Straight Listening ?

[EddieM]

The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.

Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable
way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.

What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

[Jenn]

Oh boy! Duck! Incoming!!! :-)

[George Middius]

EddieM said:

>The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
>sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
>if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.


>What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

Objectively speaking, nothing is wrong with it.

It scares the crap out of the 'borgs, though. That's because They might start to
covet an evil, overpriced piece of "audio jewelry".

Bear in mind that the 'borgs don't really care about audio per se. They just
like to use the topic to wage their impotent version of class warfare. Whenever
one of Them starts ranting about "too expensive" this or "snake oil" that, try
this test: Mentally impute the class envy motive to the 'borg who's yammering
and then see how your view of Their jabber changes. Usually, you'll find that
the borgma is demagoguery, frustration, envy, or a combination of those.

In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
perfectly Normal. Why try to amputate your emotional response when you're
looking for a toy? It's Normal to maximize your enjoyment of any toy, audio or
otherwise. If you enjoy looking at something, it renders pleasure, and that's
good, right? Let the 'borgs lash themselves and wear their hairshirts. Life is
too short to punish yourself for enjoying your toys.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. ..
> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
>
> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable
> way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.
>
> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>
A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.
He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

To many other people, perhaps the majority, hifi equipment becomes the
equivalent of a pet, or a spouse, or subject to "brand loyalty", or simply
the need to defend a purchase, or an affinity for a particular look. Such
individuals are prone to the psychological phenomenon known as "cognitive
dissonance", where the individual has difficulty in resolving these
conflicting feelings.

So, IMHO, sighted listening is, for many (but not all) people, a real
impediment at arriving at the truth. On the other hand, they may not want
the truth. But I disagree with Arny that it is a universal impediment.
Perceptual acuity and objectivity are not universal constants; they vary
widely between individuals. The ability known as "perfect pitch" is an
accepted fact. By extension, it is possible that some individuals can
reliably perceive differences that others cannot. "Perfect pitch" does not
depend upon hearing acuity; it is in the brain. By analogy, the ability to
hear differences between subtly different components, such as amplifiers,
cannot be assumed to depend solely upon hearing acuity.

This may explain why some people consider QSC amplifiers to be satisfactory
audio devices. To me, they are horrible, and plainly so. It has nothing to
do with the way they look. Hafler professional amplifiers are made of
thin-gauge metal, with equally unimpressive cosmetics, yet I find them
highly acceptable. Unfortunately, a person who sets himself up as an expert
would have to be quite exceptional to admit to himself and others that there
are differences he cannot hear that plainly matter to other people. In this
regard, Arny is simply an average individual. In spite of his unremitting
belligerence, his insistence that he is a perceptive equal is merely typical
of people at large. Arny is an "average", belligerent, joe.

The ability to observe can be acquired. I know this by a simple fact: in my
early years of hifidom, I was far less capable to discern subtle
differences, even though my hearing was exceptional.

[Jenn]

Robert Morein wrote:
> A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
conclusions
> seem to have objective accuracy.
> He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are
translatable by
> me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my
buddy is
> exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
> equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.
>
> To many other people, perhaps the majority, hifi equipment becomes
the
> equivalent of a pet, or a spouse, or subject to "brand loyalty", or
simply
> the need to defend a purchase, or an affinity for a particular look.
Such
> individuals are prone to the psychological phenomenon known as
"cognitive
> dissonance", where the individual has difficulty in resolving these
> conflicting feelings.
>
> So, IMHO, sighted listening is, for many (but not all) people, a real
> impediment at arriving at the truth. On the other hand, they may not
want
> the truth. But I disagree with Arny that it is a universal
impediment.
> Perceptual acuity and objectivity are not universal constants; they
vary
> widely between individuals. The ability known as "perfect pitch" is
an
> accepted fact. By extension, it is possible that some individuals can
> reliably perceive differences that others cannot. "Perfect pitch"
does not
> depend upon hearing acuity; it is in the brain. By analogy, the
ability to
> hear differences between subtly different components, such as
amplifiers,
> cannot be assumed to depend solely upon hearing acuity.
>
> This may explain why some people consider QSC amplifiers to be
satisfactory
> audio devices. To me, they are horrible, and plainly so. It has
nothing to
> do with the way they look. Hafler professional amplifiers are made of
> thin-gauge metal, with equally unimpressive cosmetics, yet I find
them
> highly acceptable. Unfortunately, a person who sets himself up as an
expert
> would have to be quite exceptional to admit to himself and others
that there
> are differences he cannot hear that plainly matter to other people.
In this
> regard, Arny is simply an average individual. In spite of his
unremitting
> belligerence, his insistence that he is a perceptive equal is merely
typical
> of people at large. Arny is an "average", belligerent, joe.
>
> The ability to observe can be acquired. I know this by a simple fact:
in my
> early years of hifidom, I was far less capable to discern subtle
> differences, even though my hearing was exceptional.

Robert, thank you for these remarks. I think that your thoughts here
are very near to mine. I've been involved in a discussion over at
rec.audio.hi-end that is, uh, "interesting."

I agree that sighted listening can influence a judgement. There are
people who are greatly influenced by the pedigree of a piece of
equipment, i.e. price, flashing lights, size, brand reputation, etc.
But I agree with what you seem to be saying, in that I don't think that
sighted listening is a univeral impediment. But, I also have found
that CD players sound quite different one from another, so to many, I'm
simply imagining things. I have found in my profession (I'm a
conductor and college music prof.) that people DO have different
listening abiliities. Some of these differences come naturally
(perfect pitch for example) and others by experience and training (good
relative pitch for example). I happen to be really sensitive to
differences in the tone quality of instruments and voices, and audio
equipment that doesn't get that right drives me crazy. This, or
course, influences my opinions about audio equipment. I "hear" no
better than do other people; but due to training, experience, and the
way my particular brain works, I hear things that others don't seem to
hear. The same can be said about my conductoral colleagues; we're
simply trained to hear differnetly and in great detail. It doesn't
make us "better" but it does make us different than most, in my
opinion. Some people believe that experience in hear live music as
much as I do has nothing to do with listening to audio equipment; that
somehow listening to music is different in depending on where you are
listening to it (I DON'T mean here differences in room acoustics, of
course.) I simply believe that if you can tell the differences in tone
color live, you can also detect those differneces in stereo equipment.
Others strongly disagree. It all boils down to opinion, and opinion is
at least partially informed by experience with one's idea of audio
perfection, in my case, that is live acoustic music.

I look forward to seeing how this discussion pans out. Thanks for your
post.

[Carl Valle]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
> EddieM said:
>
>>The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
>>sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
>>if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
>
>
>>What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>
> Objectively speaking, nothing is wrong with it.
>
> It scares the crap out of the 'borgs, though. That's because They might
> start to
> covet an evil, overpriced piece of "audio jewelry".
>
> Bear in mind that the 'borgs don't really care about audio per se. They
> just
> like to use the topic to wage their impotent version of class warfare.
> Whenever
> one of Them starts ranting about "too expensive" this or "snake oil" that,
> try
> this test: Mentally impute the class envy motive to the 'borg who's
> yammering
> and then see how your view of Their jabber changes. Usually, you'll find
> that
> the borgma is demagoguery, frustration, envy, or a combination of those.
>
> In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
> perfectly Normal. Why try to amputate your emotional response when you're
> looking for a toy? It's Normal to maximize your enjoyment of any toy,
> audio or
> otherwise. If you enjoy looking at something, it renders pleasure, and
> that's
> good, right? Let the 'borgs lash themselves and wear their hairshirts.
> Life is
> too short to punish yourself for enjoying your toys.
>

You are correct. Part of the joy in owning even moderate gear comes from the
visual aspects of design.
I also like the way some of my gear smells. Whatever rocks your boat...

Carl

[EddieM]

> George Middius wrote
>> EddieM said:
>
>
>
>>The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
>>sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
>>if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
>
>
>>What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>
> Objectively speaking, nothing is wrong with it.
>
> It scares the crap out of the 'borgs, though. That's because They might
> start to
> covet an evil, overpriced piece of "audio jewelry".


That is one possibility, no doubt, as I read the writings over time here and
there.


> Bear in mind that the 'borgs don't really care about audio per se. They just
> like to use the topic to wage their impotent version of class warfare.
> Whenever
> one of Them starts ranting about "too expensive" this or "snake oil" that,
> try
> this test: Mentally impute the class envy motive to the 'borg who's
> yammering
> and then see how your view of Their jabber changes. Usually, you'll find
> that
> the borgma is demagoguery, frustration, envy, or a combination of those.
>
> In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
> perfectly Normal. Why try to amputate your emotional response when you're
> looking for a toy? It's Normal to maximize your enjoyment of any toy, audio
> or
> otherwise. If you enjoy looking at something, it renders pleasure, and
> that's
> good, right? Let the 'borgs lash themselves and wear their hairshirts. Life
> is
> too short to punish yourself for enjoying your toys.



However obvious the motives were, I'd also like to assume somehow
that there might be a sensible reasoning behind their testimony that it is
better to depend on scientifically valid methods to determine if certain
equipment
truly sound different. It's been claimed that in sighted evaluation, the
listener is
susceptible to so many biases that they are easily swayed by these biases
which
negatively affect their ability to choose without prejudice.


I am not at all shifting to discuss abx/dbt here nor am I suggesting it's a
valid
alternative. I'm simply attempting to expound in their declaration that
sighted
evaluation is not a scientifically valid process. Why is the process itself
invalid ?

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. ..

> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more
specifically,
> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process
for determining
> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound
different.


> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is
not a reliable
> way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing
acuity.

> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

Nothing, depending on the situation.

The problem with sighted listening is that when the
differences are small, it can be very unreliable.

[George Middius]

EddieM said:

> I'm simply attempting to expound in their declaration that
> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process.
> Why is the process invalid ?

Because it has nothing to do with "science".

Science is for scientists. It has nothing to do with choosing toys, unless
you're an anally retentive nerd who is too insecure to embrace your own
feelings.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein AKA bad scientist said:

"A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.

Isn't that a lovely ANECDOTE.

He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable
by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy
is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty."

Why mention it? You know full well it is not relevant to the subject
at hand.

"So, IMHO, sighted listening is, for many (but not all) people, a real
impediment at arriving at the truth. On the other hand, they may not
want
the truth. But I disagree with Arny that it is a universal impediment.
Perceptual acuity and objectivity are not universal constants; they
vary
widely between individuals.

Precisely the reason for controlling bias.

The ability known as "perfect pitch" is an
accepted fact.


Is that the same as Urbam Myth?

By extension, it is possible that some individuals can
reliably perceive differences that others cannot. "Perfect pitch" does
not
depend upon hearing acuity; it is in the brain. By analogy, the ability
to
hear differences between subtly different components, such as
amplifiers,
cannot be assumed to depend solely upon hearing acuity"

Another reason to control bias.

[Carl Valle]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
> conclusions
>> seem to have objective accuracy.
>> He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are
> translatable by
>> me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my
> buddy is
>> exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
>> equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.
>>
>> To many other people, perhaps the majority, hifi equipment becomes
> the
>> equivalent of a pet, or a spouse, or subject to "brand loyalty", or
> simply
>> the need to defend a purchase, or an affinity for a particular look.
> Such
>> individuals are prone to the psychological phenomenon known as
> "cognitive
>> dissonance", where the individual has difficulty in resolving these
>> conflicting feelings.
>>
>> So, IMHO, sighted listening is, for many (but not all) people, a real
>> impediment at arriving at the truth. On the other hand, they may not
> want
>> the truth. But I disagree with Arny that it is a universal
> impediment.
>> Perceptual acuity and objectivity are not universal constants; they
> vary
>> widely between individuals. The ability known as "perfect pitch" is
> an
>> accepted fact. By extension, it is possible that some individuals can
>> reliably perceive differences that others cannot. "Perfect pitch"
> does not
>> depend upon hearing acuity; it is in the brain. By analogy, the
> ability to
>> hear differences between subtly different components, such as
> amplifiers,
>> cannot be assumed to depend solely upon hearing acuity.
>>
>> This may explain why some people consider QSC amplifiers to be
> satisfactory
>> audio devices. To me, they are horrible, and plainly so. It has
> nothing to
>> do with the way they look. Hafler professional amplifiers are made of
>> thin-gauge metal, with equally unimpressive cosmetics, yet I find
> them
>> highly acceptable. Unfortunately, a person who sets himself up as an
> expert
>> would have to be quite exceptional to admit to himself and others
> that there
>> are differences he cannot hear that plainly matter to other people.
> In this
>> regard, Arny is simply an average individual. In spite of his
> unremitting
>> belligerence, his insistence that he is a perceptive equal is merely
> typical
>> of people at large. Arny is an "average", belligerent, joe.
>>
>> The ability to observe can be acquired. I know this by a simple fact:
> in my
>> early years of hifidom, I was far less capable to discern subtle
>> differences, even though my hearing was exceptional.
>
> Robert, thank you for these remarks. I think that your thoughts here
> are very near to mine. I've been involved in a discussion over at
> rec.audio.hi-end that is, uh, "interesting."
>
> I agree that sighted listening can influence a judgement. There are
> people who are greatly influenced by the pedigree of a piece of
> equipment, i.e. price, flashing lights, size, brand reputation, etc.
> But I agree with what you seem to be saying, in that I don't think that
> sighted listening is a univeral impediment. But, I also have found
> that CD players sound quite different one from another, so to many, I'm
> simply imagining things. I have found in my profession (I'm a
> conductor and college music prof.) that people DO have different
> listening abiliities. Some of these differences come naturally
> (perfect pitch for example) and others by experience and training (good
> relative pitch for example). I happen to be really sensitive to
> differences in the tone quality of instruments and voices, and audio
> equipment that doesn't get that right drives me crazy. This, or
> course, influences my opinions about audio equipment. I "hear" no
> better than do other people; but due to training, experience, and the
> way my particular brain works, I hear things that others don't seem to
> hear. The same can be said about my conductoral colleagues; we're
> simply trained to hear differnetly and in great detail. It doesn't
> make us "better" but it does make us different than most, in my
> opinion. Some people believe that experience in hear live music as
> much as I do has nothing to do with listening to audio equipment; that
> somehow listening to music is different in depending on where you are
> listening to it (I DON'T mean here differences in room acoustics, of
> course.) I simply believe that if you can tell the differences in tone
> color live, you can also detect those differneces in stereo equipment.
> Others strongly disagree. It all boils down to opinion, and opinion is
> at least partially informed by experience with one's idea of audio
> perfection, in my case, that is live acoustic music.
>
> I look forward to seeing how this discussion pans out. Thanks for your
> post.
>

I believe that many high end designs, particularly analog, turntables, tape
decks, and such were designed not only with sound but also asthetic goals in
mind. Similarly, if you have Krell, and want to add a piece I see no reason
not to go with brand loyalty. Most of the differences in audible sound of
these designs is so minor that nothing is really lost.
Aside from perfect pitch, I think most of audio is a learned or trained
process. I know several string players that can hear the differences between
certain strings. I can not. But I can tell a trumpet from a coronet, a feat
which most audiophiles will find difficult. It is simply that I play these
instruments and have for 50 years. I have grown very trained in this
particular area.
There is no doubt that, given certain recordings, it is quite possible to
acheive a level of perfection of reproduction that can be very close to live
performance. I have a piano recording that does this on my system. For the
most part compromise rules the day. It is also possible that having a great
deal of experience in live music as you do, that you are able to compensate
these "known" quantities mentally. Performing live music will in essence,
make a good system sound better for some listeners.
That is not to say that recreating a live experience is neccessarily a goal.

Carl

[Jenn]

wrote:
> Robert Morein AKA bad scientist said:
> The ability known as "perfect pitch" is an
> accepted fact.
>
>
> Is that the same as Urbam Myth?

No.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "EddieM" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more
> specifically,
>> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process
> for determining
>> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound
> different.
>
>
>> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is
> not a reliable
>> way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing
> acuity.
>
>> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>
> Nothing, depending on the situation.
>
> The problem with sighted listening is that when the
> differences are small, it can be very unreliable.
>
Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far more components fall
into the class of "small differences" than I do. "Jenn" agrees with me that,
depending upon the individual, this class varies.

It is undoubtedly the case that many people select equipment based on
irrational influences. Even unseen, the brand/cost of an item, the
recommendation of a salesman, or peer pressure, can influence the decision.
In many cases, the decision is made by a wealthy person who has more money
than experience or perceptual ability.
So what is it that makes this issue so inflammatory and polarizing? THe
exploitation of the concept of "unique sound" by the merchandising
establishment is one cause of irritation. On the other hand, there is the
enjoyment of audiophiles in the exchange of anecdotal listening experiences.
When this activity is condemned on the basis of inadequate controls, it
interferes with the social experience of the hobby.

Some people may wish to keep this argument going forever, because some
people like to argue. Personally, I would be quite satisified if my advice
to others in this forum about hifi choices were not attacked because of the
lack of scientific controls. A person should not be criticized for lack of
authoritative proof unless he claims to be authoritative. Then, an entirely
different standard applies.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Carl Valle" > wrote:

> But I can tell a trumpet from a coronet, a feat
> which most audiophiles will find difficult.

Well, one's a brass instrument and the other's a crown for the
high-ranking but not sovereign.

> It is simply that I play these
> instruments and have for 50 years. I have grown very trained in this
> particular area.

You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't really know
what your instrument sounds like and can rely on audience response to
develop your tone and interpretation.

Stephen

[Jenn]

MINe 109 wrote:
> You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't really know
> what your instrument sounds like and can rely on audience response to
> develop your tone and interpretation.

Bologna.

[George M. Middius]

Carl Valle said:

> I believe that many high end designs, particularly analog, turntables, tape
> decks, and such were designed not only with sound but also asthetic goals in
> mind.

Of course they were. The aesthetic aspect of high-end audio galls the 'borgs
no end. To Them, something that is both expensive *and* attractive is doubly
sinful. They can't help bemoaning the "extra expense" that a beautiful
design entails. To The, a properly moral piece of audio gear not only is
drab and utilitarian, it also looks drab and utilitarian. The less room for
subjectivity, the better the Krooborg likes it.

[MINe 109]

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

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't really know
> > what your instrument sounds like and can rely on audience response to
> > develop your tone and interpretation.
>
> Bologna.

Begin quote:

>Are we to suppose that Horowitz was simply lucky in that the technique
>that produced the nuances he liked close up also happened to produce
>sounds that the audience liked, though he didn't know what the latter
>sounded like?

No luck involved, merely observation and attention combined, of course,
with a formidable talent.

>All musicians have to have at least a tacit sense of what is being
>projected to the audience.

Which he or she can get from the audience feedback. *He doesn't have to
have any first hand knowlege of what the audience actually hears, only
of what they like.

__

End quote.

Complete nonsense, of course. My reply to the other forum is lost in the
ether, but it included the thought that I wouldn't have needed all those
years of study to acquire my performing skills if I'd known this.

Stephen

[Jenn]

MINe 109 wrote:
> Complete nonsense, of course. My reply to the other forum is lost in the
> ether, but it included the thought that I wouldn't have needed all those
> years of study to acquire my performing skills if I'd known this.

Opps, mea culpa. I remembered that part of the discussion, but I forgot
your sig, and therefore didn't relate that contribution to you. :-)

[MINe 109]

In article om>,
"Jenn" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > Complete nonsense, of course. My reply to the other forum is lost in the
> > ether, but it included the thought that I wouldn't have needed all those
> > years of study to acquire my performing skills if I'd known this.
>
> Opps, mea culpa. I remembered that part of the discussion, but I forgot
> your sig, and therefore didn't relate that contribution to you. :-)

Thanks, but not to worry: it's literally lost and never got posted! I
didn't try again because the post you recall did a better job of
covering my points.

Another post that got lost related my recent experience when I asked
rhetorically if I were wrong to think my two cd players sounded
different. Short answer from the usual suspects: yes!

While musicians are not immune from fooling themselves, it seems insane
to say they don't have sophisticated listening abilities.

Stephen

[Jenn]

MINe 109 wrote:
> Another post that got lost related my recent experience when I asked
> rhetorically if I were wrong to think my two cd players sounded
> different. Short answer from the usual suspects: yes!

LOL I'm "shocked"!

Best wishes, Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> >> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more
> > specifically,
> >> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid
process
> > for determining
> >> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound
> > different.
> >
> >
> >> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening
is
> > not a reliable
> >> way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing
> > acuity.
> >
> >> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
> >
> > Nothing, depending on the situation.
> >
> > The problem with sighted listening is that when the
> > differences are small, it can be very unreliable.
> >
> Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
> The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far
more components fall
> into the class of "small differences" than I do. "Jenn"
agrees with me that,
> depending upon the individual, this class varies.

That's easy to resolve. No harm is done if you treat a
larger difference like it was a smaller difference. The
worst that can happen is that the small difference-oriented
test gives an outstandingly strong positive result for
differences.

[Arny Krueger]

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
...


