due to the presence of interfering
variables. This was something Paul Bamborough demonstrated
a couple of years ago on r.a.o. without any substantive
response from Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Lionel

May 9th 05, 09:16 PM

In . com>,
wrote :

>
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
>> > doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is not
>> > the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
>> > cosemtology shop you work in.
>> >
>>
>> I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
>>
>> For example, being such a public speaking expert you decided to go
> with the
>> proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why am I here? Well done,
> Mr.
>> Expert.
>>
>> Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of bragging and
> boasting
>> will *never* get you anywhere. Compliments/accomplishments only count
> if
>> they are aired by people who know you and have worked with you (dung
> beetles
>> don't count). Not too many of those have ever come forth as far as I
> can
>> tell (again, dung beetles don't count). How come, Arny?
>>
>> I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a change to
> prove
>> yourself to be something else besides a hateful and bitter gasbag but
> you
>> keep constantly letting me down. At your advanced age your motto
> still seems
>> to be "it wasn't my fault, it was all the other guys". That *IS*
>> embarrassing, Arny.
>>
>> Shape up!
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>>
> Life advice from RAO's cyber-transvestite! ;-)

"She" hasn't had the courage to speak to Arnold directly when "she" was in
NY and now she's giving lesson of humanity...
Her hypocrisy hasn't any limits.

:-D

dave weil

May 9th 05, 09:18 PM

On 9 May 2005 13:07:03 -0700, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:

>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>> > Same voice, not as nasal because it wasn't recorded
>> > over a telephone.
>>
>> Note that no recording is generally available for
>> reference.
>
>It's obviously the same voice. As you are making an issue
>of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be happy to email people an
>extract of the "Devil" recording so that they can compare
>it with the recording of the Debate.

Ummmm, I don't think that the Horned One really wants that. In fact, I
think that Beeb wants that recording to disappear, as it wasn't his
intention for it to get into general circulation. I think you've been
the victim of a similar situation, so I'm sure you sympathize with Mr.
S.

>It helps to get everything out in the open, don't you
>agree.

I think that The Prince of Darkness would disagree.

Lionel

May 9th 05, 09:19 PM

In . com>, John Atkinson
wrote :

>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>> > Same voice, not as nasal because it wasn't recorded
>> > over a telephone.
>>
>> Note that no recording is generally available for
>> reference.
>
> It's obviously the same voice. As you are making an issue
> of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be happy to email people an
> extract of the "Devil" recording so that they can compare
> it with the recording of the Debate.

Is it legal ?

John Atkinson

May 9th 05, 09:21 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > said:
> > As you are making an issue of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be
> > happy to email people an extract of the "Devil" recording
> > so that they can compare it with the recording of the Debate.
>
> Just a note: the person known as "The Devil" objected to
> distribution of said recording by third parties, and has
> never given anyone permission to do so.

Of course, but as the one featured on the recording, Arny
Krueger can give permission if he wishes. If he withholds
that permission, then of course I would honor the Devil's
request. But if Mr. Krueger does withhold permission, then
people will wonder what he has to hide.

And I really don't believe it is appropriate for Mr. Krueger
to make public reference to the recording while not allowing
anyone to hear it for themselves. Remember poor Howard
Ferstler, blustering away about what a hatchet job my copy
editor did on his Audiophile Voice essay while at the same
time refusing to let anyone see it for themselves. The usual
moral cowardice, in my opinion.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 09:34 PM

John "unctuous" Atkinson wrote:
>
>
<snipped>
>
> Remember poor Howard
> Ferstler, blustering away about what a hatchet job my copy
> editor did on his Audiophile Voice essay while at the same
> time refusing to let anyone see it for themselves.
>
>
You smarmy, sleazy little prick. You wanted that edited copy made
public, but lacked the balls to makr it so. Indtead, you arranged for
it to be "leaked" and cried a few crocodile tears after the fact.
>
>
>The usual
> moral cowardice, in my opinion.
>
Yes, from high-end audio's number one sleaze ball:
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the
people we're after."- excerpted from the $tereopile mission statement

Lionel

May 9th 05, 09:36 PM

In . com>, John Atkinson
wrote :

> The usual moral cowardice, in my opinion.

Is he speaking about George M. Middius ? Margaret Von Trou'd'balles ?

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 09:37 PM

wrote:
> wrote:
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
> > > > doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is not
> > > > the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
> > > > cosemtology shop you work in.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
> > >
> > > For example, being such a public speaking expert you decided to
go
> > with the
> > > proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why am I here? Well
> done,
> > Mr.
> > > Expert.
> > >
> > > Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of bragging and
> > boasting
> > > will *never* get you anywhere. Compliments/accomplishments only
> count
> > if
> > > they are aired by people who know you and have worked with you
> (dung
> > beetles
> > > don't count). Not too many of those have ever come forth as far
as
> I
> > can
> > > tell (again, dung beetles don't count). How come, Arny?
> > >
> > > I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a change
to
> > prove
> > > yourself to be something else besides a hateful and bitter gasbag
> but
> > you
> > > keep constantly letting me down. At your advanced age your motto
> > still seems
> > > to be "it wasn't my fault, it was all the other guys". That *IS*
> > > embarrassing, Arny.
> > >
> > > Shape up!
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Margaret
> > >
> > >
> > Life advice from RAO's cyber-transvestite! ;-)
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps we can get some pearls of wisdom on life from the guy that
> can't manage to make it on his own and move out form his mom and
dad's
> home.
>
>
And now, gibberish from RAO's litiguous asshole. :-(

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 09:44 PM

Lionel wrote:
> In . com>,
> wrote :
>
> >
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
> >> > doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is not
> >> > the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
> >> > cosemtology shop you work in.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
> >>
> >> For example, being such a public speaking expert you decided to go
> > with the
> >> proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why am I here? Well
done,
> > Mr.
> >> Expert.
> >>
> >> Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of bragging and
> > boasting
> >> will *never* get you anywhere. Compliments/accomplishments only
count
> > if
> >> they are aired by people who know you and have worked with you
(dung
> > beetles
> >> don't count). Not too many of those have ever come forth as far as
I
> > can
> >> tell (again, dung beetles don't count). How come, Arny?
> >>
> >> I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a change to
> > prove
> >> yourself to be something else besides a hateful and bitter gasbag
but
> > you
> >> keep constantly letting me down. At your advanced age your motto
> > still seems
> >> to be "it wasn't my fault, it was all the other guys". That *IS*
> >> embarrassing, Arny.
> >>
> >> Shape up!
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Margaret
> >>
> >>
> > Life advice from RAO's cyber-transvestite! ;-)
>
> "She" hasn't had the courage to speak to Arnold directly when "she"
was in
> NY and now she's giving lesson of humanity...
> Her hypocrisy hasn't any limits.
>
> :-D
>
>
"Maggie" wasn't properly (cross)dressed at HE2005, so an introduction
to Arny would have been awkward, at best. ;-)

Lionel

May 9th 05, 09:45 PM

In . com>, John Atkinson
wrote :

>
> Sander deWaal wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > said:
>> > As you are making an issue of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be
>> > happy to email people an extract of the "Devil" recording
>> > so that they can compare it with the recording of the Debate.
>>
>> Just a note: the person known as "The Devil" objected to
>> distribution of said recording by third parties, and has
>> never given anyone permission to do so.
>
> Of course, but as the one featured on the recording, Arny
> Krueger can give permission if he wishes. If he withholds
> that permission, then of course I would honor the Devil's
> request. But if Mr. Krueger does withhold permission, then
> people will wonder what he has to hide.
>
> And I really don't believe it is appropriate for Mr. Krueger
> to make public reference to the recording while not allowing
> anyone to hear it for themselves. Remember poor Howard
> Ferstler, blustering away about what a hatchet job my copy
> editor did on his Audiophile Voice essay while at the same
> time refusing to let anyone see it for themselves. The usual
> moral cowardice, in my opinion.

Note that if you still have the recording despite Devil's request to destroy
it this means that you haven't had any respect for the Devil's wish.
Between you and me you are more and more looking like a guy with a revenge
agenda.

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 09:58 PM

wrote:
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
>>
>> For example, being such a public speaking expert you
decided to go
>> with the proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why
am I here?
>> Well done, Mr. Expert.

What's your point? If I followed an outline that is so well
proven that it is well-known, how does that make me an
incompetent speaker?

>> Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of
bragging and
>> boasting will *never* get you anywhere.

It got me a free trip to NYC, and award of Atkinson's
figurative tail and horns by one of his employer's own
writers.

>>Compliments/accomplishments
>> only count if they are aired by people who know you and
have worked
>> with you (dung beetles don't count).

What's unclear about:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

"By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."

>>Not too many of those have ever
>> come forth as far as I can tell (again, dung beetles
don't count).

Thanks for calling the Stereophile web site author a dung
beatle. This only discredits you, Maggie.

>> How come, Arny?

Because you don't seem to know what you are talking about,
Maggie.

>> I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a
change to
>> prove yourself to be something else besides a hateful and
bitter
>> gasbag but you keep constantly letting me down.

Let you down how, Maggie? By gaining favorable mention on
Stereophile's own web site?

>> At your advanced age
>> your motto still seems to be "it wasn't my fault, it was
all the
>> other guys". That *IS* embarrassing, Arny.

Yup, its my fault that Primedia can't follow through on
their promise of a computer and a video projector -
especially ironic in the midst of one of the largest
nationwide if not international A/V exibitions around.

>> Shape up!

Exactly what would shaping up be like Maggie?

Would it somehow be better if the Stereophile article read:

"By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
have been certain that John Atkinson was God and Arnold B.
Krueger
was a pathetic girly man."

LOL!

whosbest54

May 9th 05, 10:00 PM

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile
>
John, thank you for hosting the debate and posting the audio recording.

Contrary to what Arny has said, I don't think either you or he 'won' or
'lost'. Both of you made your points clearly. It was easy to understand
how your views differ.

My views on the announced topic of the debate have been posted to my
web page for years and are generally in line with Arny's. Those views
aren't modified in any way by what I've heard nor by Arny's behavior in
this newsgroup.

John, again, your story about what you did with your amps in your 20's was
interesting, but your decision making wasn't based on any scientific
method, but on your opinion/feelings. And yes, there _may_ have been
problems with the test you did that originally led you to purchase the SS
amp. Arny did point out that methods have improved and there are practical
methods for doing the tests. Not that there's anything wrong with the
straight listening you did for your amp decision, if that's what you want
to do and it makes you happy. I choose to rely on more scientific methods
to decern _real_ differences in equipment. And, as I say on my web page,
often those differences aren't important, even if they exist.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

dave weil

May 9th 05, 10:02 PM

On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:58:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>It got me a free trip to NYC

Actually, it cost you over $100, by your own admission.

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 10:06 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>> Same voice, not as nasal because it wasn't recorded
>>> over a telephone.
>>
>> Note that no recording is generally available for
>> reference.
>
> It's obviously the same voice. As you are making an issue
> of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be happy to email people an
> extract of the "Devil" recording so that they can compare
> it with the recording of the Debate.

Since this extract has only been available since the debate
recording came into existence, it is highly suspect to say
the least.

> It helps to get everything out in the open, don't you
agree.

Looks like a Red Herring to me.

Speaks to the kind of weak proof you seem to want people to
accept, John.

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 10:08 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Sander deWaal wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > said:
>>> As you are making an issue of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be
>>> happy to email people an extract of the "Devil"
recording
>>> so that they can compare it with the recording of the
Debate.
>>
>> Just a note: the person known as "The Devil" objected to
>> distribution of said recording by third parties, and has
>> never given anyone permission to do so.
>
> Of course, but as the one featured on the recording, Arny
> Krueger can give permission if he wishes.

Wrong again. I haven't been able to get it distributed to
me. How can I reasonably authorize its distribution to
anybody else?

Again, given that the recording has only been offered for
distribution since I made the HE2005 debate recording, its
new availability means nothing.

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 10:15 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>> Same voice, not as nasal because it wasn't recorded
>>> over a telephone.
>>
>> Note that no recording is generally available for
>> reference.
>
> It's obviously the same voice. As you are making an issue
> of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be happy to email people an
> extract of the "Devil" recording so that they can compare
> it with the recording of the Debate.
>
> It helps to get everything out in the open, don't you
> agree.

What this exchange does is show Atkinson's complicity, if
not leadership of one of the better-known RAO childish
conspiracies against me.

Gosh, I am awareded two big chunks of Atkinson's figurative
hide in just one day! How good does it get?

How about proof positive that Atkinson has posted as Jamie
Benchimol? ;-)

John Atkinson

May 9th 05, 10:31 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > As you are making an issue of this, Mr. Krueger,
> > I'd be happy to email people an extract of the
> > "Devil" recording so that they can compare it with
> > the recording of the Debate.
>
> Since this extract has only been available since the
> debate recording came into existence, it is highly
> suspect to say the least.

No, it is the same recording of a telephone conversation
that has been discussed at length on this newsgroup. I
offered just an extract because it certainly isn't
necessary for someone to hear the entire recording to
decide if the voices sounded the same.

As I said, I would only do that with your permission,
Mr. Krueger. If you don't wish to give permission,
then that's fine by me and that'll be the end of the
subject. But again as I said, it hardly seems
appropriate for you to publicly make claims about this
recording while refusing to make it possible for others
to hear it for themselves and thus make up their own
minds.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Lionel

May 9th 05, 10:31 PM

In >, Signal wrote :

> "Lionel" emitted :
>
>>> It's obviously the same voice. As you are making an issue
>>> of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be happy to email people an
>>> extract of the "Devil" recording so that they can compare
>>> it with the recording of the Debate.
>>
>>Is it legal ?
>
> It's not illegal.

Even if the so-called recording has been done behind Krueger's back ?
This sounds to me like an affront to private life... kind of paparazzi's
means.

Ooops, I forgot that tabloids are the only litterary institution in
England. :-)

John Atkinson

May 9th 05, 10:34 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> What's unclear about:
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."

I think the humor in Jason Serinus' writing is going over
your head, Mr. Krueger. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson

May 9th 05, 10:38 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> How about proof positive that Atkinson has posted
> as Jamie Benchimol? ;-)

Ancient Chines proverb says that when Arny Krueger
gets rattled, out comes the accusations of
sockpuppetting on the part of those doing the
rattling. :-)

No Mr. Krueger, not only have I not posted as
"Jamie Benchimol," I haven't posted under any
name other than my own. And despite your repeated
accusations along these lines, it is fair to
point out that you have never, ever offered one
shred of proof to support those accusations.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 10:51 PM

wrote:
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Margaret von B. wrote:
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
> > > > > doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is not
> > > > > the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
> > > > > cosemtology shop you work in.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
> > > >
> > > > For example, being such a public speaking expert you decided to
> go
> > > with the
> > > > proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why am I here? Well
> > done,
> > > Mr.
> > > > Expert.
> > > >
> > > > Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of bragging
and
> > > boasting
> > > > will *never* get you anywhere. Compliments/accomplishments only
> > count
> > > if
> > > > they are aired by people who know you and have worked with you
> > (dung
> > > beetles
> > > > don't count). Not too many of those have ever come forth as far
> as
> > I
> > > can
> > > > tell (again, dung beetles don't count). How come, Arny?
> > > >
> > > > I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a change
> to
> > > prove
> > > > yourself to be something else besides a hateful and bitter
gasbag
> > but
> > > you
> > > > keep constantly letting me down. At your advanced age your
motto
> > > still seems
> > > > to be "it wasn't my fault, it was all the other guys". That
*IS*
> > > > embarrassing, Arny.
> > > >
> > > > Shape up!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Margaret
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Life advice from RAO's cyber-transvestite! ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps we can get some pearls of wisdom on life from the guy that
> > can't manage to make it on his own and move out form his mom and
> dad's
> > home.
> >
> >
> And now, gibberish from RAO's litiguous asshole. :-(

Ooooh, guess I struck a nerve. hehehehe.

Scott Wheeler

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 10:56 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> wrote:
> > Margaret von B. wrote:
> >> I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
> >>
> >> For example, being such a public speaking expert you
> decided to go
> >> with the proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why
> am I here?
> >> Well done, Mr. Expert.
>
> What's your point? If I followed an outline that is so well
> proven that it is well-known, how does that make me an
> incompetent speaker?
>
> >> Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of
> bragging and
> >> boasting will *never* get you anywhere.
>
> It got me a free trip to NYC, and award of Atkinson's
> figurative tail and horns by one of his employer's own
> writers.
>
> >>Compliments/accomplishments
> >> only count if they are aired by people who know you and
> have worked
> >> with you (dung beetles don't count).
>
> What's unclear about:
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>
> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."

OMG you took that seriously. That's gonna make me laugh for the rest of
the day. Thanks Arny.

>
>
>
> >>Not too many of those have ever
> >> come forth as far as I can tell (again, dung beetles
> don't count).
>
> Thanks for calling the Stereophile web site author a dung
> beatle. This only discredits you, Maggie.
>
> >> How come, Arny?
>
> Because you don't seem to know what you are talking about,
> Maggie.
>
> >> I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a
> change to
> >> prove yourself to be something else besides a hateful and
> bitter
> >> gasbag but you keep constantly letting me down.
>
> Let you down how, Maggie? By gaining favorable mention on
> Stereophile's own web site?
>
> >> At your advanced age
> >> your motto still seems to be "it wasn't my fault, it was
> all the
> >> other guys". That *IS* embarrassing, Arny.
>
> Yup, its my fault that Primedia can't follow through on
> their promise of a computer and a video projector -
> especially ironic in the midst of one of the largest
> nationwide if not international A/V exibitions around.
>
> >> Shape up!
>
> Exactly what would shaping up be like Maggie?
>
> Would it somehow be better if the Stereophile article read:
>
> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
> have been certain that John Atkinson was God and Arnold B.
> Krueger
> was a pathetic girly man."
>
> LOL!

George M. Middius

May 9th 05, 10:58 PM

The Little **** bones up on Kroopocrisy.

> > Perhaps we can get some pearls of wisdom on life from the guy that
> > can't manage to make it on his own and move out form his mom and dad's
> > home.

> And now, gibberish from RAO's litiguous[sic] asshole. :-(

Will you now claim that "litiguous" is a real word in Krooglish, or just
admit that Scott's shot caused you to lose control of your bodily
functions?

This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

George M. Middius

May 9th 05, 11:03 PM

The Big **** sputtered:

> > Same voice, not as nasal because it wasn't recorded over a telephone.

> Note that no recording is generally available for reference.
> So,Stephen can say anything that he wants to. As a
> co-conspirator, he's hardly a reliable source of
> information.

The conspiracy is afoot again. Your "enemies" are plotting to get you,
Arnii.

This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

George M. Middius

May 9th 05, 11:03 PM

Sander deWaal said:

> Just a note: the person known as "The Devil" objected to distribution
> of said recording by third parties, and has never given anyone
> permission to do so.

More precisely, he rescinded the permission he gave previously.

George M. Middius

May 9th 05, 11:05 PM

The Little **** takes a page from the Book of Ferstlerianism.

> You smarmy, sleazy little prick.

Goodness, such vitriol. Why are you so angry, little rodent? Oh wait, I
know -- it's because you can't support yourself and have to sponge off
your aged parents at the age of 47. How pathetic.

Clyde Slick

May 9th 05, 11:09 PM

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
>> doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is not
>> the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
>> cosemtology shop you work in.
>>
>
> I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
>
> For example, being such a public speaking expert you decided to go with
> the proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why am I here? Well done,
> Mr. Expert.
>
> Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of bragging and boasting
> will *never* get you anywhere. Compliments/accomplishments only count if
> they are aired by people who know you and have worked with you (dung
> beetles don't count). Not too many of those have ever come forth as far as
> I can tell (again, dung beetles don't count). How come, Arny?
>
> I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a change to prove
> yourself to be something else besides a hateful and bitter gasbag but you
> keep constantly letting me down. At your advanced age your motto still
> seems to be "it wasn't my fault, it was all the other guys". That *IS*
> embarrassing, Arny.
>

Arny couldn't buy a used Yugo with his public speaking income.
Show us your tax returns, Arny!

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick

May 9th 05, 11:10 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In . com>,
> wrote :
>
>>
>> Margaret von B. wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > I've bought a new car or two with money earned essentially
>>> > doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is not
>>> > the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
>>> > cosemtology shop you work in.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
>>>
>>> For example, being such a public speaking expert you decided to go
>> with the
>>> proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why am I here? Well done,
>> Mr.
>>> Expert.
>>>
>>> Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of bragging and
>> boasting
>>> will *never* get you anywhere. Compliments/accomplishments only count
>> if
>>> they are aired by people who know you and have worked with you (dung
>> beetles
>>> don't count). Not too many of those have ever come forth as far as I
>> can
>>> tell (again, dung beetles don't count). How come, Arny?
>>>
>>> I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a change to
>> prove
>>> yourself to be something else besides a hateful and bitter gasbag but
>> you
>>> keep constantly letting me down. At your advanced age your motto
>> still seems
>>> to be "it wasn't my fault, it was all the other guys". That *IS*
>>> embarrassing, Arny.
>>>
>>> Shape up!
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Margaret
>>>
>>>
>> Life advice from RAO's cyber-transvestite! ;-)
>
> "She" hasn't had the courage to speak to Arnold directly when "she" was in
> NY and now she's giving lesson of humanity...
> Her hypocrisy hasn't any limits.
>

Maybe 'she' did speak to Arny directly, but without revelaing 'her' alter
ego.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick

May 9th 05, 11:16 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> What's unclear about:
>>
>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>
>> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
>> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
>> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
>> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
>> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
>
>
>
> OMG you took that seriously. That's gonna make me laugh for the rest of
> the day. Thanks Arny.
>

Arny, thanks for admitting that you are a recent arrival from another
planet.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick

May 9th 05, 11:17 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In om>, John Atkinson
> wrote :
>
>> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>
> Does this recording answer to *THE* question ?
> Nasal or not nasal ?

Whiney.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 11:18 PM

wrote:
> wrote:
>> And now, gibberish from RAO's litiguous asshole. :-(

> Ooooh, guess I struck a nerve. hehehehe.

Yup Scotty, one of your nerves has been struck. Good you can
now laugh about it!

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 11:19 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> What's unclear about:
>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
>> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in
the
>> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
>> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
>> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
>
> I think the humor in Jason Serinus' writing is going over
> your head, Mr. Krueger. :-)

Not at all. John, how many Ahrnoldt jokes do you think I've
heard in my life?

Clyde Slick

May 9th 05, 11:20 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>> > The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>> > Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>> >
>>
>> The web page itself is both funny and more than a little
>> factual:
>>
>> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
>> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
>> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
>> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
>> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
>>
>> Hyperbole, anybody?
>>
>> Bad theology aside, I have to admit that posting this
>> article on the web puts John Atkinson in my "Good Loser"
>> hall of fame for all audio history, and foreseeable future
>> times.
>>
>> I can now why RAO's self-proclaimed subjectivist clique are
>> whining about the debate. Their champion got his clock
>> cleaned, pure and simple.
>
> Not even close.
>

I say it was a draw. a 0-0 tie. Neither speaker was effective.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 11:20 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
oups.com...
>>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>> What's unclear about:
>>>
>>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>>
>>> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent
arrival
>>> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in
the
>>> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
>>> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and
John
>>> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
>>
>>
>>
>> OMG you took that seriously. That's gonna make me laugh
for the rest
>> of the day. Thanks Arny.
>>
>
> Arny, thanks for admitting that you are a recent arrival
from another
> planet.

Guilty as charged. This explains why I'm so many years
advanced ahead of the rest of you zombies, Art.

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 11:21 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Margaret von B." >
wrote in
> message ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I've bought a new car or two with money earned
essentially
>>> doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is
not
>>> the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
>>> cosemtology shop you work in.
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
>>
>> For example, being such a public speaking expert you
decided to go
>> with the proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why
am I here?
>> Well done, Mr. Expert.
>>
>> Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of
bragging and
>> boasting will *never* get you anywhere.
Compliments/accomplishments
>> only count if they are aired by people who know you and
have worked
>> with you (dung beetles don't count). Not too many of
those have ever
>> come forth as far as I can tell (again, dung beetles
don't count).
>> How come, Arny?
>>
>> I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a
change to
>> prove yourself to be something else besides a hateful and
bitter
>> gasbag but you keep constantly letting me down. At your
advanced age
>> your motto still seems to be "it wasn't my fault, it was
all the
>> other guys". That *IS* embarrassing, Arny.
>>
>
> Arny couldn't buy a used Yugo with his public speaking
income.