> > I have found in my profession (I'm a
> > conductor and college music prof.) that people DO have
different
> > listening abiliities.

Given how they fail DBTs, it would be the Golden Ears that
lack the necessary hearing abilities. No doubt their
reliance on sight as a crutch has caused their ablities to
listen critically to atrophy and die. Other evidence that
supports this hypothesis includes the fact that so many of
them can't hear what's wrong with vinyl and tubed equipment,
particularly SETs.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...

> You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't
really know
> what your instrument sounds like.

This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared to
what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
distorted version of the music he makes.

> and can rely on audience response to develop your tone
and interpretation.

I would think that one learns that from one's teachers and
cohorts.

[[email protected]]

EddieM wrote:
> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.




This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And
should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on
audibility of different components they had better do their testing db
if they wish it to be taken seriously by science. I for one am not
looking to do scientific research. Are you?





>
> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable
> way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.


That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.







>
> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?




Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research.




Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > > I have found in my profession (I'm a
> > > conductor and college music prof.) that people DO have
> different
> > > listening abiliities.
>
> Given how they fail DBTs, it would be the Golden Ears that
> lack the necessary hearing abilities.



An interesting comment. I didn't know audiophiles were required to pass
a dbt. Are you passing those same tests?




No doubt their
> reliance on sight as a crutch has caused their ablities to
> listen critically to atrophy and die.



Really? Your logic is, of course, crap. But you are suggesting that
some people are not skilled at dbts. do you believe this to be true?
That some people will hear differences in abx dbts while others will
not hear them?




Other evidence that
> supports this hypothesis includes the fact that so many of
> them can't hear what's wrong with vinyl and tubed equipment,
> particularly SETs.


Have you done db comparisons for preference between these components
and the ones you favor?





Scott Wheeler

[Lionel]

George "Mona Lisa" Middius wrote :

> To Them, something that is both expensive *and* attractive
> is doubly sinful.

You are wrong George... this is only because we are nonconformist trash
punks !!!

Example : this is why I prefer this picture of you rather than the very
expensive original.

http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/images/lists/work/203_3_lg.jpg

Do you understand NOW ?
Eh idiot ?

:-D

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. ..
> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
>
> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable
> way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.
>
> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>
You are all disgusting ****heads, with your petty arguments.
Science rules here, and you are all in the dumpster, with the possible
exception of Krueger.

Intellectual RIPOFF ALERT!

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > >
> > >> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more
> > > specifically,
> > >> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid
> process
> > > for determining
> > >> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound
> > > different.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening
> is
> > > not a reliable
> > >> way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing
> > > acuity.
> > >
> > >> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
> > >
> > > Nothing, depending on the situation.
> > >
> > > The problem with sighted listening is that when the
> > > differences are small, it can be very unreliable.
> > >
> > Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
> > The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far
> more components fall
> > into the class of "small differences" than I do. "Jenn"
> agrees with me that,
> > depending upon the individual, this class varies.
>
> That's easy to resolve. No harm is done if you treat a
> larger difference like it was a smaller difference. The
> worst that can happen is that the small difference-oriented
> test gives an outstandingly strong positive result for
> differences.
>
The harm comes when, in response to my statement that I despise the sound of
QSC amps, which is actually my specific position with respect to those amps,
you attempt to disqualify my comment from consideration.
By my own standards, my comment cannot be considered authoritative, but it
is still worth consideration by a prospective buyer. Naturally, he should
qualify it with his own ears. If he can't hear the difference that I am so
sure I hear, he should go with his ears and save some money.

ABX is POTENTIALLY (note emphasis) a more accurate method of testing than
sighted comparison, yet, if I understand you correctly, it has lead you to
make the incorrectly formed, and to me, manifestly untrue statement, "All
properly operating amplifiers sound the same." Something is wrong here. All
methods of investigation can be contaminated by bad assumptions. If you were
less certain of what you purport to prove, your results would be more
interesting.

Ultimately, it takes a minimum of three ingredients to be a good scientist:
1. Good experimental procedure
2. An unbiased attitude
3. An open mind
You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a good scientist. If you
were repudiated in a way that resulted in widespread, definitive rejection
of what you think is true, it would be a major blow to your ego. Your ego is
too wrapped up in this.
For me, arguing my beliefs, baiting the bears, and taking it on the chin in
this group is a diversion. It's like sparring for exercise.
What is it for you? What make you think that all these middle aged guys, who
like to play with their toys, would benefit in any meaningful way from your
work? Has it ever occurred to you that if you actually did convince them
there was no magic, that their lives might be worse?

[Schizoid Man]

> wrote in message

> You are all disgusting ****heads, with your petty arguments.
> Science rules here

Have I ever denied that science 'rules'? Perhaps you need a lesson in
reading comprehension.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:

EddieM said:



>>The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
>>sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
>>if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
>>What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?


>Objectively speaking, nothing is wrong with it.

>It scares the crap out of the 'borgs, though. That's because They might start to
>covet an evil, overpriced piece of "audio jewelry".


>Bear in mind that the 'borgs don't really care about audio per se. They just
>like to use the topic to wage their impotent version of class warfare. Whenever
>one of Them starts ranting about "too expensive" this or "snake oil" that, try
>this test: Mentally impute the class envy motive to the 'borg who's yammering
>and then see how your view of Their jabber changes. Usually, you'll find that
>the borgma is demagoguery, frustration, envy, or a combination of those.

What I think you're missing Mr. Middius, is the fact that those you
call Borgs, are at least as interested in top quality sound as any of
those you call "Normals." If there really were a piece of audio
jewelry, as you call it, that would help in that search, it would be
the Borgs endorsing it and promoting it here.

The class warfare idea is really something that lives in the heart of
your fellow Normals. It is they who love to trumpet how their newest
bit of overpriced, underperforming audio "jewelry" got them a more life
like audio experience. They have to, in order to justify their
constant "upgrades."

I think those you call Borgs are the ones who sleep best and enjoy
their stereo more, because they know that their systems perform as they
are supposed to and they know more about proper setup and how to
optimize the sound than a roomful of your "Normals."

>In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
>perfectly Normal. Why try to amputate your emotional response when you're
>looking for a toy? It's Normal to maximize your enjoyment of any toy, audio or
>otherwise. If you enjoy looking at something, it renders pleasure, and that's
>good, right? Let the 'borgs lash themselves and wear their hairshirts. Life is
>too short to punish yourself for enjoying your toys.

The thing about sighted evaluation, is that it just doesn't tell you
much about the things that Normals like to brag about.

Borgs know that if they think there might be a reason to upgrade, doing
a blind comparison is much more likely to reveal the possible
differences they're interested in, than sighted ones.

[[email protected]]

Some forger wrote:

You are all disgusting ****heads, with your petty arguments.
Science rules here, and you are all in the dumpster, with the possible
exception of Krueger.

Intellectual RIPOFF ALERT!


The ripoff is from a coward like you who can't use his or her own
identity to make your snotty comments.

[Joseph Oberlander]

EddieM wrote:

> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.

Technically the claim is that sighted tests *can* introduce
unfavorable pre-bais to the equation. A sighted evaluation
can in theory work as well as a sighted one(say if the
person in question has never heard of or cares about the
two options in question) But being 100% or even 80% objective
is rare unles you have a Ben Stein type personality :)

[Joseph Oberlander]

Robert Morein wrote:

> "EddieM" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
>>sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
>>if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
>>
>>Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable
>>way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.
>>
>>What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>>
>
> A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
> seem to have objective accuracy.
> He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
> me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
> exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
> equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

Ie - he thinks it's equally crap. Lol. Actually a nice way
to go into any test, if a bit cynical.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George Middius wrote:

> In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
> perfectly Normal.

The problem is that they then refuse to admit and/or adjust
for the fact that their emotions are involved. They suddenly
ACT like objective experts when they state their opinion.

Even stating it like "I think the whole experience was better
taking all audio and visual factors into consideration, with
brand X."

[Joseph Oberlander]

MINe 109 wrote:

> In article >,
> "Carl Valle" > wrote:
>
>
>>But I can tell a trumpet from a coronet, a feat
>>which most audiophiles will find difficult.
>
>
> Well, one's a brass instrument and the other's a crown for the
> high-ranking but not sovereign.

Not quite. Heh. It's kind of like telling the difference
between a clarinet and an alto clarinet by tone alone.
Or hearing the harmonic interactions between members in a
chior and knowing how to rearrange them to get a specific
sound.

Lots of training. I spent my youth playing music and
singing, for instance, instead of playing video games.
btw - #1 thing you can do to make your child better
in all aspects of their life...

Toss that gaming console. T.V. too if you are so bold.

[Tim Martin]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared to
> what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
> distorted version of the music he makes.

Let's consider direct sound from a smallish ensemble with a conductor, and
ignore the ear's different sensity to different frequencies.

On the conductor's left, six feet away, is a violin; on the conductor's
right, twelve feet away, is a double bass. Behind the conductor, twenty
four feet from both violin and double bass, is a listener. The violin is
about .75 feet from the performer's ear; the double bass is about three
feet from the performer's ear; and the violin and bass are about eighteen
feet from each other.

The conductor has the players play so that the sound intensity of both
instruments is the same as he hears it - say 70dB.

The violinist will har the violin at 88dB and the double bass at about 67dB;
the bassist will hear the double-bass at 82dB and the violin at 64dB. The
listener in the audience will hear the violin at 58dB and the double bass at
64dB.

I'd say the notion that live performances can match hi-fi standards is
implausible ... :-)

Tim

[Tim Martin]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> Not quite. Heh. It's kind of like telling the difference
> between a clarinet and an alto clarinet by tone alone.

My daughter is in a clarinet quartet; my wife tells me she can hear the
difference between my daughter's Le Blanc Opus and another player's Buffet
R13 ... both top-quality professional orchestral instruments.

Tim

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..

> > > >> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
> > > >
> > > > Nothing, depending on the situation.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with sighted listening is that when the
> > > > differences are small, it can be very unreliable.
> > > >
> > > Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
> > > The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far
more components fall
> > > into the class of "small differences" than I do.
"Jenn" agrees with me that,
> > > depending upon the individual, this class varies.

> > That's easy to resolve. No harm is done if you treat a
> > larger difference like it was a smaller difference. The
> > worst that can happen is that the small
difference-oriented
> > test gives an outstandingly strong positive result for
> > differences.

> The harm comes when, in response to my statement that I
despise the sound of
> QSC amps, which is actually my specific position with
respect to those amps,
> you attempt to disqualify my comment from consideration.

Not really, "Arny is a bad Scientist" Robert. Your statement
disqualifies itself. Obviously, it is based on your hatred
and pent-up desire to attack me and try to destroy my
credibility any way you can.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said to ****-for-Brains:

> You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a good scientist. If you
> were repudiated in a way that resulted in widespread, definitive rejection
> of what you think is true, it would be a major blow to your ego. Your ego is
> too wrapped up in this.

Can we dispense, once and for all, with the fiction that Arnii Krooger has
some connection to human-style science? He's a religious zealot, pure and
simple. He has co-opted a few notions and phrases from the world of science,
then twisted and malformed them to suit his narrow agenda. Look at his
pseudo-scientific claims about amplifiers sounding the same. It's all based
on a few shreds of data, unsubstantiated by any rigorous investigation. It
boils down to nothing more than "At some point, some individuals were unable
to distinguish some amps under some conditions." Calling that science is
like calling a pancake that resembles an image of "Virgin Mary" a miracle.

If you compare Krooger's scieenecncce **** with real science, you have to
laugh. Compare it with the so-called "intelligent design" dogma, and you get
a lot of parallels.


> What is it for you? What make you think that all these middle aged guys, who
> like to play with their toys, would benefit in any meaningful way from your
> work? Has it ever occurred to you that if you actually did convince them
> there was no magic, that their lives might be worse?

This notion is totally lost on the Krooborg. His mental illness is so
entrenched that he doesn't even recognize the concept of enjoying life.
Haven't you heard The Tape?

[George M. Middius]

Joseph O'Blather said:

> > In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
> > perfectly Normal.

> The problem is that they then refuse to admit and/or adjust
> for the fact that their emotions are involved. They suddenly
> ACT like objective experts when they state their opinion.

You are SUCH a dork.

I'm not even going to try to hack through this garbage. You are too far gone
to be reached by reason.

[MINe 109]

In article t>,
Joseph Oberlander > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Carl Valle" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>But I can tell a trumpet from a coronet, a feat
> >>which most audiophiles will find difficult.
> >
> >
> > Well, one's a brass instrument and the other's a crown for the
> > high-ranking but not sovereign.
>
> Not quite.

Quite. He's talking about the cornet. You know, conical bore, different
tone.

> Heh. It's kind of like telling the difference
> between a clarinet and an alto clarinet by tone alone.

Doable, if you're a professional clarinet player.

> Or hearing the harmonic interactions between members in a
> chior and knowing how to rearrange them to get a specific
> sound.

Almost got me with that one, but I figured out what you meant.

> Lots of training. I spent my youth playing music and
> singing, for instance, instead of playing video games.
> btw - #1 thing you can do to make your child better
> in all aspects of their life...
>
> Toss that gaming console. T.V. too if you are so bold.

What is this, how do you say, "gaming console?"

Stephen, who didn't buy a VCR until 2003.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't
> really know
> > what your instrument sounds like.
>
> This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared to
> what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
> distorted version of the music he makes.

This is true but it doesn't change that the musician has a sophisticated
expectation of what the instrument should sound like.

Musicians develop an "outside ear."

> > and can rely on audience response to develop your tone
> and interpretation.
>
> I would think that one learns that from one's teachers and
> cohorts.

Different.

Stephen

[George Middius]

The Big **** thumps its tin drum.

>Given how they fail DBTs

In human science, a DBT is an investigative tool. For Krooger and his
kracked-brain religion, it's a morality litmus test.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius schrieb:
> Robert Morein said to ****-for-Brains:
>
> > You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a good scientist. If you
> > were repudiated in a way that resulted in widespread, definitive rejection
> > of what you think is true, it would be a major blow to your ego. Your ego is
> > too wrapped up in this.
>
> Can we dispense, once and for all, with the fiction that Arnii Krooger has
> some connection to human-style science? He's a religious zealot, pure and
> simple. He has co-opted a few notions and phrases from the world of science,
> then twisted and malformed them to suit his narrow agenda. Look at his
> pseudo-scientific claims about amplifiers sounding the same. It's all based
> on a few shreds of data, unsubstantiated by any rigorous investigation. It
> boils down to nothing more than "At some point, some individuals were unable
> to distinguish some amps under some conditions." Calling that science is
> like calling a pancake that resembles an image of "Virgin Mary" a miracle.
>
> If you compare Krooger's scieenecncce **** with real science, you have to
> laugh. Compare it with the so-called "intelligent design" dogma, and you get
> a lot of parallels.
>
>
> > What is it for you? What make you think that all these middle aged guys, who
> > like to play with their toys, would benefit in any meaningful way from your
> > work? Has it ever occurred to you that if you actually did convince them
> > there was no magic, that their lives might be worse?
>
> This notion is totally lost on the Krooborg. His mental illness is so
> entrenched that he doesn't even recognize the concept of enjoying life.
> Haven't you heard The Tape?
>
>
What is this "The Tape"?

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
> conclusions
> > seem to have objective accuracy.
> > He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are
> translatable by
> > me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my
> buddy is
> > exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
> > equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.
> >
> > To many other people, perhaps the majority, hifi equipment becomes
> the
> > equivalent of a pet, or a spouse, or subject to "brand loyalty", or
> simply
> > the need to defend a purchase, or an affinity for a particular look.
> Such
> > individuals are prone to the psychological phenomenon known as
> "cognitive
> > dissonance", where the individual has difficulty in resolving these
> > conflicting feelings.
> >
> > So, IMHO, sighted listening is, for many (but not all) people, a real
> > impediment at arriving at the truth.

Sighted tests have a variable, namely what happens when the person can
see what's happening, that can be easily eliminated. So it makes sense
to eliminate that variable by using blind testing, in all senses of
that phrase. I can't think of any real reason not to use blind testing;
it would make sense to me that those who consider their listening
ability to be superior would welcome any method (such as blind testing)
that helps the subject focus on hearing and avoid other distractions.

OTOH, for most folks, audio is just a hobby, so it's OK by me that most
folks don't use blind testing when selecting audio gear.

(snip)

> I agree that sighted listening can influence a judgement. There are
> people who are greatly influenced by the pedigree of a piece of
> equipment, i.e. price, flashing lights, size, brand reputation, etc.

And there are other expectations and other things (conscious and
unconscious) in sighted testing that can influence the listener. But as
I said above, most people buying home audio gear are hobbyists and
there's no real need for rigorous testing, given that they just want
gear that pleases them in whatever ways they care about, which could
include the looks, price, etc. of gear, not just how it sounds.

(snip)

> I look forward to seeing how this discussion pans out.

This sort of subject has a long history in RAO, going back a decade or
more. If you want to read more, search newsgroups via Google.com.

(snip)

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't
> really know
> > what your instrument sounds like.
>
> This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared to
> what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
> distorted version of the music he makes.

A professional instrumentalist or vocalist knows VERY well the sound of
his/her music making, as well as that if others. Our ability to
succeed in the business depends on it.

[[email protected]]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Carl Valle" > wrote:

(snip)

>I spent my youth playing music and
> singing, for instance, instead of playing video games.

We have a PC that the kids can play games on, but I refuse to buy a
games-only machine, such as an Xbox, PlayStation, etc. Just don't want
to enable more possible addictions in front of screens.

> btw - #1 thing you can do to make your child better
> in all aspects of their life...
>
> Toss that gaming console. T.V. too if you are so bold.

Various rambling comments...

Suggested reading: the book "The Plug-In Drug." Was updated a few years
ago to include PC use. Speaking as a parent, it seems to me that the
less time a child spends online, and the less screen time in general,
the happier and more interesting the kids are.

BTW, I use depriving kids of the PC as a punishment, which works well,
because after the initial gripes, the kids are happier and more fun to
be around. Sometimes I wish the kids would do something so bad I'd have
to take away PC use for a year or two.

Actual audio content: Now listening to Coldplay's "A Rush of Blood to
the Head" via Grado SR40 headphones plugged into PC's headphone output.
Looking forward to new Coldplay CD this year. No, I haven't done blind
tests of my various headphones! ;-)

[Jenn]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Carl Valle" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>But I can tell a trumpet from a coronet, a feat
> >>which most audiophiles will find difficult.
> >
> >
> > Well, one's a brass instrument and the other's a crown for the
> > high-ranking but not sovereign.
>
> Not quite. Heh. It's kind of like telling the difference
> between a clarinet and an alto clarinet by tone alone.

Or even trickier, but certainly possible for those with experience and
training, is the difference between an alto clarinet and a basset horn.

> Or hearing the harmonic interactions between members in a
> chior and knowing how to rearrange them to get a specific
> sound.
>
> Lots of training. I spent my youth playing music and
> singing, for instance, instead of playing video games.
> btw - #1 thing you can do to make your child better
> in all aspects of their life...
>
> Toss that gaming console. T.V. too if you are so bold.

AMEN!

[Jenn]

Tim Martin wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared to
> > what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
> > distorted version of the music he makes.
>
> Let's consider direct sound from a smallish ensemble with a conductor, and
> ignore the ear's different sensity to different frequencies.
>
> On the conductor's left, six feet away, is a violin; on the conductor's
> right, twelve feet away, is a double bass. Behind the conductor, twenty
> four feet from both violin and double bass, is a listener. The violin is
> about .75 feet from the performer's ear; the double bass is about three
> feet from the performer's ear; and the violin and bass are about eighteen
> feet from each other.
>
> The conductor has the players play so that the sound intensity of both
> instruments is the same as he hears it - say 70dB.
>
> The violinist will har the violin at 88dB and the double bass at about 67dB;
> the bassist will hear the double-bass at 82dB and the violin at 64dB. The
> listener in the audience will hear the violin at 58dB and the double bass at
> 64dB.
>
> I'd say the notion that live performances can match hi-fi standards is
> implausible ... :-)

Why would anyone want to lower the standards of live music to that of
hi-fi? :-)

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "EddieM" > wrote in message
> . ..

(snip)

> A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
> seem to have objective accuracy.
> He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
> me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
> exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
> equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and their
impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the only
way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.

(snip)

[[email protected]]

Carl Valle wrote:
> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> > EddieM said:

(snip)

>>Why try to amputate your emotional response when you're
> > looking for a toy? It's Normal to maximize your enjoyment of any toy,
> > audio or
> > otherwise. If you enjoy looking at something, it renders pleasure, and
> > that's
> > good, right?

(snip)

> > Life is
> > too short to punish yourself for enjoying your toys.
> >
>
> You are correct. Part of the joy in owning even moderate gear comes from the
> visual aspects of design.

Consistent with the above, I'll add that for most people, audio is just
a hobby, so they may as well buy whatever suits them for whatever
reasons they have. If they pay a lot of money for gear that is
overpriced for what it does in a technical, measurable way, it's really
none of my beeswax.

I know I've bought gear a few times because It Was Something I Always
Wanted, and I knew that in some ways, I could've bought cheaper gear
that would've probably done what I needed, in terms of technical
performance. For example, I know several middle-aged people who've
bought older McIntosh gear, because when they were growing up that was
the most prestigious brand at the most prestigious audio boutique in my
town.

> I also like the way some of my gear smells. Whatever rocks your boat...

OK by me. It's been so long since I bought anything new (I often buy
used gear) that I'd forgotten that new gear and/or new packaging even
had a smell! ;-)

(snip)

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Jenn: > > > I have found in my profession (I'm a
> > > conductor and college music prof.) that people DO have
> different
> > > listening abiliities.

> Given how they fail DBTs, it would be the Golden Ears that
> lack the necessary hearing abilities. No doubt their
> reliance on sight as a crutch has caused their ablities to
> listen critically to atrophy and die. Other evidence that
> supports this hypothesis includes the fact that so many of
> them can't hear what's wrong with vinyl and tubed equipment,
> particularly SETs.

If by "golden ears" you mean people such as myself, as presented above,
you couldn't be further from the truth.

[George Middius]

Jenn said to ****borg:

>> the Golden Ears

>If by "golden ears" you mean people such as myself, as presented above,
>you couldn't be further from the truth.

Mr. **** is referring to people who can't be bothered to torture themselves with
"tests" rather than just buying what they want to have.

[Arny Krueger]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
...
>>
>>> You missed the suggestion on another forum that you
don't
>> really know
>>> what your instrument sounds like.
>>
>> This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared
to
>> what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
>> distorted version of the music he makes.
>
> This is true but it doesn't change that the musician has a
> sophisticated expectation of what the instrument should
sound like.

And that doesn't change the fact that the musician has a
distorted view of the sound of music compared to a typical
listener.

> Musicians develop an "outside ear."

Meaning exactly what?

Musicans also seem to develop enlarged egos of a kind,
particularly related to their hearing.

IME a lot of middle-aged musicans seem to have quite a bit
of hearing damage. I was sitting next to a vocalist friend a
week or two back, and she told me that she couldn't hear a
guitar that was obviously being played pretty robustly. She
blamed the sound system. I could hear it quite well and
quite clearly.

>>> and can rely on audience response to develop your tone
>> and interpretation.

>> I would think that one learns that from one's teachers
and
>> cohorts.

> Different.

Agreed.

[Arny Krueger]

Jenn wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
...
>>
>>> You missed the suggestion on another forum that you
don't
>> really know
>>> what your instrument sounds like.
>>
>> This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared
to
>> what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
>> distorted version of the music he makes.
>
> A professional instrumentalist or vocalist knows VERY well
the sound
> of his/her music making, as well as that if others. Our
ability to
> succeed in the business depends on it.

I think musicans would like to believe that. While their
success obviously depends on the quality of their playing,
that doesn't mean that they know exactly what they sound
like from the perspective of people in the audience.

IME musicans seem to tend to be wary of listening to
recordings of their playing.

[[email protected]]

schrieb:
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > . ..
>
> (snip)
>
> > A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
> > seem to have objective accuracy.
> > He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
> > me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
> > exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
> > equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.
>
> I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and their
> impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the only
> way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.
>
> (snip)


Yes, the testing blind is interesting, a way to know the fact from the
imagining. I can often imagine to hear clearly a different sound in and
amplifier, cd player and so on. However, when I am not knowing which I
am hearing, the imagining stops and the different sound stops with it.
Very interesting!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> ...
> >>
> >>> You missed the suggestion on another forum that you
> don't
> >> really know
> >>> what your instrument sounds like.
> >>
> >> This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared
> to
> >> what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
> >> distorted version of the music he makes.
> >
> > This is true but it doesn't change that the musician has a
> > sophisticated expectation of what the instrument should
> sound like.
>
> And that doesn't change the fact that the musician has a
> distorted view of the sound of music compared to a typical
> listener.

The original question had to do with whether a musician really knows
what *any* instrument sounds like whether or not the musician is playing
it at the time. It's absurd to say instrumentalists knows *less* about
the sound of their instrument (because of distortion) because they play.

> > Musicians develop an "outside ear."
>
> Meaning exactly what?

The learned ability to relate the sound they hear inside their heads to
the sound as it is in the room.

For an unlearned way to do this, next time you sing a hymn, lift the
hymnbook with one hand while cupping the other hand behind your ear to
collect the reflected sound of your voice.

> Musicans also seem to develop enlarged egos of a kind,
> particularly related to their hearing.

What with the lifetime of hard-earned experience.

> IME a lot of middle-aged musicans seem to have quite a bit
> of hearing damage. I was sitting next to a vocalist friend a
> week or two back, and she told me that she couldn't hear a
> guitar that was obviously being played pretty robustly. She
> blamed the sound system. I could hear it quite well and
> quite clearly.

This is a typical anecdote? While musicians aren't immune to hearing
damage, this doesn't necessarily undo their discernment. After all, the
question is one of listening, not hearing.

Stephen

> >>> and can rely on audience response to develop your tone
> >> and interpretation.
>
> >> I would think that one learns that from one's teachers
> and
> >> cohorts.
>
> > Different.
>
> Agreed.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> IME musicans seem to tend to be wary of listening to
> recordings of their playing.

If it's a good recording, they don't need to, as it matches the intent.

Maybe they don't want to hear your recordings.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> ...
> >>
> >>> You missed the suggestion on another forum that you
> don't
> >> really know
> >>> what your instrument sounds like.
> >>
> >> This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared
> to
> >> what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
> >> distorted version of the music he makes.
> >
> > A professional instrumentalist or vocalist knows VERY well
> the sound
> > of his/her music making, as well as that if others. Our
> ability to
> > succeed in the business depends on it.
>
> I think musicans would like to believe that.



I suspect most of them actually do believe that.




While their
> success obviously depends on the quality of their playing,
> that doesn't mean that they know exactly what they sound
> like from the perspective of people in the audience.



True. They don't know *exactly* what they sound like just as we don't
know *exactly* what we look like. But they generally have enough
information to come pretty close to knowing exactly what *they* sound
like. Most musicians have far more experience with listening to *other*
musicians in concert halls than most other people. By that, they
generally know the sound of instruments in genereal far better than
most people. That combined with their studies and training and practice
put them in a position of far greater knowledge on what live music
really sounds like.




>
> IME musicans seem to tend to be wary of listening to
> recordings of their playing.




But that experience is in the amateur hobbyist world rather than the
professional world.




Scott Wheeler

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said to ****-for-Brains:
>
> > You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a good scientist. If
you
> > were repudiated in a way that resulted in widespread, definitive
rejection
> > of what you think is true, it would be a major blow to your ego. Your
ego is
> > too wrapped up in this.
>
> Can we dispense, once and for all, with the fiction that Arnii Krooger has
> some connection to human-style science? He's a religious zealot, pure and
> simple.

I know, I know. Every once in a while, I test to see if he's gone into
remission.
But take a look at the paranoic blast below!

He has co-opted a few notions and phrases from the world of science,
> then twisted and malformed them to suit his narrow agenda. Look at his
> pseudo-scientific claims about amplifiers sounding the same. It's all
based
> on a few shreds of data, unsubstantiated by any rigorous investigation. It
> boils down to nothing more than "At some point, some individuals were
unable
> to distinguish some amps under some conditions." Calling that science is
> like calling a pancake that resembles an image of "Virgin Mary" a miracle.
>
> If you compare Krooger's scieenecncce **** with real science, you have to
> laugh. Compare it with the so-called "intelligent design" dogma, and you
get
> a lot of parallels.
>
Krueger refutes the notion of "intelligent design."
>
> > What is it for you? What make you think that all these middle aged guys,
who
> > like to play with their toys, would benefit in any meaningful way from
your
> > work? Has it ever occurred to you that if you actually did convince them
> > there was no magic, that their lives might be worse?
>
> This notion is totally lost on the Krooborg. His mental illness is so
> entrenched that he doesn't even recognize the concept of enjoying life.
> Haven't you heard The Tape?
>
Unfortunately, I am deprived of the experience.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> George M. Middius schrieb:
> > Robert Morein said to ****-for-Brains:
> >
> > > You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a good scientist.
If you
> > > were repudiated in a way that resulted in widespread, definitive
rejection
> > > of what you think is true, it would be a major blow to your ego. Your
ego is
> > > too wrapped up in this.
> >
> > Can we dispense, once and for all, with the fiction that Arnii Krooger
has
> > some connection to human-style science? He's a religious zealot, pure
and
> > simple. He has co-opted a few notions and phrases from the world of
science,
> > then twisted and malformed them to suit his narrow agenda. Look at his
> > pseudo-scientific claims about amplifiers sounding the same. It's all
based
> > on a few shreds of data, unsubstantiated by any rigorous investigation.
It
> > boils down to nothing more than "At some point, some individuals were
unable
> > to distinguish some amps under some conditions." Calling that science is
> > like calling a pancake that resembles an image of "Virgin Mary" a
miracle.
> >
> > If you compare Krooger's scieenecncce **** with real science, you have
to
> > laugh. Compare it with the so-called "intelligent design" dogma, and you
get
> > a lot of parallels.
> >
> >
> > > What is it for you? What make you think that all these middle aged
guys, who
> > > like to play with their toys, would benefit in any meaningful way from
your
> > > work? Has it ever occurred to you that if you actually did convince
them
> > > there was no magic, that their lives might be worse?
> >
> > This notion is totally lost on the Krooborg. His mental illness is so
> > entrenched that he doesn't even recognize the concept of enjoying life.
> > Haven't you heard The Tape?
> >
> >
> What is this "The Tape"?
>
It's the real Arny Krueger, not the sanitized version he managed to contrive
for Stereophile.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> message ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > > > > . ..
>
> > > > >> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing, depending on the situation.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with sighted listening is that when the
> > > > > differences are small, it can be very unreliable.
> > > > >
> > > > Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
> > > > The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far
> more components fall
> > > > into the class of "small differences" than I do.
> "Jenn" agrees with me that,
> > > > depending upon the individual, this class varies.
>
> > > That's easy to resolve. No harm is done if you treat a
> > > larger difference like it was a smaller difference. The
> > > worst that can happen is that the small
> difference-oriented
> > > test gives an outstandingly strong positive result for
> > > differences.
>
> > The harm comes when, in response to my statement that I
> despise the sound of
> > QSC amps, which is actually my specific position with
> respect to those amps,
> > you attempt to disqualify my comment from consideration.
>
> Not really, "Arny is a bad Scientist" Robert. Your statement
> disqualifies itself. Obviously, it is based on your hatred
> and pent-up desire to attack me and try to destroy my
> credibility any way you can.
>
Arny, George is wrong about one thing. Rec.audio.opinion without you would
be like Saturday night wrestling without the bad guys. It would be no fun!
:)

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> message ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > > > > . ..
>
> > > > >> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing, depending on the situation.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with sighted listening is that when the
> > > > > differences are small, it can be very unreliable.
> > > > >
> > > > Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
> > > > The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far
> more components fall
> > > > into the class of "small differences" than I do.
> "Jenn" agrees with me that,
> > > > depending upon the individual, this class varies.
>
> > > That's easy to resolve. No harm is done if you treat a
> > > larger difference like it was a smaller difference. The
> > > worst that can happen is that the small
> difference-oriented
> > > test gives an outstandingly strong positive result for
> > > differences.
>
> > The harm comes when, in response to my statement that I
> despise the sound of
> > QSC amps, which is actually my specific position with
> respect to those amps,
> > you attempt to disqualify my comment from consideration.
>
> Not really, "Arny is a bad Scientist" Robert. Your statement
> disqualifies itself. Obviously, it is based on your hatred
> and pent-up desire to attack me and try to destroy my
> credibility any way you can.
>
Exactly my point. Morein is a bad scientist, so he accuses you of being one.
Touche! :)
He's a lot like those scammers on rec.audio.marketplace that "OFFICIAL RAM"
kicked off usenet.
Intellectual RIPOFF ALERT!

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> schrieb:
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
> > > seem to have objective accuracy.
> > > He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
> > > me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
> > > exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
> > > equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.
> >
> > I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and their
> > impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the only
> > way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.
> >
> > (snip)
>
>
> Yes, the testing blind is interesting, a way to know the fact from the
> imagining. I can often imagine to hear clearly a different sound in and
> amplifier, cd player and so on. However, when I am not knowing which I
> am hearing, the imagining stops and the different sound stops with it.
> Very interesting!

I know what you mean. I used to own a comparator and could switch
rapidly between amps, CD players, speakers etc. with one pushbutton.
This wasn't blind testing, but sometimes I'd forget which components I
was listening to, and think things like "That expensive amp does sound
better than that cheap amp," for example, because that idea suited my
expectations and prejudices. Then I'd look closer at the gear and
realize that I was listening to the cheap amp. Anyway, the only times I
could hear really obvious, worthwhile differences was when I was
comparing speakers. Speakers are where the big differences exist, IME.

[Tim Martin]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> Jenn wrote:
> > A professional instrumentalist or vocalist knows VERY well
> the sound
> > of his/her music making, as well as that if others. Our
> ability to
> > succeed in the business depends on it.
>
> I think musicans would like to believe that. While their
> success obviously depends on the quality of their playing,
> that doesn't mean that they know exactly what they sound
> like from the perspective of people in the audience.

When I recorded my daughter's sax quartet (two seasoned pros, two starting
out) they were very pleased to listen to the playback. They could hear
aspects of their performance in the recordings that they missed when
playing.

Incidentally, the quality of the playback speaker was quite limited - I
think I actually used a little Fender practise guitar amp, simply because it
was self-contained, light, and easy to carry. So it wasn't the quality
thatwas the advabtage, i assume it was a matter of concentration - it's hard
for musicians to hear everything about the performance while they are
playing in it.

Tim

[John Atkinson]

Signal wrote:
> I note the **** was ripped out of [Arny Krueger] on rec.audio.pro
> recently, when [he] claimed to be "experienced"... ;-)

I was surprised by Mr. Krueger's statement on r.a.p. that he was
a professional audio/recording engineer. But I do feel he is
to be commended for actually making recordings, an activity
that has so far managed to evade Howard Ferstler, despite
his writings on the subject. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Tim Martin]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. ..

> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

It's analogous to judging the emperor's clothes by listening ...

Tim

[Margaret von B.]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Signal wrote:
>> I note the **** was ripped out of [Arny Krueger] on rec.audio.pro
>> recently, when [he] claimed to be "experienced"... ;-)
>
> I was surprised by Mr. Krueger's statement on r.a.p. that he was
> a professional audio/recording engineer. But I do feel he is
> to be commended for actually making recordings, an activity
> that has so far managed to evade Howard Ferstler, despite
> his writings on the subject. :-)
>

John, I think you have just invented the underhanded compliment of the year,
"better than Ferstler." In case you're not familiar with Howard's MO, he
needs no experience in recording because Roy Allison told him all about it.
At any rate it is nice to see that Arny gets positive freedback from other
people beside me, even if its laced with arsenic. :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[jclause]

>It's analogous to judging the emperor's clothes by listening ...


You can't hear the Emperors clothes
And if you'll excuse my prose..
Likely most would concur
He caused quite a stir,
'Cause he was stark-naked, I suppose.

Hammingaway

[jclause]

>But I do feel he is to be commended for actually making recordings,
>an activity that has so far managed to evade Howard Ferstler, despite
>his writings on the subject. :-)


I'm sorry, but Howies a fake
He's also slippery as a snake :-)
In each writing session
He gives the impression
As tho' he's only half awake.

Hammingaway

[[email protected]]

schrieb:
> wrote:
> > schrieb:
> > > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
> > > > seem to have objective accuracy.
> > > > He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
> > > > me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
> > > > exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
> > > > equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.
> > >
> > > I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and their
> > > impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the only
> > > way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.
> > >
> > > (snip)
> >
> >
> > Yes, the testing blind is interesting, a way to know the fact from the
> > imagining. I can often imagine to hear clearly a different sound in and
> > amplifier, cd player and so on. However, when I am not knowing which I
> > am hearing, the imagining stops and the different sound stops with it.
> > Very interesting!
>
> I know what you mean. I used to own a comparator and could switch
> rapidly between amps, CD players, speakers etc. with one pushbutton.
> This wasn't blind testing, but sometimes I'd forget which components I
> was listening to, and think things like "That expensive amp does sound
> better than that cheap amp," for example, because that idea suited my
> expectations and prejudices. Then I'd look closer at the gear and
> realize that I was listening to the cheap amp. Anyway, the only times I
> could hear really obvious, worthwhile differences was when I was
> comparing speakers. Speakers are where the big differences exist, IME.



Yes, this is the interesting part. One imagines different sounds, but
only when knowing what to imagine. When not knowing what is being
listened, the different sounds go away!

Speakers, yes, big differences. In the turntable, the magnetic pickup
and the tape deck, yes, some different sounds. But in the good
amplifiers, the cd player and so on, really no different sounds if the
imagining is gone. And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes,
the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment not
meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no?

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> schrieb:
>> wrote:
>> > schrieb:
>> > > Robert Morein wrote:
>> > > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
>> > > > . ..
>> > >
>> > > (snip)
>> > >
>> > > > A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
>> > > > conclusions
>> > > > seem to have objective accuracy.
>> > > > He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are
>> > > > translatable by
>> > > > me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my
>> > > > buddy is
>> > > > exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to
>> > > > the
>> > > > equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.
>> > >
>> > > I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and their
>> > > impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the only
>> > > way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.
>> > >
>> > > (snip)
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, the testing blind is interesting, a way to know the fact from the
>> > imagining. I can often imagine to hear clearly a different sound in and
>> > amplifier, cd player and so on. However, when I am not knowing which I
>> > am hearing, the imagining stops and the different sound stops with it.
>> > Very interesting!
>>
>> I know what you mean. I used to own a comparator and could switch
>> rapidly between amps, CD players, speakers etc. with one pushbutton.
>> This wasn't blind testing, but sometimes I'd forget which components I
>> was listening to, and think things like "That expensive amp does sound
>> better than that cheap amp," for example, because that idea suited my
>> expectations and prejudices. Then I'd look closer at the gear and
>> realize that I was listening to the cheap amp. Anyway, the only times I
>> could hear really obvious, worthwhile differences was when I was
>> comparing speakers. Speakers are where the big differences exist, IME.
>
>
>
> Yes, this is the interesting part. One imagines different sounds, but
> only when knowing what to imagine. When not knowing what is being
> listened, the different sounds go away!
>
> Speakers, yes, big differences. In the turntable, the magnetic pickup
> and the tape deck, yes, some different sounds. But in the good
> amplifiers, the cd player and so on, really no different sounds if the
> imagining is gone. And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes,
> the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment not
> meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no?
>

Are you post do be joke too? An entertainment be do Borgs are surely, not
do be serious are serious. Are be do a laugh no?

Do be have good day are!

Margaret

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. schrieb:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > schrieb:
> >> wrote:
> >> > schrieb:
> >> > > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> > > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> >> > > > . ..
> >> > >
> >> > > (snip)
> >> > >
> >> > > > A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
> >> > > > conclusions
> >> > > > seem to have objective accuracy.
> >> > > > He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are
> >> > > > translatable by
> >> > > > me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my
> >> > > > buddy is
> >> > > > exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and their
> >> > > impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the only
> >> > > way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.
> >> > >
> >> > > (snip)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yes, the testing blind is interesting, a way to know the fact from the
> >> > imagining. I can often imagine to hear clearly a different sound in and
> >> > amplifier, cd player and so on. However, when I am not knowing which I
> >> > am hearing, the imagining stops and the different sound stops with it.
> >> > Very interesting!
> >>
> >> I know what you mean. I used to own a comparator and could switch
> >> rapidly between amps, CD players, speakers etc. with one pushbutton.
> >> This wasn't blind testing, but sometimes I'd forget which components I
> >> was listening to, and think things like "That expensive amp does sound
> >> better than that cheap amp," for example, because that idea suited my
> >> expectations and prejudices. Then I'd look closer at the gear and
> >> realize that I was listening to the cheap amp. Anyway, the only times I
> >> could hear really obvious, worthwhile differences was when I was
> >> comparing speakers. Speakers are where the big differences exist, IME.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, this is the interesting part. One imagines different sounds, but
> > only when knowing what to imagine. When not knowing what is being
> > listened, the different sounds go away!
> >
> > Speakers, yes, big differences. In the turntable, the magnetic pickup
> > and the tape deck, yes, some different sounds. But in the good
> > amplifiers, the cd player and so on, really no different sounds if the
> > imagining is gone. And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes,
> > the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment not
> > meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no?
> >
>
> Are you post do be joke too? An entertainment be do Borgs are surely, not
> do be serious are serious. Are be do a laugh no?
>
> Do be have good day are!
>
> Margaret



You make fun of my English.
I see you are not a nice person. I will remember.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein schrieb:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > George M. Middius schrieb:
> > > Robert Morein said to ****-for-Brains:
> > >
> > > > You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a good scientist.
> If you
> > > > were repudiated in a way that resulted in widespread, definitive
> rejection
> > > > of what you think is true, it would be a major blow to your ego. Your
> ego is
> > > > too wrapped up in this.
> > >
> > > Can we dispense, once and for all, with the fiction that Arnii Krooger
> has
> > > some connection to human-style science? He's a religious zealot, pure
> and
> > > simple. He has co-opted a few notions and phrases from the world of
> science,
> > > then twisted and malformed them to suit his narrow agenda. Look at his
> > > pseudo-scientific claims about amplifiers sounding the same. It's all
> based
> > > on a few shreds of data, unsubstantiated by any rigorous investigation.
> It
> > > boils down to nothing more than "At some point, some individuals were
> unable
> > > to distinguish some amps under some conditions." Calling that science is
> > > like calling a pancake that resembles an image of "Virgin Mary" a
> miracle.
> > >
> > > If you compare Krooger's scieenecncce **** with real science, you have
> to
> > > laugh. Compare it with the so-called "intelligent design" dogma, and you
> get
> > > a lot of parallels.
> > >
> > >
> > > > What is it for you? What make you think that all these middle aged
> guys, who
> > > > like to play with their toys, would benefit in any meaningful way from
> your
> > > > work? Has it ever occurred to you that if you actually did convince
> them
> > > > there was no magic, that their lives might be worse?
> > >
> > > This notion is totally lost on the Krooborg. His mental illness is so
> > > entrenched that he doesn't even recognize the concept of enjoying life.
> > > Haven't you heard The Tape?
> > >
> > >
> > What is this "The Tape"?
> >
> It's the real Arny Krueger, not the sanitized version he managed to contrive
> for Stereophile.