Actually, it was a new Pontiac.

Arny Krueger

May 9th 05, 11:22 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> How about proof positive that Atkinson has posted
>> as Jamie Benchimol? ;-)
>
> Ancient Chines proverb says that when Arny Krueger
> gets rattled, out comes the accusations of
> sockpuppetting on the part of those doing the
> rattling. :-)
>
> No Mr. Krueger, not only have I not posted as
> "Jamie Benchimol," I haven't posted under any
> name other than my own. And despite your repeated
> accusations along these lines, it is fair to
> point out that you have never, ever offered one
> shred of proof to support those accusations.

Proof positive - Jamie Benchemol was doing British humor
schtick.

Clyde Slick

May 9th 05, 11:25 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Looks like a Red Herring to me.
>

"at least" it doesn't smell like one of your Brown Turds.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick

May 9th 05, 11:26 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>>> Same voice, not as nasal because it wasn't recorded
>>>> over a telephone.
>>>
>>> Note that no recording is generally available for
>>> reference.
>>
>> It's obviously the same voice. As you are making an issue
>> of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be happy to email people an
>> extract of the "Devil" recording so that they can compare
>> it with the recording of the Debate.
>>
>> It helps to get everything out in the open, don't you
>> agree.
>
> What this exchange does is show Atkinson's complicity, if
> not leadership of one of the better-known RAO childish
> conspiracies against me.
>

See a shrink. Please.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick

May 9th 05, 11:30 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
> oups.com...
>>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What's unclear about:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>>>
>>>> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent
> arrival
>>>> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in
> the
>>>> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
>>>> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and
> John
>>>> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OMG you took that seriously. That's gonna make me laugh
> for the rest
>>> of the day. Thanks Arny.
>>>
>>
>> Arny, thanks for admitting that you are a recent arrival
> from another
>> planet.
>
> Guilty as charged. This explains why I'm so many years
> advanced ahead of the rest of you zombies, Art.
>
>

Well, it does explain why you can't speak English.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick

May 9th 05, 11:30 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Margaret von B." >
> wrote in
>> message ...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I've bought a new car or two with money earned
> essentially
>>>> doing public speaking Scotty. BTW, public speaking is
> not
>>>> the same as what you do- gossip around the chair in that
>>>> cosemtology shop you work in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe you. And I tell you why.
>>>
>>> For example, being such a public speaking expert you
> decided to go
>>> with the proven :-) Stockdale strategy: Who am I? Why
> am I here?
>>> Well done, Mr. Expert.
>>>
>>> Arny, when are you going to learn that your line of
> bragging and
>>> boasting will *never* get you anywhere.
> Compliments/accomplishments
>>> only count if they are aired by people who know you and
> have worked
>>> with you (dung beetles don't count). Not too many of
> those have ever
>>> come forth as far as I can tell (again, dung beetles
> don't count).
>>> How come, Arny?
>>>
>>> I'm really trying to be neutral about you and give you a
> change to
>>> prove yourself to be something else besides a hateful and
> bitter
>>> gasbag but you keep constantly letting me down. At your
> advanced age
>>> your motto still seems to be "it wasn't my fault, it was
> all the
>>> other guys". That *IS* embarrassing, Arny.
>>>
>>
>> Arny couldn't buy a used Yugo with his public speaking
> income.
>
> Actually, it was a new Pontiac.
>
>

Prove it!!

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick

May 9th 05, 11:31 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> How about proof positive that Atkinson has posted
>>> as Jamie Benchimol? ;-)
>>
>> Ancient Chines proverb says that when Arny Krueger
>> gets rattled, out comes the accusations of
>> sockpuppetting on the part of those doing the
>> rattling. :-)
>>
>> No Mr. Krueger, not only have I not posted as
>> "Jamie Benchimol," I haven't posted under any
>> name other than my own. And despite your repeated
>> accusations along these lines, it is fair to
>> point out that you have never, ever offered one
>> shred of proof to support those accusations.
>
> Proof positive - Jamie Benchemol was doing British humor
> schtick.
>

Very good work. That one puts you on better logical ground than all of your
pcabx testing.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steven Sullivan

May 10th 05, 12:15 AM

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:

> > The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> > Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> >

> The web page itself is both funny and more than a little
> factual:

> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."

> Hyperbole, anybody?

> Bad theology aside, I have to admit that posting this
> article on the web puts John Atkinson in my "Good Loser"
> hall of fame for all audio history, and foreseeable future
> times.

Mr. Serinus seems to be still smarting from the effects of
that cable ABX. Reality checks can do that.

--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Steven Sullivan

May 10th 05, 12:22 AM

whosbest54 > wrote:
> In article om>,
> says...
> >
> >
> >The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> >Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> >http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> >
> >John Atkinson
> >Editor, Stereophile
> >
> John, thank you for hosting the debate and posting the audio recording.

> Contrary to what Arny has said, I don't think either you or he 'won' or
> 'lost'. Both of you made your points clearly. It was easy to understand
> how your views differ.

> My views on the announced topic of the debate have been posted to my
> web page for years and are generally in line with Arny's. Those views
> aren't modified in any way by what I've heard nor by Arny's behavior in
> this newsgroup.

> John, again, your story about what you did with your amps in your 20's was
> interesting, but your decision making wasn't based on any scientific
> method, but on your opinion/feelings.

Good, someone else noticed! ;>

> And yes, there _may_ have been
> problems with the test you did that originally led you to purchase the SS
> amp. Arny did point out that methods have improved and there are practical
> methods for doing the tests. Not that there's anything wrong with the
> straight listening you did for your amp decision, if that's what you want
> to do and it makes you happy.

But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is simply...questionable.

> I choose to rely on more scientific methods
> to decern _real_ differences in equipment. And, as I say on my web page,
> often those differences aren't important, even if they exist.

It's interesting that simply changing the volume level of rig by a few dB, or
moving the speakers by an inch or two, can swamp whatever relatively
small differences exist between amps or CD players.

--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 12:37 AM

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> whosbest54 > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > says...
> > >
> > >
> > >The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> > >Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> > >http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> > >
> > >John Atkinson
> > >Editor, Stereophile
> > >
> > John, thank you for hosting the debate and posting the audio
recording.
>
> > Contrary to what Arny has said, I don't think either you or he
'won' or
> > 'lost'. Both of you made your points clearly. It was easy to
understand
> > how your views differ.
>
> > My views on the announced topic of the debate have been posted to
my
> > web page for years and are generally in line with Arny's. Those
views
> > aren't modified in any way by what I've heard nor by Arny's
behavior in
> > this newsgroup.
>
> > John, again, your story about what you did with your amps in your
20's was
> > interesting, but your decision making wasn't based on any
scientific
> > method, but on your opinion/feelings.
>
>
> Good, someone else noticed! ;>

The horror! Decision making based on one's own opinion. That has to be
stopped!!!! But please do tell us what is your idea of a good
alternative in this particular situation to buying something based on
one's opinions?

>
>
>
> > And yes, there _may_ have been
> > problems with the test you did that originally led you to purchase
the SS
> > amp. Arny did point out that methods have improved and there are
practical
> > methods for doing the tests.

One thing that has not changed since then is the objectivist mantra.

Not that there's anything wrong with the
> > straight listening you did for your amp decision, if that's what
you want
> > to do and it makes you happy.
>
> But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is
simply...questionable.

I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason for his choice
to buy the tube amp. But alas, this is the very thing you guys decry
when push comes to shove. You loathe reviews that draw the same
conclusions.

>
> > I choose to rely on more scientific methods
> > to decern _real_ differences in equipment. And, as I say on my web
page,
> > often those differences aren't important, even if they exist.
>
> It's interesting that simply changing the volume level of rig by a
few dB, or
> moving the speakers by an inch or two, can swamp whatever relatively
> small differences exist between amps or CD players.

No one has ever suggested that one not optimise listening levels or
speaker position. No one has said don't do this but buy an expensive
amp instead.

Scott Wheeler

ScottW

May 10th 05, 12:41 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>>
>>> > The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>>> > Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>>> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>> >
>>>
>>> The web page itself is both funny and more than a little
>>> factual:
>>>
>>> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
>>> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
>>> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
>>> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
>>> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
>>>
>>> Hyperbole, anybody?
>>>
>>> Bad theology aside, I have to admit that posting this
>>> article on the web puts John Atkinson in my "Good Loser"
>>> hall of fame for all audio history, and foreseeable future
>>> times.
>>>
>>> I can now why RAO's self-proclaimed subjectivist clique are
>>> whining about the debate. Their champion got his clock
>>> cleaned, pure and simple.
>>
>> Not even close.
>>
>
> I say it was a draw. a 0-0 tie. Neither speaker was effective.

Agreed, but if you consider comparing Arny's argument to his schtick on
RAO.... he clearly failed to support his position. In fact he apparently
left John quite perplexed by agreeing that differences are a matter of
degree. His argument became a semantic one.

ScottW

Surf

May 10th 05, 01:02 AM

> wrote
>>
> I was wondering just where that "squeaky", "whiny", "high-pitched",
> etc., voice of Arny's all the "Normals" claimed to have heard on "The
> Tape" went.

It didn't go anywhere. Same voice. He doesn't sound like
a teenaged nerd to you? Do you have voice issues as well?

John Atkinson

May 10th 05, 01:16 AM

wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > whosbest54 > wrote:
> > > Not that there's anything wrong with the straight listening
> > > you did for your amp decision, if that's what you want to do
> > > and it makes you happy.
> >
> > But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is simply...
> > questionable.
>
> I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason for his choice
> to buy the tube amp.

Hi Scott, what everyone seems to be ignoring is my point for
mentioning this anecdote. Which was that all the non-sighted
factors worked _against_ my becoming dissatisfied with the Quad.
The solid-state amp was cheaper, smaller, more powerful, ran
cooler, and offered, in my opinion, better industrial design.
So, if these factors were going to have any influence on my
listening, as the "objectivists" repeatedly claim, they would all
have persuaded me that the amplifier was fine. However, as my
increasing disatisfaction was real and I was having to work harder
to appreciate the music through the amplifier, it was this
cognitive dissonance that proved to be the tipping point at which
I changed from a hard-line objectivist -- see an editorial I wrote
in a 1978 issue of HFN for an example -- into someone who realized
the value of listening.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 01:21 AM

ScottW wrote:

> Agreed, but if you consider comparing Arny's argument to
his schtick
> on RAO.... he clearly failed to support his position.

Thanks for showing that you can't read very well, Scott. You
got it when you heard me say it on the recording, despite
all the times you failted to get it when I posted it on RAO.

>In fact he
> apparently left John quite perplexed by agreeing that
differences are
> a matter of degree.

No, I asserted that unlike what Stereopile and the rest say,
some things sound different, some things don't.

> His argument became a semantic one.

That's what it has always been, once the HE press posturing
is cut away.

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 01:22 AM

wrote:
> Lionel wrote:
>> In
om>, John
>> Atkinson wrote :
>>
>>> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>>> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>
>> Does this recording answer to *THE* question ?
>> Nasal or not nasal ?
>>
>>
> I was wondering just where that "squeaky", "whiny",
"high-pitched",
> etc., voice of Arny's all the "Normals" claimed to have
heard on "The
> Tape" went.
>>
> Among the possibilities:
>>
> a)"The Tape" never existed at all
>>
> b)The "Normals" lied about the sound of Arny's voice on
"The Tape"
>>
> c)The psychotic posting as "the Devil" altered Arny's
voice on "The
> Tape"
>>
> d)"The Tape" existed but was a complete fabrication by
"the Davil"
> that had absolutely no basis in reality, but was merely
"the Devil"
> playing both parts and, perhaps, using a digital pitch
change device
> to alter the "Arny" parts
>>
>>
> I'm going with "d". ;-)

Given that Atkinson has stepped forward as worldwide
distributor of the tape...

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 01:23 AM

Signal wrote:
> "Lionel" emitted :
>
>>>>> It's obviously the same voice. As you are making an
issue
>>>>> of this, Mr. Krueger, I'd be happy to email people an
>>>>> extract of the "Devil" recording so that they can
compare
>>>>> it with the recording of the Debate.
>>>>
>>>> Is it legal ?
>>>
>>> It's not illegal.
>>
>> Even if the so-called recording has been done behind
Krueger's back ?
>
> Correct.

More like the recording came out of someone's back-side.

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 01:25 AM

John Atkinson wrote:
> wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > whosbest54 > wrote:
> > > > Not that there's anything wrong with the straight listening
> > > > you did for your amp decision, if that's what you want to do
> > > > and it makes you happy.
> > >
> > > But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is simply...
> > > questionable.
> >
> > I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason for his
choice
> > to buy the tube amp.
>
> Hi Scott, what everyone seems to be ignoring is my point for
> mentioning this anecdote. Which was that all the non-sighted
> factors worked _against_ my becoming dissatisfied with the Quad.
> The solid-state amp was cheaper, smaller, more powerful, ran
> cooler, and offered, in my opinion, better industrial design.
> So, if these factors were going to have any influence on my
> listening, as the "objectivists" repeatedly claim, they would all
> have persuaded me that the amplifier was fine. However, as my
> increasing disatisfaction was real and I was having to work harder
> to appreciate the music through the amplifier, it was this
> cognitive dissonance that proved to be the tipping point at which
> I changed from a hard-line objectivist -- see an editorial I wrote
> in a 1978 issue of HFN for an example -- into someone who realized
> the value of listening.

I think the fair point to make is that you chose one of two
possibilities. You didn't *prove* that you heard a real audible
difference. I think the problem objectivists face in your case is that
your decision was a reasonable one even if it wasn't scientifically
supported. You picked what you saw as the most likely of the two
possibilities. The *real* problem I see for objectivists is that your
solution solved your problem regardless of which possibility was the
true underlying reality. I have yet to see any objectivist offer you a
better alternative than the one you took when you bought the tube amp
and started enjoying your stereo again. Regardless of what they believe
was the real cause and effect.

Scott Wheeler

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 01:30 AM

John Atkinson wrote:
> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>> whosbest54 > wrote:
>>>> Not that there's anything wrong with the straight
listening
>>>> you did for your amp decision, if that's what you want
to do
>>>> and it makes you happy.
>>>
>>> But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is
simply...
>>> questionable.
>>
>> I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason
for his choice
>> to buy the tube amp.
>
> Hi Scott, what everyone seems to be ignoring is my point
for
> mentioning this anecdote. Which was that all the
non-sighted
> factors worked _against_ my becoming dissatisfied with the
Quad.

Horsefeathers.

> The solid-state amp was cheaper, smaller, more powerful,
ran
> cooler, and offered, in my opinion, better industrial
design.

Failure to note the endemic high end predjudice against of
all of these factors noted.

> So, if these factors were going to have any influence on
my
> listening, as the "objectivists" repeatedly claim, they
would all
> have persuaded me that the amplifier was fine.

If you believe this then you think that the SET amp darlings
of the high end are cheaper, smaller, more powerful, and run
cooler. We can haggle about the industrial design element,
because that means different things to different people.

> However, as my
> increasing disatisfaction was real and I was having to
work harder
> to appreciate the music through the amplifier,

So, if I do a PCABX test showing that the Quad 405 is in
fact a colored amplifer, what does that mean?

>it was this
> cognitive dissonance that proved to be the tipping point
at which
> I changed from a hard-line objectivist -- see an editorial
I wrote
> in a 1978 issue of HFN for an example -- into someone who
realized
> the value of listening.

The false claim here is that objectivists don't care about
listening. This totally ignores the well-knkown role that
listening tests play in the realm of objectivist equipment
evaluations, such as those promoted by Stan Lip****z, Floyd
Toole, David Clark, Tom Nousaine, etc.

Bruce C. Miller

May 10th 05, 01:33 AM

John Atkinson wrote:
> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

Will there be a video version of this or not? Would be nice to see as
well as hear these proceedings.

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 02:02 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >>> whosbest54 > wrote:
> >>>> Not that there's anything wrong with the straight
> listening
> >>>> you did for your amp decision, if that's what you want
> to do
> >>>> and it makes you happy.
> >>>
> >>> But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is
> simply...
> >>> questionable.
> >>
> >> I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason
> for his choice
> >> to buy the tube amp.
> >
> > Hi Scott, what everyone seems to be ignoring is my point
> for
> > mentioning this anecdote. Which was that all the
> non-sighted
> > factors worked _against_ my becoming dissatisfied with the
> Quad.
>
> Horsefeathers.

How sad, another objectivist is forced to deny circumstances.
Horsefeathers is a very compelling argument Arny. Use it on
allsubjectivists when they relate their experiences to you. The
converts will just pile up.

>
> > The solid-state amp was cheaper, smaller, more powerful,
> ran
> > cooler, and offered, in my opinion, better industrial
> design.
>
> Failure to note the endemic high end predjudice against of
> all of these factors noted.

Failure to acknowledge JA's position on those factors at the time. you
are now forced to call him a liar or claim you know what was in his
head better than he did. All in light of the fact that JA's actions
spoke loudly about his biases at that time.

>
> > So, if these factors were going to have any influence on
> my
> > listening, as the "objectivists" repeatedly claim, they
> would all
> > have persuaded me that the amplifier was fine.
>
> If you believe this then you think that the SET amp darlings
> of the high end are cheaper, smaller, more powerful, and run
> cooler. We can haggle about the industrial design element,
> because that means different things to different people.

You are just chasing your tail now. you can'tr deal wih the facts as
they were presented. You have to now invent facts. That is the problem
objectivists face with this anecdote.

>
>
> > However, as my
> > increasing disatisfaction was real and I was having to
> work harder
> > to appreciate the music through the amplifier,
>
> So, if I do a PCABX test showing that the Quad 405 is in
> fact a colored amplifer, what does that mean?

Means he was right all along on all acounts of this anecdote. It would
also mean that the objectivists of the time had their collective headfs
up their db asses. If that is the case then what has changed in the
objectivist camp since then?

>
> >it was this
> > cognitive dissonance that proved to be the tipping point
> at which
> > I changed from a hard-line objectivist -- see an editorial
> I wrote
> > in a 1978 issue of HFN for an example -- into someone who
> realized
> > the value of listening.
>
> The false claim here is that objectivists don't care about
> listening. This totally ignores the well-knkown role that
> listening tests play in the realm of objectivist equipment
> evaluations, such as those promoted by Stan Lip****z, Floyd
> Toole, David Clark, Tom Nousaine, etc.

Scott Wheeler

Surf

May 10th 05, 02:27 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote

> More like the recording came out of someone's back-side.

You look foolish making comments like this while refusing to
give permission for its release.

but what's new.....

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 02:43 AM

Surf wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
>> More like the recording came out of someone's back-side.

> You look foolish making comments like this while refusing
to
> give permission for its release.

How can I give permission for the release of something about
me that I can't hear?

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 02:43 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>
> >> > The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> >> > Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> >> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> >> >
> >>
> >> The web page itself is both funny and more than a little
> >> factual:
> >>
> >> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
> >> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
> >> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
> >> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
> >> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
> >>
> >> Hyperbole, anybody?
> >>
> >> Bad theology aside, I have to admit that posting this
> >> article on the web puts John Atkinson in my "Good Loser"
> >> hall of fame for all audio history, and foreseeable future
> >> times.
> >>
> >> I can now why RAO's self-proclaimed subjectivist clique are
> >> whining about the debate. Their champion got his clock
> >> cleaned, pure and simple.
> >
> > Not even close.
> >
>
> I say it was a draw. a 0-0 tie. Neither speaker was effective.
>
>
Even if that judgement is accepted, it doesn't bode well for good ol'
JA: he had home-field advantage, a crowd sympathetic to his BS and was
both moderator and participant in the debate. And, according to you, he
still only managed a scoreless draw with Arny??? Time for a new
"champion", Art!

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 02:45 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:

> I say it was a draw. a 0-0 tie.

Given the alleged disadvantages I had coming in the door,
that's really an insult to Atkinson.

>Neither speaker was effective.

I would have been more effective had I been able to display
my presentation. It appears that overcame that disadvantage
quite nicely, too.

Surf

May 10th 05, 02:46 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
> Given that Atkinson has stepped forward as worldwide
> distributor of the tape...

If there is a tape, Graham has it. John doesn't have "the tape".
There is no "the tape". It's a flippin recording. It's a file. It's
a recording of you once again making an ass of yourself. Your
voice sounds like that of a teenage nerd. It's the same voice
we hear in "The Debate". Most of us think you sound like a
goon. Malesweski doesn't hear it. He thinks you sound fine.
But he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music
in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf
hippy with issues. But he loves you, so he's ok.

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 02:50 AM

Surf wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote

>> Given that Atkinson has stepped forward as worldwide
>> distributor of the tape...

> If there is a tape, Graham has it. John doesn't have "the
tape".
> There is no "the tape". It's a flippin recording. It's a
file.

Your mastery of the obvious is quite amazing given your
demonstrated stupidity, Surf.

> It's a recording of you once again making an ass of
yourself.

Go argue with Art - he says it was draw. Or are you saying
that Atkinson was also making an ass of himself?

> Your voice sounds like that of a teenage nerd.

Flattery will get you nowhere. That's the only measure of a
man - the sound of his voice.

> It's the same voice we hear in "The Debate".

Prove it.

>Most of us think you sound like a goon.

As compared to how you sound, bozo-breath?

>Malesweski doesn't hear it. He thinks you sound fine.
> But he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud
music
> in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless,
near-deaf
> hippy with issues. But he loves you, so he's ok.

Who is Maliesweski and why should I care who he is or what
he did?

Clyde Slick

May 10th 05, 03:26 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> John Atkinson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>> >> > Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>> >> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The web page itself is both funny and more than a little
>> >> factual:
>> >>
>> >> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
>> >> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in the
>> >> USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
>> >> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
>> >> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
>> >>
>> >> Hyperbole, anybody?
>> >>
>> >> Bad theology aside, I have to admit that posting this
>> >> article on the web puts John Atkinson in my "Good Loser"
>> >> hall of fame for all audio history, and foreseeable future
>> >> times.
>> >>
>> >> I can now why RAO's self-proclaimed subjectivist clique are
>> >> whining about the debate. Their champion got his clock
>> >> cleaned, pure and simple.
>> >
>> > Not even close.
>> >
>>
>> I say it was a draw. a 0-0 tie. Neither speaker was effective.
>>
>>
> Even if that judgement is accepted, it doesn't bode well for good ol'
> JA: he had home-field advantage, a crowd sympathetic to his BS and was
> both moderator and participant in the debate. And, according to you, he
> still only managed a scoreless draw with Arny??? Time for a new
> "champion", Art!
>

Or time for better debaters. It was just so unfocused. And Arny
certainly left his debating trade manual at home. He would have been
better off boning up on his Schropenhauer than worrying
about any powerpoint presentation!

It was a nonevent, more than being a competition.

And I thought the audience was very very polite to Arny,
I certainly would not call it a hostile crowd. He got a good reception
both before and after the 'debate'.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

ScottW

May 10th 05, 03:27 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Agreed, but if you consider comparing Arny's argument to
> his schtick
>> on RAO.... he clearly failed to support his position.
>
> Thanks for showing that you can't read very well, Scott.

Me and how many others?

> You
> got it when you heard me say it on the recording, despite
> all the times you failted to get it when I posted it on RAO.

I seriously doubt John would have bothered paying your way to NY if he knew
how impotent your argument would be.

>
> >In fact he
>> apparently left John quite perplexed by agreeing that
> differences are
>> a matter of degree.
>
> No, I asserted that unlike what Stereopile and the rest say,
> some things sound different, some things don't.

Earth shattering!
Then you thoroughly lost your point by pontificating uselessly about your
procedure to demonstrate sonic signatures.
>
>> His argument became a semantic one.
>
> That's what it has always been, once the HE press posturing
> is cut away.

His => Arny

ScottW

Lionel

May 10th 05, 03:41 AM

In >, Surf wrote :

> ...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music
> in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf
> hippy with issues...