How do you know this? You have not listened to this "the Tape", yes?
Are you imagining this?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Margaret von B. schrieb:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > > schrieb:
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > schrieb:
> > >> > > Robert Morein wrote:
> > >> > > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > >> > > > . ..
> > >> > >
> > >> > > (snip)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
> > >> > > > conclusions
> > >> > > > seem to have objective accuracy.
> > >> > > > He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are
> > >> > > > translatable by
> > >> > > > me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But
my
> > >> > > > buddy is
> > >> > > > exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment
to
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and
their
> > >> > > impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the
only
> > >> > > way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > (snip)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, the testing blind is interesting, a way to know the fact from
the
> > >> > imagining. I can often imagine to hear clearly a different sound in
and
> > >> > amplifier, cd player and so on. However, when I am not knowing
which I
> > >> > am hearing, the imagining stops and the different sound stops with
it.
> > >> > Very interesting!
> > >>
> > >> I know what you mean. I used to own a comparator and could switch
> > >> rapidly between amps, CD players, speakers etc. with one pushbutton.
> > >> This wasn't blind testing, but sometimes I'd forget which components
I
> > >> was listening to, and think things like "That expensive amp does
sound
> > >> better than that cheap amp," for example, because that idea suited my
> > >> expectations and prejudices. Then I'd look closer at the gear and
> > >> realize that I was listening to the cheap amp. Anyway, the only times
I
> > >> could hear really obvious, worthwhile differences was when I was
> > >> comparing speakers. Speakers are where the big differences exist,
IME.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, this is the interesting part. One imagines different sounds, but
> > > only when knowing what to imagine. When not knowing what is being
> > > listened, the different sounds go away!
> > >
> > > Speakers, yes, big differences. In the turntable, the magnetic pickup
> > > and the tape deck, yes, some different sounds. But in the good
> > > amplifiers, the cd player and so on, really no different sounds if the
> > > imagining is gone. And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes,
> > > the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment
not
> > > meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no?
> > >
> >
> > Are you post do be joke too? An entertainment be do Borgs are surely,
not
> > do be serious are serious. Are be do a laugh no?
> >
> > Do be have good day are!
> >
> > Margaret
>
>
>
> You make fun of my English.
> I see you are not a nice person. I will remember.
>
You tell her!
As Winston Churchill said, "Up with that I will not put."

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> As Winston Churchill said, "Up with that I will not put."

Not quite. "That is something up with which I will not put."

[Surf]

> wrote
>
> You make fun of my English.
> I see you are not a nice person. I will remember.


uh-oh - a threat.

how do you know he makes fun of your English?
Maybe you understand English better than you pretend.
Is this your new RAO persona?

[Surf]

Bwian wrote

> Exactly my point. Morein is a bad scientist, so he accuses you of being
> one.
> Touche! :)
> He's a lot like those scammers on rec.audio.marketplace that "OFFICIAL
> RAM"
> kicked off usenet.
> Intellectual RIPOFF ALERT!


go away bwian. everyone hates you.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Margaret von B. schrieb:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > > > schrieb:
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > schrieb:
> > > >> > > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > >> > > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > > >> > > > . ..
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > (snip)
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
> > > >> > > > conclusions
> > > >> > > > seem to have objective accuracy.
> > > >> > > > He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are
> > > >> > > > translatable by
> > > >> > > > me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But
> my
> > > >> > > > buddy is
> > > >> > > > exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment
> to
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and
> their
> > > >> > > impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the
> only
> > > >> > > way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > (snip)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Yes, the testing blind is interesting, a way to know the fact from
> the
> > > >> > imagining. I can often imagine to hear clearly a different sound in
> and
> > > >> > amplifier, cd player and so on. However, when I am not knowing
> which I
> > > >> > am hearing, the imagining stops and the different sound stops with
> it.
> > > >> > Very interesting!
> > > >>
> > > >> I know what you mean. I used to own a comparator and could switch
> > > >> rapidly between amps, CD players, speakers etc. with one pushbutton.
> > > >> This wasn't blind testing, but sometimes I'd forget which components
> I
> > > >> was listening to, and think things like "That expensive amp does
> sound
> > > >> better than that cheap amp," for example, because that idea suited my
> > > >> expectations and prejudices. Then I'd look closer at the gear and
> > > >> realize that I was listening to the cheap amp. Anyway, the only times
> I
> > > >> could hear really obvious, worthwhile differences was when I was
> > > >> comparing speakers. Speakers are where the big differences exist,
> IME.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this is the interesting part. One imagines different sounds, but
> > > > only when knowing what to imagine. When not knowing what is being
> > > > listened, the different sounds go away!
> > > >
> > > > Speakers, yes, big differences. In the turntable, the magnetic pickup
> > > > and the tape deck, yes, some different sounds. But in the good
> > > > amplifiers, the cd player and so on, really no different sounds if the
> > > > imagining is gone. And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes,
> > > > the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment
> not
> > > > meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you post do be joke too? An entertainment be do Borgs are surely,
> not
> > > do be serious are serious. Are be do a laugh no?
> > >
> > > Do be have good day are!
> > >
> > > Margaret
> >
> >
> >
> > You make fun of my English.
> > I see you are not a nice person. I will remember.
> >
> You tell her!
> As Winston Churchill said, "Up with that I will not put."
>
>
Are you confusing Churchill with Yoda? :)

[Lionel]

In >, Surf wrote :

> go away bwian. everyone hates you.

Surfer or exorcist ?

[Surf]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Surf wrote :
>
>> go away bwian. everyone hates you.
>
> Surfer or exorcist ?


ya think that took care of it?

[Tim Martin]

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes,
> the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment not
> meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no?

Somewhere away from me, natural gas flows through a pipeline to a huge power
station, driving turbines which turn massive generators, producing
electricty.

The electricity is transmitted at 400,000 volts across the country over a
network of lines; it comes to my regional electrity distributor, which
steps it down to 200,000 volts for transmission over its own network. It's
stepped down still further by regional transformers and substantions,
arriving at my house at 240 volts through a thick 100-amp cable.

Once in my house, it's distributed on 30-amp ring mains, connecting to
outlet sockets. From an outher socket, its connected to my hi-fi system.
And all this is pretty-near instantaneous.

But if I am to believe the adverts, I can improve the transmission of
electricty from the generating station to my amplifier, by repacing the
supplied two-metre mains cable with a hi-fi mains cable, costing a mere £25
.... I don't need to replace the 20 or 30 metres of cable in my ring main,
nor the underground cable from my house to the substation, or anything ...

Mmmm ... maybe I should start an electricty company, selling hi-fi
electricity to audiophiles ... :-)

Tim

[[email protected]]

Tim Martin schrieb:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> > And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes,
> > the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment not
> > meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no?
>
> Somewhere away from me, natural gas flows through a pipeline to a huge po=
wer
> station, driving turbines which turn massive generators, producing
> electricty.
>
> The electricity is transmitted at 400,000 volts across the country over a
> network of lines; it comes to my regional electrity distributor, which
> steps it down to 200,000 volts for transmission over its own network. It=
's
> stepped down still further by regional transformers and substantions,
> arriving at my house at 240 volts through a thick 100-amp cable.
>
> Once in my house, it's distributed on 30-amp ring mains, connecting to
> outlet sockets. From an outher socket, its connected to my hi-fi system.
> And all this is pretty-near instantaneous.
>
> But if I am to believe the adverts, I can improve the transmission of
> electricty from the generating station to my amplifier, by repacing the
> supplied two-metre mains cable with a hi-fi mains cable, costing a mere =
=A325
> ... I don't need to replace the 20 or 30 metres of cable in my ring main,
> nor the underground cable from my house to the substation, or anything ...
>
> Mmmm ... maybe I should start an electricty company, selling hi-fi
> electricity to audiophiles ... :-)
>
> Tim



Yes, the sound in the mains cable! This is for a big laugh, no? One
day, some enterpriser may have special sound power generators and wires
for the audiophile house. Yes, "hi-fi electricity"! Soon another laugh
in the Stereophile!

[[email protected]]

Surf schrieb:
> > wrote
> >
> > You make fun of my English.
> > I see you are not a nice person. I will remember.
>
>
> uh-oh - a threat.
>
> how do you know he makes fun of your English?
> Maybe you understand English better than you pretend.
> Is this your new RAO persona?




To remember the bad person is not to threat. Just to remember not to be
fool when bad person pretend to make nice.
She writes to me nonsense, not to others. She mocks my attempts to
English. I pretend my English is better. What is this "persona"?

[Arny Krueger]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article ,

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> MINe 109 wrote:

>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message

>>
...

>>>>> You missed the suggestion on another forum that you
don't really
>>>>> know what your instrument sounds like.

>>>> This is true for many instruments and the voice.
Compared to
>>>> what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
>>>> distorted version of the music he makes.

>>> This is true but it doesn't change that the musician has
a
>>> sophisticated expectation of what the instrument should
>> sound like.

>> And that doesn't change the fact that the musician has a
>> distorted view of the sound of music compared to a
typical
>> listener.

> The original question had to do with whether a musician
really knows
> what *any* instrument sounds like whether or not the
musician is
> playing it at the time. It's absurd to say
instrumentalists knows
> *less* about the sound of their instrument (because of
distortion)
> because they play.

My comment was 100% responsive to that question. By
reviewing it without actually responding to my comment
Stephen, we see you using debating trade tactics to avoid
conceeding the point. You're just leading the discussion
around in a circle.

>>> Musicians develop an "outside ear."

>> Meaning exactly what?

> The learned ability to relate the sound they hear inside
their heads
> to the sound as it is in the room.

IME this is often defective and overblown in the musican's
own mind.

> For an unlearned way to do this, next time you sing a
hymn, lift the
> hymnbook with one hand while cupping the other hand behind
your ear to
> collect the reflected sound of your voice.

Seems like a very impovrished way to do this. It's an
acoustically defective way to accomplish the task. For
example, the cupping of the ear creates a resonant cavity
that distorts the quality of the sound quite a bit.

What I do is compare recordings of my voice to recordings of
other people's voices made under similar circumstances, and
compare that to how I hear my own voice. The recording
procedures were arrived at by trying to get natural
reproduction of music.

Nevertheless, I have few illusions that the information I
arrive at by these improved technical means is much more
than a gross approximation. Procedures like this are very
insensitive and reliable compared to say, ABX. But they are
hugely accurate and diagnostic compared to traditional
procedures.


>> Musicans also seem to develop enlarged egos of a kind,
>> particularly related to their hearing.

> What with the lifetime of hard-earned experience.

IME its often a lifetime of deceiving themselves. For
example, I've worked with a lot of musicans who strongly
prefer to work in rooms that blur their work and thus
conceal their technical errors. Their addiction to these
rooms has, right before my eyes, degenerated into personal
power plays to preserve dysfunctional performance spaces at
the expense of the stated function of the rooms.

Clearly not all musicans are like this. I've also seen other
musicans gravitate toward rooms that are more neutral and
readily adaptable for a broad range of functions. There
seems to be some kind of "big fish in a small pond" effect
with some people. Musicans that work together in larger
groups can be pretty agressive about striving to produce and
identify high performance.

And its not necessarily their fault. The infrastructure they
work in is not always that good.

>> IME a lot of middle-aged musicans seem to have quite a
bit
>> of hearing damage. I was sitting next to a vocalist
friend a
>> week or two back, and she told me that she couldn't hear
a
>> guitar that was obviously being played pretty robustly.
She
>> blamed the sound system. I could hear it quite well and
>> quite clearly.

> This is a typical anecdote?

Not necessarily completely representative, but not atypical.
If we look at history, musicans who are baby boomers have
had exceptional opportunities to damage their ears with
their own music making.

> While musicians aren't immune to hearing
> damage, this doesn't necessarily undo their discernment.
After all,
> the question is one of listening, not hearing.

Well Stephen it seems like possibly your own egocentrism has
kept from experiencing the learning experiences that might
inform you about the limitations of your own hearing
abilities. Listening for flaws in audio reproduction
involves what are usually far smaller differences than are
involved in listening for flaws in music making. I often see
musicans who confuse the two. A little ABXing or something
like it can make it all pretty clear.

[Arny Krueger]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> IME musicans seem to tend to be wary of listening to
>> recordings of their playing.
>
> If it's a good recording, they don't need to, as it
matches the
> intent.

This statement can be interpreted to mean that all good
recordings identically match the intent of the musican.

If that's what you mean Stephen, you obviously can't hear
the forest for the trees.

> Maybe they don't want to hear your recordings.

That's often a fact. Again Stephen you seem to be trying to
talk your way out of the box you might be in.

This was not intended to be a discussion of whether or not
they want to hear themselves play. The question is "why".

The answer is pretty obvious to me. The recordings do a
pretty fair job of reproducing what happened during the
performance. The musicans lack the self-confidence it takes
to actually listen to what they have done. In short, they
know that they were pretty crappy, and they don't want to be
reminded of it, or the reasons why.

Fact of the matter is that performers don't get a very good
idea of how the performance went. The better ones freely
admit that they are very preoccupied during the performance,
which frankly is what we listeners hope. We want them to be
preoccupied with providing their best possible performance.
That doesn't leave a lot left over to perceive the
performance as listeners do.

However, there's a macro view of the performance that is
very important By technical means, it is possible for a
performer to escape the limitations of the necessary
preoccupation with being a performer, and also be a
perceptive listener.

[Arny Krueger]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Signal wrote:
>> I note the **** was ripped out of [Arny Krueger] on
rec.audio.pro
>> recently, when [he] claimed to be "experienced"... ;-)
>
> I was surprised by Mr. Krueger's statement on r.a.p. that
he was
> a professional audio/recording engineer. But I do feel he
is
> to be commended for actually making recordings, an
activity
> that has so far managed to evade Howard Ferstler, despite
> his writings on the subject. :-)

I was simply reacting to the narrow, distorted view of what
makes a professional recordist that Atkinson was spewing on
RAP. Others took exception to his posturing, as well.

[Arny Krueger]

Tim Martin wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> A professional instrumentalist or vocalist knows VERY
well
>> the sound
>>> of his/her music making, as well as that if others. Our
>> ability to
>>> succeed in the business depends on it.
>>
>> I think musicans would like to believe that. While their
>> success obviously depends on the quality of their
playing,
>> that doesn't mean that they know exactly what they sound
>> like from the perspective of people in the audience.
>
> When I recorded my daughter's sax quartet (two seasoned
pros, two
> starting out) they were very pleased to listen to the
playback. They
> could hear aspects of their performance in the recordings
that they
> missed when playing.

This seems like a good thing.

> Incidentally, the quality of the playback speaker was
quite limited -
> I think I actually used a little Fender practise guitar
amp, simply
> because it was self-contained, light, and easy to carry.

When you are listening to music as opposed to sound, it
doesn't take a perfectionist playback system to get the job
done.

> So it
> wasn't the quality thatwas the advabtage, i assume it was
a matter of
> concentration - it's hard for musicians to hear everything
about the
> performance while they are playing in it.

That's my point.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote
in
>> message ...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "EddieM" > wrote in message
>>>>>> . ..
>>
>>>>>>> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing, depending on the situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with sighted listening is that when the
>>>>>> differences are small, it can be very unreliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
>>>>> The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far
>> more components fall
>>>>> into the class of "small differences" than I do.
>> "Jenn" agrees with me that,
>>>>> depending upon the individual, this class varies.
>>
>>>> That's easy to resolve. No harm is done if you treat a
>>>> larger difference like it was a smaller difference. The
>>>> worst that can happen is that the small
>> difference-oriented
>>>> test gives an outstandingly strong positive result for
>>>> differences.
>>
>>> The harm comes when, in response to my statement that I
>> despise the sound of
>>> QSC amps, which is actually my specific position with
>> respect to those amps,
>>> you attempt to disqualify my comment from consideration.
>>
>> Not really, "Arny is a bad Scientist" Robert. Your
statement
>> disqualifies itself. Obviously, it is based on your
hatred
>> and pent-up desire to attack me and try to destroy my
>> credibility any way you can.
>>
> Exactly my point. Morein is a bad scientist, so he accuses
you of
> being one. Touche! :)
> He's a lot like those scammers on rec.audio.marketplace
that
> "OFFICIAL RAM" kicked off usenet.
> Intellectual RIPOFF ALERT!

Agreed. Robert seems to be well-practiced at
externalization.

[Arny Krueger]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
ups.com...
>> George M. Middius schrieb:
>>> Robert Morein said to ****-for-Brains:
>>>
>>>> You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a
good
>>>> scientist. If you were repudiated in a way that
resulted in
>>>> widespread, definitive rejection of what you think is
true, it
>>>> would be a major blow to your ego. Your ego is too
wrapped up in
>>>> this.
>>>
>>> Can we dispense, once and for all, with the fiction that
Arnii
>>> Krooger has some connection to human-style science? He's
a
>>> religious zealot, pure and simple. He has co-opted a few
notions
>>> and phrases from the world of science, then twisted and
malformed
>>> them to suit his narrow agenda. Look at his
pseudo-scientific
>>> claims about amplifiers sounding the same. It's all
based on a few
>>> shreds of data, unsubstantiated by any rigorous
investigation. It
>>> boils down to nothing more than "At some point, some
individuals
>>> were unable to distinguish some amps under some
conditions."
>>> Calling that science is like calling a pancake that
resembles an
>>> image of "Virgin Mary" a miracle.
>>>
>>> If you compare Krooger's scieenecncce **** with real
science, you
>>> have to laugh. Compare it with the so-called
"intelligent design"
>>> dogma, and you get a lot of parallels.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What is it for you? What make you think that all these
middle aged
>>>> guys, who like to play with their toys, would benefit
in any
>>>> meaningful way from your work? Has it ever occurred to
you that if
>>>> you actually did convince them there was no magic, that
their
>>>> lives might be worse?
>>>
>>> This notion is totally lost on the Krooborg. His mental
illness is
>>> so entrenched that he doesn't even recognize the concept
of
>>> enjoying life. Haven't you heard The Tape?
>>>
>>>
>> What is this "The Tape"?
>>
> It's the real Arny Krueger, not the sanitized version he
managed to
> contrive for Stereophile.

Actually, the inverse is true. The Stereophile debate
exposed the real me, not the falsified version that Atkinson
and his minions including Middius tried to contrive. I'm not
involving Atkinson gratuitously here. He said here that
wanted to be involved in the production and dissemination of
the contents of "the tape". There's no independent
verifiable evidence that "the tape" actually existed prior
to the debate, and no more evidence since.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:01:39 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>IME its often a lifetime of deceiving themselves. For
>example, I've worked with a lot of musicans who strongly
>prefer to work in rooms that blur their work and thus
>conceal their technical errors. Their addiction to these
>rooms has, right before my eyes, degenerated into personal
>power plays to preserve dysfunctional performance spaces at
>the expense of the stated function of the rooms.
>
>Clearly not all musicans are like this. I've also seen other
>musicans gravitate toward rooms that are more neutral and
>readily adaptable for a broad range of functions. There
>seems to be some kind of "big fish in a small pond" effect
>with some people. Musicans that work together in larger
>groups can be pretty agressive about striving to produce and
>identify high performance.

One would think from this that Arnold was something more than someone
who records his church choir, organist and maybe a few youth groups.

>And its not necessarily their fault. The infrastructure they
>work in is not always that good.

I guess some rooms in the church are better than others. And then
there's the part of of the "infrastructure" that must be maddening at
times - the recording engineer.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> I guess some rooms in the church are better than others. And then
> there's the part of of the "infrastructure" that must be maddening at
> times - the recording engineer.

For the pittance Arnii charges, he's entitled to spend half the hour reading
the NAMBLA journal.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:18:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>There's no independent
>verifiable evidence that "the tape" actually existed prior
>to the debate, and no more evidence since.

Actually, you yourself admitted that it exists, if not in tape form.

The proof's right there in Google.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:18:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>There's no independent
>>verifiable evidence that "the tape" actually existed prior
>>to the debate, and no more evidence since.
>
> Actually, you yourself admitted that it exists, if not in tape form.
>
> The proof's right there in Google.

I guess that the original is still under your pillow, eh Dave ?

;-)

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >There's no independent
> >verifiable evidence that "the tape" actually existed prior
> >to the debate, and no more evidence since.

Good, Arnii. You didn't destroy any quoted text and you used your
spelchekkur. Would you like feces with that? ;-)

> Actually, you yourself admitted that it exists, if not in tape form.
> The proof's right there in Google.

Thanks Mr. Wiel for admitting you don't know how to use Goggle, in the snow.
If I had a dollar for every lie you, tell its like the burden of siccicnecce
would be easier. Come back when you can squat a few fact's. LOL! ;-(

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> IME musicans seem to tend to be wary of listening to
> >> recordings of their playing.
> >
> > If it's a good recording, they don't need to, as it
> matches the
> > intent.
>
> This statement can be interpreted to mean that all good
> recordings identically match the intent of the musican.

From the musician's view, yes, except for that pesky 'all' you've got
there.

> If that's what you mean Stephen, you obviously can't hear
> the forest for the trees.

No, just suggesting one possible reason a musician might not need to
hear a recording.

> > Maybe they don't want to hear your recordings.
>
> That's often a fact. Again Stephen you seem to be trying to
> talk your way out of the box you might be in.
>
> This was not intended to be a discussion of whether or not
> they want to hear themselves play. The question is "why".
>
> The answer is pretty obvious to me. The recordings do a
> pretty fair job of reproducing what happened during the
> performance. The musicans lack the self-confidence it takes
> to actually listen to what they have done. In short, they
> know that they were pretty crappy, and they don't want to be
> reminded of it, or the reasons why.

Then there's the smaller group of confident professionals who know what
they've done and have found recordings confirm their intent was realized.

> Fact of the matter is that performers don't get a very good
> idea of how the performance went. The better ones freely
> admit that they are very preoccupied during the performance,
> which frankly is what we listeners hope. We want them to be
> preoccupied with providing their best possible performance.
> That doesn't leave a lot left over to perceive the
> performance as listeners do.

Not in the sense of enjoying the performance, no. However, performers
sometimes enter a zone of hyper awareness of their performance. Hearing
a recording can then be a shock because the performer is no longer in
that zone. And, insecurity aside, hearing the recording can produce
anxiety because the musician no longer has the power to change the
performance.

> However, there's a macro view of the performance that is
> very important By technical means, it is possible for a
> performer to escape the limitations of the necessary
> preoccupation with being a performer, and also be a
> perceptive listener.

Musicians trained from an early age can be relatively unconscious of
their technique. Learning to listen can be tough for these types.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

Good Lord! Did your QuoteFix blow a fuse?

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article ,
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> ...
>
> >>>>> You missed the suggestion on another forum that you
> don't really
> >>>>> know what your instrument sounds like.
>
> >>>> This is true for many instruments and the voice.
> Compared to
> >>>> what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
> >>>> distorted version of the music he makes.
>
> >>> This is true but it doesn't change that the musician has
> a
> >>> sophisticated expectation of what the instrument should
> >> sound like.
>
> >> And that doesn't change the fact that the musician has a
> >> distorted view of the sound of music compared to a
> typical
> >> listener.
>
> > The original question had to do with whether a musician
> really knows
> > what *any* instrument sounds like whether or not the
> musician is
> > playing it at the time. It's absurd to say
> instrumentalists knows
> > *less* about the sound of their instrument (because of
> distortion)
> > because they play.
>
> My comment was 100% responsive to that question. By
> reviewing it without actually responding to my comment
> Stephen, we see you using debating trade tactics to avoid
> conceeding the point. You're just leading the discussion
> around in a circle.

"This is true" was intended as a response to your comment. Perhaps you
missed it (go up four paragraphs). Far from conceding the point, I
accepted it but suggested that its practical meaning is not what you
imply it is.

> >>> Musicians develop an "outside ear."
>
> >> Meaning exactly what?
>
> > The learned ability to relate the sound they hear inside
> their heads
> > to the sound as it is in the room.
>
> IME this is often defective and overblown in the musican's
> own mind.

You don't have any E of the musician's own mind, but that aside, as a
learned ability, it will be present in different degrees in different
musicians.

> > For an unlearned way to do this, next time you sing a
> hymn, lift the
> > hymnbook with one hand while cupping the other hand behind
> your ear to
> > collect the reflected sound of your voice.
>
> Seems like a very impovrished way to do this.

So what? Doesn't it sound different? It's more like the room than like
inside your head.

> It's an
> acoustically defective way to accomplish the task. For
> example, the cupping of the ear creates a resonant cavity
> that distorts the quality of the sound quite a bit.

You'll find that one can vary the cupping to find an acceptable degree,
perhaps by imagining your hand as an extension of your ear.

> What I do is compare recordings of my voice to recordings of
> other people's voices made under similar circumstances, and
> compare that to how I hear my own voice. The recording
> procedures were arrived at by trying to get natural
> reproduction of music.

Once you've acquired this sense of what your voice sounds like, you no
longer need new recordings to confirm this sense, yes?

Atypical anecdote: I met a pianist who complained she was over-relying
on her tape recorder in that she wasn't listening to her performance as
she played because she was going to listen to the tape later.

> Nevertheless, I have few illusions that the information I
> arrive at by these improved technical means is much more
> than a gross approximation. Procedures like this are very
> insensitive and reliable compared to say, ABX. But they are
> hugely accurate and diagnostic compared to traditional
> procedures.

And have nothing to do with how a musician would relate to a recording
of his own performance.

> >> Musicans also seem to develop enlarged egos of a kind,
> >> particularly related to their hearing.
>
> > What with the lifetime of hard-earned experience.
>
> IME its often a lifetime of deceiving themselves. For
> example, I've worked with a lot of musicans who strongly
> prefer to work in rooms that blur their work and thus
> conceal their technical errors. Their addiction to these
> rooms has, right before my eyes, degenerated into personal
> power plays to preserve dysfunctional performance spaces at
> the expense of the stated function of the rooms.

Translate please. Perhaps the musicians like the sound of the
reverberant space and have a performing style that utilizes a strong
sense of projection ("play mistakes softly, please"). If the space is a
church, these preferences have to be balanced against the need for
speech to be easily understandable.

To put it another way, classical pianists often dislike extremely close
recordings because these minimize the room. It's not uncommon to see
references to Pianist X's live sound in comparison to his recorded sound.

> Clearly not all musicans are like this. I've also seen other
> musicans gravitate toward rooms that are more neutral and
> readily adaptable for a broad range of functions. There
> seems to be some kind of "big fish in a small pond" effect
> with some people. Musicans that work together in larger
> groups can be pretty agressive about striving to produce and
> identify high performance.
>
> And its not necessarily their fault. The infrastructure they
> work in is not always that good.

I imagine there would be controversy in building a symphony hall,
especially if some constituents really want a multi-use facility.

> >> IME a lot of middle-aged musicans seem to have quite a
> bit
> >> of hearing damage. I was sitting next to a vocalist
> friend a
> >> week or two back, and she told me that she couldn't hear
> a
> >> guitar that was obviously being played pretty robustly.
> She
> >> blamed the sound system. I could hear it quite well and
> >> quite clearly.
>
> > This is a typical anecdote?
>
> Not necessarily completely representative, but not atypical.
> If we look at history, musicans who are baby boomers have
> had exceptional opportunities to damage their ears with
> their own music making.

Some retain sharper listening ability, as I said. A recent newspaper
article reported that some apparent old age hearing deterioration is due
to loss of listening skills rather than on changes in the physical
mechanism.

> > While musicians aren't immune to hearing
> > damage, this doesn't necessarily undo their discernment.
> After all,
> > the question is one of listening, not hearing.
>
> Well Stephen it seems like possibly your own egocentrism has
> kept from experiencing the learning experiences that might
> inform you about the limitations of your own hearing
> abilities.

Doesn't matter: all I have to do is pay attention to the audience, right?

> Listening for flaws in audio reproduction
> involves what are usually far smaller differences than are
> involved in listening for flaws in music making. I often see
> musicans who confuse the two. A little ABXing or something
> like it can make it all pretty clear.

Not only smaller, but different. One doesn't need ABX to overcome that
misapprehension.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Tim Martin" > wrote:

> Mmmm ... maybe I should start an electricty company, selling hi-fi
> electricity to audiophiles ... :-)

http://www.avrev.com/equip/audiophileaps1050/

[[email protected]]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Tim Martin" > wrote:
>
> > Mmmm ... maybe I should start an electricty company, selling hi-fi
> > electricity to audiophiles ... :-)
>
> http://www.avrev.com/equip/audiophileaps1050/
>
>


This thing is either:
>
a) a band-aid for very poorly designed equipment

or

b) a useless waste of resources for properly designed equipment


In either case, the purchaser is a fool. :((

[George Middius]

Reality takes a holiday in the Hive.

> > It's the real Arny Krueger, not the sanitized version he
> > managed to contrive for Stereophile.

> Actually, the inverse is true. The Stereophile debate
> exposed the real me, not the falsified version that Atkinson
> and his minions including Middius tried to contrive.

For the record, I am not anybody's minion. At least not until the pay goes up.

As for you and your falsies, Arnii, you're not fooling anybody with a brain™. Ir
anybody with a set of ears, for that matter.

"Stop dumping the ****ing garbage on my lawn!"

That was you. You were nasty and whiny, just like you are on RAO.

As Margaret observed, you do deserve a little credit for proving that you can
don a facade of seeming normalcy when the occasion arises. However, I've heard
you bitching and whining in a candid moment, so I (and others) know that you're
really the disgusting piece of work we see on RAO.

> involving Atkinson gratuitously here. He said here that
> wanted to be involved in the production and dissemination of
> the contents of "the tape".

Of course, this is a lie. A Kroo-lie that you've repeated several times. There's
no proof of this ridiculous Kroo-klaim, and JA has denied it publicly several
times. But you know better than reality, right Arnii? ;-)


> There's no independent
> verifiable evidence that "the tape" actually existed prior
> to the debate, and no more evidence since.

Denial ain't just a river, etc.

You are such a doodoo-head. Why don't you do away with yourself already and put
an end to your suffering?

[Surf]

> wrote
>
> To remember the bad person is not to threat. Just to remember not to be
> fool when bad person pretend to make nice.
> She writes to me nonsense, not to others. She mocks my attempts to
> English. I pretend my English is better. What is this "persona"?


How do you know it's nonsense? It looks like your English.
Do you assume that English that is like yours is nonsense?
What is your native language? Can you not translate
"persona" to it?
I think your native language is English.
I think you try to have a little fun weeth us, no?
Or maybe eet eez very hot in Arkansas and you
come down wees dee fever, yes?

[George Middius]

Surf said to Thing:

>How do you know it's nonsense? It looks like your English.
>Do you assume that English that is like yours is nonsense?
>What is your native language? Can you not translate
>"persona" to it?
>I think your native language is English.
>I think you try to have a little fun weeth us, no?
>Or maybe eet eez very hot in Arkansas and you
>come down wees dee fever, yes?

Doesn't dickie/toony/Little **** come from Polish stock? His internal monologue
probably has a Slavic inflection.

"Is bad for you mocking my English. What English not nonsense? Please to say
what is 'persona'. Have very slow computer in Old Country, cannot use good
translation dictionaries. Excuse please."

[[email protected]]

"George Middius" launchs a MIRV tipped ICBM of bull****:

>
> For the record, I am not anybody's minion.
>
>


Okay, "George", you can be Atkinson's mongrel, yapping away, instead of
a mere minion.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Margaret von B. schrieb:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > > schrieb:
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > schrieb:
> > >> > > Robert Morein wrote:
> > >> > > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > >> > > > . ..

(snip)

> > > Speakers, yes, big differences. In the turntable, the magnetic pickup
> > > and the tape deck, yes, some different sounds. But in the good
> > > amplifiers, the cd player and so on, really no different sounds if the
> > > imagining is gone. And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes,
> > > the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment not
> > > meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no?
> > >
> >
> > Are you post do be joke too? An entertainment be do Borgs are surely, not
> > do be serious are serious. Are be do a laugh no?
> >
> > Do be have good day are!

(snip)

> You make fun of my English.
> I see you are not a nice person. I will remember.

In rec.audio.opinion, there are some people who only want to insult
other people, not discuss audio. This has been going on for many years.

I suggest you do not read their posts and you do not respond to their
posts. When you do not give them attention, they usually will leave you
alone.

Sorry that you were ridiculed.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote:
> Margaret von B. schrieb:

>> Are you post do be joke too? An entertainment be do
Borgs are
>> surely, not do be serious are serious. Are be do a laugh
no?
>>
>> Do be have good day are!
>>
>> Margaret

> You make fun of my English.
> I see you are not a nice person. I will remember.


It's pretty well known around here that when you nail
certain people, their only remaining alternative is to make
fun of how you write.

Apparently, Maggie things you nailed *her*. Take the money
and run! ;-)

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> wrote:
> > Margaret von B. schrieb:
>
> >> Are you post do be joke too? An entertainment be do
> Borgs are
> >> surely, not do be serious are serious. Are be do a laugh
> no?
> >>
> >> Do be have good day are!
> >>
> >> Margaret
>
> > You make fun of my English.
> > I see you are not a nice person. I will remember.
>
>
> It's pretty well known around here that when you nail
> certain people, their only remaining alternative is to make
> fun of how you write.
>




You certainly are guilty of that. Guess you haven't figured out that
some people do it just to make fun of you. Oh well.




Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Signal wrote:
> >> I note the **** was ripped out of [Arny Krueger] on
> rec.audio.pro
> >> recently, when [he] claimed to be "experienced"... ;-)
> >
> > I was surprised by Mr. Krueger's statement on r.a.p. that
> he was
> > a professional audio/recording engineer. But I do feel he
> is
> > to be commended for actually making recordings, an
> activity
> > that has so far managed to evade Howard Ferstler, despite
> > his writings on the subject. :-)
>
> I was simply reacting to the narrow, distorted view of what
> makes a professional recordist that Atkinson was spewing on
> RAP. Others took exception to his posturing, as well.


Talk about posturing. Did you or did you not claim to be a
"professional audio/ recording engineer?"




Scott Wheeler

[George Middius]

The Big **** tries another recipe for Kroopaganda.

>It's pretty well known around here that when you nail
>certain people, their only remaining alternative is to make
>fun of how you write.

I'm sorry, Arnii, but no matter what "debating trade" dodge you try, you still
sound like the paranoid whacko we already know you are. Further testing is
deemed unnecessary to clarify whether you're curable; it's now axiomatic that
Kroofulness is permanent and ineradicable.

For the benefit of anybody who is not familiar with the Krooborg, he complains
often about Normals mocking his mangling of human language. It's his only dodge,
since he can't do logic, can't work a search engine, and can't understand
science.

>Apparently, Maggie things

Pardon? Did you eat another turd?

[Lionel]

George "Betty Boop" Middius a écrit :


> For the record, I am not anybody's minion. At least not until the pay goes up.

What an error George !!!!
What a misunderstanding !!!
....Everybody knows that you are a *whore* but this was not
Krueger's point.

:-D

[jclause]

>Denial ain't just a river, etc.


Hey George, wanna' be in the clover?
In the style of Lassie and Rover?
If you'd like to turn a trick
Let Boonie dip his wick...
Talk about screwin' yourself over...

Hammingaway

[EddieM]

> wrote
> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
>> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
>> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
>
>
> This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And
> should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on
> audibility of different components they had better do their testing db
> if they wish it to be taken seriously by science.


Very well and you agreed with the Objectivist that sighted evaluation
isn't a valid listening technique because it's not science.

Objectivist believe that preferences and biases are such a hindrance
on that basis that they say it invalidate sighted evaluation. The problem
I suppose with strict DB you propose is that it does not seclude nor
sequester the listener's from his own prejudices. That is, when
comparing in strickly double blind, wouldn't deeply held preferences
themselves skew and masked your ability to determine which of the
unknown components is preferable to you *as you compare* how the
two components of equal class sound different from one another.



> I for one am not looking to do scientific research. Are you?


I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different
components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things.


>> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable
>> way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.
>
>
> That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.


And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I
don't know.



>> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>
>
> Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research.



Well if there's nothing wrong with sighted evaluation, they still
have to do DB to find out for sure if they're hearing things.


> Scott Wheeler

[EddieM]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> EddieM wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more
>> specifically, sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid
>> process for determining if the audio components (except
>> speakers ?) would sound different.
>
>> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is
>> not a reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his
>> hearing acuity.
>
>> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>
> Nothing, depending on the situation.
>
> The problem with sighted listening is that when the
> differences are small, it can be very unreliable.

How does one would know that the small differences detected
by audiophiles are unreliable ?

[EddieM]

> Joseph Oberlander wrote
>> George Middius wrote:
>
>> In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
>> perfectly Normal.
>
> The problem is that they then refuse to admit and/or adjust
> for the fact that their emotions are involved. They suddenly
> ACT like objective experts when they state their opinion.
>
> Even stating it like "I think the whole experience was better
> taking all audio and visual factors into consideration, with
> brand X."


Proof reading are free these days.

[Arny Krueger]

EddieM wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>> EddieM wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more
>>> specifically, sighted evaluation is not a scientifically
valid
>>> process for determining if the audio components (except
>>> speakers ?) would sound different.
>>
>>> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening
is
>>> not a reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms
of his
>>> hearing acuity.
>>
>>> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

>> Nothing, depending on the situation.

>> The problem with sighted listening is that when the
>> differences are small, it can be very unreliable.

> How does one would know that the small differences
detected
> by audiophiles are unreliable ?

One way to do so is blind testing.

[EddieM]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more
>>>> specifically, sighted evaluation is not a scientifically
>>>> valid
>>>> process for determining if the audio components (except
>>>> speakers ?) would sound different.
>>>
>>>> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is
>>>> not a reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms
>>>> of his hearing acuity.
>>>
>>>> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>
>>> Nothing, depending on the situation.
>
>>> The problem with sighted listening is that when the
>>> differences are small, it can be very unreliable.
>
>> How does one would know that the small differences
>> detected by audiophiles are unreliable ?
>
> One way to do so is blind testing.


You mean if you do some blind testing down there in your
basement, you would know that the small differences detected
by audiophiles are unreliable ?

[EddieM]

> Jenn wrote


Well, I guess it's a toss-up between GM and RM to
take the credit for making them hide and



scream..............


> Oh boy! Duck! Incoming!!! :-)

[[email protected]]

EddieM wrote:
> > wrote
> > EddieM wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
> >> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
> >> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
> >
> >
> > This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And
> > should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on
> > audibility of different components they had better do their testing db
> > if they wish it to be taken seriously by science.
>
>
> Very well and you agreed with the Objectivist that sighted evaluation
> isn't a valid listening technique because it's not science.


No.






>
> Objectivist believe that preferences and biases are such a hindrance
> on that basis that they say it invalidate sighted evaluation.


That's where they begin to blow it.


The problem
> I suppose with strict DB you propose is that it does not seclude nor
> sequester the listener's from his own prejudices.


Hold on here. What DB tests did *I* propose and for what purpose?




That is, when
> comparing in strickly double blind, wouldn't deeply held preferences
> themselves skew and masked your ability to determine which of the
> unknown components is preferable to you *as you compare* how the
> two components of equal class sound different from one another.


I do like to do SB comparisons but I like to combine them with sighted
evaluations. IME the results are usually the same. When the results are
in conflict I go back and do them again. More often than not different
results are reconciled in a second round of comparisons. In the rare
instance that there is no reconciliation I generally go with the
sighted evaluation. That is because that is how I listen normally. I
make no claims that my methods are scientifically valid or that they
are any better than other methods. I do claim that they work for me
though.





>
>
>
> > I for one am not looking to do scientific research. Are you?
>
>
> I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different
> components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things.


*If* you are up to the task of doing them well enough they probably
will. There in lies a BIG problem.




>
>
> >> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable
> >> way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.
> >
> >
> > That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.
>
>
> And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I
> don't know.