Are you speaking about Dave Weil ?

Surf

May 10th 05, 04:06 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote

> Surf wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>>
>>> More like the recording came out of someone's back-side.
>
>> You look foolish making comments like this while refusing
> to
>> give permission for its release.
>
> How can I give permission for the release of something about
> me that I can't hear?

It's not about you. It is you. Give permission and you can hear it.

duh....

Surf

May 10th 05, 04:13 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
>>Malesweski doesn't hear it. He thinks you sound fine.
>> But he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud
> music
>> in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless,
> near-deaf
>> hippy with issues. But he loves you, so he's ok.
>
> Who is Maliesweski and why should I care who he is or what
> he did?

He's your little lapdog, torrie****s. The guy with his
lips on your ass...........

Do try to keep up.

whosbest54

May 10th 05, 04:27 AM

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>Not that there's anything wrong with the
>straight listening you did for your amp decision, if that's what
>you want to do and it makes you happy.
>>
>> But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is simply...questionable.
>
>I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason for his choice
>to buy the tube amp. But alas, this is the very thing you guys decry
>when push comes to shove. You loathe reviews that draw the same
>conclusions.
>
And I said it was fine for him to make that decision if it made him happy.
Straight listening has a place in determining if you personally like
something and want to buy it - I agree it should be part of the equipment
purchase process. My point is that it's not a scientifically valid process
for determining if the amps sound different and that was one of Arny's
points at the debate. The question is whether it is better to depend on
scientifically valid methods or not to determine if _certain_ equipment
sounds different. As I have said on my web site, there are places for both
a subjective and objective approaches in evaluating audio equipment. For
example, I think subjective listening is better suited to selecting speakers
for a system. Objective testing is better suited to determining if there is
a difference in sound between wires, amps or audio codecs. But, when
selecting equipment one should always do straight listening to everything
you plan to buy and look at audio equipment reviews to see if the equipment
does what it says it does as far as specs go. The audio magazines should do
scientifically valid testing to check specs. Straight listening to amps or
wires is of little value in my opinion as far as discerning differences.
And, again, in many instances those differences can exist but may not be
that important. Purchasers need to understand that and should concentrate
on listening to the parts of their system and setup that really affect sound
- not the amps or wires but the speakers, speaker placement and room
acoustics. They also need to understand that the quality of the source
material has a huge affect on their system's sound quality as well.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

whosbest54

May 10th 05, 04:41 AM

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>
wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> > whosbest54 > wrote:
>> > > Not that there's anything wrong with the straight listening
>> > > you did for your amp decision, if that's what you want to do
>> > > and it makes you happy.
>> >
>> > But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is simply...
>> > questionable.
>>
>> I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason for his choice
>> to buy the tube amp.
>
>Hi Scott, what everyone seems to be ignoring is my point for
>mentioning this anecdote. Which was that all the non-sighted
>factors worked _against_ my becoming dissatisfied with the Quad.
>The solid-state amp was cheaper, smaller, more powerful, ran
>cooler, and offered, in my opinion, better industrial design.
>So, if these factors were going to have any influence on my
>listening, as the "objectivists" repeatedly claim, they would all
>have persuaded me that the amplifier was fine. However, as my
>increasing disatisfaction was real and I was having to work harder
>to appreciate the music through the amplifier, it was this
>cognitive dissonance that proved to be the tipping point at which
>I changed from a hard-line objectivist -- see an editorial I wrote
>in a 1978 issue of HFN for an example -- into someone who realized
>the value of listening.
>
John, I think the point Arny and I have been trying to make is that your
approach isn't a scientifically valid way of proving the amps sounded
different.

I'm sure you were sure you heard what you heard, and I don't doubt it.
But it's not scientifically proven that the SS amp sounded different
than the tube amp. I grant you that they, in fact, might have. The fact
that the original blind test didn't provide that result may have been due
to the way that test was conducted or designed. I don't think your story
invalidates the properly designed and conducted double blind test as a
valid scientific method for determining if amps, wires or audio codecs
sound different.

Besides, you should have been concentrating on your speakers, listening
room acoutics and the quality of your source material before goofing
around with changing amps. If you did, then I give you credit for
trying to optimize what really matters most.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 04:59 AM

whosbest54 wrote:
> In article om>,
> says...
> >
> >
> >Not that there's anything wrong with the
> >straight listening you did for your amp decision, if that's what
> >you want to do and it makes you happy.
> >>
> >> But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is
simply...questionable.
> >
> >I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason for his
choice
> >to buy the tube amp. But alas, this is the very thing you guys decry
> >when push comes to shove. You loathe reviews that draw the same
> >conclusions.
> >
> And I said it was fine for him to make that decision if it made him
happy.
> Straight listening has a place in determining if you personally like
> something and want to buy it - I agree it should be part of the
equipment
> purchase process. My point is that it's not a scientifically valid
process
> for determining if the amps sound different and that was one of
Arny's
> points at the debate.

It is a pointless point since no one is touting sighted reviews as
scientifically valid or anything other than perosnal opinions.

The question is whether it is better to depend on
> scientifically valid methods or not to determine if _certain_
equipment
> sounds different.

Clearly, in this case, it was better not to depend on the dbt since it
wrought a result that ended in owner dissatisfatcion.

As I have said on my web site, there are places for both
> a subjective and objective approaches in evaluating audio equipment.
For
> example, I think subjective listening is better suited to selecting
speakers
> for a system.

Why? They are every bit as subject to sighted bias effects? Why would
you not want to avoid those ill effects then? Seems rather random
choice to me.

Objective testing is better suited to determining if there is
> a difference in sound between wires, amps or audio codecs. But, when

> selecting equipment one should always do straight listening to
everything
> you plan to buy and look at audio equipment reviews to see if the
equipment
> does what it says it does as far as specs go. The audio magazines
should do
> scientifically valid testing to check specs. Straight listening to
amps or
> wires is of little value in my opinion as far as discerning
differences.

You are entitled to that opinion and you are free to skip that part of
a review. How would *that* view have helped Jon in his situation with
the Quad amp?

> And, again, in many instances those differences can exist but may not
be
> that important. Purchasers need to understand that and should
concentrate
> on listening to the parts of their system and setup that really
affect sound
> - not the amps or wires but the speakers, speaker placement and room
> acoustics. They also need to understand that the quality of the
source
> material has a huge affect on their system's sound quality as well.
>
> whosbest54
> --
> The flamewars are over...if you want it.
>
> Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
> http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/
>
> Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
> http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

Scott Wheeler

EddieM

May 10th 05, 05:18 AM

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> Signal wrote:
>>> "Lionel" emitted :
>
>
>
>
>>>> It's not illegal.
>>>
>>> Even if the so-called recording has been done behind
> Krueger's back ?
>>
>> Correct.
>
> More like the recording came out of someone's back-side.

Hellloo. I've listen to the recorded Debate this a.m. but couldn't
make out what the question ask by the audience where. Maybe
it has been pointed out what those question where among the
threads here regarding the Debate. I hope that it had been.
Well...... been so busy lately.

This Debate is important because it address why audio
newsgroups are, at the moment, in total wreck. But you knew
that.

Michael Conzo

May 10th 05, 07:19 AM

In article , "whosbest54" >
wrote:

> The audio magazines should do
> scientifically valid testing to check specs. Straight listening to amps or
> wires is of little value in my opinion as far as discerning differences.

True.

But note there is little "testing" that can relate to human hearing. Little
is known about how the ear/brain system works so many of the measurements
propounded by the audio industry means little in any evaluation.

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 11:17 AM

whosbest54 wrote:
> In article
om,

> Straight listening has a place in determining if you
> personally like something and want to buy it - I agree it
should be
> part of the equipment purchase process.

So-called straight listening or more specifically sighted
evaluation, is unquestionably applicable in those cases
where equipment and systems unquestionably sound different.
For example, comparing loudspeakers and microphones often
involves equipment that unquestionably sounds different.
Even when equipment unquestionably sounds different, blind
testing techniques can be profitably used to address
listener bias, as has been done by Dr. Floyd Toole and
others.

Despite the endless anti-scientific posturing that I find in
Stereophile and the high end press in general, not
everything unquestionably sounds different. As has been
pointed out here by James Johnson and ITU Recommendation BS
1116, blind testing is the only valid means for performing
such evaluations.

>My point is that it's not a
> scientifically valid process for determining if the amps
sound
> different and that was one of Arny's points at the debate.

Right. It's clear to me that John Atkinson and Stereophile
and the high end press have arrogantly, ignorantly, and
unwisely set themselves up as superior authorities to much
of the audio industry that agrees with the findings and
procedures of Dr. Floyd Toole, Dr. Stanley Lip****z, Jim
Johnson and the ITU. For example, John Atkinson and his
ragazine are routinely belittled when they aren't being
ignored by most of the leadership of the AES and ASA.

> The question is whether it is better to depend on
scientifically valid
> methods or not to determine if _certain_ equipment sounds
different.
> As I have said on my web site, there are places for both a
subjective
> and objective approaches in evaluating audio equipment.

So-called objective or more specifically test
equipment-based approaches to equipment evaluation suffer
from an obvious flaw. They are an abstraction of the hearing
process, based on science and math. While they are very much
responsible for almost all of the technical progress that we
enjoy today, Science and Math are themselves somewhat
subjective in the sense that they are based on human thought
and perceptions, and therefore they regrettably are
imperfect abstractions of the human hearing process.

> For example,
> I think subjective listening is better suited to selecting
speakers
> for a system.

I'll quibble with the exact choice of words. We don't select
speakers for an audio system, we actually select speakers
for a certain position within a room. While the room is
arguably the strongest or one of the two strongest
determining factors when it comes to sound quality, it is
not commonly acquired as part of what most people think as
being an audio system.

> Objective testing is better suited to determining if
> there is a difference in sound between wires, amps or
audio codecs.

Actually, there is no controversy in the relevent parts of
the audio industry over the idea that audio codecs should be
first and foremost evaluated using listening tests.

> But, when selecting equipment one should always do
straight listening
> to everything you plan to buy and look at audio equipment
reviews to
> see if the equipment does what it says it does as far as
specs go.

At this point about the only thing that a listening test can
tell you about wires, electronics, and digital players is
whether they are grotesquely broken or a highly defective
design (e.g. SETs) or things like that. If you presume that
your supply chain is even minimally competent by modern
standards, listening to receivers, amplifiers and digital
players is an act of futility. If you want to evaluate how
the controls of a CD player work in the store, that makes
sense. But because of the impact of the room on loudspeaker
performance, even listening to loudspeakers in a store is
actually pretty futile.

> The audio magazines should do scientifically valid testing
to check
> specs. Straight listening to amps or wires is of little
value in my
> opinion as far as discerning differences.

The audible differences between even marginally-competent
amps and wires is small or non-existent.

> And, again, in many
> instances those differences can exist but may not be that
important.

Most perceived difference between even marginally-competent
amps and wires are the products of the natural operation of
the human perceptual apparatus, not due to any inherent
audible equipment differences that some may claim exists.

> Purchasers need to understand that and should concentrate
on
> listening to the parts of their system and setup that
really affect
> sound - not the amps or wires but the speakers, speaker
placement and
> room acoustics.

Exactly.

> They also need to understand that the quality of the
> source material has a huge affect on their system's sound
quality as
> well.

Precisely.

John Atkinson

May 10th 05, 11:38 AM

wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > what everyone seems to be ignoring is my point for
> > > mentioning this anecdote. Which was that all the
> > > non-sighted factors worked _against_ my becoming
> > > dissatisfied with the Quad.
> >
> > Horsefeathers.
>
> How sad, another objectivist is forced to deny circumstances.
> Horsefeathers is a very compelling argument Arny. Use it on
> all subjectivists when they relate their experiences to you.
> The converts will just pile up.

Arny is obviously getting rattled. We've already had him issue
the usual sockpuppet accusations. Pretty soon, Tom Nousaine
will appear on the scene mumbling about capacitor tests. :-)

> > > The solid-state amp was cheaper, smaller, more powerful,
> > > ran cooler, and offered, in my opinion, better industrial
> > > design.
> >
> > Failure to note the endemic high end predjudice against of
> > all of these factors noted.
>
> Failure to acknowledge JA's position on those factors at the
> time.

How come no-one gets the point of this anecdote, which is that it
pits two core beliefs of the believers in "scientism" against
each other? 1) That a blind test reveals the true situation
about audible amplifier differences; 2) that sighted listening
is dominated by non-audio factors, the so-called "Placebo Effect."

To explain my Damascene experience, you have to accept that either
the blind test was flawed, in which case all the reports that cited
that 1978 test as "proving" the amplifiers sounded the same were
wrong, or that the non-audio factors were irrelevant, in which case
the criticisms of sighted listening based on that factor are
wrong.

> you are now forced to call him a liar or claim you know what was
> in his head better than he did.

Well, there is always _that_ possibility. But note that in person
even Arny refrained from calling me a liar to my face. Now he's
back behind the safety of his PC, he returns to his usal form. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson

May 10th 05, 11:44 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> How about proof positive that Atkinson has posted
> >> as Jamie Benchimol? ;-)
> >
> > Ancient Chines proverb says that when Arny Krueger
> > gets rattled, out comes the accusations of
> > sockpuppetting on the part of those doing the
> > rattling. :-)
> >
> > No Mr. Krueger, not only have I not posted as
> > "Jamie Benchimol," I haven't posted under any
> > name other than my own. And despite your repeated
> > accusations along these lines, it is fair to
> > point out that you have never, ever offered one
> > shred of proof to support those accusations.
>
> Proof positive - Jamie Benchemol was doing British humor
> schtick.

No, not only have you not offered any evidence that Jamie
Benchimol and I were doing "British humor schtick," but
even if we did, that would only reduce the possibility
that we were the same person to around one in 100 million.
I find it sad but typical, Mr. Krueger, that while you
were polite to me in person in NY, now you're back behind
the safety of your PC monitor, you resort to the insults
and the accusations of lying.

It appears that despite the bluster, you're just another
Internet blowhard, after all. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 11:46 AM

John Atkinson wrote:

> I find it sad but typical, Mr. Krueger, that while you
> were polite to me in person in NY, now you're back behind
> the safety of your PC monitor, you resort to the insults
> and the accusations of lying.

Look John, my behavious in New Your was what it was because
in New York you were a somewhat brain-dead, incompetent,
flustered but still maginally polite person.

Now John, you've turned completely nasty again, so you're
getting just a fraction what you give.

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 11:49 AM

John Atkinson wrote:
>
> How come no-one gets the point of this anecdote, which is
that it
> pits two core beliefs of the believers in "scientism"
against
> each other? 1) That a blind test reveals the true
situation
> about audible amplifier differences; 2) that sighted
listening
> is dominated by non-audio factors, the so-called "Placebo
Effect."

Because it doesn't.

There's no reliable evidence at all that the Quad 405 had
any technical problems at all.

Ironically, the Quad 405 may have been having technical
problems, but appropriate evidence was never gathered.

Or, perhaps the replacement tubed amp had audible technical
problems that Atkinson happens to like the sound of, as are
evidenced by SET amplifiers that his magazine tirelessly
promotes.

John Atkinson

May 10th 05, 11:49 AM

Bruce C. Miller wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> > Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> > http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>
> Will there be a video version of this or not?

No, we didn't video the debate. Sorry.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Clyde Slick

May 10th 05, 11:59 AM

"whosbest54" > wrote in message
...
>>
> John, I think the point Arny and I have been trying to make is that your
> approach isn't a scientifically valid way of proving the amps sounded
> different.
>

That's not the point. Not at all.
BTW, your propellor is out of synch.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Lionel

May 10th 05, 01:23 PM

In >, Signal wrote :

> "Lionel" said to Surf:
>
>>> ...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music
>>> in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf
>>> hippy with issues...
>>
>>Are you speaking about Dave Weil ?
>
> No he wasn't, but *you* are.
>
> Nyah-nyah-nyah! :-)

NYA HA HA ! NYA HA HA ! NYA HA HA !

;-)

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 01:31 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Bruce C. Miller wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>>> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>
>> Will there be a video version of this or not?
>
> No, we didn't video the debate. Sorry.
>

I thought this was good, because the pictures of John make
him look bad enough.

BTW John, is that just a bad comb-over or a hairpiece?

dave weil

May 10th 05, 01:50 PM

On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:31:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>John Atkinson wrote:
>> Bruce C. Miller wrote:
>>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>>> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>>>> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>>
>>> Will there be a video version of this or not?
>>
>> No, we didn't video the debate. Sorry.
>>
>
>I thought this was good, because the pictures of John make
>him look bad enough.
>
>BTW John, is that just a bad comb-over or a hairpiece?

I don't know but did you steal your outfit from a pinp? If so, you
forgot the wide-brimmed hat and mink coat.

dave weil

May 10th 05, 01:58 PM

On Tue, 10 May 2005 04:41:02 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, Surf wrote :
>
>> ...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music
>> in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf
>> hippy with issues...
>
>Are you speaking about Dave Weil ?

Still can't get the wife to orgasm I see.

Surf

May 10th 05, 02:29 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote

> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> I find it sad but typical, Mr. Krueger, that while you
>> were polite to me in person in NY, now you're back behind
>> the safety of your PC monitor, you resort to the insults
>> and the accusations of lying.
>
> Look John, my behavious in New Your was what it was because
> in New York you were a somewhat brain-dead, incompetent,
> flustered but still maginally polite person.

No Arny, John's correct. You're a chicken **** coward.
You say things and behave on the Internet in a way you
wouldn't in person. You're about as brave as your little
buddy torrie****s was before we found out where he lives
and who he cares about.

Surf

May 10th 05, 02:34 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
> BTW John, is that just a bad comb-over or a hairpiece?

Oh - how brave you are now!

John Atkinson

May 10th 05, 03:00 PM

EddieM wrote:
> I've listen to the recorded Debate this a.m. but couldn't
> make out what the question ask by the audience where.

Hi Eddie, the audience questions occurred at approximately
31:10, 40:35; 45:00; 47:45; 50:50; 54:00; 55:25; 57:05; and
61:10.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 03:16 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > How come no-one gets the point of this anecdote, which is
> that it
> > pits two core beliefs of the believers in "scientism"
> against
> > each other? 1) That a blind test reveals the true
> situation
> > about audible amplifier differences; 2) that sighted
> listening
> > is dominated by non-audio factors, the so-called "Placebo
> Effect."
>
> Because it doesn't.

Well, actually it does. Whether or not Jon's reaction to the Quad amp
was based on actual sound or a placebo effect the objectivist position
does not offer hima solution where as the subjectivist position , judge
components based on how you actually use them did solve his problem.

>
> There's no reliable evidence at all that the Quad 405 had
> any technical problems at all.

And there is no reliable evidnece that says it sounded the same. The
problem is either way Jon still had a problem with the Quad. If you can
find a better solution than the one Jon found via a subjectivist method
please fill us in.

>
> Ironically, the Quad 405 may have been having technical
> problems, but appropriate evidence was never gathered.

Ironically that was irrelevat to the problem or the solution to that
problem.

>
> Or, perhaps the replacement tubed amp had audible technical
> problems that Atkinson happens to like the sound of, as are
> evidenced by SET amplifiers that his magazine tirelessly
> promotes.

Now that would be a straw man since Jon had not yet used the tube amp
in his system before having a problem with the Quad amp. But if this
were the case then there would have been audible differences and the
blind test simply failed him as he claims in his quest for better
sound.

Scott Wheeler

P.S. since your objectivist approach to audio offers no solutions to
this problem I would expect the usual posturing, name calling and
accusations of falsehoods to follow. Who knows maybe you'll find typos
and spelling errors to harp on. I will bet you can offer no real
solution to the problem Jon faced when he found the Quad unsatisfying.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

Bruce C. Miller

May 10th 05, 03:17 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Bruce C. Miller wrote:
> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>> The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
> >>> Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
> >>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> >>
> >> Will there be a video version of this or not?
> >
> > No, we didn't video the debate. Sorry.
>
> I thought this was good, because the pictures of John make
> him look bad enough.
>
> BTW John, is that just a bad comb-over or a hairpiece?

Only being a part-time audiophile and not a member of the generation
that most people who post here are from, I've not really followed the
arguing on this NG until I listened to this file. Since not many people
seem to be giving the proper credit, I'll just say I thought you did an
excellent job at this debate. I haven't really thought much about the
objectivist vs subjectivist argument, but I'm pretty convinced the
subjectivist approach is not for me, especially after listening to both
sides. I picked up a subscription to Stereophile when I got into the
hobby less than a year ago (someone recommended I subscribe), and was
rather shocked at the rather ridiculous vocabulary of adjectives
assigned to components like amps and cables. After a couple months, I
found myself just reading the first few paragraphs of reviews that
would describe the products in general and looking at the pretty
pictures, because the listening reports were pratically meaningless to
me. Anyway, keep up the good work.

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 03:40 PM

John "unctuous" Atkinson wrote:
>
>
<snipped>
>
> I find it sad but typical, Mr. Krueger, that while you
> were polite to me in person in NY, now you're back behind
> the safety of your PC monitor, you resort to the insults
> and the accusations of lying.
>
> It appears that despite the bluster, you're just another
> Internet blowhard, after all. :-(
>
>

Gee, John, I didn't hear you asking Arny if he "had something to say to
[your] face" at the debate. Instead, you were polite and civil. Arny
responded in kind. If he's an "internet blowhard", so are you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, those are the people
we're after." - excerpted from the $tereopile mission statement

Sander deWaal

May 10th 05, 05:18 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Or, perhaps the replacement tubed amp had audible technical
>problems that Atkinson happens to like the sound of,

You call it problems, another calls it "character".
This is the root of the difference between sub and ob.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 05:20 PM

wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>>
>>> How come no-one gets the point of this anecdote, which
is that it
>>> pits two core beliefs of the believers in "scientism"
against
>>> each other? 1) That a blind test reveals the true
situation
>>> about audible amplifier differences; 2) that sighted
listening
>>> is dominated by non-audio factors, the so-called
"Placebo
>>> Effect."

>> Because it doesn't.

> Well, actually it does.

Na-na-na-na.

>Whether or not Jon's reaction to the Quad amp
> was based on actual sound or a placebo effect the
objectivist position
> does not offer him a solution where as the subjectivist
position ,
> judge components based on how you actually use them did
solve his
> problem.

This paragraph is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

First off, John's name isn't Jon, but that's just a symptom
of Scotty's ongoing inability to get even the simplest
detail right.

Secondly, my position is not the objectivist position. In
fact my position is a logical combination of most of the
elements of the true (not Atkinson's self-serving and
commercialized version of the) subjectivist position, and
most of the elements of the true not Atkinson's self-serving
and commercialized version of the) objectivist position

Thirdly, the meeting of objectivist and subjectivist
positions that I laid out at the beginning of the debate
does offer him a reliable general solution.

Fourthly, Atkinson's self-serving and commercialized version
of the subjectivist position does not provide a reliable
general solution.

>> There's no reliable evidence at all that the Quad 405 had
>> any technical problems at all.

> And there is no reliable evidnece that says it sounded the
same.

Never said it did. Furthermore, if I do any tests of any
kind with a 405 that I can borrow, there's no guarantee that
they would be representative of the 405 that Atkinson had.
AFAIK he never did any comprehensive testing of it at the
time he was making decisions about it, subjective or with
test equipment.

> The problem is either way Jon still had a problem with
the Quad.

He had a problem but we don't have a clue what the true
nature of that problem was. It could have been a defective
unit, all Quad 405s could be substandard, or maybe all that
was happening is that something was going on in Atkinson's
head.

> If you can find a better solution than the one Jon found
via a subjectivist
> method please fill us in.

The better solution would involve applyling "10
Requirements for a Sensitive and Reliable Listening Test" as
found at www.pcabx.com .

>> Ironically, the Quad 405 may have been having technical
>> problems, but appropriate evidence was never gathered.

> Ironically that was irrelevat to the problem or the
solution to that
> problem.

I'm quite sure that it wasn't irrelevat, since there is no
such word.

>> Or, perhaps the replacement tubed amp had audible
technical
>> problems that Atkinson happens to like the sound of, as
are
>> evidenced by SET amplifiers that his magazine tirelessly
>> promotes.

> Now that would be a straw man since Jon had not yet used
the tube amp
> in his system before having a problem with the Quad amp.