No, it will show if you are not hearing things. Think about it.




>
>
>
> >> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
> >
> >
> > Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research.
>
>
>
> Well if there's nothing wrong with sighted evaluation, they still
> have to do DB to find out for sure if they're hearing things.


"They" being whom? Audiophiles? Audiophiles do not *have* to do any
such thing. They make no claims of scientific varification of their
experiences. Objectivists OTOH actually do if they are to be taken
seriously in their claims. So far they have yet to meet the rigors
demanded by science. Ironic isn't it?





Scott Wheeler

[Sander deWaal]

"Carl Valle" > said:

>I also like the way some of my gear smells. Whatever rocks your boat...



Oh, the smell of burning KT88s in the morning.... ;-)

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

said:

>I think those you call Borgs are the ones who sleep best and enjoy
>their stereo more, because they know that their systems perform as they
>are supposed to and they know more about proper setup and how to
>optimize the sound than a roomful of your "Normals."


By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-)

--

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

[George Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

[snip 'borg spew]

>By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-)

Confucius say: When feeding trolls, be wary of frosty flying cat feces.

[Arny Krueger]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> said:
>
>> I think those you call Borgs are the ones who sleep best
and enjoy
>> their stereo more, because they know that their systems
perform as
>> they are supposed to and they know more about proper
setup and how to
>> optimize the sound than a roomful of your "Normals."
>
>
> By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-)

...at least in your own mind, Sander.

[Arny Krueger]

EddieM wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more
>>>>> specifically, sighted evaluation is not a
scientifically
>>>>> valid
>>>>> process for determining if the audio components
(except
>>>>> speakers ?) would sound different.
>>>>
>>>>> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening
is
>>>>> not a reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms
>>>>> of his hearing acuity.
>>>>
>>>>> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>>
>>>> Nothing, depending on the situation.
>>
>>>> The problem with sighted listening is that when the
>>>> differences are small, it can be very unreliable.
>>
>>> How does one would know that the small differences
>>> detected by audiophiles are unreliable ?
>>
>> One way to do so is blind testing.

> You mean if you do some blind testing down there in your
> basement, you would know that the small differences
detected
> by audiophiles are unreliable ?

Oh come on!

No!

What I'm saying is that when audiophiles do DBTs in a
fashion that is as much like their preferred means for
lisetning as possible, they often turn out to be unreliable,
insensitive listeners. OTOH, the things they can learn about
listening from doing DBTs, can help them to be more reliable
listeners in general.

[[email protected]]

schrieb:
> wrote:
> > Margaret von B. schrieb:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > > > schrieb:
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > schrieb:
> > > >> > > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > >> > > > "EddieM" > wrote in message
> > > >> > > > . ..
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > Speakers, yes, big differences. In the turntable, the magnetic pickup
> > > > and the tape deck, yes, some different sounds. But in the good
> > > > amplifiers, the cd player and so on, really no different sounds if the
> > > > imagining is gone. And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes,
> > > > the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment not
> > > > meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you post do be joke too? An entertainment be do Borgs are surely, not
> > > do be serious are serious. Are be do a laugh no?
> > >
> > > Do be have good day are!
>
> (snip)
>
> > You make fun of my English.
> > I see you are not a nice person. I will remember.
>
> In rec.audio.opinion, there are some people who only want to insult
> other people, not discuss audio. This has been going on for many years.
>
> I suggest you do not read their posts and you do not respond to their
> posts. When you do not give them attention, they usually will leave you
> alone.
>
> Sorry that you were ridiculed.


Yes, this seems true. Already, I have found three of that kind.
Ridicule, mock, insult. I will ignore them. Thank you for your advice.

I hope we can discuss the audio. What is real, what is imagined. What
is important and what is not so much. And, of course, what is for the
entertainment, the laugh!

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Sander deWaal wrote:
>> said:

>>> I think those you call Borgs are the ones who sleep best
>and enjoy
>>> their stereo more, because they know that their systems
>perform as
>>> they are supposed to and they know more about proper
>setup and how to
>>> optimize the sound than a roomful of your "Normals."


>> By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-)

>..at least in your own mind, Sander.


Let's see:
1. I sleep very well.
2. I enjoy my stereo more, because:
3. I know my system performs as supposed (AND as I intended!).
4. I probably know more about proper setup and how to optimize the
sound than most of what you call "Normals" posting here.

Still, I don't feel very borgish. I don't hear voices in my head, and
my measuring gear isn't attached to my body.

--

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

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:

"You are SUCH a dork.

I'm not even going to try to hack through this garbage. You are too far
gone
to be reached by reason."


Thank you for revealing once again that you really have nothing
constructive that might be helpful in a serious discussion. You simply
show up here to be an obstruction to such discussion. The idea that
you might ever try and use reason in a discussion of audio is
preposterous, and now anybody not previously aware of that fact has
been so informed.

[[email protected]]

George Middius wrote:

"As Margaret observed, you do deserve a little credit for proving that
you can
don a facade of seeming normalcy when the occasion arises. However,
I've heard
you bitching and whining in a candid moment, so I (and others) know
that you're
really the disgusting piece of work we see on RAO."

Thank for not bothering at an attempted facade of seeming normalcy, you
are the disgusting dork that you appear.

[[email protected]]

Eddie M said:

"Objectivist believe that preferences and biases are such a hindrance

on that basis that they say it invalidate sighted evaluation. The
problem
I suppose with strict DB you propose is that it does not seclude nor
sequester the listener's from his own prejudices. That is, when
comparing in strickly double blind, wouldn't deeply held preferences
themselves skew and masked your ability to determine which of the
unknown components is preferable to you *as you compare* how the
two components of equal class sound different from one another."

When one listens in a double blind comparison, one uses only one's ears
to make determinations regarding the sound of the gear being compared.


"I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different

components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things."

It will let you use your ears and only your ears to determine if you
hear a difference.
There's nothing wrong with enjoying the way you gear looks, but when
somebody says this sounds better than that, then one assumes there is
actually something audible and different. A DBT will be more revealing
of actual differences, assuming they really are audible.


"I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different

components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things."

Sighted evaluations are fine if differences are large enough that
anybody can hear them easily. If there question about the audibility
of something, then a DBT is the best way to answer that question.
Eliminating things like salesmen saying things like, "hear how the XYZ
preamp lifts a veil fromthe soundstage and helps to resolve the sound
of tinkling bells and whistles, is very helpful when you listen for
difference.

If you are familiar enough with good audio equipment, then you azlready
know that most alleged differences are tiny or simply not there at all.
Doing a DBT is the best way there is to reliably determine if alleged
differences or improvements are real.

[Surf]

> wrote
>
> Thank you for revealing once again that you really have nothing
> constructive that might be helpful in a serious discussion. You simply
> show up here to be an obstruction to such discussion. The idea that
> you might ever try and use reason in a discussion of audio is
> preposterous, and now anybody not previously aware of that fact has
> been so informed.


you're a little slow, aren't you?

[Surf]

> wrote
>
> If you are familiar enough with good audio equipment, then you azlready
> know that most alleged differences are tiny or simply not there at all.
> Doing a DBT is the best way there is to reliably determine if alleged
> differences or improvements are real.

Are you saying that it's not possible that music reproduction systems
have a subconscious effect on people?

[Tim Martin]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> What I'm saying is that when audiophiles do DBTs in a
> fashion that is as much like their preferred means for
> lisetning as possible, they often turn out to be unreliable,
> insensitive listeners. OTOH, the things they can learn about
> listening from doing DBTs, can help them to be more reliable
> listeners in general.

Yes.

I think many people are simply unaware of the way testers can be influenced
by others' opinions.

There was a study of this published in the Journal of Occupational
Psychology: "A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority". In an
experiment, subjects were asked to state which of two lines was longer.
Unknown to the subject, the other particpants were members of the test team,
and were primed to echo what the leader - the first to speak - said. The
subject was always in second-to-last position.

It turned out that the vast majority of test subjects simply echoed what
everyone else said, even though they could clearly see it was wrong.
However, should a single person before the test subjectstate the truth, the
test subject would also state the truth(*).

Now, this is for something simple which all the test subjects *could* have
done perfectly well (viz stating whether a 3-inch line is longer than a
nearby 4.5-inch line ). If people state things they know to be false on
such a test, how on earth can we expect them to state what they believe on
more complex tests, unless we set up the tests so that they cannot be
influenced by what others think or expect?

Tim

(*) There was a small proportion of test subjects who always stated the
truth, some apparently quite belligerently.

[George M. Middius]

Surf said:

> you're a little slow, aren't you?

Maybe we should pity this dim little 'borg. He's obviously been assimilated
recently and hasn't adjusted well to his new life as a mindless Hivie drone.

[Arny Krueger]

Surf wrote:
> > wrote
>>
>> If you are familiar enough with good audio equipment,
then you
>> azlready know that most alleged differences are tiny or
simply not
>> there at all. Doing a DBT is the best way there is to
reliably
>> determine if alleged differences or improvements are
real.
>
> Are you saying that it's not possible that music
reproduction systems
> have a subconscious effect on people?

Tom, time to take some writing lessons from Middius.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Surf wrote:
> > > wrote
> >>
> >> If you are familiar enough with good audio equipment,
> then you
> >> azlready know that most alleged differences are tiny or
> simply not
> >> there at all. Doing a DBT is the best way there is to
> reliably
> >> determine if alleged differences or improvements are
> real.
> >
> > Are you saying that it's not possible that music
> reproduction systems
> > have a subconscious effect on people?
>
> Tom, time to take some writing lessons from Middius.
>
>

As a supplement to the obedience training? ;-)

[Surf]

> wrote
>
> As a supplement to the obedience training? ;-)


Any chance you see the irony here, dick?

[Tim Martin]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

"Yes, the sound in the mains cable! This is for a big laugh, no?"


I see I was wrong about the price; they are not £25, some of them are over
£100.

It says here

https://secure.wilmslow-audio.co.uk/acatalog/Wilmslow_Audio_Merlin_Mains_Cable_119.html

"you will definitely hear noticable benefits by changing your mains lead.
You will hear more detail, sweeter treble and better bass, along with less
distortion at louder volumes. This change should be your first step to
improving your system, remember, until you have a pure mains signal your
system will never perform at it's best and you may not hear the full benefit
of any other upgrades that you make.

"Merlin mains cables are made from 1mm² multi-strand laboratory
specification high purity copper, with carefully selected dielectric
materials chosen for their sonic and electrical performance, in addition
they employ advanced absorption techniques to help get the best out of your
HiFi system."

What about those mains sockets? Surely they must offer an opportunity for
improvement?

"Standard mains sockets are designed for a wide variety of appliances;
their need to accommodate any appliance from a tumble drier to a portable CD
player means they are inevitably a compromise. In particular, the materials
for the conducting surfaces are susceptible to microelectronmics effects."

"Martian mains sockets are designed for a single purpose: powering
high-grade audiophile equipment. The surface geometry of the conductors is
precisely contoured to give the ideal power transfer for audiophile needs.

"Listening to equipment connected to Martian Mains Sockets will reveal the
hidden subtleties previous obscured by the microelectronics effects of
standard mains sockets. Stereo imaging will imrpove, bass will be better
controlled, and the upper register will be free of those irritating
microscopic defects detectable to the trained ear."

"But to get the best results from our Martian Mains Sockets, you should wear
one of our Stereo Suits while listening. Normal clothing is made of a
variety of textiles whose effect on audio waves can be unpredictable. The
Stereo Suit eliminates such variations, making the listening experience the
ultimate joy."

"One size fits all."

Tim

[John Atkinson]

Signal wrote:
> " emitted :
> >> >> I note the **** was ripped out of [Arny Krueger] on rec.audio.pro
> >> >> recently, when [he] claimed to be "experienced"... ;-)
> >> >
> >> > I was surprised by Mr. Krueger's statement on r.a.p. that he was
> >> > a professional audio/recording engineer. But I do feel he is
> >> > to be commended for actually making recordings, an activity
> >> > that has so far managed to evade Howard Ferstler, despite
> >> > his writings on the subject. :-)
> >>
> >> I was simply reacting to the narrow, distorted view of what
> >> makes a professional recordist that Atkinson was spewing on
> >> RAP. Others took exception to his posturing, as well.
> >
> >Talk about posturing. Did you or did you not claim to be a
> >"professional audio/ recording engineer?"
>
> Here's Arnies justification for being described as an professional.
> I suspect this is what John Atkinson is referring to but I'm sure
> he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> "Given that people occasionally pay me for some of my audio
> efforts, can't I squeek by as a professional? When they have
> to hire someone to do my job at church, its a $150 gig for
> him. Small pototoes in the larger view, but isn't creating
> value at the rate of about $8K a year worth some kind of
> standing? ;-)"

The view of mine to which Arny Krueger was referring, BTW,
concerned "commercially released recordings." To the best
of my knowledge, Arny hasnt had any of these, hence his
objection.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Signal > wrote:

> Claims that he should be taken seriously because he's participated in
> 150 recordings also brought derision from posters to rec.audio.pro, to
> whom 150 recordings is a drop in the ocean.

Worse, it was 150 "live sound gigs," which probably represent three
years of running the board at church. There's nothing wrong with that,
except in comparison to actual sound pros.

Stephen

[dave weil]

On 27 May 2005 05:10:22 -0700, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:

>
>
>Signal wrote:
>> " emitted :
>> >> >> I note the **** was ripped out of [Arny Krueger] on rec.audio.pro
>> >> >> recently, when [he] claimed to be "experienced"... ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > I was surprised by Mr. Krueger's statement on r.a.p. that he was
>> >> > a professional audio/recording engineer. But I do feel he is
>> >> > to be commended for actually making recordings, an activity
>> >> > that has so far managed to evade Howard Ferstler, despite
>> >> > his writings on the subject. :-)
>> >>
>> >> I was simply reacting to the narrow, distorted view of what
>> >> makes a professional recordist that Atkinson was spewing on
>> >> RAP. Others took exception to his posturing, as well.
>> >
>> >Talk about posturing. Did you or did you not claim to be a
>> >"professional audio/ recording engineer?"
>>
>> Here's Arnies justification for being described as an professional.
>> I suspect this is what John Atkinson is referring to but I'm sure
>> he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> "Given that people occasionally pay me for some of my audio
>> efforts, can't I squeek by as a professional? When they have
>> to hire someone to do my job at church, its a $150 gig for
>> him. Small pototoes in the larger view, but isn't creating
>> value at the rate of about $8K a year worth some kind of
>> standing? ;-)"
>
>The view of mine to which Arny Krueger was referring, BTW,
>concerned "commercially released recordings." To the best
>of my knowledge, Arny hasnt had any of these, hence his
>objection.

Since he's donating his time to his church by providing a service no
different than, say, putting up siding or laying carpet, he should get
an accounting for the church for each session as he can probably get a
nice tax deduction for his work and there's no downside for the church
since they are probably tax-exempt for the most part.

And no, I'm not being facetious here.

[Bill Riel]

In article >, tim2718281
@ntlworld.com says...
>=20
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>=20
> "Yes, the sound in the mains cable! This is for a big laugh, no?"
>=20
>=20
> I see I was wrong about the price; they are not =A325, some of them are =
over
> =A3100.
>=20
> It says here
>=20
> https://secure.wilmslow-audio.co.uk/acatalog/Wilmslow_Audio_Merlin_Mains_=
Cable_119.html
>=20
> "you will definitely hear noticable benefits by changing your mains lead.
> You will hear more detail, sweeter treble and better bass, along with les=
s
> distortion at louder volumes. This change should be your first step to
> improving your system, remember, until you have a pure mains signal your
> system will never perform at it's best and you may not hear the full bene=
fit
> of any other upgrades that you make.
>=20
> "Merlin mains cables are made from 1mm=B2 multi-strand laboratory
> specification high purity copper, with carefully selected dielectric
> materials chosen for their sonic and electrical performance, in addition
> they employ advanced absorption techniques to help get the best out of yo=
ur
> HiFi system."

Bah, kid's stuff: check out these *real* audiophile cables here:=20
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/taralabs_air_one.htm

$2600.00 for a 10 foot length!

--=20
Bill

[EddieM]

> wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > EddieM wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
>> >> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
>> >> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And
>> > should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on
>> > audibility of different components they had better do their testing db
>> > if they wish it to be taken seriously by science.
>>
>>
>> Very well and you agreed with the Objectivist that sighted evaluation
>> isn't a valid listening technique because it's not science.
>
>
> No.


Ok well I just thought it's because it wasn't science. I suppose
then you agree with the objectivist that straight listening is not a valid
process 'cause it has nothing to do with science. And if one is to be
taken seriously, one must do DB 'cause it's scientific and hence,
you agree with the objectivist because of this. Maybe this is correct
now I hope, that the Obs made a valid assertion that sighted eval.
is not a valid process because it has nothing to do with science..


>> Objectivist believe that preferences and biases are such a hindrance
>> on that basis that they say it invalidate sighted evaluation.
>
> That's where they begin to blow it.
>
> The problem
>> I suppose with strict DB you propose is that it does not seclude nor
>> sequester the listener's from his own prejudices.
>
> Hold on here. What DB tests did *I* propose and for what purpose?


Well I just thought that what you meant above is that for any audiophile
wishing to be taken seriously with science in mind must do db.
That is, db = DB, to mean double blind and not decibel. So in a way,
I surmise it like a proposition: To make a valid assertions that if there's
a sound differences, it must be through DB.


>> That is, when
>> comparing in strickly double blind, wouldn't deeply held preferences
>> themselves skew and masked your ability to determine which of the
>> unknown components is preferable to you *as you compare* how the
>> two components of equal class sound different from one another.
>
>
> I do like to do SB [Single Blind] comparisons but I like to combine
> them with sighted
> evaluations. IME the results are usually the same. When the results are
> in conflict I go back and do them again. More often than not different
> results are reconciled in a second round of comparisons. In the rare
> instance that there is no reconciliation I generally go with the
> sighted evaluation. That is because that is how I listen normally. I
> make no claims that my methods are scientifically valid or that they
> are any better than other methods. I do claim that they work for me
> though.


I've no doubt that most audiophiles do it that way too. It just that I don't
understand how Objectivist could make such a valid assertion that
to determine if audio components sound different, audiophiles
must avoid straight listening because it is not a scientifically (?)
valid process. I think that their claim that it is invalid is invalid as
been said many times.

If they live in1800s, they'll ****-off a lot of people like Edison.


>> > I for one am not looking to do scientific research. Are you?
>>
>> I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different
>> components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things.
>
> *If* you are up to the task of doing them well enough they probably
> will. There in lies a BIG problem.

I don't really look forward to it.



>> >> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a
>> >> reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.
>> >
>> > That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.
>>
>> And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I
>> don't know.
>
> No, it will show if you are not hearing things. Think about it.


If you're refering to listening test in hearing booth, I think it will
only show the accuracy of hearing sensitivity. Not whether
I'm hearing things or not.


>> >> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>> >
>> > Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research.
>>
>> Well if there's nothing wrong with sighted evaluation, they still
>> have to do DB to find out for sure if they're hearing things.
>
> "They" being whom? Audiophiles? Audiophiles do not *have* to do any
> such thing. They make no claims of scientific varification of their
> experiences. Objectivists OTOH actually do if they are to be taken
> seriously in their claims. So far they have yet to meet the rigors
> demanded by science. Ironic isn't it?


Agreed.



>
> Scott Wheeler

[EddieM]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The problem with sighted listening is that when the
>>>>> differences are small, it can be very unreliable.
>>>
>>>> How does one would know that the small differences
>>>> detected by audiophiles are unreliable ?
>>>
>>> One way to do so is blind testing.
>
>> You mean if you do some blind testing down there in your
>> basement, you would know that the small differences
>> detected by audiophiles are unreliable ?
>
> Oh come on!
>
> No!
>
> What I'm saying is that when audiophiles do DBTs in a
> fashion that is as much like their preferred means for
> listening as possible, they often turn out to be unreliable,
> insensitive listeners. OTOH, the things they can learn about
> listening from doing DBTs, can help them to be more reliable
> listeners in general.


If you're able to alter and fashion a DBT in such a way that you
found it your most prefered way of listening to music,
why would you still conclude towards the end that you often
find yourself to be an unreliable, insensitive listener if, in fact,
it is already your most prefered way of listening to music ?

[[email protected]]

EddieM wrote:
> > wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> > EddieM wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
> >> >> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
> >> >> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And
> >> > should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on
> >> > audibility of different components they had better do their testing db
> >> > if they wish it to be taken seriously by science.
> >>
> >>
> >> Very well and you agreed with the Objectivist that sighted evaluation
> >> isn't a valid listening technique because it's not science.
> >
> >
> > No.
>
>
> Ok well I just thought it's because it wasn't science.



We accept most of our own perceptions at face value without scientific
investigations or dbts. For the most part it works for people just
fine.





I suppose
> then you agree with the objectivist that straight listening is not a valid
> process 'cause it has nothing to do with science.




No. I only agree that it would not be acceptable in a scientific
investigation into the audibility of something. Sighted listening has
many variables. Good scientific investigation strives to limit
variables, preferably to one. But, like I said, unless you are doing
scientific investigation this is not a disqualifier for listening
evaluations.






And if one is to be
> taken seriously, one must do DB 'cause it's scientific and hence,
> you agree with the objectivist because of this.



What are you talking about? Are you worried about being "taken
seriously?" Do you really care if others agree with you? I don't. In
the end it's my listening experience and what works for me is *all*
that matters.




Maybe this is correct
> now I hope, that the Obs made a valid assertion that sighted eval.
> is not a valid process because it has nothing to do with science..



I think *that* assertion is complete nonsense and that is where the
objectivists become idiotic and hypocritical. Most audiophiles have
nothing to do with science. I don't have a problem with that. There is
no law that requires audiophiles to do scientifically valid research
before forming an opinion. There would be no hobby if that were the
case.




>
>
> >> Objectivist believe that preferences and biases are such a hindrance
> >> on that basis that they say it invalidate sighted evaluation.
> >
> > That's where they begin to blow it.
> >
> > The problem
> >> I suppose with strict DB you propose is that it does not seclude nor
> >> sequester the listener's from his own prejudices.
> >
> > Hold on here. What DB tests did *I* propose and for what purpose?
>
>
> Well I just thought that what you meant above is that for any audiophile
> wishing to be taken seriously with science in mind must do db.



I didn't mean any such thing.



> That is, db = DB, to mean double blind and not decibel. So in a way,
> I surmise it like a proposition: To make a valid assertions that if there's
> a sound differences, it must be through DB.



"Valid?" *Scientifically valid* yes. Are you trying to make
*scientifically valid* assertions out of your every day opinions?
You're in for a big surprise. I'm not worried about my every day
opinions on the quality of different things being *scientifically
valid.* It's a level of certainty that is impractical for us in our
every day lives and we do just fine without *that* level of certainty.
Can you imagine objectivists jumping in when you say you like
hamburgers and insisting that you need validation of a DB taste test to
have that opinion? It would be ridiculous. Is "I like hamburgers" a
"valid" opinion? I think so. Is it "scientifically valid?" No. Not
without bias controled tests. To hell with that. I like hamburgers and
that opinion is good enough for me.





>
>
> >> That is, when
> >> comparing in strickly double blind, wouldn't deeply held preferences
> >> themselves skew and masked your ability to determine which of the
> >> unknown components is preferable to you *as you compare* how the
> >> two components of equal class sound different from one another.
> >
> >
> > I do like to do SB [Single Blind] comparisons but I like to combine
> > them with sighted
> > evaluations. IME the results are usually the same. When the results are
> > in conflict I go back and do them again. More often than not different
> > results are reconciled in a second round of comparisons. In the rare
> > instance that there is no reconciliation I generally go with the
> > sighted evaluation. That is because that is how I listen normally. I
> > make no claims that my methods are scientifically valid or that they
> > are any better than other methods. I do claim that they work for me
> > though.
>
>
> I've no doubt that most audiophiles do it that way too. It just that I don't
> understand how Objectivist could make such a valid assertion that
> to determine if audio components sound different, audiophiles
> must avoid straight listening because it is not a scientifically (?)
> valid process.



That assertion made by objectivists is ridiculous. It is also
hypocritical since their own home brewed dbts do not rise to the levels
demanded by real science for scientific validity.





I think that their claim that it is invalid is invalid as
> been said many times.



I'll go further than that. I think they are giving science a bad name
amoung audiophiles that are not very saavy when it comes to science.




>
> If they live in1800s, they'll ****-off a lot of people like Edison.
>
>
> >> > I for one am not looking to do scientific research. Are you?
> >>
> >> I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different
> >> components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things.
> >
> > *If* you are up to the task of doing them well enough they probably
> > will. There in lies a BIG problem.
>
> I don't really look forward to it.



Agreed. I have other things on my "to do" list.




>
>
>
> >> >> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a
> >> >> reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.
> >> >
> >> > That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.
> >>
> >> And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I
> >> don't know.
> >
> > No, it will show if you are not hearing things. Think about it.
>
>
> If you're refering to listening test in hearing booth, I think it will
> only show the accuracy of hearing sensitivity. Not whether
> I'm hearing things or not.


I am refering to *hearing* tests. You know, headphones, doctor's
office, raise your hand if you hear a tone. They will determine what
you *can't* hear.




>
>
> >> >> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
> >> >
> >> > Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research.
> >>
> >> Well if there's nothing wrong with sighted evaluation, they still
> >> have to do DB to find out for sure if they're hearing things.
> >
> > "They" being whom? Audiophiles? Audiophiles do not *have* to do any
> > such thing. They make no claims of scientific varification of their
> > experiences. Objectivists OTOH actually do if they are to be taken
> > seriously in their claims. So far they have yet to meet the rigors
> > demanded by science. Ironic isn't it?
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>





Scott Wheeler

[George Middius]

dave weil said:

>Since he's donating his time to his church by providing a service no
>different than, say, putting up siding or laying carpet, he should get
>an accounting for the church for each session as he can probably get a
>nice tax deduction for his work and there's no downside for the church
>since they are probably tax-exempt for the most part.

Good constructive suggestion, but it's actually immaterial since Krooger has no
income to shelter. (I'm assuming, without verifying, that disability payments
are tax-exempt in Michigan.)

>And no, I'm not being facetious here.

Well, you should be. The subject is Arnii Krooborg, after all.

[George Middius]

Signal said:

>>Good constructive suggestion, but it's actually immaterial since
>>Krooger has no income to shelter.

>Krooger claims to have a "PC business". In the UK businesses are
>registered at Companies House and yearly income is public information.
>Do you have that in the states?

Yes and no. If the company is public (shares traded publicly), then income and
P/L statements have to be filed every quarter. For a private company, the only
required reporting is the annual income tax return. Tax returns are available to
any citizen or company. So you can get the information if you're willing to do
the red tape shuffle.

Regardless, nobody with a brain™ would believe Krooger is capable of running an
actual business in human society. Right? ;-)

[EddieM]

> wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> > EddieM wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
>> >> >> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for
>> >> >> determining
>> >> >> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And
>> >> > should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on
>> >> > audibility of different components they had better do their testing db
>> >> > if they wish it to be taken seriously by science.

Hmm.

>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Very well and you agreed with the Objectivist that sighted evaluation
>> >> isn't a valid listening technique because it's not science.
>> >
>> > No.
>>
>> Ok well I just thought it's because it wasn't science.
>
> We accept most of our own perceptions at face value without scientific
> investigations or dbts. For the most part it works for people just
> fine.


>> I suppose
>> then you agree with the objectivist that straight listening is not a valid
>> process 'cause it has nothing to do with science.
>
> No. I only agree that it would not be acceptable in a scientific
> investigation into the audibility of something.


> Sighted listening has
> many variables. Good scientific investigation strives to limit
> variables, preferably to one. But, like I said, unless you are doing
> scientific investigation this is not a disqualifier for listening
> evaluations.
>
>> And if one is to be
>> taken seriously, one must do DB 'cause it's scientific and hence,
>> you agree with the objectivist because of this.
>
>
> What are you talking about? Are you worried about being "taken
> seriously?" Do you really care if others agree with you? I don't. In
> the end it's my listening experience and what works for me is *all*
> that matters.


Oh no. Not worried about being taken seriously but rather
concern about being accused of suffering from delusions. That is
not fair. Anyway, I thought that DB will be a scientific research
in determining presence of audible diff. which will prove if one is
delusional or not.


>> Maybe this is correct
>> now I hope, that the Obs made a valid assertion that sighted eval.
>> is not a valid process because it has nothing to do with science..
>
> I think *that* assertion is complete nonsense and that is where the
> objectivists become idiotic and hypocritical. Most audiophiles have
> nothing to do with science. I don't have a problem with that. There is
> no law that requires audiophiles to do scientifically valid research
> before forming an opinion. There would be no hobby if that were the
> case.


But in order to prevent being accuse of hearing things that don't exist,
one must do a valid scientific DB process I suppose.


>> >> Objectivist believe that preferences and biases are such a hindrance
>> >> on that basis that they say it invalidate sighted evaluation.
>> >
>> > That's where they begin to blow it.
>> >
>> > The problem
>> >> I suppose with strict DB you propose is that it does not seclude nor
>> >> sequester the listener's from his own prejudices.
>> >
>> > Hold on here. What DB tests did *I* propose and for what purpose?
>>
>>
>> Well I just thought that what you meant above is that for any audiophile
>> wishing to be taken seriously with science in mind must do db.
>
> I didn't mean any such thing.



>> That is, db = DB, to mean double blind and not decibel. So in a way,
>> I surmise it like a proposition: To make a valid assertions that if
>> there's
>> a sound differences, it must be through DB.
>
> "Valid?" *Scientifically valid* yes. Are you trying to make
> *scientifically valid* assertions out of your every day opinions?

No, because one only wants to make a solid, valid, scientific assertion
that one is not delusional and hearing things once and for all.

> You're in for a big surprise. I'm not worried about my every day
> opinions on the quality of different things being *scientifically
> valid.*

Well audiophiles will be worried and will want to assert they're not
delusional. It seems the only scientific way to make that assertion
would be through a valid process called DB because straight listening
is just not an acceptable and valid scientific process to investigate
accordingly for now.


> It's a level of certainty that is impractical for us in our
> every day lives and we do just fine without *that* level of certainty.

Well audiophiles I'm sure won't won't do fine without a level of certainty
that they're not delusional.

> Can you imagine objectivists jumping in when you say you like
> hamburgers and insisting that you need validation of a DB taste test to
> have that opinion? It would be ridiculous. Is "I like hamburgers" a
> "valid" opinion? I think so. Is it "scientifically valid?" No. Not
> without bias controled tests. To hell with that. I like hamburgers and
> that opinion is good enough for me.


That's right!


>> >> That is, when
>> >> comparing in strickly double blind, wouldn't deeply held preferences
>> >> themselves skew and masked your ability to determine which of the
>> >> unknown components is preferable to you *as you compare* how the
>> >> two components of equal class sound different from one another.
>> >
>> >
>> > I do like to do SB [Single Blind] comparisons but I like to combine
>> > them with sighted
>> > evaluations. IME the results are usually the same. When the results are
>> > in conflict I go back and do them again. More often than not different
>> > results are reconciled in a second round of comparisons. In the rare
>> > instance that there is no reconciliation I generally go with the
>> > sighted evaluation. That is because that is how I listen normally. I
>> > make no claims that my methods are scientifically valid or that they
>> > are any better than other methods. I do claim that they work for me
>> > though.
>>
>> I've no doubt that most audiophiles do it that way too. It just that I
>> don't
>> understand how Objectivist could make such a valid assertion that
>> to determine if audio components sound different, audiophiles
>> must avoid straight listening because it is not a scientifically (?)
>> valid process.
>
> That assertion made by objectivists is ridiculous. It is also
> hypocritical since their own home brewed dbts do not rise to the levels
> demanded by real science for scientific validity.


Hmm. Ok.


>> I think that their claim that it is invalid is invalid as
>> been said many times.
>
> I'll go further than that. I think they are giving science a bad name
> amoung audiophiles that are not very saavy when it comes to science.



>> If they live in1800s, they'll ****-off a lot of people like Edison.
>>
>> >> > I for one am not looking to do scientific research. Are you?
>> >>
>> >> I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different
>> >> components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things.
>> >
>> > *If* you are up to the task of doing them well enough they probably
>> > will. There in lies a BIG problem.
>>
>> I don't really look forward to it.
>
>
> Agreed. I have other things on my "to do" list.
>
>
>> >> >> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a
>> >> >> reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing
>> >> >> acuity.
>> >> >
>> >> > That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.
>> >>
>> >> And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I
>> >> don't know.
>> >
>> > No, it will show if you are not hearing things. Think about it.
>>
>>
>> If you're refering to listening test in hearing booth, I think it will
>> only show the accuracy of hearing sensitivity. Not whether
>> I'm hearing things or not.
>
>
> I am refering to *hearing* tests. You know, headphones, doctor's
> office, raise your hand if you hear a tone. They will determine what
> you *can't* hear.


Well, the doctor will determine what he think I can't hear. He will not
determine what I can't hear for me.


>> >> >> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research.
>> >>
>> >> Well if there's nothing wrong with sighted evaluation, they still
>> >> have to do DB to find out for sure if they're hearing things.
>> >
>> > "They" being whom? Audiophiles? Audiophiles do not *have* to do any
>> > such thing. They make no claims of scientific varification of their
>> > experiences. Objectivists OTOH actually do if they are to be taken
>> > seriously in their claims. So far they have yet to meet the rigors
>> > demanded by science. Ironic isn't it?
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>
> Scott Wheeler

[Lionel]

Signal a écrit :
> "George Middius" emitted :
>
>
>>Good constructive suggestion, but it's actually immaterial since Krooger has no
>>income to shelter.
>
>
> Krooger claims to have a "PC business". In the UK businesses are
> registered at Companies House and yearly income is public information.
> Do you have that in the states?

Nice try but....
Small commercial, handicraft... businesses are registered to
the local chamber of commerce but aren't submitted to the
publication of their balance.

[[email protected]]

EddieM wrote:
> > wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> > EddieM wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
> >> >> >> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for
> >> >> >> determining
> >> >> >> if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And
> >> >> > should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on
> >> >> > audibility of different components they had better do their testing db
> >> >> > if they wish it to be taken seriously by science.
>
> Hmm.
>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Very well and you agreed with the Objectivist that sighted evaluation
> >> >> isn't a valid listening technique because it's not science.
> >> >
> >> > No.
> >>
> >> Ok well I just thought it's because it wasn't science.
> >
> > We accept most of our own perceptions at face value without scientific
> > investigations or dbts. For the most part it works for people just
> > fine.
>
>
> >> I suppose
> >> then you agree with the objectivist that straight listening is not a valid
> >> process 'cause it has nothing to do with science.
> >
> > No. I only agree that it would not be acceptable in a scientific
> > investigation into the audibility of something.
>
>
> > Sighted listening has
> > many variables. Good scientific investigation strives to limit
> > variables, preferably to one. But, like I said, unless you are doing
> > scientific investigation this is not a disqualifier for listening
> > evaluations.
> >
> >> And if one is to be
> >> taken seriously, one must do DB 'cause it's scientific and hence,
> >> you agree with the objectivist because of this.
> >
> >
> > What are you talking about? Are you worried about being "taken
> > seriously?" Do you really care if others agree with you? I don't. In
> > the end it's my listening experience and what works for me is *all*
> > that matters.
>
>
> Oh no.



Good.



Not worried about being taken seriously but rather
> concern about being accused of suffering from delusions.



Oh, who cares? The dorks making those charges are full of crap
themselves.





That is
> not fair.


Of course it isn't. If they had to be fair they wouldn't have as much
to say.




Anyway, I thought that DB will be a scientific research
> in determining presence of audible diff. which will prove if one is
> delusional or not.


If, someday, real scientists bother to investigate what is and is not
audible in hifi they will use bias controled tests. They will also
likely test those tests for sensitivity and do everything in their
power to come up with *good* answers rather than answers that meet
their expectations. I'm not going to hold my breath. I think real
scientists have more important things to do.




>
>
> >> Maybe this is correct
> >> now I hope, that the Obs made a valid assertion that sighted eval.
> >> is not a valid process because it has nothing to do with science..
> >
> > I think *that* assertion is complete nonsense and that is where the
> > objectivists become idiotic and hypocritical. Most audiophiles have
> > nothing to do with science. I don't have a problem with that. There is
> > no law that requires audiophiles to do scientifically valid research
> > before forming an opinion. There would be no hobby if that were the
> > case.
>
>
> But in order to prevent being accuse of hearing things that don't exist,
> one must do a valid scientific DB process I suppose.





Why worry about accusations from hypocrites?




>
>
> >> >> Objectivist believe that preferences and biases are such a hindrance
> >> >> on that basis that they say it invalidate sighted evaluation.
> >> >
> >> > That's where they begin to blow it.
> >> >
> >> > The problem
> >> >> I suppose with strict DB you propose is that it does not seclude nor
> >> >> sequester the listener's from his own prejudices.
> >> >
> >> > Hold on here. What DB tests did *I* propose and for what purpose?
> >>
> >>
> >> Well I just thought that what you meant above is that for any audiophile
> >> wishing to be taken seriously with science in mind must do db.
> >
> > I didn't mean any such thing.
>
>
>
> >> That is, db = DB, to mean double blind and not decibel. So in a way,
> >> I surmise it like a proposition: To make a valid assertions that if
> >> there's
> >> a sound differences, it must be through DB.
> >
> > "Valid?" *Scientifically valid* yes. Are you trying to make
> > *scientifically valid* assertions out of your every day opinions?
>
> No, because one only wants to make a solid, valid, scientific assertion
> that one is not delusional and hearing things once and for all.


We are merely "eye witnesses" when it comes to our perceptions as
audiophiles. With that fact comes a certain degree of uncertainty. But
we live with that when it comes to most of our opinions on most things.
No big deal.





>
> > You're in for a big surprise. I'm not worried about my every day
> > opinions on the quality of different things being *scientifically
> > valid.*
>
> Well audiophiles will be worried and will want to assert they're not
> delusional.



It isn't a black and white issue. One is not either delusional or
validated by scientific research. Just because an opinion is not
*scientifically valid* does not make it delusional. That's the bull****
objectivist assertion. It's bull****.
Things do not have do be investigated and validated by science to
actually be true.



It seems the only scientific way to make that assertion
> would be through a valid process called DB because straight listening
> is just not an acceptable and valid scientific process to investigate
> accordingly for now.



If you want to make assertions that are scientifically valid then you
do have to follow scientific protocols. Remeber my question? Are you
looking to do scientific research or just enjoy a hobby?




>
>
> > It's a level of certainty that is impractical for us in our
> > every day lives and we do just fine without *that* level of certainty.
>
> Well audiophiles I'm sure won't won't do fine without a level of certainty
> that they're not delusional.


I do fine without scientific validation of my opinions. One is not
delusional just because they have an opinion that is not tested by
science.





>
> > Can you imagine objectivists jumping in when you say you like
> > hamburgers and insisting that you need validation of a DB taste test to
> > have that opinion? It would be ridiculous. Is "I like hamburgers" a
> > "valid" opinion? I think so. Is it "scientifically valid?" No. Not
> > without bias controled tests. To hell with that. I like hamburgers and
> > that opinion is good enough for me.
>
>
> That's right!



Good then you get it. One does not *need* scientific validation for
their opinions. Claims that one is delusional without scientific
validation are utter bull****.






>
>
> >> >> That is, when
> >> >> comparing in strickly double blind, wouldn't deeply held preferences
> >> >> themselves skew and masked your ability to determine which of the
> >> >> unknown components is preferable to you *as you compare* how the
> >> >> two components of equal class sound different from one another.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I do like to do SB [Single Blind] comparisons but I like to combine
> >> > them with sighted
> >> > evaluations. IME the results are usually the same. When the results are
> >> > in conflict I go back and do them again. More often than not different
> >> > results are reconciled in a second round of comparisons. In the rare
> >> > instance that there is no reconciliation I generally go with the
> >> > sighted evaluation. That is because that is how I listen normally. I
> >> > make no claims that my methods are scientifically valid or that they
> >> > are any better than other methods. I do claim that they work for me
> >> > though.
> >>
> >> I've no doubt that most audiophiles do it that way too. It just that I
> >> don't
> >> understand how Objectivist could make such a valid assertion that
> >> to determine if audio components sound different, audiophiles
> >> must avoid straight listening because it is not a scientifically (?)
> >> valid process.
> >
> > That assertion made by objectivists is ridiculous. It is also
> > hypocritical since their own home brewed dbts do not rise to the levels
> > demanded by real science for scientific validity.
>
>
> Hmm. Ok.


Well, if you really want to put it to the test just ask any objectivist
for the peer reviewed studies showing that their beliefs about amp
sound or cable sound are supported by science. There is none. You are
free to turn their crap around on them and tell them that they are
delusional since science does not support their opinions on audibility
of amps or anything else for that matter. See, if you hold objectivists
to the same standards they try to hold subjectivists they fall apart.
They have built their arguments about amp sound and the like on a
facade of science. Scientifically valid research on the subject hasn't
been done! There is no legitimate scientific research that proves amps
sound the same. That is what makes objectivists such hypocrites about
this whole thing.