That would be a red herring. We don't know what Atkinson's
experiences with tubed amps were up until that point. Since
only the comparison of the performance of the two amps is
germaine to our discussion, past events need not be
considered.

> But if this were the case then there would have been
audible differences and the
> blind test simply failed him as he claims in his quest
for better sound.

The bottom line is that:

(1) Atkinson presumed a problem but did not adequately prove
that it existed in the first place.
(2) Atkinson presumed a solution to his alleged problem but
did not adequately prove that it efficacious.
(3) Atkinson then merged his unfounded presumptions into a
life's philosophy.
(4) This all happened so long ago that almost everything
relevant has changed substantially since then. For example,
nobody in his right mind would build an amp like the
origional Quad 405 today. Simple application of modern
technology would result in a vastly better amplifier.

Arny Krueger

May 10th 05, 05:21 PM

Surf wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>>
>> BTW John, is that just a bad comb-over or a hairpiece?

> Oh - how brave you are now!

I see that John is jumping right up to address the issue!
;-)

whosbest54

May 10th 05, 05:38 PM

In article . com>,
says...
>
>>My point is that it's not a scientifically valid process
>> for determining if the amps sound different and that was one of Arny's
>> points at the debate.
>
>It is a pointless point since no one is touting sighted reviews as
>scientifically valid or anything other than perosnal opinions.
>
Are you sure about this? I think it's clear that John's point is that a
scientifically valid approach isn't valid and can be replaced by a
non-scientific one for the same purposes - to see if 2 amps sound
different.

>
>>The question is whether it is better to depend on
>> scientifically valid methods or not to determine if _certain_
>>equipment sounds different.
>
>Clearly, in this case, it was better not to depend on the dbt since it
>wrought a result that ended in owner dissatisfatcion.
>
Then the question is why did that occur in John's case. There may have
been problems with the blind testing that was done. There are other
possible reasons it occurred. The point is this isn't a reason to throw
out a scientifically valid method and only depend on straight
(sighted) listening, which is what John did.

>
>>As I have said on my web site, there are places for both
>> a subjective and objective approaches in evaluating audio equipment.
>>For example, I think subjective listening is better suited to selecting
>>speakers for a system.
>
>Why? They are every bit as subject to sighted bias effects? Why would
>you not want to avoid those ill effects then? Seems rather random
>choice to me.
>
Yes, you are right for the purposes of doing a scientific test to
determine if 2 sets of speakers sound different. But the majority of hom
audio purchasers won't have the ability to do so when selecting speakers.

I was parphrasing my web guide. The guide is aimed at the majority of
home audio enthusiasts for the circumstances when they are out looking at
equipment and selecting what they want to purchase. They should do
straight listening to speakers, ideally in the location where they will
reside, which unfortunately isn't always easy to setup.

>
> Objective testing is better suited to determining if there is
>> a difference in sound between wires, amps or audio codecs. But, when
>> selecting equipment one should always do straight listening to
>>everything you plan to buy and look at audio equipment reviews to see
>>if the equipment
>> does what it says it does as far as specs go. The audio magazines
>>should do scientifically valid testing to check specs. Straight
>>listening to amps or wires is of little value in my opinion as far as
>>discerning differences.
>
>You are entitled to that opinion and you are free to skip that part of
>a review. How would *that* view have helped Jon in his situation with
>the Quad amp?
>
For example, bench testing results for the 2 amps would tell you if they
deliver the power they are rated at. I'm sure John wouldn't want to be
selecting an amp that didn't meet the power requirements for the speakers
he wanted to drive.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

Lionel

May 10th 05, 06:33 PM

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Tue, 10 May 2005 04:41:02 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>In >, Surf wrote :
>>
>>> ...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music
>>> in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf
>>> hippy with issues...
>>
>>Are you speaking about Dave Weil ?
>
> Still can't get the wife to orgasm I see.

You see ?
Good perhaps you will use 2 kleenex tonight. ;-)

dave weil

May 10th 05, 07:00 PM

On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:33:06 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> On Tue, 10 May 2005 04:41:02 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In >, Surf wrote :
>>>
>>>> ...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music
>>>> in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf
>>>> hippy with issues...
>>>
>>>Are you speaking about Dave Weil ?
>>
>> Still can't get the wife to orgasm I see.
>
>You see ?
>Good perhaps you will use 2 kleenex tonight. ;-)

Oh, are you planning to blow Arnold again? You'll only need me to loan
you one kleenex.

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 07:02 PM

whosbest54 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
> >
> >>My point is that it's not a scientifically valid process
> >> for determining if the amps sound different and that was one of
Arny's
> >> points at the debate.
> >
> >It is a pointless point since no one is touting sighted reviews as
> >scientifically valid or anything other than perosnal opinions.
> >
> Are you sure about this?

I'm pretty sure. But if you know any subjective reviewers that claim
their opinions are somthing more than just opinions please point them
out. I'll get right in line to tell them they are full of it.

I think it's clear that John's point is that a
> scientifically valid approach isn't valid and can be replaced by a
> non-scientific one for the same purposes - to see if 2 amps sound
> different.

I think Jon's point was that an objectivist method of selecting amps
failed him as an audiophile trying to enjoy listening to music at home.
The subjectivist method fixed the problem. Again, if you can find a
solution for the problem Jon cited please feel free to present it. So
far all any objectivists have offered is inferences and accusations of
dishonesty on Jon's part or alternative explinations of cause that
offer nothing as a solution.

>
> >
> >>The question is whether it is better to depend on
> >> scientifically valid methods or not to determine if _certain_
> >>equipment sounds different.
> >
> >Clearly, in this case, it was better not to depend on the dbt since
it
> >wrought a result that ended in owner dissatisfatcion.
> >
> Then the question is why did that occur in John's case.

No the question is how does an audiophile solve this problem. Jon did
it by using subjectivists methods.

There may have
> been problems with the blind testing that was done.

Which would be a failure of the objectivist method. This is a possible
problem that is present in every dbt but particularly present when in
the hands of amatuers.

There are other
> possible reasons it occurred.

True, but what was the objectivist solution to the problem?

The point is this isn't a reason to throw
> out a scientifically valid method and only depend on straight
> (sighted) listening, which is what John did.

You mean he should have settled for the dissatisfying sound he was
stuck with? No thank you.

>
> >
> >>As I have said on my web site, there are places for both
> >> a subjective and objective approaches in evaluating audio
equipment.
> >>For example, I think subjective listening is better suited to
selecting
> >>speakers for a system.
> >
> >Why? They are every bit as subject to sighted bias effects? Why
would
> >you not want to avoid those ill effects then? Seems rather random
> >choice to me.
> >
> Yes, you are right for the purposes of doing a scientific test to
> determine if 2 sets of speakers sound different. But the majority of
hom
> audio purchasers won't have the ability to do so when selecting
speakers.

I see if it's hard then we don't bother worrying about the effects of
sighted bias.

>
> I was parphrasing my web guide. The guide is aimed at the majority
of
> home audio enthusiasts for the circumstances when they are out
looking at
> equipment and selecting what they want to purchase. They should do
> straight listening to speakers, ideally in the location where they
will
> reside, which unfortunately isn't always easy to setup.

Maybe they should do it for all components so they don't run into the
same problem as did Jon.

>
> >
> > Objective testing is better suited to determining if there is
> >> a difference in sound between wires, amps or audio codecs. But,
when
> >> selecting equipment one should always do straight listening to
> >>everything you plan to buy and look at audio equipment reviews to
see
> >>if the equipment
> >> does what it says it does as far as specs go. The audio magazines

> >>should do scientifically valid testing to check specs. Straight
> >>listening to amps or wires is of little value in my opinion as far
as
> >>discerning differences.
> >
> >You are entitled to that opinion and you are free to skip that part
of
> >a review. How would *that* view have helped Jon in his situation
with
> >the Quad amp?
> >
> For example, bench testing results for the 2 amps would tell you if
they
> deliver the power they are rated at. I'm sure John wouldn't want to
be
> selecting an amp that didn't meet the power requirements for the
speakers
> he wanted to drive.

And when the Quad proves to be powerful enough what then? He still buys
the Quad by your method and still ends up dissatisfied. You haven't
solved the problem with objevctivist methods. OTOH I'm pretty sure that
Jon would advise audiophiles to buy amps that meet the speakers minimum
requirements for power. I think he would say that then and now.

Scott Wheeler

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 07:05 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> How come no-one gets the point of this anecdote, which
> is that it
> >>> pits two core beliefs of the believers in "scientism"
> against
> >>> each other? 1) That a blind test reveals the true
> situation
> >>> about audible amplifier differences; 2) that sighted
> listening
> >>> is dominated by non-audio factors, the so-called
> "Placebo
> >>> Effect."
>
> >> Because it doesn't.
>
> > Well, actually it does.
>
> Na-na-na-na.

Remeber my prediction at the end of my post?
P.S. since your objectivist approach to audio offers no solutions to
this problem I would expect the usual posturing, name calling and
accusations of falsehoods to follow. Who knows maybe you'll find typos
and spelling errors to harp on. I will bet you can offer no real
solution to the problem Jon faced when he found the Quad unsatisfying.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

Well this is a sort of a cross between posturing and name calling. It
certainly isn't a solution to the problem.

>
> >Whether or not Jon's reaction to the Quad amp
> > was based on actual sound or a placebo effect the
> objectivist position
> > does not offer him a solution where as the subjectivist
> position ,
> > judge components based on how you actually use them did
> solve his
> > problem.
>
> This paragraph is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Ah Posturing, well done Arny.

>
> First off, John's name isn't Jon, but that's just a symptom
> of Scotty's ongoing inability to get even the simplest
> detail right.

Ah attacking spelling errors. I'm feeling psychic.

>
> Secondly, my position is not the objectivist position. In
> fact my position is a logical combination of most of the
> elements of the true (not Atkinson's self-serving and
> commercialized version of the) subjectivist position, and
> most of the elements of the true not Atkinson's self-serving
> and commercialized version of the) objectivist position

Posturing. good job.

>
> Thirdly, the meeting of objectivist and subjectivist
> positions that I laid out at the beginning of the debate
> does offer him a reliable general solution.

More posturing... nice.

>
> Fourthly, Atkinson's self-serving and commercialized version
> of the subjectivist position does not provide a reliable
> general solution.

Wrong. He was happy with his solution. that makes it a solution. Duh.

>
>
> >> There's no reliable evidence at all that the Quad 405 had
> >> any technical problems at all.
>
> > And there is no reliable evidnece that says it sounded the
> same.
>
> Never said it did. Furthermore, if I do any tests of any
> kind with a 405 that I can borrow, there's no guarantee that
> they would be representative of the 405 that Atkinson had.
> AFAIK he never did any comprehensive testing of it at the
> time he was making decisions about it, subjective or with
> test equipment.

More posturing without any offer of a solution.

>
> > The problem is either way Jon still had a problem with
> the Quad.
>
> He had a problem but we don't have a clue what the true
> nature of that problem was. It could have been a defective
> unit, all Quad 405s could be substandard, or maybe all that
> was happening is that something was going on in Atkinson's
> head.

Either way the objectivist method failed him and you have yet to offer
an alternative solution to this problem. Lots of the predicted B.S. but
no solution.

>
> > If you can find a better solution than the one Jon found
> via a subjectivist
> > method please fill us in.
>
> The better solution would involve applyling "10
> Requirements for a Sensitive and Reliable Listening Test" as
> found at www.pcabx.com .

Wrong answer. There is no evidence that those requirements were not
met. It is not common for objectivists to outline those requirements.
On a side note, there is no proof that any of the tests commonly cited
by Nousiane as evidence that amps sound the same adhiered to these
requirements. And, if John had made sure all those requirements were in
place then what? A null leads to the same problem. A positive points to
the pit falls of casual dbts. You present a standard here that
audiophiles will likely fail to meet when doing home brewed dbts. You
offer no real alternative solution.

>
> >> Ironically, the Quad 405 may have been having technical
> >> problems, but appropriate evidence was never gathered.
>
> > Ironically that was irrelevat to the problem or the
> solution to that
> > problem.
>
> I'm quite sure that it wasn't irrelevat, since there is no
> such word.

As predicted. attacks on typos. Good form Arny.

>
> >> Or, perhaps the replacement tubed amp had audible
> technical
> >> problems that Atkinson happens to like the sound of, as
> are
> >> evidenced by SET amplifiers that his magazine tirelessly
> >> promotes.
>
> > Now that would be a straw man since Jon had not yet used
> the tube amp
> > in his system before having a problem with the Quad amp.
>
> That would be a red herring.

Posturing.....good form.

We don't know what Atkinson's
> experiences with tubed amps were up until that point. Since
> only the comparison of the performance of the two amps is
> germaine to our discussion, past events need not be
> considered.

But John did. He clearly stated his belief that all amps would sound
the same as was dictated by the objectivist mantra and methodology.

>
> > But if this were the case then there would have been
> audible differences and the
> > blind test simply failed him as he claims in his quest
> for better sound.
>
> The bottom line is that:
>
> (1) Atkinson presumed a problem but did not adequately prove
> that it existed in the first place.

accusations of falshood. Well predicted by me.

> (2) Atkinson presumed a solution to his alleged problem but
> did not adequately prove that it efficacious.

another accusation of falshood. Im on a role....

> (3) Atkinson then merged his unfounded presumptions into a
> life's philosophy.
> (4) This all happened so long ago that almost everything
> relevant has changed substantially since then. For example,
> nobody in his right mind would build an amp like the
> origional Quad 405 today. Simple application of modern
> technology would result in a vastly better amplifier.

Nice job of doing exaclty as I predicted. You postured, deflected,
acused John of fabrication, made irrelevant attacks and never, never
provided an alternative solution. That is why John became a
subjectivist. Arny thanks for showing us just how sensible his choice
was.

Scott Wheeler

MINe 109

May 10th 05, 07:41 PM

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Tue, 10 May 2005 04:41:02 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
> >In >, Surf wrote :
> >
> >> ...he smoked a lot of pot and listened to a lot of loud music
> >> in his day. Now he's a big, ugly, homeless, jobless, near-deaf
> >> hippy with issues...
> >
> >Are you speaking about Dave Weil ?
>
> Still can't get the wife to orgasm I see.

On this day of all days!:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4531322

Stephen

whosbest54

May 10th 05, 08:00 PM

In article . com>,
says...
>
> I think it's clear that John's point is that a
>> scientifically valid approach isn't valid and can be replaced by a
>> non-scientific one for the same purposes - to see if 2 amps sound
>> different.
>
>I think Jon's point was that an objectivist method of selecting amps
>failed him as an audiophile trying to enjoy listening to music at home.
>The subjectivist method fixed the problem. Again, if you can find a
>solution for the problem Jon cited please feel free to present it. So
>far all any objectivists have offered is inferences and accusations of
>dishonesty on Jon's part or alternative explinations of cause that
>offer nothing as a solution.
>
A properly conducted double blind test might have determined if the amps sound
different and is scientifically valid. It can't be replaced by the method John used
and be scientifically valid. I agree what John did worked for him. That's fine for
him, if it makes him happy. However, that doesn't mean it's scientifically valid or a
reason to replace a scientifically valid method with one that isn't. It isn't a
reason to only depend on straight (sighted) listening to evaluate equipment. As I
said, both methods have their place when evaluating and purchasing equipment. I also
said to John that he hopefully concentrated on his source material, speakers, speaker
placement and room acoustics when evaluating his system. Those things are all much
more important than the amp decision (or a wire or component connector decision).

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 08:35 PM

whosbest54 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
> >
> > I think it's clear that John's point is that a
> >> scientifically valid approach isn't valid and can be replaced by a
> >> non-scientific one for the same purposes - to see if 2 amps sound
> >> different.
> >
> >I think Jon's point was that an objectivist method of selecting amps
> >failed him as an audiophile trying to enjoy listening to music at
home.
> >The subjectivist method fixed the problem. Again, if you can find a
> >solution for the problem Jon cited please feel free to present it.
So
> >far all any objectivists have offered is inferences and accusations
of
> >dishonesty on Jon's part or alternative explinations of cause that
> >offer nothing as a solution.
> >
> A properly conducted double blind test might have determined if the
amps sound
> different and is scientifically valid.

A blind test was done. How many tests does the ectivist method require
before the results are to be accepted as valid? I've never heard
objectivists suggest more than one be done for the consumer. Quite the
opposite, I have heard any number of objectvists sugget they don't need
to be done any more as the answers have already been determined. I
don't see how a second test is the norm for objectist protocols nor do
I see how a second test would have helped.

It can't be replaced by the method John used
> and be scientifically valid. I agree what John did worked for him.
That's fine for
> him, if it makes him happy. However, that doesn't mean it's
scientifically valid or a
> reason to replace a scientifically valid method with one that isn't.

Oh, you don't think better results is a good reason for replacing one
protocol for another? I disagree. The objectivist protocol fail where
the subjectvist protocol succeeded. Until an objectivist can provide an
objectivist protocol that would have been in line with the decades old
protocols pushed by objectivists and offer a solution to Johns problem
then I can only conclude the the objectivist methods simply failed him
and he was right to abandon them.

It isn't a
> reason to only depend on straight (sighted) listening to evaluate
equipment. As I
> said, both methods have their place when evaluating and purchasing
equipment.

And what does one do when the two are in conflict? The problem is all
normal use in audio is sighted.

I also
> said to John that he hopefully concentrated on his source material,
speakers, speaker
> placement and room acoustics when evaluating his system.

why would you assume that any of that changed from the time he was
happy with the sound he was getting?

Those things are all much
> more important than the amp decision (or a wire or component
connector decision).

But they are also irrelevant to the dilema one faces when the dbts and
the long tern sighted listening experience are in conflict with each
other.

Scott Wheeler

whosbest54

May 10th 05, 10:04 PM

In article om>,
says...
>
>> A properly conducted double blind test might have determined if the
>>amps sound
>> different and is scientifically valid.
>
>A blind test was done. How many tests does the ectivist method require
>before the results are to be accepted as valid? I've never heard
>objectivists suggest more than one be done for the consumer. Quite the
>opposite, I have heard any number of objectvists sugget they don't need
>to be done any more as the answers have already been determined. I
>don't see how a second test is the norm for objectist protocols nor do
>I see how a second test would have helped.
>
I answered your question. One test might be enough.

>
>>It can't be replaced by the method John used
>> and be scientifically valid. I agree what John did worked for him.
>>That's fine for
>> him, if it makes him happy. However, that doesn't mean it's scientifically valid or a
>> reason to replace a scientifically valid method with one that isn't.
>
>Oh, you don't think better results is a good reason for replacing one
>protocol for another? I disagree. The objectivist protocol fail where
>the subjectvist protocol succeeded. Until an objectivist can provide an
>objectivist protocol that would have been in line with the decades old
>protocols pushed by objectivists and offer a solution to Johns problem
>then I can only conclude the the objectivist methods simply failed him
>and he was right to abandon them.
>
It wasn't scientifically valid. You obviously reject the importance of that. I don't for
these circumstances as described by John.

>
>> I also
>> said to John that he hopefully concentrated on his source material,
>>speakers, speaker
>> placement and room acoustics when evaluating his system.
>
>why would you assume that any of that changed from the time he was
>happy with the sound he was getting?
>
I don't know, he hasn't replied. The point is these factors are much more important and too
much can be made of the issue of an amp's or wire's performance when evaluating a total
system. Do you think they aren't much more important? Do you think it's valid to spend
significant efforts in evaluating amp and wire performance when selecting and purchasing a
system?

>
>> Those things are all much
>> more important than the amp decision (or a wire or component
>>connector decision).
>
>But they are also irrelevant to the dilema one faces when the dbts and
>the long tern sighted listening experience are in conflict with each
>other.
>
They are still more important and we must take all factors into account when choosing and
evaluating systems for purchase. Also, we don't know why they were in conflict with each
other in this case, and maybe they really weren't from a scientifically proven point of view.
We just don't know, based only on the story as John told it.

whosbest54

--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

[email protected]

May 10th 05, 11:38 PM

whosbest54 wrote:
> In article om>,

> says...
> >
> >> A properly conducted double blind test might have determined if
the
> >>amps sound
> >> different and is scientifically valid.
> >
> >A blind test was done. How many tests does the ectivist method
require
> >before the results are to be accepted as valid? I've never heard
> >objectivists suggest more than one be done for the consumer. Quite
the
> >opposite, I have heard any number of objectvists sugget they don't
need
> >to be done any more as the answers have already been determined. I
> >don't see how a second test is the norm for objectist protocols nor
do
> >I see how a second test would have helped.
> >
> I answered your question. One test might be enough.

And one was done.

>
> >
> >>It can't be replaced by the method John used
> >> and be scientifically valid. I agree what John did worked for
him.
> >>That's fine for
> >> him, if it makes him happy. However, that doesn't mean it's
scientifically valid or a
> >> reason to replace a scientifically valid method with one that
isn't.
> >
> >Oh, you don't think better results is a good reason for replacing
one
> >protocol for another? I disagree. The objectivist protocol fail
where
> >the subjectvist protocol succeeded. Until an objectivist can provide
an
> >objectivist protocol that would have been in line with the decades
old
> >protocols pushed by objectivists and offer a solution to Johns
problem
> >then I can only conclude the the objectivist methods simply failed
him
> >and he was right to abandon them.
> >
> It wasn't scientifically valid.

That is the case for both camps. Noether side is doing scientific
research and niether side is doing scientifically valid tests.

You obviously reject the importance of that.

Yes, I do. I reject the notion that tests are scientifically valid just
because they happen to be blind as was the case with the first blind
test John used to make his decision to buy the Quad and I reject the
importance of scientific validity of such tests when they leave the
consumer with something that does not satisfy them. Let's say for kicks
that Johns first test was a scientifically valid one that was peer
reviewed and published. How does that help? Now tell me how audiophiles
are going to do such tests? How are they going to do tests that are any
bewtter than the one John used decide tbuy the Quad?

I don't for
> these circumstances as described by John.

You still don't have a solution for John's situation.

>
> >
> >> I also
> >> said to John that he hopefully concentrated on his source
material,
> >>speakers, speaker
> >> placement and room acoustics when evaluating his system.
> >
> >why would you assume that any of that changed from the time he was
> >happy with the sound he was getting?
> >
> I don't know, he hasn't replied. The point is these factors are much
more important and too
> much can be made of the issue of an amp's or wire's performance when
evaluating a total
> system. Do you think they aren't much more important?

I think they are important but I don't think they are relevant to this
situation since there is no reason to believe they were a variable.

Do you think it's valid to spend
> significant efforts in evaluating amp and wire performance when
selecting and purchasing a
> system?

Yep.

>
> >
> >> Those things are all much
> >> more important than the amp decision (or a wire or component
> >>connector decision).
> >
> >But they are also irrelevant to the dilema one faces when the dbts
and
> >the long tern sighted listening experience are in conflict with each
> >other.
> >
> They are still more important and we must take all factors into
account when choosing and
> evaluating systems for purchase.

No one is saying one shouldn't pay attention to those other factors. It
is *not* an either or situation. I don't even know why you are talking
about it.

Also, we don't know why they were in conflict with each
> other in this case,

But we know they were. And when they are the objetivist method simply
fails to satisfy. Period.

and maybe they really weren't from a scientifically proven point of
view.

Oh I see, the solution was for John to live with his dissatisfaction
because his perception may not have been what science would predict it
to be?

> We just don't know, based only on the story as John told it.

We know that the objectivist protocols wrought an unsatisfying sound
and the subjectivist protocols fixed the problem. Rest assured that is
one common reason there are subjectivists that reject the objectivist
philosophy in audio despite all the hand waving about scientific
validity.

Scott Wheeler

Clyde Slick

May 10th 05, 11:56 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...