>
>
> >> I think that their claim that it is invalid is invalid as
> >> been said many times.
> >
> > I'll go further than that. I think they are giving science a bad name
> > amoung audiophiles that are not very saavy when it comes to science.
>
>
>
> >> If they live in1800s, they'll ****-off a lot of people like Edison.
> >>
> >> >> > I for one am not looking to do scientific research. Are you?
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different
> >> >> components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things.
> >> >
> >> > *If* you are up to the task of doing them well enough they probably
> >> > will. There in lies a BIG problem.
> >>
> >> I don't really look forward to it.
> >
> >
> > Agreed. I have other things on my "to do" list.
> >
> >
> >> >> >> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a
> >> >> >> reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing
> >> >> >> acuity.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.
> >> >>
> >> >> And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I
> >> >> don't know.
> >> >
> >> > No, it will show if you are not hearing things. Think about it.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you're refering to listening test in hearing booth, I think it will
> >> only show the accuracy of hearing sensitivity. Not whether
> >> I'm hearing things or not.
> >
> >
> > I am refering to *hearing* tests. You know, headphones, doctor's
> > office, raise your hand if you hear a tone. They will determine what
> > you *can't* hear.
>
>
> Well, the doctor will determine what he think I can't hear. He will not
> determine what I can't hear for me.


I don't knw about that. If he sends a tone and you don't identify it's
presence I think it's safe to say you are not hearing it. That is all
he or she is doing with hearing tests.




>
>
> >> >> >> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well if there's nothing wrong with sighted evaluation, they still
> >> >> have to do DB to find out for sure if they're hearing things.
> >> >
> >> > "They" being whom? Audiophiles? Audiophiles do not *have* to do any
> >> > such thing. They make no claims of scientific varification of their
> >> > experiences. Objectivists OTOH actually do if they are to be taken
> >> > seriously in their claims. So far they have yet to meet the rigors
> >> > demanded by science. Ironic isn't it?
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >




Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Goerge M. Middius said:

"For the pittance Arnii charges, he's entitled to spend half the hour
reading
the NAMBLA journal."

Are you sending him your back issues?

I must say, you are truly an intelect to be ignored.

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said:

> Worse, it was 150 "live sound gigs," which probably represent three
> years of running the board at church. There's nothing wrong with that,
> except in comparison to actual sound pros.


Actually, there's a lot wrong with it, but that's a 'borg of a different
color. <g> I'll bet you know whose song this is:


Maybe - maybe a fool for trusting
Maybe - maybe a fool for following
The God of wisdom not of love

But I´m riding with the new church
I´m riding with the new church
Relying on the new church
And a new word

Hang on - if you hang on
to faith and meekness
Before long it´s power for the strong
It´s twisted into something evil,
something wrong

So I´m riding with the new church
I´m riding with the new church
Relying on the new church
And a new word

So long - goodbye to the blind
and the weaklings
Be strong - I´ll do what I want
I´ll follow my feelings
I´ll go where they lead me

I´m riding with the new church
I´m riding with the new church
Relying on the new church
And a new word

Strength within you, not without you
The new church needs you

[George M. Middius]

Bill Riel said:

> $2600.00 for a 10 foot length!

Yes, we know you can't afford it. Yes, we know it's a "ripoff". Yes, we know
you work hard for your money. Thanks for checking in. Have a good trip back
to the Hive.

[Lionel]

In >, George M. Middius wrote :

>> $2600.00 for a 10 foot length!
>
> Yes, we know you can't afford it. Yes, we know it's a "ripoff". Yes, we
> know you work hard for your money. Thanks for checking in. Have a good
> trip back to the Hive.

ZZZZzzzzzz........................................ ........

For a whore like George pleasure hasn't any relation with the lengh nor the
diameter of flesh he can get in the ass...

;-)

[jclause]

In article >,
says...
>

>For a whore like George pleasure hasn't any relation with the lengh nor the
>diameter.........


Now if I may be allowed to speak...
You likely have made George shriek
I doubt he would knock
A well hung jock...
Or critique a unique physique. :-)

Hammingaway

[MINe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MINe 109 said:
>
> > Worse, it was 150 "live sound gigs," which probably represent three
> > years of running the board at church. There's nothing wrong with that,
> > except in comparison to actual sound pros.
>
>
> Actually, there's a lot wrong with it, but that's a 'borg of a different
> color. <g> I'll bet you know whose song this is:
>
>
> Maybe - maybe a fool for trusting...

> The new church needs you

Had to look it up, but I've heard the "One-chord Wonders" in the Stiff
Box.

Is Howard gone yet?

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said:

> > > Worse, it was 150 "live sound gigs," which probably represent three
> > > years of running the board at church. There's nothing wrong with that,
> > > except in comparison to actual sound pros.

> > Actually, there's a lot wrong with it, but that's a 'borg of a different
> > color. <g> I'll bet you know whose song this is:


> > The new church needs you
>
> Had to look it up, but I've heard the "One-chord Wonders" in the Stiff
> Box.
>
> Is Howard gone yet?

Let us pray.......

[[email protected]]

Tim Martin wrote:

"I see I was wrong about the price; they are not =A325, some of them
are over
=A3100."

That goes right along with the $150.00(IIRC) knobs that some other
snake oil merchant sells.

[[email protected]]

George Middius burped forth the usual ****:

"
Bill Riel said:



> $2600.00 for a 10 foot length!


Yes, we know you can't afford it. Yes, we know it's a "ripoff". Yes, we
know
you work hard for your money. Thanks for checking in. Have a good trip
back
to the Hive."


Yes we know you don't have the balls to condemn obvious fraud. Yes we
understand that such products are made for people with more money than
brains. Thanks for being consistently ****ty. Have a good trip back
to the ward.

[[email protected]]

MINe109 said:

"http://www.avrev.com/equip/aud=ADiophileaps1050/ "


This from the above website:

The PurePower 1050 retails for $2,495.

Bwahahahahahahaha.

[[email protected]]

George Middius said:

EddieM said:



> I'm simply attempting to expound in their declaration that
> sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process.
> Why is the process invalid ?


"Because it has nothing to do with "science".

Science is for scientists. It has nothing to do with choosing toys,
unless
you're an anally retentive nerd who is too insecure to embrace your own

feelings."

How about the people who like to know if they are getting what they
paid for, better sound?

If it costs more and sounds the same when touted as sounding better,
isn't that fraud?
When advertising makes claims for other products regarding their
performance, they have some sort of science to back them up.

I don't know anybody who wouldn't pay more for something that actually
improved the sound.

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal said:

Sander deWaal May 26, 4:20 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: Sander deWaal > - Find messages by this author

Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 22:20:06 +0200
Local: Thurs,May 26 2005 4:20 pm
Subject: Re: Straight Listening ?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

said:



>I think those you call Borgs are the ones who sleep best and enjoy
>their stereo more, because they know that their systems perform as they
>are supposed to and they know more about proper setup and how to
>optimize the sound than a roomful of your "Normals."


"By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-) "

According to the fools like Middius, you or anyone who has solid
technical knowledge about audio and uses it, is a Borg.

Is it that you deliberately try to avoid accurate sound that
disqualifies you from Borgdom?

[[email protected]]

George Middius said:

Confucius say: When feeding trolls, be wary of frosty flying cat feces.



We don't need that kind of information about your dietary habits. It
does beg the question, what cake goes with feline fecal frosting?

[[email protected]]

George Middius said:

"Maybe we should pity this dim little 'borg. He's obviously been
assimilated
recently and hasn't adjusted well to his new life as a mindless Hivie
drone."


Am I to understand you correctly, in that you are making fun of me for
not realizing sooner what an insulting twerp you are?

How empty is your life?

[[email protected]]

Jenn said:

"A professional instrumentalist or vocalist knows VERY well the sound
of
his/her music making, as well as that if others. Our ability to
succeed in the business depends on it."

I used to go out with a girl who was close friends with David Lindley,
a very good guitar player but an absolute doofus when it came to what a
recording should sound like.
He came to her one day with a recording of some new material and wanted
input on how it sounded. While the music was fine, the recording was
complete crap. In order to give him a clue we put on Dark Side of the
Moon. Then he got it.

[Jenn]

wrote:
> Jenn said:
>
> "A professional instrumentalist or vocalist knows VERY well the sound
> of
> his/her music making, as well as that if others. Our ability to
> succeed in the business depends on it."
>
> I used to go out with a girl who was close friends with David Lindley,
> a very good guitar player but an absolute doofus when it came to what a
> recording should sound like.
> He came to her one day with a recording of some new material and wanted
> input on how it sounded. While the music was fine, the recording was
> complete crap. In order to give him a clue we put on Dark Side of the
> Moon. Then he got it.

I was speaking of the classical music world, where most of my
experience lays. I also am in the professional folk music world, and a
bit of jazz, so I guess that I would expand that to acoustic music.

[Tim Martin]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
MINe109 said:

"http://www.avrev.com/equip/aud*iophileaps1050/ "


"This from the above website:

The PurePower 1050 retails for $2,495."

Actually, if I were concerned about the effect of mains power on sound and
were prepared to pay that kind of money, I'd consider replacing the audio
components' power supply sections with battery power ... which *will* do
some good, though the effect might be near-impossible to detect, depending
on how serious the mains problem was in the first place.

I'd use enough car or truck batteries to power my longest listening sessions
between recharges.

Of course, if this became popular, we'd be offered audiphile batteriues
....:-)

Tim

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:

>According to the fools like Middius, you or anyone who has solid
>technical knowledge about audio and uses it, is a Borg.


"Agreed".


>Is it that you deliberately try to avoid accurate sound that
>disqualifies you from Borgdom?


Probably, I don't set the rules ;-)

--

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

[EddieM]

> wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>>snip
>
> It seems the only scientific way to make that assertion
>> would be through a valid process called DB because straight listening
>> is just not an acceptable and valid scientific process to investigate
>> accordingly for now.
>
>
> If you want to make assertions that are scientifically valid then you
> do have to follow scientific protocols. Remeber my question? Are you
> looking to do scientific research or just enjoy a hobby?


I'm just trying to elicit the prevailing sentiment with regard to an
objectivist assertion that sighted evaluation isn't a scientifically
valid process when determining presence of audible differences
among components.


>>>>snip
>>
>>>snip
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> >> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a
>> >> >> >> reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing
>> >> >> >> acuity.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I
>> >> >> don't know.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it will show if you are not hearing things. Think about it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you're refering to listening test in hearing booth, I think it will
>> >> only show the accuracy of hearing sensitivity. Not whether
>> >> I'm hearing things or not.
>> >
>> >
>> > I am refering to *hearing* tests. You know, headphones, doctor's
>> > office, raise your hand if you hear a tone. They will determine what
>> > you *can't* hear.
>>
>>
>> Well, the doctor will determine what he think I can't hear. He will not
>> determine what I can't hear for me.
>
>
> I don't knw about that. If he sends a tone and you don't identify it's
> presence I think it's safe to say you are not hearing it.



Well I just think that if that same doctor sends me a tone and I refuse
to identify it, I wonder if he could determine whether I can't hear it ?



> That is all he or she is doing with hearing tests.


>> >> >> >>snip
>
>
> Scott Wheeler

[EddieM]

> Tim Martin wrote
>> EddieM wrote in message
>
>
>
>> What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?
>
> It's analogous to judging the emperor's clothes by listening ...
>
> Tim


I don't think that's a good analogy.

[[email protected]]

EddieM wrote:
> > wrote
> >> EddieM wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>snip
> >
> > It seems the only scientific way to make that assertion
> >> would be through a valid process called DB because straight listening
> >> is just not an acceptable and valid scientific process to investigate
> >> accordingly for now.
> >
> >
> > If you want to make assertions that are scientifically valid then you
> > do have to follow scientific protocols. Remeber my question? Are you
> > looking to do scientific research or just enjoy a hobby?
>
>
> I'm just trying to elicit the prevailing sentiment with regard to an
> objectivist assertion that sighted evaluation isn't a scientifically
> valid process when determining presence of audible differences
> among components.


Am I am simply trying to show you that it is a ridiculous standard to
hold hobbyists to when they express an opinion. It is a standard that
most commonly accepted opinions about anything do not rise to. The fact
is their abx dbts have not been scientifically valid either. They don't
call themselves delusional though do they? That is the con in this
whole thing. They demand a level of rigor from subjectivists that they
never reach themselves. It's OK to have an opinion that has not been
scientifically investigated.




>
>
> >>>>snip
> >>
> >>>snip
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a
> >> >> >> >> reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing
> >> >> >> >> acuity.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I
> >> >> >> don't know.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, it will show if you are not hearing things. Think about it.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> If you're refering to listening test in hearing booth, I think it will
> >> >> only show the accuracy of hearing sensitivity. Not whether
> >> >> I'm hearing things or not.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I am refering to *hearing* tests. You know, headphones, doctor's
> >> > office, raise your hand if you hear a tone. They will determine what
> >> > you *can't* hear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, the doctor will determine what he think I can't hear. He will not
> >> determine what I can't hear for me.
> >
> >
> > I don't knw about that. If he sends a tone and you don't identify it's
> > presence I think it's safe to say you are not hearing it.
>
>
>
> Well I just think that if that same doctor sends me a tone and I refuse
> to identify it, I wonder if he could determine whether I can't hear it ?


The test does depend on the subjects willingness to participate.




>
>
>
> > That is all he or she is doing with hearing tests.
>
>




Scott Wheeler

[George M. Middius]

EddieM said:

> I'm just trying to elicit the prevailing sentiment with regard to an
> objectivist assertion that sighted evaluation isn't a scientifically
> valid process when determining presence of audible differences
> among components.

Humans have gone about their search for "god" in a variety of quaint ways.
Did they ever decide how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Did they
ever find out whether murdering virgins really did placate angry gods? Is
attributing possession of souls to animals likely to eliminate class envy,
as Lionella's people once told us?

Now you want to know if "science" will make you feel better about how you
spent your money. I commend to you the pharmaceuticals industry, who have
gone further and deeper in whoring out "science" in the service of a dollar
than any other activity before them. Surely Merck or Astrozeneca will be
able to guide you in your quest.

[[email protected]]

Scott "deep thinker" Wheeler waxes philosophical:
>
>
> Am I am
>
>
Don't call him "moron" ever again, Lionel! ;-)

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Scott "deep thinker" Wheeler waxes philosophical:
> >
> >
> > Am I am
> >
> >
> Don't call him "moron" ever again, Lionel! ;-)


Wow, you can find small errors in my post but you can't find your way
out of mom and dad's house. Maybe you should change your priorities.




Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Scott "the little engine that can't" Wheeler whined:
>
>

> you can find small errors in my post
>
>


It's a kind of a guilty pleasure to laugh derisively at a limited IQ
guy like Wheeler, but I enjoy it too much to stop! Sue me!!!

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Scott "the little engine that can't" Wheeler whined:
> >
> >
>
> > you can find small errors in my post
> >
> >
>
>
> It's a kind of a guilty pleasure to laugh derisively at a limited IQ
> guy like Wheeler,



Only a fool thinks his IQ is unlimited. Fool.





but I enjoy it too much to stop!



Simple minds are easily amused.




Sue me!!!



Sue a guy who lives with his mom and dad? LOL





Scott Wheeler

[Surf]

> wrote...
>
> Sue a guy who lives with his mom and dad? LOL


Hey! Someday that shack will be his!

[EddieM]

> wrote
> EddieM wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote:
>>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>snip
>> >
>> > It seems the only scientific way to make that assertion
>> >> would be through a valid process called DB because straight listening
>> >> is just not an acceptable and valid scientific process to investigate
>> >> accordingly for now.
>> >
>> >
>> > If you want to make assertions that are scientifically valid then you
>> > do have to follow scientific protocols. Remeber my question? Are you
>> > looking to do scientific research or just enjoy a hobby?
>>
>>
>> I'm just trying to elicit the prevailing sentiment with regard to an
>> objectivist assertion that sighted evaluation isn't a scientifically
>> valid process when determining presence of audible differences
>> among components.
>
>
> Am I am simply trying to show you that it is a ridiculous standard to
> hold hobbyists to when they express an opinion. It is a standard that
> most commonly accepted opinions about anything do not rise to. The fact
> is their abx dbts have not been scientifically valid either. They don't
> call themselves delusional though do they? That is the con in this
> whole thing. They demand a level of rigor from subjectivists that they
> never reach themselves. It's OK to have an opinion that has not been
> scientifically investigated.


I wonder how much longer these Objectivist going to pester
audionewsgroups.



>> >>>>snip
>> >>
>> >>>snip
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a
>> >> >> >> >> reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing
>> >> >> >> >> acuity.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I
>> >> >> >> don't know.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, it will show if you are not hearing things. Think about it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you're refering to listening test in hearing booth, I think it
>> >> >> will
>> >> >> only show the accuracy of hearing sensitivity. Not whether
>> >> >> I'm hearing things or not.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am referring to *hearing* tests. You know, headphones, doctor's
>> >> > office, raise your hand if you hear a tone. They will determine what
>> >> > you *can't* hear.
>> >>
>> >> Well, the doctor will determine what he thinks I can't hear. He will
>> >> not
>> >> determine what I can't hear for me.
>> >
>> > I don't knw about that. If he sends a tone and you don't identify it's
>> > presence I think it's safe to say you are not hearing it.
>>
>> Well I just think that if that same doctor sends me a tone and I refuse
>> to identify it, I wonder if he could determine whether I can't hear it ?
>
> The test does depend on the subjects willingness to participate.


Subjectively speaking, you do know what I meant right?


>> > That is all he or she is doing with hearing tests.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Surf said:


"Are you saying that it's not possible that music reproduction systems
have a subconscious effect on people?"


Somebody might be, but not me.

[Arny Krueger]

Signal wrote:

> Krueger is possibly the only alleged audio professional,
worldwide,
> who instructs amateurs to *literally* pull the plug on a
'recording
> session' hosted on a PC....

> "I tell my unskilled operators to, if in doubt, just turn
the plug
> strip off. I come back later, power up and let Audition
> recover the work file(s), and do the file save then."

Obviously Paul, you are too ignorant to understand the
well-known fact that Audition, like several other audio
recording software products, recovers from serious outages
even loss of power with minimal data loss.

In contrast, an unskilled operator who improperly saves a
file can cause total data loss.

[Arny Krueger]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> Signal > wrote:
>
>> Claims that he should be taken seriously because he's
participated in
>> 150 recordings also brought derision from posters to
rec.audio.pro,
>> to whom 150 recordings is a drop in the ocean.

> Worse, it was 150 "live sound gigs,"

Thanks Stephen for showing that Paul is so incompetent that
he can't even properly paraphrase a simple post.

[Arny Krueger]

EddieM wrote:

> I'm just trying to elicit the prevailing sentiment with
regard to an
> objectivist assertion that sighted evaluation isn't a
scientifically
> valid process when determining presence of audible
differences
> among components.

If that is the prevailing sentiment, why bother trying to
elicit it?

Given the ummm disorderly and inexpert nature of this forum,
why bother to elicit such a sentiment here?

[severian]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Signal wrote:
>
> > Krueger is possibly the only alleged audio professional,
> worldwide,
> > who instructs amateurs to *literally* pull the plug on a
> 'recording
> > session' hosted on a PC....
>
> > "I tell my unskilled operators to, if in doubt, just turn
> the plug
> > strip off. I come back later, power up and let Audition
> > recover the work file(s), and do the file save then."
>
> Obviously Paul, you are too ignorant to understand the
> well-known fact that Audition, like several other audio
> recording software products, recovers from serious outages
> even loss of power with minimal data loss.
>
> In contrast, an unskilled operator who improperly saves a
> file can cause total data loss.

I've found Audition to be a very impressive program, particularly the
ability to record a "silent" passage, collect the ambient noise, and null
that out in the recorded piece. Useful for removing turntable and record
noise when cleaning up a LP to CD transfer, also a friend used it quite
successfully to clean up a location recording in a venue that had an
oppressive low frequency rumble from the a/c system.

[Howard Ferstler]

John Atkinson wrote:
>
> Signal wrote:
> > I note the **** was ripped out of [Arny Krueger] on rec.audio.pro
> > recently, when [he] claimed to be "experienced"... ;-)

> I was surprised by Mr. Krueger's statement on r.a.p. that he was
> a professional audio/recording engineer. But I do feel he is
> to be commended for actually making recordings, an activity
> that has so far managed to evade Howard Ferstler, despite
> his writings on the subject. :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

One does not need to be a pro football player (or to even to
have played the game in high school) to know good plays from
bad. Just ask the average football fan. Ditto for
sportscasters who comment on auto racing and hydroplane
racing, as well as many other sports, and of course, ditto
when it comes to evaluating the sound of good recordings and
commenting upon the techniques used to make them.

Heck, John, if I am not competent to comment on recording
quality, why is it that I have praised your recordings in a
number of reviews? Indeed, I have sometimes suggested that
you give up being the editor of a freako-oriented magazine
and apologist for inane approaches to audio and get into the
recording business full time.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> EddieM wrote:
>
> > I'm just trying to elicit the prevailing sentiment with
> regard to an
> > objectivist assertion that sighted evaluation isn't a
> scientifically
> > valid process when determining presence of audible
> differences
> > among components.
>
> If that is the prevailing sentiment, why bother trying to
> elicit it?
>
> Given the ummm disorderly and inexpert nature of this forum,
> why bother to elicit such a sentiment here?

You go Arny! Straight listening is very boring! littleboyblue