>
> I don't know but did you steal your outfit from a pinp? If so, you
> forgot the wide-brimmed hat and mink coat.
>

"at least" he has a ho to pimp.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

whosbest54

May 11th 05, 01:59 AM

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>Only being a part-time audiophile and not a member of the generation
>that most people who post here are from, I've not really followed the
>arguing on this NG until I listened to this file. Since not many people
>seem to be giving the proper credit, I'll just say I thought you did an
>excellent job at this debate. I haven't really thought much about the
>objectivist vs subjectivist argument, but I'm pretty convinced the
>subjectivist approach is not for me, especially after listening to both
>sides. I picked up a subscription to Stereophile when I got into the
>hobby less than a year ago (someone recommended I subscribe), and was
>rather shocked at the rather ridiculous vocabulary of adjectives
>assigned to components like amps and cables. After a couple months, I
>found myself just reading the first few paragraphs of reviews that
>would describe the products in general and looking at the pretty
>pictures, because the listening reports were pratically meaningless to
>me. Anyway, keep up the good work.
>
Bruce, I agree with what you are saying about the approach to audio. My
User Guide is for people like you. whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

whosbest54

May 11th 05, 02:05 AM

In article . com>,
says...
>
> Do you think it's valid to spend
>> significant efforts in evaluating amp and wire performance when
>selecting and purchasing a
>> system?
>
>
>Yep.
>
I believe this sums up your position quite well, Scott. I think the
people who take this approach to selecting and purchasing home audio
equipment are wasting their time and money. Obviously, you don't. So, I
guess we should agree to disagree. Thank you for the relatively pleasant
debate and the lack of personal flames that seem to permeate this group.

whosbest54

--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

Steven Sullivan

May 11th 05, 02:08 AM

John Atkinson > wrote:

> wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > whosbest54 > wrote:
> > > > Not that there's anything wrong with the straight listening
> > > > you did for your amp decision, if that's what you want to do
> > > > and it makes you happy.
> > >
> > > But to use is as a basis for discounting DBTs is simply...
> > > questionable.
> >
> > I agree with that. But it is a completely valid reason for his choice
> > to buy the tube amp.

> Hi Scott, what everyone seems to be ignoring is my point for
> mentioning this anecdote. Which was that all the non-sighted
> factors worked _against_ my becoming dissatisfied with the Quad.
> The solid-state amp was cheaper, smaller, more powerful, ran
> cooler, and offered, in my opinion, better industrial design.
> So, if these factors were going to have any influence on my
> listening, as the "objectivists" repeatedly claim, they would all
> have persuaded me that the amplifier was fine. However, as my
> increasing disatisfaction was real and I was having to work harder
> to appreciate the music through the amplifier, it was this
> cognitive dissonance that proved to be the tipping point at which
> I changed from a hard-line objectivist -- see an editorial I wrote
> in a 1978 issue of HFN for an example -- into someone who realized
> the value of listening.

Well, then it must have been 'bias towards not hearing a difference'
that caused your DBT result.

(that's a joke).

What you seem to be ignoring, again, is that the point is not to
definitively reconstruct your psychology before or after the test
you took decades ago...it's that your skepticism of DBT results is not
logically warranted from your
experience. Your conclusions simply do not follow from your data.
Everything known from decades of work in perceptual sciences
says that "increasing dissatisfaction" *could* have *NOTHING* to do
with an *actual* sonic difference betweem the two amps... and this is
true whether or not you have *conscious* biases towards or against
one of the amps. The was to test whether actual sonic differences
*were* a factor, would be to do a blind comparison
*after* you reached such a vivid sense of 'dissatisfaction' with
(supposedly) the *sound* of the amp. And to do some good measurements
on the amps. *Those* are the means by which 'noise' and 'signal' are untangled,
in the science of audio percpetion.

Regarding a second DBT, you might have found that that now you *could*
pass a DBT of the amps. From that you'd have good reason to tout the
value of long-term 'training' on the amps under comparison.

Or you might have found that there was still no evidence of sonic
difference, under DBT conditions. From that you'd have good reason
to tout the effects of non-audible factors on one's 'feelings'
towards an amp...though I suspect that given audiophile cultural
norms, you'd instead conclude again that the DBT was 'wrong', that
the amps *really do* sound different. Decades of perceptual
science be damned.

DBTs are, of course, *all about* realizing the value of listening...
and listening alone. For you to write as if it were otherwise,
is either a rhetorical ploy, or wishful thinking.

--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Surf

May 11th 05, 05:05 AM

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote
>
> .... The was to test whether actual sonic differences
> were a factor, would be to do a blind comparison
> And to do some good measurements
> on the amps. *Those* are the means by which 'noise'
> and 'signal' are untangled,
> in the science of audio percpetion.

except that you've already agreed that it's possible there
are non-audible factors that affect one's enjoyment of
a music reproduction system, and those factors may
be undetectable in any known test.

Joseph Oberlander

May 11th 05, 05:46 AM

wrote:

> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>>The recording of the Atkinson vs Arny debate at Home
>>Entertainment 2005 is now available. Go to:
>>http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>
>>John Atkinson
>>Editor, Stereophile
>
>
> John, sorry, that debate was a waste of money. The problem with it was
> it totally lacked structure and in the end lacked direction.

That's exactly what I said and everyone had a fit
with ;) They rambled on and on and on and were a complete
waste of the peoples' time and money. Nothing was resolved
or even really discussed - just two old men blathering about
their backgrounds and opinions.

EddieM

May 11th 05, 09:17 AM

> John Atkinson wrote
>
>
>
> EddieM wrote:
>> I've listen to the recorded Debate this a.m. but couldn't
>> make out what the question ask by the audience where.
>
> Hi Eddie, the audience questions occurred at approximately
> 31:10, 40:35; 45:00; 47:45; 50:50; 54:00; 55:25; 57:05; and
> 61:10.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

!!!

Thank you kindly Mr. Atkinson. I must admit though that I was
also having trouble making out what those questions that
were ask particularly on most of them

Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny said
that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is not a fair test."

That doesn't make sense.

He also said before the Q & A that no opinion can be made
without changing the mental state of the listener with regard to
sighted evaluation. I don't know why he would say this.

John Atkinson

May 11th 05, 11:51 AM

EddieM wrote:
> I must admit though that I was also having trouble making out
> what those questions that were ask particularly on most of them

That's correct. I didn't have a mike dedicated to recording the
audience questions, so had to rely on pickup from the podium mikes of
the PA. This worked okay when the questioner spoke directly into
the roving mike, but others held the mike away from their mouth.

> [Arny Krueger] said before the Q & A that no opinion can be made
> without changing the mental state of the listener with regard to
> sighted evaluation. I don't know why he would say this.

It's actually a broad point that affects not just sighted listening
but also blind listening t an even greater extent. In which case, by
Mr. Krueger's argument _all_ critical listening is flawed, and no-one
would be able to form any opinion on sound quality.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 11th 05, 12:14 PM

EddieM wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> I've listen to the recorded Debate this a.m. but
couldn't
>>> make out what the question ask by the audience where.
>>
>> Hi Eddie, the audience questions occurred at
approximately
>> 31:10, 40:35; 45:00; 47:45; 50:50; 54:00; 55:25; 57:05;
and
>> 61:10.
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>
>
> !!!
>
> Thank you kindly Mr. Atkinson. I must admit though that I
was
> also having trouble making out what those questions that
> were ask particularly on most of them
>
> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny said
> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is not a
fair test."

Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias of
so many kinds is fair.

> He also said before the Q & A that no opinion can be made
> without changing the mental state of the listener with
regard to
> sighted evaluation. I don't know why he would say this.

That's not what I said. Why not start from an exact quote of
what I actually said?

John Atkinson

May 11th 05, 02:16 PM

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> What you seem to be ignoring, again, is that the point is
> not to definitively reconstruct your psychology before or after
> the test you took decades ago...it's that your skepticism of
> DBT results is not logically warranted from your experience.

But Mr. Sullivan, while the parable I related was intended to
illustrate how the objectivist cause let me down personally as
someone looking for guidance on an amplifier purchase, it was also
intended as an example illustrating the whole subject. You appear
to be ignoring everything else I said about blind tests in the
debate. I listed all the blind tests in which I have particpated over
the years since my first in 1977 up the most recent in 2005, almost
all which produced null results and many of the ones that didn't
have been dismissed by "objectivists" -- see my comments on the 1988
AES tests (not "demonstrations" as AK insists.) It is the result of
_all_ that experience that leads to my overall skepticism.

As I said at the debate, perfomring blind tests that produce
anything other than null results when a real but small sonic
difference exists is very difficult. That in itself is not
important if it weren't for the fact that the null results from
the many inadequately designed tests have been loudly proclaimed
as "proving" that no audible differences exist -- Google some of
Tom Nousaine's pronouncements, for example -- which is both
indefensible and unscientific.

You seem to be hung up on the assumption that a test being blind is
in _itself_ sufficient to make it "scientific." My experience has
been that that is incorrect. There are any ways for an experimenter
to make a blind test produce misleading results, some of them
inadvertent, others deliberate, again as in the 1988 Los Angeles tests
I referenced.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 11th 05, 03:41 PM

Surf wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote
>>
>> .... The was to test whether actual sonic differences
>> were a factor, would be to do a blind comparison
>> And to do some good measurements
>> on the amps. *Those* are the means by which 'noise'
>> and 'signal' are untangled,
>> in the science of audio percpetion.
>
>
> except that you've already agreed that it's possible there
> are non-audible factors that affect one's enjoyment of
> a music reproduction system, and those factors may
> be undetectable in any known test.

Misses the point that the non-audible factors are generally
totally obvious.

John Atkinson

May 11th 05, 03:56 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> What's unclear about:
> >> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> >> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent arrival
> >> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life in
> >> the USA by watching action flicks and video games, you would
> >> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and John
> >> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
> >
> > I think the humor in Jason Serinus' writing is going over
> > your head, Mr. Krueger. :-)
>
> Not at all.

Then why are you claiming that Jason Serinus pronounced you
the "winner" of the debate when it seemed clear that that would
only be the case for an audience of space aliens? I think your
comprehension skills are not quite what they should be, Mr.
Krueger. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 11th 05, 04:20 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> What's unclear about:
>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
>>>> "By the end of the hour, if you had been a recent
arrival
>>>> from another planet and had oriented yourself to life
in
>>>> the USA by watching action flicks and video games, you
would
>>>> have been certain that Arnold B. Krueger was God and
John
>>>> Atkinson was a pathetic girly man."
>>>
>>> I think the humor in Jason Serinus' writing is going
over
>>> your head, Mr. Krueger. :-)
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> Then why are you claiming that Jason Serinus pronounced
you
> the "winner" of the debate when it seemed clear that that
would
> only be the case for an audience of space aliens? I think
your
> comprehension skills are not quite what they should be,
Mr.
> Krueger. :-)

Since HE2005 was clearly attended by a goodly number of
space aliens... ;-)

johnebravo836

May 11th 05, 04:47 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Surf wrote:
>
>>"Steven Sullivan" > wrote
>>
>>>.... The was to test whether actual sonic differences
>>>were a factor, would be to do a blind comparison
>>>And to do some good measurements
>>>on the amps. *Those* are the means by which 'noise'
>>>and 'signal' are untangled,
>>>in the science of audio percpetion.
>>
>>
>>except that you've already agreed that it's possible there
>>are non-audible factors that affect one's enjoyment of
>>a music reproduction system, and those factors may
>>be undetectable in any known test.
>
>
> Misses the point that the non-audible factors are generally
> totally obvious.

To the extent that some important "non-audible factors" might be
thoroughly psychological phenomena and completely unconscious, it's
difficult to see how they could be "totally obvious".

ScottW

May 11th 05, 07:37 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
>
> As I said at the debate, perfomring blind tests that produce
> anything other than null results when a real but small sonic
> difference exists is very difficult.

You keep saying this but I can find no evidence provided in the debate
to support this statement. Your experience doesn't prove "real but
small sonic differences exist" during the test you referenced.

Your subsequent dissatisfaction with a different (but same model) Quad
amp on different speakers in different listening conditions does not
prove that real but small sonic differences existed during the test.

This is beyond trivial and I am perplexed that you have to have this
repeatedly pointed out to you.

I'll give you this... it does support that the best way for an
"audiophile" to choose equipment is to listen to it on their own system
in their own home. In a perfect world... this would be easy.

ScottW

MINe 109

May 11th 05, 11:05 PM

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > As I said at the debate, perfomring blind tests that produce
> > anything other than null results when a real but small sonic
> > difference exists is very difficult.
>
> You keep saying this but I can find no evidence provided in the debate
> to support this statement. Your experience doesn't prove "real but
> small sonic differences exist" during the test you referenced.
>
> Your subsequent dissatisfaction with a different (but same model) Quad
> amp on different speakers in different listening conditions does not
> prove that real but small sonic differences existed during the test.

Did you see the Quad 405 links I posted? Aren't the problems described
the kind of things audiophiles think contribute to "real but small sonic
differences"?

And, yes, I understand your point that the new amp was not proven
different by blind test. Of course, JA's point is that he lost faith in
blind tests, so asking him to prove something by a criterion he no
longer accepts isn't likely to get results.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

May 11th 05, 11:19 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> EddieM wrote:

>>
>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny said
>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is not a
> fair test."
>
> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias of
> so many kinds is fair.
>

Because the ultimate purpose is to satisfy
one's biases!

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Joseph Oberlander

May 12th 05, 05:47 AM

John Atkinson wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>>What you seem to be ignoring, again, is that the point is
>>not to definitively reconstruct your psychology before or after
>>the test you took decades ago...it's that your skepticism of
>>DBT results is not logically warranted from your experience.
>
>
> But Mr. Sullivan, while the parable I related was intended to
> illustrate how the objectivist cause let me down personally as
> someone looking for guidance on an amplifier purchase, it was also
> intended as an example illustrating the whole subject.

Yet, somehow don't you find this the least bit predictable?
A hardcore subjectivist tires being seriously objective
about music for once and when it "lets him down", as it was
almost destined to do the first time in, you decide that
it's not for you? You didn't learn to drive the first
time, afterall. Perhaps you need more than one example to
really make an opinion and see how much is your own ingrained
bias and how much is really whether it works or not?

Surf

May 12th 05, 05:49 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote ...
> Surf wrote:
>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote
>>>
>>> .... The was to test whether actual sonic differences
>>> were a factor, would be to do a blind comparison
>>> And to do some good measurements
>>> on the amps. *Those* are the means by which 'noise'
>>> and 'signal' are untangled,
>>> in the science of audio percpetion.
>>
>>
>> except that you've already agreed that it's possible there
>> are non-audible factors that affect one's enjoyment of
>> a music reproduction system, and those factors may
>> be undetectable in any known test.
>
> Misses the point that the non-audible factors are generally
> totally obvious.

only the totally obvious non-audible factors. do you deny
the possibility of subconscious psychological or emotional
effects?

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 11:31 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> EddieM wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny said
>>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is not
a
>> fair test."
>>
>> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias
of
>> so many kinds is fair.

> Because the ultimate purpose is to satisfy
> one's biases!

The precident for using blind tests to test products whose
ultimate purpose is to satisfy one's biases is
well-established in the foods industry.

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 11:32 AM

johnebravo836 wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Surf wrote:
>>
>>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote
>>>
>>>> .... The was to test whether actual sonic differences
>>>> were a factor, would be to do a blind comparison
>>>> And to do some good measurements
>>>> on the amps. *Those* are the means by which 'noise'
>>>> and 'signal' are untangled,
>>>> in the science of audio percpetion.
>>>
>>>
>>> except that you've already agreed that it's possible
there
>>> are non-audible factors that affect one's enjoyment of
>>> a music reproduction system, and those factors may
>>> be undetectable in any known test.
>>
>>
>> Misses the point that the non-audible factors are
generally
>> totally obvious.
>
> To the extent that some important "non-audible factors"
might be
> thoroughly psychological phenomena and completely
unconscious, it's
> difficult to see how they could be "totally obvious".

The extreme does not disprove the mean.

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 11:34 AM

Surf wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote ...
>> Surf wrote:
>>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> .... The was to test whether actual sonic differences
>>>> were a factor, would be to do a blind comparison
>>>> And to do some good measurements
>>>> on the amps. *Those* are the means by which 'noise'
>>>> and 'signal' are untangled,
>>>> in the science of audio percpetion.
>>>
>>>
>>> except that you've already agreed that it's possible
there
>>> are non-audible factors that affect one's enjoyment of
>>> a music reproduction system, and those factors may
>>> be undetectable in any known test.
>>
>> Misses the point that the non-audible factors are
generally
>> totally obvious.
>
> only the totally obvious non-audible factors. do you deny
> the possibility of subconscious psychological or emotional
> effects?

They are still quite obvious compared to many of the totally
imperceptible effects that the high end is signficantly
dependent on.

Again, your fallacy is trying to use an extreme example to
disprove the more common situation.

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 11:38 AM

John Atkinson wrote:

> As I said at the debate, perfomring blind tests that
produce
> anything other than null results when a real but small
sonic
> difference exists is very difficult.

A good example of proof by assertion and tacit admission of
inadequate technical competence.

It's a little ironic that an alleged PhD in Physics bases
his technical career on simplistic and highly-flawed
subjective tests, while Clark and Krueger, with mere BS
degrees in Engineering bring both ABX and PCABX to
fruition.

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 11:39 AM

MINe 109 wrote:

> And, yes, I understand your point that the new amp was not
proven
> different by blind test. Of course, JA's point is that he
lost faith
> in blind tests, so asking him to prove something by a
criterion he no
> longer accepts isn't likely to get results.

This was a rather serious failure of Atkinson's logic. He
presumed the result of an evaluation that he never did
because of his presumption.

MINe 109

May 12th 05, 12:29 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> > And, yes, I understand your point that the new amp was not
> proven
> > different by blind test. Of course, JA's point is that he
> lost faith
> > in blind tests, so asking him to prove something by a
> criterion he no
> > longer accepts isn't likely to get results.
>
> This was a rather serious failure of Atkinson's logic. He
> presumed the result of an evaluation that he never did
> because of his presumption.

He did a different evaluation: listening.

Stephen

John Atkinson

May 12th 05, 12:33 PM

ScottW wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > As I said at the debate, performing blind tests that produce
> > anything other than null results when a real but small sonic
> > difference exists is very difficult.
>
> You keep saying this but I can find no evidence provided in the
> debate to support this statement.

More than once I mentioned the very large number of trials that
statistical analysis requires be performed in this situation.
Doing this many trials while eliminating interfering variables
is very difficult, as well as time-consuming -- see my comments
on listener's limited attention span -- and, unless you have
access to a pool of free subjects, expensive.

Those who wish to deny this fact are the ones whose poorly
designed, inadequately controlled tests have produced the null
results they require to support their predetermined case. This
subject has been examined at length on both r.a.o. and r.a.h-e.

Atny's PCABX is intersting that while it allows an unlimited
number of trials, it also introduces two interfering variables
that themselves cannot be eliminated.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

MINe 109

May 12th 05, 12:34 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> EddieM wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny said
> >>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is not
> a
> >> fair test."
> >>
> >> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias
> of
> >> so many kinds is fair.
>
> > Because the ultimate purpose is to satisfy
> > one's biases!
>
> The precident for using blind tests to test products whose
> ultimate purpose is to satisfy one's biases is
> well-established in the foods industry.

http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=201

"Brain scans show that the brand of your soda is more important than its
taste."

Stephen

John Atkinson

May 12th 05, 12:40 PM

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> > But Mr. Sullivan, while the parable I related was intended to
> > illustrate how the objectivist cause let me down personally as
> > someone looking for guidance on an amplifier purchase, it was also
> > intended as an example illustrating the whole subject.
>
> Yet, somehow don't you find this the least bit predictable?
> A hardcore subjectivist tires being seriously objective
> about music for once and when it "lets him down", as it was
> almost destined to do the first time in, you decide that
> it's not for you?

You miss my point, Mr. Oberlander, which was at the time all
this took place, I was a hardline _objectivist_. I even wrote
an essay supporting the objectivist case in the April 1979 issue
of HFN. If you are going to ignore the facts and make a case
based on your own prejudices, then why should I take the time
to respond?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Clyde Slick

May 12th 05, 12:43 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny said
>>>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is not
> a
>>> fair test."
>>>
>>> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias
> of
>>> so many kinds is fair.
>
>> Because the ultimate purpose is to satisfy
>> one's biases!
>
> The precident for using blind tests to test products whose
> ultimate purpose is to satisfy one's biases is
> well-established in the foods industry.
>

Yes, when I go to the market I am
marched directly into the testing lab,
before they let me into the checkout line!

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick

May 12th 05, 12:49 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> It's a little ironic that an alleged PhD in Physics bases
> his technical career on simplistic and highly-flawed
> subjective tests, while Clark and Krueger, with mere BS
> degrees in Engineering bring both ABX and PCABX to
> fruition.
>
>

Which, undoubtedly, you have turned into a gold mine,
while JA slugs along earning a mere pittance, barely
able to support himself, with no choice but to live in
an old home with a cracked basement.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

John Atkinson

May 12th 05, 01:31 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > As I said at the debate, perfomring blind tests that
> > produce anything other than null results when a real but
> > small sonic difference exists is very difficult.
>
> A good example of proof by assertion and tacit admission of
> inadequate technical competence.

Then why didn't you make that point to my face, Mr. Krueger?
Yet another example of a person who's very brave behind his
PC but less so in person, I suggest.

And please note that my assertion above has been explained to
you on the newsgroups by professional statisticians, and is also
discussed in statistics textbooks, hence I saw no reason to
reinvent the wheel. If you are now going to argue with accepted
facts, then it appears to me that you are merely looking for
attention.

> It's a little ironic that an alleged PhD in Physics...

No.634 in Arny Krueger's endless series of baseless trolls.
No, I do not have a PhD nor have I ever claimed or alleged that
I do.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 02:26 PM

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny
said
>>>>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is
not
>> a
>>>> fair test."
>>>>
>>>> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias
>> of
>>>> so many kinds is fair.
>>
>>> Because the ultimate purpose is to satisfy
>>> one's biases!
>>
>> The precident for using blind tests to test products
whose
>> ultimate purpose is to satisfy one's biases is
>> well-established in the foods industry.
>
> http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=201
>
> "Brain scans show that the brand of your soda is more
important than
> its taste."

I'm willing to accept that branding explains most of the
reviews in Stereophile and the rest of the high end press.
;-)

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 02:27 PM

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>
>>> And, yes, I understand your point that the new amp was
not proven
>>> different by blind test. Of course, JA's point is that
he lost faith
>>> in blind tests, so asking him to prove something by a
criterion he
>>> no longer accepts isn't likely to get results.
>>
>> This was a rather serious failure of Atkinson's logic. He
>> presumed the result of an evaluation that he never did
>> because of his presumption.
>
> He did a different evaluation: listening.

Poof positive that Stephen can't comprehend that the T in
DBT stands for listening.

Where do all these zombies come from?

And this one has a teaching certificate?

Oh, its from Texas. Figures!

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 02:29 PM

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 02:35 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> As I said at the debate, perfomring blind tests that
>>> produce anything other than null results when a real but
>>> small sonic difference exists is very difficult.
>>
>> A good example of proof by assertion and tacit admission
of
>> inadequate technical competence.
>
> Then why didn't you make that point to my face, Mr.
Krueger?

I didn't figure this out until days later, like around when
I made my first post about this topic.

> Yet another example of a person who's very brave behind
his
> PC but less so in person, I suggest.

No, given what is known about listening comprehension, the
idea that several reviews are required for effective
comprehension is hardly new science.

Well, maybe its new science to you John. Given what I saw
and quickly reported about HE2005, considerable ignorance
about cognitive and learning processes seems to be endemic
in your industry. Or maybe these people are intellectually
lazy. Too much easy money?

> And please note that my assertion above has been explained
to
> you on the newsgroups by professional statisticians, and
is also
> discussed in statistics textbooks,

Say what?

>hence I saw no reason to
> reinvent the wheel. If you are now going to argue with
accepted
> facts, then it appears to me that you are merely looking
for
> attention.

I thought this was a discussion about listennig experiences
with power amps in what, 1978. I may have been famimilar
with the anecdote at some time in the past, but gosh I've
heard a lot of listening test anecdotes in my life!

>> It's a little ironic that an alleged PhD in Physics...

> No.634 in Arny Krueger's endless series of baseless
trolls.

Troll in question just posted today by one Robert Morien.

> No, I do not have a PhD nor have I ever claimed or alleged
that
> I do.

Thanks john for correcting the RAO record of at least one
error. That leaves how many tens of thousands? ;-)

EddieM

May 12th 05, 03:29 PM

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny said
>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is not a
>> fair test."
>
> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias of
> so many kinds is fair.

With regards to making subjective sighted listening evaluation
of audio components, my opinion is that it's fair because biases
can work both ways ... unless of course the subject making the
audition knows ahead of time that the sound of a particular gear
would be bias towards his preferences.

If the subject prefers a gear other than the sound itself, that's
a choice he get to have. So the question then is how can you
ensure the subject is not influence by the brand when making
sighted evaluation base on sound alone.... Any test ?

If preference toward certain brands is the resulting aftermath of
formed biases that lead one to favor certain brands. How do
you create a test to determine whether or not audiophiles
auditioning certain brands aren't doing so base on biases
towards those particular brands ? What lead them to narrow
their choice ? How do you prevent these biases from taking
place to make sure that they will not negatively influence their
preferences? How do you stop these biasesfrom interfering
with the selection process to ensure that their preferences aren't
influence by these biases, Mr. Krueger?

In any case, our preferences can change, evolve and/or refine
over time. Some appears to have several sonic preferences
like Mr. Morein. The way you apply the word 'bias' to your
question above is shifty as you been told in the Debate on
# 28:50 as the subject isn't necessarily making a side by side
style comparison.

As aside, my feeling is that you're concluding that sighted eval.
is invalid 'cause you believe that abx/dbt is the only valid scientific
process in discerning subtle differences.

>> He also said before the Q & A that no opinion can be made
>> without changing the mental state of the listener with regard
>> to sighted evaluation. I don't know why he would say this.
>
> That's not what I said. Why not start from an exact quote of
> what I actually said?

Honestly, the best person who can do it in a sentence or two
will be you, if you don't mind that is.

EddieM

May 12th 05, 03:34 PM

> John Atkinson wrote
>
>
>> EddieM wrote:
>> I must admit though that I was also having trouble making out
>> what those questions that were ask particularly on most of them
>
> That's correct. I didn't have a mike dedicated to recording the
> audience questions, so had to rely on pickup from the podium mikes of
> the PA. This worked okay when the questioner spoke directly into
> the roving mike, but others held the mike away from their mouth.
>
>> [Arny Krueger] said before the Q & A that no opinion can be made
>> without changing the mental state of the listener with regard to
>> sighted evaluation. I don't know why he would say this.
>
> It's actually a broad point that affects not just sighted listening
> but also blind listening t an even greater extent. In which case, by
> Mr. Krueger's argument _all_ critical listening is flawed, and no-one
> would be able to form any opinion on sound quality.

Lol!

Maybe then what Arny meant to say is the fact that listening
for joy is not flawed. Good, because I don't think he's into this
hobby to listen for joy. He forgot !

> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 04:14 PM

EddieM wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote
>>
>>
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>> I must admit though that I was also having trouble
making out
>>> what those questions that were ask particularly on most
of them
>>
>> That's correct. I didn't have a mike dedicated to
recording the
>> audience questions, so had to rely on pickup from the
podium mikes of
>> the PA. This worked okay when the questioner spoke
directly into
>> the roving mike, but others held the mike away from their
mouth.
>>
>>> [Arny Krueger] said before the Q & A that no opinion can
be made
>>> without changing the mental state of the listener with
regard to
>>> sighted evaluation. I don't know why he would say this.

One of my key advantages is my ability to observe the
obvious if whapped in the face by it enough times. I'd be a
really sorry case, except as compared to my opponents who
can't even do that!

>> It's actually a broad point that affects not just sighted
listening
>> but also blind listening t an even greater extent.

Self-serving unfounded assumption stated as fact, noted.

>> In which case, by
>> Mr. Krueger's argument _all_ critical listening is
flawed, and no-one
>> would be able to form any opinion on sound quality.

No, all I'm saying is that critical listening is not a
perfect duplication of listening solely for enjoyment.

Excluded middle and numerous straw men and red herrings
noted and dismissed.

> Maybe then what Arny meant to say is the fact that
listening
> for joy is not flawed.

What Arny meant to say is that listening for pleasure is
different than listening analytically. One can obtain joy
from either. In fact, analytical listening that leads to a
better system or a better recording has more lasting
benefits. OTOH, just listening for enjoyment of the moment
definately has its moments, hours and sometimes even days.

> Good, because I don't think he's into this hobby to
listen for joy. He forgot !

Yet another slightly libelous red herring. Yawn.

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 04:17 PM

EddieM wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny said
>>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is not
a
>>> fair test."
>>
>> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias
of
>> so many kinds is fair.

> With regards to making subjective sighted listening
evaluation
> of audio components, my opinion is that it's fair because
biases
> can work both ways ...

So far so good. That makes it a random variable that if
uncontrolled, leads to confusion and a waste of time.

> unless of course the subject making the
> audition knows ahead of time that the sound of a
particular gear
> would be bias towards his preferences.

That's not the only problem, to say the least. In fact you
just contracted your previous statement which implise that
the listener could know that the sound of a particular gear
would be biased towards or against his preferences.

> If the subject prefers a gear other than the sound itself,
that's
> a choice he get to have.

Agreed. Surely if two pieces sound the same, picking one for
some other reason wont' degrade the sound quality of your
system.

> So the question then is how can you
> ensure the subject is not influence by the brand when
making
> sighted evaluation base on sound alone.... Any test ?

Not any test, you need a blind test.

EddieM

May 12th 05, 05:04 PM

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny said
>>>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is not a
>>>> fair test."
>>>
>>> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias
>>> of so many kinds is fair.
>
>> With regards to making subjective sighted listening
>> evaluation of audio components, my opinion is that it's fair
>> because biases can work both ways ...
>
> So far so good. That makes it a random variable that if
> uncontrolled, leads to confusion and a waste of time.

How can biases towards your preferences lead to you own
confusion when listening for joy during sighted evaluation ?

>> unless of course the subject making the
>> audition knows ahead of time that the sound of a
>> particular gear would be bias towards his preferences.
>
> That's not the only problem, to say the least. In fact you
> just contracted your previous statement which implise that
> the listener could know that the sound of a particular gear
> would be biased towards or against his preferences.

How could the listener know that it would be biased for
or against his preferences if he has not heard the sound
of a particular gear ?

>> If the subject prefers a gear other than the sound itself,
>> that's a choice he get to have.
>
> Agreed. Surely if two pieces sound the same, picking one for
> some other reason wont' degrade the sound quality of your
> system.

How did you know that it won't degrade the sound quality if
the subject prefers a gear "other than the sound itself?"

>> So the question then is how can you ensure the subject is
>> not influence by the brand when making
>> sighted evaluation base on sound alone.... Any test ?
>
> Not any test, you need a blind test.

You sure ?

MINe 109

May 12th 05, 06:04 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> MINe 109 wrote:
> >>
> >>> And, yes, I understand your point that the new amp was
> not proven
> >>> different by blind test. Of course, JA's point is that
> he lost faith
> >>> in blind tests, so asking him to prove something by a
> criterion he
> >>> no longer accepts isn't likely to get results.
> >>
> >> This was a rather serious failure of Atkinson's logic. He
> >> presumed the result of an evaluation that he never did
> >> because of his presumption.
> >
> > He did a different evaluation: listening.
>
> Poof positive that Stephen can't comprehend that the T in
> DBT stands for listening.

It doesn't stand for 'test'?

> Where do all these zombies come from?
>
> And this one has a teaching certificate?

No, I don't.

> Oh, its from Texas. Figures!

I see your NYC bile transplant was successful.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 06:04 PM

EddieM wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny
said
>>>>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is
not a
>>>>> fair test."
>>>>
>>>> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias
>>>> of so many kinds is fair.
>>
>>> With regards to making subjective sighted listening
>>> evaluation of audio components, my opinion is that it's
fair
>>> because biases can work both ways ...
>>
>> So far so good. That makes it a random variable that if
>> uncontrolled, leads to confusion and a waste of time.
>
>
> How can biases towards your preferences lead to you own
> confusion when listening for joy during sighted evaluation
?

Simple, your joy is varying in accordance with a random
variable.

>>> unless of course the subject making the
>>> audition knows ahead of time that the sound of a
>>> particular gear would be bias towards his preferences.
>>
>> That's not the only problem, to say the least. In fact
you
>> just contracted your previous statement which implise
that
>> the listener could know that the sound of a particular
gear
>> would be biased towards or against his preferences.

> How could the listener know that it would be biased for
> or against his preferences if he has not heard the sound
> of a particular gear ?

Simple, if his preferences weren't based on sound.

>>> If the subject prefers a gear other than the sound
itself,
>>> that's a choice he get to have.
>>
>> Agreed. Surely if two pieces sound the same, picking one
for
>> some other reason wont' degrade the sound quality of your
>> system.

> How did you know that it won't degrade the sound quality
if
> the subject prefers a gear "other than the sound itself?"

Let me clarify, I mean picking one over the other when they
sound the same.

>>> So the question then is how can you ensure the subject
is
>>> not influence by the brand when making
>>> sighted evaluation base on sound alone.... Any test ?
>>
>> Not any test, you need a blind test.

> You sure ?

Absolutely.

MINe 109

May 12th 05, 06:05 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> EddieM wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny
> said
> >>>>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is
> not
> >> a
> >>>> fair test."
> >>>>
> >>>> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias
> >> of
> >>>> so many kinds is fair.
> >>
> >>> Because the ultimate purpose is to satisfy
> >>> one's biases!
> >>
> >> The precident for using blind tests to test products
> whose
> >> ultimate purpose is to satisfy one's biases is
> >> well-established in the foods industry.
> >
> > http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=201
> >
> > "Brain scans show that the brand of your soda is more
> important than
> > its taste."
>
> I'm willing to accept that branding explains most of the
> reviews in Stereophile and the rest of the high end press.
> ;-)

Hallelujah! Except it's not limited to those.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 06:06 PM

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And, yes, I understand your point that the new amp was
not proven
>>>>> different by blind test. Of course, JA's point is that
he lost
>>>>> faith in blind tests, so asking him to prove something
by a
>>>>> criterion he no longer accepts isn't likely to get
results.
>>>>
>>>> This was a rather serious failure of Atkinson's logic.
He
>>>> presumed the result of an evaluation that he never did
>>>> because of his presumption.
>>>
>>> He did a different evaluation: listening.
>>
>> Poof positive that Stephen can't comprehend that the T in
>> DBT stands for listening.
>
> It doesn't stand for 'test'?

What kind of test?

A test based of audio gear based on water skiiing?

>> Where do all these zombies come from?
>>
>> And this one has a teaching certificate?
>
> No, I don't.

That's good to know.

MINe 109

May 12th 05, 06:22 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> MINe 109 wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> MINe 109 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> And, yes, I understand your point that the new amp was
> not proven
> >>>>> different by blind test. Of course, JA's point is that
> he lost
> >>>>> faith in blind tests, so asking him to prove something
> by a
> >>>>> criterion he no longer accepts isn't likely to get
> results.
> >>>>
> >>>> This was a rather serious failure of Atkinson's logic.
> He
> >>>> presumed the result of an evaluation that he never did
> >>>> because of his presumption.
> >>>
> >>> He did a different evaluation: listening.
> >>
> >> Poof positive that Stephen can't comprehend that the T in
> >> DBT stands for listening.
> >
> > It doesn't stand for 'test'?
>
> What kind of test?
>
> A test based of audio gear based on water skiiing?

So long as it yields negative results, it's okay with you.

> >> Where do all these zombies come from?
> >>
> >> And this one has a teaching certificate?
> >
> > No, I don't.
>
> That's good to know.

Ah, I didn't realize you have a teaching certificate. Congratulations.

Stephen

Joseph Oberlander

May 12th 05, 06:32 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> ScottW wrote:

> Atny's PCABX is intersting that while it allows an unlimited
> number of trials, it also introduces two interfering variables
> that themselves cannot be eliminated.

But those "variables" are up to the end user to deal
with as they wish. What affects one will affect the other,
which is the beauty of using a computer. There is no error
or change even possible unless you alter the files or
soundcard. between tests.

Joseph Oberlander

May 12th 05, 06:34 PM

MINe 109 wrote:

> http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=201
>
> "Brain scans show that the brand of your soda is more important than its
> taste."

Btw, a side note - am I alone in thinking that they all SUCK
since they changed from sugar to corn syrup a decade ago?

Joseph Oberlander

May 12th 05, 06:35 PM

John Atkinson wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>>But Mr. Sullivan, while the parable I related was intended to
>>>illustrate how the objectivist cause let me down personally as
>>>someone looking for guidance on an amplifier purchase, it was also
>>>intended as an example illustrating the whole subject.
>>
>>Yet, somehow don't you find this the least bit predictable?
>>A hardcore subjectivist tires being seriously objective
>>about music for once and when it "lets him down", as it was
>>almost destined to do the first time in, you decide that
>>it's not for you?
>
>
> You miss my point, Mr. Oberlander, which was at the time all
> this took place, I was a hardline _objectivist_. I even wrote
> an essay supporting the objectivist case in the April 1979 issue
> of HFN.

Based upon what you have written, I doubt it - you just played
one in your magazine because it was what was required to
get the job done and be seen as respectable.

MINe 109

May 12th 05, 06:39 PM

In article t>,
Joseph Oberlander > wrote:

> John Atkinson wrote:
>
> > Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> >
> >>>But Mr. Sullivan, while the parable I related was intended to
> >>>illustrate how the objectivist cause let me down personally as
> >>>someone looking for guidance on an amplifier purchase, it was also
> >>>intended as an example illustrating the whole subject.
> >>
> >>Yet, somehow don't you find this the least bit predictable?
> >>A hardcore subjectivist tires being seriously objective
> >>about music for once and when it "lets him down", as it was
> >>almost destined to do the first time in, you decide that
> >>it's not for you?
> >
> >
> > You miss my point, Mr. Oberlander, which was at the time all
> > this took place, I was a hardline _objectivist_. I even wrote
> > an essay supporting the objectivist case in the April 1979 issue
> > of HFN.
>
> Based upon what you have written, I doubt it - you just played
> one in your magazine because it was what was required to
> get the job done and be seen as respectable.

Now you're outright accusing him of lying. Do you believe there is no
defensible basis for the subjective viewpoint?

Stephen

MINe 109

May 12th 05, 06:42 PM

In article t>,
Joseph Oberlander > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> > http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=201
> >
> > "Brain scans show that the brand of your soda is more important than its
> > taste."
>
> Btw, a side note - am I alone in thinking that they all SUCK
> since they changed from sugar to corn syrup a decade ago?

If you were in central Texas, you could compare Dr. Pepper with sugar to
the national product. Or you could look for imported Mexican Coca-Cola.

You might spend more time wondering how demand for Coke and Pepsi
survives the constant tinkering with the formula.

Stephen

John Atkinson

May 12th 05, 07:02 PM

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> >>Yet, somehow don't you find this the least bit predictable?
> >>A hardcore subjectivist tires being seriously objective
> >>about music for once and when it "lets him down", as it was
> >>almost destined to do the first time in, you decide that
> >>it's not for you?
> >
> > You miss my point, Mr. Oberlander, which was at the time
> > all this took place, I was a hardline _objectivist_. I
> > even wrote an essay supporting the objectivist case in
> > the April 1979 issue of HFN.
>
> Based upon what you have written, I doubt it - you just
> played one in your magazine because it was what was
> required to get the job done and be seen as respectable.

Oh please, Mr. Oberlander. What is about you worshippers
at the altar of "scientism" that you adopt increasingly
bizarre positions in order to avoid admitting that you
don't have a monoploy on the Truth? You are now the
_fourth_ r.a.o. poster to claim to be able to read my
state of mind a quarter century ago. Doesn't that strike
you as being even slightly ridiculous?

No, Mr. Oberlander, I wasn't pretending to be an
objectivist, I _was_ an objectivist, due both to
the arrogance of youth (which I mentioned in the debate),
and to the fact I had been a trained scientist, working
for some years in government research labs in the late
1960s and early 1970s.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

ScottW

May 12th 05, 07:13 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > As I said at the debate, performing blind tests that produce
> > > anything other than null results when a real but small sonic
> > > difference exists is very difficult.
> >
> > You keep saying this but I can find no evidence provided in the
> > debate to support this statement.
>
> More than once I mentioned the very large number of trials that
> statistical analysis requires be performed in this situation.
> Doing this many trials while eliminating interfering variables
> is very difficult,

No it isn't if you're dedicated. The problem is you guys keep
conducting exhibitions rather than dedicated tests.
Dog and pony shows masquerading as tests will be flawed but that really
isn't the fault of the protocol.

> as well as time-consuming --

Anything worth doing is worth the time. You spent 2 years deciding
you hated your Quad.

Look, I run a test lab for a fairly large company...responsible for
environmental and reliability test design and execution. The effort
you're talking about is trivial compared to what we do on a regular
basis. What you're complaining about would be difficult but not
impossible for a hobbyist (audiophile). You're a bit more accomplished
with more resources at your disposal, at least I thought so.

> see my comments
> on listener's limited attention span -- and, unless you have
> access to a pool of free subjects, expensive.

Your experience was based on a subject of 1 as far as I can tell.

>
> Those who wish to deny this fact are the ones whose poorly
> designed, inadequately controlled tests have produced the null
> results they require to support their predetermined case. This
> subject has been examined at length on both r.a.o. and r.a.h-e.

So do the hard work and conduct a proper test.
You do test audio gear, don't you?
>
> Atny's PCABX is intersting that while it allows an unlimited
> number of trials, it also introduces two interfering variables
> that themselves cannot be eliminated.

Agreed, PCABX is flawed.

Still, nothing you stated supports the statement I originally
challenged, "performing blind tests that produce anything other than
null results when a real but small sonic difference exists is very
difficult." For your conclusion to be valid you need to prove those
real but small sonic differences existed.
Without it.. you're merely speculating.

ScottW

ScottW

May 12th 05, 07:18 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
> > Atny's PCABX is intersting that while it allows an
> unlimited
> > number of trials,
>
> As does plain old ABX and ABC/hr just to name two other
> testing methologies that are also popular.
>
> > it also introduces two interfering variables that
> themselves cannot be eliminated.
>
> Wrong, because in the case of the tests that validate any
> PCABX testing environment, as well as tests of computer
> audio interfaces, these variables are the subject of the
> test, and therefore need not be elimianted.

So Arny accepts that PCABX is flawed in all other cases when these
variables are not the subject of the test.

Thank God we've put that to bed, finally.

ScottW

ScottW

May 12th 05, 07:20 PM

Completely ignores masking and the fact that the first variable is
outside the enduser domain.

ScottW

ScottW

May 12th 05, 07:26 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>> As I said at the debate, perfomring blind tests that
> >>> produce anything other than null results when a real but
> >>> small sonic difference exists is very difficult.
> >>
> >> A good example of proof by assertion and tacit admission
> of
> >> inadequate technical competence.
> >
> > Then why didn't you make that point to my face, Mr.
> Krueger?
>
> I didn't figure this out until days later, like around when
> I made my first post about this topic.

Yet it was right there like a brick in your face and you didn't even
know it until days later. You really spent far more time spouting your
own accolades than deconstructing anything John said. If we weighed
both of your performances on level of difficulty (like a divers)... I'd
say you lose, bigtime. I'd also bet Tom was dying to jump up on stage
and address these statements that apparently flew right over your head.

ScottW

John Atkinson

May 12th 05, 08:04 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > please note that my assertion above has been
> > explained to you on the newsgroups by professional
> > statisticians, and is also discussed in statistics
> > textbooks...
>
> Say what?

Okay, I'll say it again: please note that my assertion
above has been explained to you on the newsgroups by
professional statisticians, and is also discussed in
statistics textbooks.

For the former, use groups.google.com to search on the names "John
Corbett" and "Phil" + "statistics". For the
latter, refer to any textbook on experimental design
and statistics. You could even ask your friend Tom
Nousaine.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 08:46 PM

ScottW wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>>> Atny's PCABX is intersting that while it allows an
>> unlimited
>>> number of trials,
>>
>> As does plain old ABX and ABC/hr just to name two other
>> testing methologies that are also popular.
>>
>>> it also introduces two interfering variables that
>> themselves cannot be eliminated.
>>
>> Wrong, because in the case of the tests that validate any
>> PCABX testing environment, as well as tests of computer
>> audio interfaces, these variables are the subject of the
>> test, and therefore need not be elimianted.
>
> So Arny accepts that PCABX is flawed in all other cases
when these
> variables are not the subject of the test.

I don't know where you've been all your life Scott, but
everything in the real world is flawed.

It's just a matter of weighing the flaws.

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 08:48 PM

ScottW wrote:

> Completely ignores masking

Nope. Masking has been considered.

> and the fact that the first variable is
> outside the enduser domain.

Nope. I already proved you wrong once, Scott.

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 08:50 PM

John Atkinson wrote:

> No, Mr. Oberlander, I wasn't pretending to be an
> objectivist, I _was_ an objectivist, due both to
> the arrogance of youth (which I mentioned in the debate),
> and to the fact I had been a trained scientist, working
> for some years in government research labs in the late
> 1960s and early 1970s.

Given the kind of proof that your 20-odd year-oldn anecdote
says that you will accept John, you were a ****-poor excuse
for an objectivist.

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 08:52 PM

ScottW wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>>>> As I said at the debate, perfomring blind tests that
>>>>> produce anything other than null results when a real
but
>>>>> small sonic difference exists is very difficult.
>>>>
>>>> A good example of proof by assertion and tacit
admission
>> of
>>>> inadequate technical competence.
>>>
>>> Then why didn't you make that point to my face, Mr.
>> Krueger?
>>
>> I didn't figure this out until days later, like around
when
>> I made my first post about this topic.
>
> Yet it was right there like a brick in your face and you
didn't even
> know it until days later.

Scott, I hate to break the spell, but I'm not perfect.

>You really spent far more time spouting your
> own accolades than deconstructing anything John said.

Been there, done that.

> If we weighed
> both of your performances on level of difficulty (like a
divers)...
> I'd say you lose, bigtime.

This would be the royal "we" right Scotty?

> I'd also bet Tom was dying to jump up on
> stage and address these statements that apparently flew
right over
> your head.

I was already having too much fun.+
>
> ScottW

Margaret von B.

May 12th 05, 08:53 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>> > Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>> >>Yet, somehow don't you find this the least bit predictable?
>> >>A hardcore subjectivist tires being seriously objective
>> >>about music for once and when it "lets him down", as it was
>> >>almost destined to do the first time in, you decide that
>> >>it's not for you?
>> >
>> > You miss my point, Mr. Oberlander, which was at the time
>> > all this took place, I was a hardline _objectivist_. I
>> > even wrote an essay supporting the objectivist case in
>> > the April 1979 issue of HFN.
>>
>> Based upon what you have written, I doubt it - you just
>> played one in your magazine because it was what was
>> required to get the job done and be seen as respectable.
>
> Oh please, Mr. Oberlander. What is about you worshippers
> at the altar of "scientism" that you adopt increasingly
> bizarre positions in order to avoid admitting that you
> don't have a monoploy on the Truth?

How dare you challenge Oberlander, John! After all he is a guy who
discovered vacuum tubes in a McIntosh 1900 receiver - *both* the preamp and
the tuner, IIRC. Not only that, but he *personally* checked out that they
were brand new tubes and they sounded really good. :-) I bet you cannot do
that! :-)

>You are now the
> _fourth_ r.a.o. poster to claim to be able to read my
> state of mind a quarter century ago. Doesn't that strike
> you as being even slightly ridiculous?
>

Please see above.

> No, Mr. Oberlander, I wasn't pretending to be an
> objectivist, I _was_ an objectivist,

No, you have to pass the vacuum tube test before you qualify as an
objectivist. :-)

>due both to
> the arrogance of youth (which I mentioned in the debate),
> and to the fact I had been a trained scientist, working
> for some years in government research labs in the late
> 1960s and early 1970s.
>

That pales in comparison to Oberlander. He's been working on his father's
stereo. :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

ScottW

May 12th 05, 08:53 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > please note that my assertion above has been
> > > explained to you on the newsgroups by professional
> > > statisticians, and is also discussed in statistics
> > > textbooks...
> >
> > Say what?
>
> Okay, I'll say it again: please note that my assertion
> above has been explained to you on the newsgroups by
> professional statisticians, and is also discussed in
> statistics textbooks.
>
> For the former, use groups.google.com to search on the names "John
> Corbett" and "Phil" + "statistics". For the
> latter, refer to any textbook on experimental design
> and statistics. You could even ask your friend Tom
> Nousaine.

Sorry for being so easily confused... but what assertion?
That properly conducted DBTs are difficult and time consuming?

Or that large numbers of trials are required to reduce the gray zone of
null results?

ScottW

Arny Krueger

May 12th 05, 08:54 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> please note that my assertion above has been
>>> explained to you on the newsgroups by professional
>>> statisticians, and is also discussed in statistics
>>> textbooks...
>>
>> Say what?
>
> Okay, I'll say it again: please note that my assertion
> above has been explained to you on the newsgroups by
> professional statisticians, and is also discussed in
> statistics textbooks.
>
> For the former, use groups.google.com to search on the
names "John
> Corbett" and "Phil" + "statistics". For the
> latter, refer to any textbook on experimental design
> and statistics. You could even ask your friend Tom
> Nousaine.

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=%22john+corbett%22+phil+%2B+statistics&qt_s=Search

Your search - "john corbett" phil + statistics - did not
match any documents.

John Atkinson

May 12th 05, 09:16 PM

ScottW wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > please note that my assertion above has been explained to
> > you on the newsgroups by professional statisticians, and
> > is also discussed in statistics textbooks.
> >
> > For the former, use groups.google.com to search on the
> > names "John Corbett" and "Phil" + "statistics". For the
> > latter, refer to any textbook on experimental design
> > and statistics. You could even ask your friend Tom
> > Nousaine.
>
> Sorry for being so easily confused... but what assertion?
> That properly conducted DBTs are difficult and time consuming?

No, that's the opinion I expressed at the debate, based on my
direct experience both of a large number of blind tests that
would not meet what I would regard as sufficient standards of
rigor and a smaller number of others that would do so. I did
read your earlier comments on this topic, ScottW; have yet to
respond.

> Or that large numbers of trials are required to reduce the
> gray zone of null results?

Yes, that is the assertion to which I was referring and which
Arny Krueger has argued about on the newsgroups with
statisticians "Phil" and "John Corbett."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson

May 12th 05, 09:22 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > please note that my assertion above has been explained
> > to you on the newsgroups by professional statisticians,
> > and is also discussed in statistics textbooks.
> >
> > For the former, use groups.google.com to search on the
> > names "John Corbett" and "Phil" + "statistics".

>
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=%22john+corbett%22+phil+%2B+statistics&qt_s=Search

> Your search - "john corbett" phil + statistics - did not
> match any documents.

Sigh. Your inability to use search engines continues to
astonish me, Mr. Krueger. Both John Corbett and Phil
tried to illuminate the subject of statistical analysis
of blind test results for you on the newsgroups. But as
you evidently tried to look for messages in which both
did so in the _same_ Usenet posting, it is hardly
surprising that your search didn't produce any results. :-(

I suggest you try again.

> > For the latter, refer to any textbook on experimental
> > design and statistics. You could even ask your friend
> > Tom Nousaine.

Before you get confused again, Mr. Krueger, please note that
I was not referring to textbooks _written_ by Tom Nousaine,
but _either_ to textbooks _or_ to Tom Nousaine. Get it?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

>
>

John Atkinson

May 12th 05, 09:35 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > If we weighed both of your performances on level of
> > difficulty (like a divers)...I'd say you lose,
> > bigtime.
>
> This would be the royal "we" right Scotty?

In a thread that discusses the availability of the
HE2005 debate recording, it is irony indeed to witness
Mr. Krueger making this accusation. For as can be heard
on the recording, Mr. Krueger referred to himself almost
always in the debate as "we" and "us." :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson

May 12th 05, 09:41 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > No, Mr. Oberlander, I wasn't pretending to be an
> > objectivist, I _was_ an objectivist, due both to
> > the arrogance of youth (which I mentioned in the debate),
> > and to the fact I had been a trained scientist, working
> > for some years in government research labs in the late
> > 1960s and early 1970s.
>
> Given the kind of proof that your 20-odd year-oldn
> anecdote says that you will accept John, you were
> a ****-poor excuse for an objectivist.

Ah Mr. Krueger, you seem intent on demonstrating
the correctness of my hypothesis: that you are
much braver behind the safety of your PC than you
are in person. Or are you now going to claim again
that you _would_ have expressed this thought to
me in person but it didn't occur to you until after
you flew home to Michigan? :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

PS: one area of scientific research I played a
(very small) role in was the development of
green LEDs. So whenever you see one of these,
you can be reminded of the NY debate.

Lionel

May 12th 05, 10:05 PM

John Atkinson a écrit :
>
> PS: one area of scientific research I played a
> (very small) role in was the development of
> green LEDs. So whenever you see one of these,
> you can be reminded of the NY debate.

This seems a very serious scientific involvement...
At least not in the same league than the kind of esoteric
gadgets that you are advertising in Stereophile and/or
"kindly" supporting in ad hoc reviews... ;-)

George M. Middius

May 12th 05, 10:47 PM

John Atkinson said:

> Atny's PCABX is intersting that while it allows an unlimited
> number of trials, it also introduces two interfering variables
> that themselves cannot be eliminated.

As Lord Bamborough observed, Arnii's ****ware has some potential as a tool
for teaching, or at least orienting, newbies. But as you and others have
said, there's both the equipment used to record the signal at the source
and the equipment used to play it back at the listener's end. Not exactly
a testing purist's design. ;-)

George M. Middius

May 12th 05, 10:54 PM

John Atkinson said:

> > This would be the royal "we" right Scotty?

> In a thread that discusses the availability of the
> HE2005 debate recording, it is irony indeed to witness
> Mr. Krueger making this accusation. For as can be heard
> on the recording, Mr. Krueger referred to himself almost
> always in the debate as "we" and "us." :-)

Arnii has previously explained that his use of the vaguely editorial "we"
is meant to represent both himself and his imaginary compatriots.
Objectively speaking, those compatriots are more commonly referred to as
"the voices in Arnii's head." :-)

George M. Middius

May 12th 05, 10:59 PM

John Atkinson said:

> > > For the former, use groups.google.com to search on the
> > > names "John Corbett" and "Phil" + "statistics".

> http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=%22john+corbett%22+phil+%2B+statistics&qt_s=Search
>
> > Your search - "john corbett" phil + statistics - did not
> > match any documents.
>
> Sigh. Your inability to use search engines continues to
> astonish me, Mr. Krueger. Both John Corbett and Phil
> tried to illuminate the subject of statistical analysis
> of blind test results for you on the newsgroups. But as
> you evidently tried to look for messages in which both
> did so in the _same_ Usenet posting, it is hardly
> surprising that your search didn't produce any results. :-(

Here's some:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/f1248cb4999d78a1?hl=en
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/295a134ffe7c4ce5?hl=en
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/d89b6078cd8a8c5c?hl=en

Gee, that was tough. The search took 10 seconds and copying the links took
a whole minute.

Clyde Slick

May 12th 05, 11:32 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Poof positive that Stephen can't comprehend that the T in
> DBT stands for listening.
>

And that the R in ARNY stands for ****.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

George M. Middius

May 12th 05, 11:40 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > Poof positive that Stephen can't comprehend that the T in
> > DBT stands for listening.

> And that the R in ARNY stands for ****.

I knew that! ;-) Next time we're having a Krooglish kwiz, will there be
any notice?

EddieM

May 12th 05, 11:53 PM

> Joseph Oberlander wrote
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=201
>>
>> "Brain scans show that the brand of your soda is more important than its
>> taste."
>
> Btw, a side note - am I alone in thinking that they all SUCK
> since they changed from sugar to corn syrup a decade ago?

Is there a way that the qoute above be meaningfully apply to audio ?

ScottW

May 13th 05, 12:02 AM

John Atkinson wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > please note that my assertion above has been explained to
> > > you on the newsgroups by professional statisticians, and
> > > is also discussed in statistics textbooks.
> > >
> > > For the former, use groups.google.com to search on the
> > > names "John Corbett" and "Phil" + "statistics". For the
> > > latter, refer to any textbook on experimental design
> > > and statistics. You could even ask your friend Tom
> > > Nousaine.
> >
> > Sorry for being so easily confused... but what assertion?
> > That properly conducted DBTs are difficult and time consuming?
>
> No, that's the opinion I expressed at the debate, based on my
> direct experience both of a large number of blind tests that
> would not meet what I would regard as sufficient standards of
> rigor and a smaller number of others that would do so. I did
> read your earlier comments on this topic, ScottW; have yet to
> respond.
>
> > Or that large numbers of trials are required to reduce the
> > gray zone of null results?
>
> Yes, that is the assertion to which I was referring and which
> Arny Krueger has argued about on the newsgroups with
> statisticians "Phil" and "John Corbett."

You guys been arguing this for how long? I don't care if you take 2
years to complete the test. Take a month or 2 per trial if you feel
like it.

ScottW

John Atkinson

May 13th 05, 12:56 AM

George M. Middius wrote:
> John Atkinson said:
> > Both John Corbett and Phil tried to illuminate the subject
> > of statistical analysis of blind test results for you on the
> > newsgroups. But as you evidently tried to look for messages
> > in which both did so in the _same_ Usenet posting, it is hardly
> > surprising that your search didn't produce any results. :-(
>
> Here's some:
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/f1248cb4999d78a1?hl=en
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/295a134ffe7c4ce5?hl=en
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/d89b6078cd8a8c5c?hl=en

Thank you, George.

> Gee, that was tough. The search took 10 seconds and copying the links
> took a whole minute.

These truly are wondrous times. First we (meaning r.a.o. denizens,
not Arny Krueger and the mouse in his pocket) witness you helping
Howard Ferstler delete his copyright infringing post. And now, here
you are, helping Arny Krueger in his quest for enlightment. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

EddieM

May 13th 05, 01:00 AM

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before the Q & A discussion at around # 27:00, Arny
> said
>>>>>> that "... sighted evaluation is flawed because it is
> not a
>>>>>> fair test."
>>>>>
>>>>> Please tell me why something that is so subject to bias
>>>>> of so many kinds is fair.
>>>
>>>> With regards to making subjective sighted listening
>>>> evaluation of audio components, my opinion is that it's
> fair
>>>> because biases can work both ways ...
>>>
>>> So far so good. That makes it a random variable that if
>>> uncontrolled, leads to confusion and a waste of time.

Could you adjust your OE's line length?

Your Debating Trade of snipping my post, then cluttering
subsequent replies like Mr. McKelvy is noted.

>> How can biases towards your preferences lead to you own
>> confusion when listening for joy during sighted evaluation ?
>
> Simple, your joy is varying in accordance with a random
> variable.

How does listening for joy with known biases toward your
preferences lead to your own confusion?

>>>> unless of course the subject making the
>>>> audition knows ahead of time that the sound of a
>>>> particular gear would be bias towards his preferences.
>>>
>>> That's not the only problem, to say the least. In fact
>>> you just contracted your previous statement which implise
>>> that the listener could know that the sound of a particular
>>> gear would be biased towards or against his preferences.
>
>> How could the listener know that it would be biased for
>> or against his preferences if he has not heard the sound
>> of a particular gear ?
>
> Simple, if his preferences weren't based on sound.

What do you suppose preference be based from when
auditioning audio components ?

>>>> If the subject prefers a gear other than the sound
>>>> itself, that's a choice he get to have.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Surely if two pieces sound the same, picking one
>>> for some other reason wont' degrade the sound quality of your
>>> system.
>
>> How did you know that it won't degrade the sound quality
>> if the subject prefers a gear "other than the sound itself?"
>
> Let me clarify, I mean picking one over the other when they
> sound the same.

Ok. So if the subject prefers a gear other than the sound itself,
that's a choice he get to have.

>>>> So the question then is how can you ensure the subject
>>>> is not influence by the brand when making
>>>> sighted evaluation base on sound alone.... Any test ?
>>>
>>> Not any test, you need a blind test.
>
>> You sure ?
>
> Absolutely.

Allright! Do you now have additional protocols to add to the
abx/dbt?

[email protected]

May 13th 05, 02:47 AM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Based upon what you have written, I doubt it - you just
> > played one in your magazine because it was what was
> > required to get the job done and be seen as respectable.
>
<snip>
>
> You are now the
> _fourth_ r.a.o. poster to claim to be able to read my
> state of mind a quarter century ago.
>
>
No one claims to be "able to read [your] state of mind". However, many
question the veracity of your tale. In short, your story has more holes
in it than a horse trader's mule.

George M. Middius

May 13th 05, 03:19 AM

John Atkinson said:

> > Gee, that was tough. The search took 10 seconds and copying the links
> > took a whole minute.
>
> These truly are wondrous times. First we (meaning r.a.o. denizens,
> not Arny Krueger and the mouse in his pocket) witness you helping
> Howard Ferstler delete his copyright infringing post. And now, here
> you are, helping Arny Krueger in his quest for enlightment. :-)

If irony fell down a well and drowned! ;-)

Joseph Oberlander

May 13th 05, 04:02 AM

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article t>,
> Joseph Oberlander > wrote:

>>Based upon what you have written, I doubt it - you just played
>>one in your magazine because it was what was required to
>>get the job done and be seen as respectable.
>
>
> Now you're outright accusing him of lying. Do you believe there is no
> defensible basis for the subjective viewpoint?

He clearly is not even close to being subjective if you
thew blather in the magazinehe works for. It's essentially
a monthly opinion section on audio.

Joseph Oberlander

May 13th 05, 04:05 AM

MINe 109 wrote:

> If you were in central Texas, you could compare Dr. Pepper with sugar to
> the national product. Or you could look for imported Mexican Coca-Cola.
>
> You might spend more time wondering how demand for Coke and Pepsi
> survives the constant tinkering with the formula.

I have. The sugar varities that they sell everywhere *but*
Canada and the U.S. are far superior. They also have a longer
shelf life in addition to having more "bite" to them(and
sweetness) and they tend to have higher levels of carbonation
like real sodas.

Sigh. It all tastes so much the same. Thankfully, there
is a store here in Los Angeles that sells nothing but
sodas from smaller companies, so it's easy to get. :)

Joseph Oberlander

May 13th 05, 04:07 AM

John Atkinson wrote:

> Oh please, Mr. Oberlander. What is about you worshippers
> at the altar of "scientism" that you adopt increasingly
> bizarre positions in order to avoid admitting that you
> don't have a monoploy on the Truth? You are now the
> _fourth_ r.a.o. poster to claim to be able to read my
> state of mind a quarter century ago. Doesn't that strike
> you as being even slightly ridiculous?

I listened to the debate and it was clear that you
were in a mindset at the time that was clearly affected
by subjective concerns, yet refused to admit that it
might be your own bias instead of a "faulty test" that
let you down.

Lionel

May 13th 05, 04:08 AM

John Atkinson a écrit :
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>John Atkinson said:
>>
>>>Both John Corbett and Phil tried to illuminate the subject
>>>of statistical analysis of blind test results for you on the
>>>newsgroups. But as you evidently tried to look for messages
>>>in which both did so in the _same_ Usenet posting, it is hardly
>>>surprising that your search didn't produce any results. :-(
>>
>>Here's some:
>>
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/f1248cb4999d78a1?hl=en
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/295a134ffe7c4ce5?hl=en
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/d89b6078cd8a8c5c?hl=en
>
> Thank you, George.
>
>
>>Gee, that was tough. The search took 10 seconds and copying the links
>>took a whole minute.
>
>
> These truly are wondrous times. First we (meaning r.a.o. denizens,
> not Arny Krueger and the mouse in his pocket) witness you helping
> Howard Ferstler delete his copyright infringing post. And now, here
> you are, helping Arny Krueger in his quest for enlightment. :-)

Seems that today our George is fully "Atkinson devoted"...
Is it his answer to Margaret's poll ?

;-)

MINe 109

May 13th 05, 04:09 AM

In article >,
Joseph Oberlander > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article t>,
> > Joseph Oberlander > wrote:
>
> >>Based upon what you have written, I doubt it - you just played
> >>one in your magazine because it was what was required to
> >>get the job done and be seen as respectable.
> >
> >
> > Now you're outright accusing him of lying. Do you believe there is no
> > defensible basis for the subjective viewpoint?
>
> He clearly is not even close to being subjective if you
> thew blather in the magazinehe works for. It's essentially
> a monthly opinion section on audio.

Thew blather? What's wrong with a monthly opinion section on audio in an
audio magazine?

Stephen

Joseph Oberlander

May 13th 05, 04:11 AM

Margaret von B. wrote:

> How dare you challenge Oberlander, John! After all he is a guy who
> discovered vacuum tubes in a McIntosh 1900 receiver - *both* the preamp and
> the tuner, IIRC. Not only that, but he *personally* checked out that they
> were brand new tubes and they sounded really good. :-) I bet you cannot do
> that! :-)

Heh. where you pulled that from I don't know. Not true,
but still pretty funny nonetheless. :)

Joseph Oberlander

May 13th 05, 04:13 AM

EddieM wrote:

>>Joseph Oberlander wrote
>>
>>>MINe 109 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=201
>>>
>>>"Brain scans show that the brand of your soda is more important than its
>>>taste."
>>
>>Btw, a side note - am I alone in thinking that they all SUCK
>>since they changed from sugar to corn syrup a decade ago?
>
>
>
>
> Is there a way that the qoute above be meaningfully apply to audio ?

Nope. Such is R.A.O.

Lionel_Chapuis

May 13th 05, 04:15 AM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
>
> John Atkinson said:
>
> > Atny's PCABX is intersting that while it allows an unlimited
> > number of trials, it also introduces two interfering variables
> > that themselves cannot be eliminated.
>
> As Lord Bamborough observed, Arnii's ****ware has some potential as a tool
> for teaching, or at least orienting, newbies. But as you and others have
> said, there's both the equipment used to record the signal at the source
> and the equipment used to play it back at the listener's end. Not exactly
> a testing purist's design. ;-)

In some other "worlds" (software...) they would have contributed to improve the system.
If they haven't, this only means that the "system" embarass them... A little bit like Microsoft with some "free" softwares. ;-)

I'm not sure it was voluntary but this avow honnors you George. ;-)

----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

Surf

May 13th 05, 05:05 AM

the big ol hippy wrote
>>
> No one claims to be "able to read [your] state of mind". However, many
> question the veracity of your tale.

You're full of **** dick. You're also a pompous blowhard.
Is it the result of living a lonely life in rural Arkansas.
That's gotta suck.

Surf

May 13th 05, 05:10 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote
>
> John Atkinson said:
>
>> > This would be the royal "we" right Scotty?
>
>> In a thread that discusses the availability of the
>> HE2005 debate recording, it is irony indeed to witness
>> Mr. Krueger making this accusation. For as can be heard
>> on the recording, Mr. Krueger referred to himself almost
>> always in the debate as "we" and "us." :-)
>
> Arnii has previously explained that his use of the vaguely editorial "we"
> is meant to represent both himself and his imaginary compatriots.
> Objectively speaking, those compatriots are more commonly referred to as
> "the voices in Arnii's head." :-)

hey! don't forget about torrie****s!

(funny - my spellchecker thinks I may have meant "horse****s")

ScottW

May 13th 05, 05:38 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > Completely ignores masking
>
> Nope. Masking has been considered.

Considered but never adequately addressed.

>
> > and the fact that the first variable is
> > outside the enduser domain.
>
>
> Nope. I already proved you wrong once, Scott.

Just like you proved you won the debate?

ScottW

EddieM

May 13th 05, 05:41 AM

> Joseph Oberlander wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>>Joseph Oberlander wrote
>>>>MINe 109 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=201
>>>>
>>>>"Brain scans show that the brand of your soda is more important than its
>>>>taste."
>>>
>>>Btw, a side note - am I alone in thinking that they all SUCK
>>>since they changed from sugar to corn syrup a decade ago?
>>
>>
>> Is there a way that the qoute above be meaningfully apply to audio ?
>
> Nope. Such is R.A.O.

That is so disheartening 'cause what we need could be just someone
willing to look into the above qoute and objectively comment about any
parallel relationship it may have in the matter of audio. It does not have
to require someone of full-blown Objectivist eminence. It could be just
someone with Objectivist caliber but who is rather a tad little bit only at
any given time. Wouldn't you think that is just fair ?

Surf

May 13th 05, 06:18 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
> Given the kind of proof that your 20-odd year-oldn anecdote
> says that you will accept John, you were a ****-poor excuse
> for an objectivist.
>

And you're a ****-poor excuse for a human being.

How come you say things here that you wouldn't say to John
in person?

Arny Krueger

May 13th 05, 12:00 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> No, Mr. Oberlander, I wasn't pretending to be an
>>> objectivist, I _was_ an objectivist, due both to
>>> the arrogance of youth (which I mentioned in the
debate),
>>> and to the fact I had been a trained scientist, working
>>> for some years in government research labs in the late
>>> 1960s and early 1970s.
>>
>> Given the kind of proof that your 20-odd year-oldn
>> anecdote says that you will accept John, you were
>> a ****-poor excuse for an objectivist.
>
> Ah Mr. Krueger, you seem intent on demonstrating
> the correctness of my hypothesis: that you are
> much braver behind the safety of your PC than you
> are in person.

John, as much as you played the whipped dog before during
and after the debate, it is you who are much braver behind
the safety of your PC than you were in person.

> Or are you now going to claim again
> that you _would_ have expressed this thought to
> me in person but it didn't occur to you until after
> you flew home to Michigan? :-)

John, I was available to you for whatever conversations you
wanted to have, the whole time I was in New York. A simple
message to my hotel room would have sufficed. John Marks and
I conversed several times in the Press Room. Where the heck
were you? Puking in the latrine?

Arny Krueger

May 13th 05, 12:01 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> If we weighed both of your performances on level of
>>> difficulty (like a divers)...I'd say you lose,
>>> bigtime.
>>
>> This would be the royal "we" right Scotty?
>
> In a thread that discusses the availability of the
> HE2005 debate recording, it is irony indeed to witness
> Mr. Krueger making this accusation. For as can be heard
> on the recording, Mr. Krueger referred to himself almost
> always in the debate as "we" and "us." :-)

The we in question would be the ABX team - the SMWTMS group.

Arny Krueger

May 13th 05, 12:05 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> please note that my assertion above has been explained
>>> to you on the newsgroups by professional statisticians,
>>> and is also discussed in statistics textbooks.
>>>
>>> For the former, use groups.google.com to search on the
>>> names "John Corbett" and "Phil" + "statistics".
>
>>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=%22john+corbett%22+phil+%2B+statistics&qt_s=Search
>
>> Your search - "john corbett" phil + statistics - did not
>> match any documents.
>
> Sigh. Your inability to use search engines continues to
> astonish me, Mr. Krueger. Both John Corbett and Phil
> tried to illuminate the subject of statistical analysis
> of blind test results for you on the newsgroups.

John, I guess that would be an admission that you never
actually tested the search arguments that you provided, and
that you have no corrections to my search string.

>But as
> you evidently tried to look for messages in which both
> did so in the _same_ Usenet posting, it is hardly
> surprising that your search didn't produce any results.
:-(
>
> I suggest you try again.

John, I suggest you come up with a new story, or at least a
new search string. Google hasn't changed how it responds to
the search string you provided over night. I fear it never
well. ;-)

It has been said that expecting a different result from the
identical same experiment is a sign of insanity.

Arny Krueger

May 13th 05, 12:07 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> John Atkinson said:
>
>>>> For the former, use groups.google.com to search on the
>>>> names "John Corbett" and "Phil" + "statistics".
>
>>
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=%22john+corbett%22+phil+%2B+statistics&qt_s=Search
>>
>>> Your search - "john corbett" phil + statistics - did not
>>> match any documents.
>>
>> Sigh. Your inability to use search engines continues to
>> astonish me, Mr. Krueger. Both John Corbett and Phil
>> tried to illuminate the subject of statistical analysis
>> of blind test results for you on the newsgroups. But as
>> you evidently tried to look for messages in which both
>> did so in the _same_ Usenet posting, it is hardly
>> surprising that your search didn't produce any results.
:-(
>
> Here's some:
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/f1248cb4999d78a1?hl=en
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/295a134ffe7c4ce5?hl=en
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/d89b6078cd8a8c5c?hl=en
>
>
> Gee, that was tough. The search took 10 seconds and
copying the links
> took a whole minute.

These are not search strings, but retrievals of specific
posts. Therefore, there is no evidence that the search that
John directed me to would yield any fruit.

Since you've posted so many insulting and meaningless google
references in the past Middius, I feel free to totally
ignore these.

John Atkinson

May 13th 05, 12:19 PM

Surf wrote:
> How come you say things here that you wouldn't say to John
> in person?

Arny has answered that question, Tom: he would have said
those things to me had I left a message in his hotel room that
I wanted to have a conversation with him after the debate.

I guess that makes a sort of sense in Arny's world, but it
doesn't make _any_ sense in the real world. Does it?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson

May 13th 05, 12:25 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > as can be heard on the recording, Mr. Krueger referred to
> > himself almost always in the debate as "we" and "us." :-)
>
> The we in question would be the ABX team - the SMWTMS group.

But they weren't invited to the debate, just your good self,
Mr. Krueger, to give a presentation of _your_ opinions_
and views.

Do you not have the courage of _your_ own convictions? Or are
you now going to argue that I got good value for money, getting
several speakers for the price of just one's hotel and travel
expenses? :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius

May 13th 05, 12:35 PM

EddieM said:

> >>>Btw, a side note - am I alone in thinking that they all SUCK
> >>>since they changed from sugar to corn syrup a decade ago?

> >> Is there a way that the qoute above be meaningfully apply to audio ?

> > Nope. Such is R.A.O.

> That is so disheartening 'cause what we need could be just someone
> willing to look into the above qoute and objectively comment about any
> parallel relationship it may have in the matter of audio. It does not have
> to require someone of full-blown Objectivist eminence. It could be just
> someone with Objectivist caliber but who is rather a tad little bit only at
> any given time. Wouldn't you think that is just fair ?

That would be me, at least as far as audio. I only drink diet soda. I
prefer, in order, Diet Pepsi, Diet Coke, and Diet Rite. Haven't tried
Pepsi One. It's been so long since I had a naturally sweetened one that I
now prefer the diet versions even though the taste is distinctly
artificial.

I did a blind test between Diet Pepsi and Diet Coke some years ago. The
panel was two drinkers of diet and two drinkers of regular. The diet
drinkers had no problem distinguishing the sample -- we both got five out
of five trials right. (Maybe not enough for statistical significance but
enough to satisfy us.) The drinkers of regular both said "Yuck!" to each
sample and said they didn't care which was which because they hated both
of them.

John Atkinson

May 13th 05, 12:36 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>> please note that my assertion above has been explained
> >>> to you on the newsgroups by professional statisticians,
> >>> and is also discussed in statistics textbooks.
> >>> For the former, use groups.google.com to search on the
> >>> names "John Corbett" and "Phil" + "statistics".
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=%22john+corbett%22+phil+%2B+statistics&qt_s=Search
> >
> >> Your search - "john corbett" phil + statistics - did not
> >> match any documents.
> >
> > Sigh. Your inability to use search engines continues to
> > astonish me, Mr. Krueger. Both John Corbett and Phil
> > tried to illuminate the subject of statistical analysis
> > of blind test results for you on the newsgroups.
>
> John, I guess that would be an admission that you never
> actually tested the search arguments that you provided, and
> that you have no corrections to my search string.

It seems to me to be a failing strategy to plead stupidity
as a defense, Mr. Krueger. As I explained to you but you didn't
appear to comprehend, the string you entered into the Google
search engine would retrieve messages where _both_ writers_ had
responded to you in the _same_ posting, an unlikely enough event
that it came as no surprise that you didn't get any hits.

Look, I am starting to feel sorry for you, so here are the search
strings you need to use to find the relevant postings on r.a.o.:
"John Corbett" + statistics;
Phil + statistics.

Or you could go to the threads that George Middius found for you,
where these statisticians discussed your misuse of statistics in
the analysis of blind test results.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius

May 13th 05, 12:49 PM

John Atkinson said:

> > How come you say things here that you wouldn't say to John
> > in person?

> Arny has answered that question, Tom: he would have said
> those things to me had I left a message in his hotel room that
> I wanted to have a conversation with him after the debate.
>
> I guess that makes a sort of sense in Arny's world, but it
> doesn't make _any_ sense in the real world. Does it?

Have you noticed Krooger's frequent klaims to know that not-crazy people
meant something other than what they said? This is a recurrent theme in
the Kroo's dementia. Once the pattern of klaims amounting to mind-reading
is established, it's only a short leap to the "message in the room"
demand: Krooger also believes others can read his mind.

Or maybe Krooger's imaginary friends told him that he would only have to
do the name-calling if invited at a certain place and time, and he assumed
you received the same message. So he was waiting for you to initiate the
secretly transmitted message and set up a secret meeting. In Krooger's
mind (such as it is), once a secret plot is conceived, he assumes others
have learned of it by reading his mind.

I'm sure there's a connection between Krooger's mind-reading fixation and
his objectively fatuous klaims to "win" all his "debates".......

MINe 109

May 13th 05, 12:49 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > Here's some:
> >
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/f1248cb4999d78a1?hl=
> en
> >
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/295a134ffe7c4ce5?hl=
> en
> >
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/d89b6078cd8a8c5c?hl=
> en
> >
> >
> > Gee, that was tough. The search took 10 seconds and
> copying the links
> > took a whole minute.
>
> These are not search strings, but retrievals of specific
> posts. Therefore, there is no evidence that the search that
> John directed me to would yield any fruit.
>
> Since you've posted so many insulting and meaningless google
> references in the past Middius, I feel free to totally
> ignore these.

Here ya go!:

statistics (phil OR corbett) group:rec.audio.opinion

Stephen

George M. Middius

May 13th 05, 01:10 PM

John Atkinson said:

> Or you could go to the threads that George Middius found for you,
> where these statisticians discussed your misuse of statistics in
> the analysis of blind test results.

Yes, you may do that, Arnii. I am freely offering my valuable work to you
and anybody else who wants to use it. ;-)

BTW, I have to say your supposed kumpyooter eckthpurteeze wasn't really
exemplified by your beloved Powerpoint presentation. Where was the
multimedia content? How about some graphics? All you had was just the same
text you were reading. This is the same level of mediocrity I see from
ordinary business wonks who put their notes on PP slides only because the
boss told them to.

Was there a time when you actually cared about your holy mission to
destroy the E.H.E.E.? Nowadays, your sad existence is defined mostly by
cowardice and hypocrisy. You would do better to admit you're a sponge who
sops up disability payments and shelters your meager income by "donating"
your jerry-built computers to churches. Appeal to our pity and maybe the
abuse level will drop. (In Kroospeak, that means "maybe some of your
enemies will melt away".)

Lionel_Chapuis

May 13th 05, 01:13 PM

George "Connoisseur" Middius wrote:

> I only drink diet soda.

This surely explains some of your comments about wines...

:-D

----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

Clyde Slick

May 13th 05, 01:37 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Since you've posted so many insulting and meaningless google
> references in the past Middius, I feel free to totally
> ignore these.
>

That's so funny!!! You are right. In the past, George
has referenced so many insulting and meaningless posts, and they were yours!

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick

May 13th 05, 01:38 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Surf wrote:
>> How come you say things here that you wouldn't say to John
>> in person?
>
> Arny has answered that question, Tom: he would have said
> those things to me had I left a message in his hotel room that
> I wanted to have a conversation with him after the debate.
>
> I guess that makes a sort of sense in Arny's world, but it
> doesn't make _any_ sense in the real world. Does it?
>

Maybe they were on his missing powerpoint
presentation!

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Arny Krueger

May 13th 05, 02:11 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Surf wrote:
>> How come you say things here that you wouldn't say to
John
>> in person?
>
> Arny has answered that question, Tom: he would have said
> those things to me had I left a message in his hotel room
that
> I wanted to have a conversation with him after the debate.

Still can't read, can you John?

I would have talked to you at just about any reasonable
time, before or after the debate.

Doooh!

Arny Krueger

May 13th 05, 02:15 PM

Surf wrote:

> How come you say things here that you wouldn't say to John
> in person?

Actually other than the debate and about 10 minutes on
either side of it when John A. was busy doing other things,
I didn't see him in person at all.

John Marks as my witness I hung out in the Press room for
several hours.

I beleive that I may have even provided John A with my cell
phone number, and said device was in my pocket or on my
bedstand the whole 4 days.

I guess that John was afraid to face me as a rule, and now
that the reviews and recording are kicking around, everybody
can see the reason why.

Arny Krueger

May 13th 05, 02:17 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> as can be heard on the recording, Mr. Krueger referred
to
>>> himself almost always in the debate as "we" and "us."
:-)
>>
>> The we in question would be the ABX team - the SMWTMS
group.
>
> But they weren't invited to the debate, just your good
self,
> Mr. Krueger, to give a presentation of _your_ opinions_
> and views.

...which are based on many group experiences and thoughts
coming out of SMWTMS.

> Do you not have the courage of _your_ own convictions?

It would appear, far better than you, John. You had me at
your disposal for Thursday afternoon, Thursday night, all
day Friday, and Saturday morning until about 10 or 10:30. I
think that John Marks saw me in the Press room on numerous
occasions during that time period. I was around, where the
heck were you?

> Or are you now going to argue that I got good value for
money, getting
> several speakers for the price of just one's hotel and
travel
> expenses? :-)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

John Atkinson

May 13th 05, 03:33 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Surf wrote:
> > How come you say things here that you wouldn't say to John
> > in person?
>
> Actually other than the debate and about 10 minutes on
> either side of it when John A. was busy doing other things,
> I didn't see him in person at all.

So what, Mr. Krueger. We were scheduled to meet at the debate,
where I said what I felt needed to be said. What other opportunities
did you _need_ to speak to me? And if, as you are now saying, there
were other things you wanted to say to my face and have been saying
on r.a.o., why didn't you seek me out. The staff at the Stereophile
booth had both my schedule and my cellphone number.

If, for example, you wanted to tell me you didn't approve of my hair
style, as you have been doing on r.a.o. now that you are safely back
behind your PC, all you needed to do was contact me. Your strategy
of waiting for me to contact you to set up a subsequent meeting to
discuss my hair didn't seem to be very effective, now did it?

> John Marks as my witness I hung out in the Press room for
> several hours.

John Marks did indeed tell me at the debate that he had spoken
with you in the press room, Mr. Krueger. However, I was not in
the press room. As you said, I was "busy doing other things."

> I beleive that I may have even provided John A with my cell
> phone number, and said device was in my pocket or on my
> bedstand the whole 4 days.

In this belief, you are incorrect, Mr. Krueger. You did not
give me your cellphone number, either in person, via email,
or even via carrier pigeon. And again, how was I expected to know
you wished to confront me in person after the debate without you
letting me know? Unlike you and the other believers in
"scientism," I do not claim to have telepathic powers!

> I guess that John was afraid to face me as a rule, and now
> that the reviews and recording are kicking around, everybody
> can see the reason why.

But I _did_ face you in person, at the debate, Mr. Krueger. Do
you not remember? You (and the mouse in your pocket) were
definitely there. Or are you now claiming that the debate doesn't
count because you didn't say all the things you wished you had
said?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

May 13th 05, 03:48 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Surf wrote:
>>> How come you say things here that you wouldn't say to
John
>>> in person?
>>
>> Actually other than the debate and about 10 minutes on
>> either side of it when John A. was busy doing other
things,
>> I didn't see him in person at all.

> So what, Mr. Krueger.

Good question.

> We were scheduled to meet at the debate,
> where I said what I felt needed to be said.

As did I.

> What other opportunities did you _need_ to speak to me?

Well John, you seem to be whining about the fact that you
didn't get enough candid comments from me at the time.

>And if, as you are now saying, there
> were other things you wanted to say to my face and have
been saying
> on r.a.o., why didn't you seek me out.

Nice job John, of taking responsibility for your claims that
I somehow eluded you at HE2005.

>The staff at the Stereophile
> booth had both my schedule and my cellphone number.

And you had mine. Draw.

> If, for example, you wanted to tell me you didn't approve
of my hair
> style, as you have been doing on r.a.o. now that you are
safely back
> behind your PC, all you needed to do was contact me.

Actually, I didn't notice that until pictures of you
started popping up all over the web. BTW for the third time,
was that a rug or a bad comb-over?

> Your strategy
> of waiting for me to contact you to set up a subsequent
meeting to
> discuss my hair didn't seem to be very effective, now did
it?

I can only call you on them during or after the time when I
see them, John.

>> John Marks as my witness I hung out in the Press room for
>> several hours.

> John Marks did indeed tell me at the debate that he had
spoken
> with you in the press room, Mr. Krueger. However, I was
not in
> the press room. As you said, I was "busy doing other
things."

Did Marks mention that he found me about as candid in person
as I am on RAO?

>> I beleive that I may have even provided John A with my
cell
>> phone number, and said device was in my pocket or on my
>> bedstand the whole 4 days.

> In this belief, you are incorrect, Mr. Krueger. You did
not
> give me your cellphone number, either in person, via
email,
> or even via carrier pigeon. And again, how was I expected
to know
> you wished to confront me in person after the debate
without you
> letting me know? Unlike you and the other believers in
> "scientism," I do not claim to have telepathic powers!

Nor do I. It appears that you only decided that you needed
some face time with me after I left on the plane flight you
scheduled, John.

>> I guess that John was afraid to face me as a rule, and
now
>> that the reviews and recording are kicking around,
everybody
>> can see the reason why.

> But I _did_ face you in person, at the debate, Mr.
Krueger.

Such as you were mentally present at the time, John.

>Do you not remember?

I think the recorder remembers more accurately than I do.

>You (and the mouse in your pocket) were
> definitely there. Or are you now claiming that the debate
doesn't
> count because you didn't say all the things you wished you
had
> said?

It's quite clear that you allowed your well-known supporter
Harry Lavo to rob me of time to comment, if that is what
you are talking about, John.

dave weil

May 13th 05, 05:39 PM

On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:48:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

<snip>
>>The staff at the Stereophile
>> booth had both my schedule and my cellphone number.
>
>And you had mine. Draw.

>>> I beleive that I may have even provided John A with my
>cell
>>> phone number, and said device was in my pocket or on my
>>> bedstand the whole 4 days.

<snip>

>> In this belief, you are incorrect, Mr. Krueger. You did
>not
>> give me your cellphone number, either in person, via
>email,
>> or even via carrier pigeon. And again, how was I expected
>to know
>> you wished to confront me in person after the debate
>without you
>> letting me know? Unlike you and the other believers in
>> "scientism," I do not claim to have telepathic powers!
>
>Nor do I. It appears that you only decided that you needed
>some face time with me after I left on the plane flight you
>scheduled, John.

Note that Arnold conveniently ignores the fact that he DIDN'T give Mr.
Atkinson his cellphone number. Of course, he's not going to admit that
he attempted to lie by using a phrase like "I believe..." thereby
giving him an "out" while still implying that a factual event
happened.

I think he invented this whole thing out of whole cloth because he
didn't think that anyone would call him on it. And when Mr. Atkinson
DID, he ignored it, thinking that no one would call him on it.

Sorry.

You lose.

Again.

PS, waiting on the toady to respond, except that this time, Arnold
won't use it to answer this challenge to his account.

dave weil

May 13th 05, 05:41 PM

On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:11:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>John Atkinson wrote:
>> Surf wrote:
>>> How come you say things here that you wouldn't say to
>John
>>> in person?
>>
>> Arny has answered that question, Tom: he would have said
>> those things to me had I left a message in his hotel room
>that
>> I wanted to have a conversation with him after the debate.
>
>Still can't read, can you John?
>
>I would have talked to you at just about any reasonable
>time, before or after the debate.

Then why didn't you? Or are you saying that JA should have been a
mindreader that you still had things on your mind that you wanted to
share with him?

Oh wait, that would imply a mind...

Lionel

May 13th 05, 05:49 PM

dave weil a écrit :

>...waiting on the toady to respond

We note that you accept to wait indefinitely. ;-)

Joseph Oberlander

May 13th 05, 05:54 PM

> The blather? What's wrong with a monthly opinion section on audio in an
> audio magazine?

The WHOLE MAGAZINE is an opinion section, though.

Joseph Oberlander

May 13th 05, 05:57 PM

> That is so disheartening 'cause what we need could be just someone
> willing to look into the above qoute and objectively comment about any
> parallel relationship it may have in the matter of audio. It does not have
> to require someone of full-blown Objectivist eminence. It could be just
> someone with Objectivist caliber but who is rather a tad little bit only at
> any given time. Wouldn't you think that is just fair ?

Well, you did say "meaningfully apply", so here, no.
Maybe in a more rational forum, yes, but R.A.O. isn't
going to change anytime soon because the major four
putzes that ruin it for the rest of us are decades from
passing away.

MINe 109

May 13th 05, 06:05 PM

In article >,
Joseph Oberlander > wrote:

> > The blather? What's wrong with a monthly opinion section on audio in an
> > audio magazine?

Thanks for correcting your typo.

> The WHOLE MAGAZINE is an opinion section, though.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Of course, there are
measurements with the reviews.

Stephen

Lionel

May 13th 05, 06:17 PM

MINe 109 a écrit :

> Not that there's anything wrong with that. Of course, there are
> measurements with the reviews.

Did you ever read the comments which usually come along with
the so-called measurments ?
I bet that *without* any effort you will be able to find 2
very similar comments applyed to 2 very differents
measurments...
....This is what one names "subjectivism". :o)

Lionel

May 13th 05, 06:25 PM

Lionel a écrit :
> dave weil a écrit :
>
>> ...waiting on the toady to respond
>
>
> We note that you accept to wait indefinitely. ;-)

Does someone see the "Toady" today ?

MINe 109

May 13th 05, 07:02 PM

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> MINe 109 a écrit :
>
> > Not that there's anything wrong with that. Of course, there are
> > measurements with the reviews.
>
> Did you ever read the comments which usually come along with
> the so-called measurments ?

Often.

> I bet that *without* any effort you will be able to find 2
> very similar comments applyed to 2 very differents
> measurments...

So what? Must one invent a new vocabulary for every measurement?

> ...This is what one names "subjectivism". :o)

How do the comments change the measurements?

Stephen

ScottW

May 13th 05, 08:06 PM

They should kick your ass for the crappy job you did representing them.
Downright embarrassing.

ScottW

John Atkinson

May 13th 05, 08:13 PM

Arny Krueger wrote in message >
>John Atkinson wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Surf wrote:
>>>> How come you say things here that you wouldn't say to John
>>>> in person?
>>>
>>> Actually other than the debate and about 10 minutes on
>>> either side of it when John A. was busy doing other things,
>>> I didn't see him in person at all.
>>
>> So what, Mr. Krueger.
>
> Good question.

Thank you, Mr. Krueger.

>> We were scheduled to meet at the debate,
>> where I said what I felt needed to be said.
>
> As did I.

If that were indeed the case, Mr. Krueger, why have you then
been posting multiple demeaning and dismissive comments to this
newsgroup in response to what I said at the debate, comments that
you did not express at the debate itself?

If it was not your inability to confront me in person at the
debate, Mr. Krueger, then _what_ was preventing you from
expressing these comments to my face? So far, all you have
offered by way of explanation is that you were waiting for me
to set up a separate appointment at HE2005 where you could
make these comments, but that, frankly is ridiculous.

You made the claim, Mr. Krueger, that you are not afraid to say
to my face the things you routinely say on the newsgroups -- in
fact, giving you the opportunity to do so was one the reasons
I invited you the Show. Yet here you are dissing me, now that
you are once more tucked safely behind the safety of your PC.

>> What other opportunities did you _need_ to speak to me?
>
> Well John, you seem to be whining about the fact that you
> didn't get enough candid comments from me at the time.

Not at all, Mr. Krueger. I am merely observing that while you
are posting to the newsgroup all the things you say you
_would_ have said to my face had you had the opportunity, for
some unknown reason you found yourself unable to do so when
you _did_ indeed have that opportunity. A puzzle, don't you
agree?

>> And if, as you are now saying, there were other things you
>> wanted to say to my face and have been saying on r.a.o.,
>> why didn't you seek me out.
>
> Nice job John, of taking responsibility for your claims that
> I somehow eluded you at HE2005.

All I am saying, Mr. Krueger, is that if you wanted more face
time with me at HE2005 following the debate, you needed to have
contacted me. How was I expected to know your wishes otherwise?
How was it _my_ responsibility to arrange a second meeting? As
I said, I am not telepathic.

>> The staff at the Stereophile booth had both my schedule and
>> my cellphone number.
>
> And you had mine.

No, as I said, I didn't have your cellphone number. The only
number you had given me prior to the show, you had identified as
your "business" number, which I had assumed was a landline. When
I called it back in March to get your travel information, I got
a recorded message saying that you were out on "a service call,"
which hardly suggests it was a cellphone number.

>> If, for example, you wanted to tell me you didn't approve of
>> my hair style, as you have been doing on r.a.o. now that you
>> are safely back behind your PC, all you needed to do was
>> contact me.
>
> Actually, I didn't notice that until pictures of you
> started popping up all over the web.

So all the time I was talking to prior to the debate, during the
debate, and after the debate, you had your eyes shut tight, Mr.
Krueger?

> BTW for the third time, was that a rug or a bad comb-over?

You tell me, Mr. Krueger. You are the one for whom this seems
to be an important issue. And if it is such an issue for you, why
didn't you raise at the debate? You have already stated repeatedly
that you are not afraid to say such things to my face. Think
about what might have happened: the humor of your question would
have got the audience on your side; you could have used that to
great effect in the debate. Yet because you couldn't deal with
the face-to-face confrontation on a subject that matters so much
to you as how I have my hair cut, your presentation was perhaps
not as effective as you might have wished.

>>> I [believe] that I may have even provided John A with my cell
>>> phone number, and said device was in my pocket or on my
>>> bedstand the whole 4 days.
>>
>> In this belief, you are incorrect, Mr. Krueger. You did not
>> give me your cellphone number, either in person, via email,
>> or even via carrier pigeon. And again, how was I expected to
>> know you wished to confront me in person after the debate
>> without you letting me know? Unlike you and the other believers
>> in "scientism," I do not claim to have telepathic powers!
>
> Nor do I. It appears that you only decided that you needed
> some face time with me after I left on the plane flight you
> scheduled, John.

I didn't need any face time with you, Mr. Krueger, nor did I
ask for it. _You_ are the one who has been posting all the
comments you_would_ have made to me in person had you had an
opportunity. All I am doing, Mr.Krueger, is pointing out that
you _did_ have the opportunity but for some unknown reason you
were unable to give voice to these comments in person.

>>> I guess that John was afraid to face me as a rule, and now
>>> that the reviews and recording are kicking around, everybody
>>> can see the reason why.
>>
>> But I _did_ face you in person, at the debate, Mr. Krueger.
>
> Such as you were mentally present at the time, John.

I have no idea what you mean by this, Mr. Krueger. Or are you
merely laying the groundwork for more derogatory comments that
you would have made in person if only you had remembered to do
so?

>> Do you not remember?
>
> I think the recorder remembers more accurately than I do.

Indeed it does. It reveals that you made _no_ comments about my
hair, my work as a scientist, my experience with listening
tests, or any of the other things on which you have been
commenting on r.a.o. and claiming that the fact you didn't say
them to my face _doesn't_ mean you wouldn't have.

>> You (and the mouse in your pocket) were definitely there. Or
>> are you now claiming that the debate doesn't count because
>> you didn't say all the things you wished you had said?
>
> It's quite clear that you allowed your well-known supporter
> Harry Lavo to rob me of time to comment...

In what way? Harry Lavo, whom I do not know and have never spoken
with, offered a lengthy comment then addressed a question to me
about what kind of blind test I would accept. You then offered a
brief comment in response to Mr Lavo and myself. No-one cut you off,
or interrupted you, Mr.Krueger, as the recording clearly reveals.
You offered your comment then remained quiet. There was no set time
limit either to the debate or to your opportunity to speak, so I have
no idea what are you talking about, Mr. Krueger?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile