Note to Eddie the Dim

[[email protected]]

So there can be no mistake here is the reason for listener training.

1.2.2 PCABX provides formal listener training based on relevant
listening challenges of increasing difficulty, such as is provided at
http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm . These challenges
simultaneously educate, test and self-qualify the listener and his
listening equipment. The goal of this training is the production of
"Severe Listeners" who reliably detect large, small and subtle audible
differences between audio products.
http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm is a list of audio products
currently available for audition at www.pcabx.com.

The fact that other organizations, such as those previously mentioned
use listener training should tell you that it works.
Of course this kind of truth is not something I expect you to
acknowldege.

[ScottW]

wrote:
> So there can be no mistake here is the reason for listener training.
>
> 1.2.2 PCABX provides formal listener training based on relevant
> listening challenges of increasing difficulty, such as is provided at
> http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm . These challenges
> simultaneously educate, test and self-qualify the listener and his
> listening equipment. The goal of this training is the production of
> "Severe Listeners" who reliably detect large, small and subtle audible
> differences between audio products.
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm is a list of audio products
> currently available for audition at www.pcabx.com.


Except for amplifiers and CD or DVD players this training isn't worth
the disk space it occupies. Further PCABX training is flawed due to
uncontrolled reproduction variables.

Production of "severe listenrs" is not a goal, btw. Try again.


ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW said:

>Except for amplifiers and CD or DVD players >this training isn't worth
>the disk space it occupies. Further PCABX >training is flawed due to
>uncontrolled reproduction variables.

Clearly stated on the web site is the fact that it is not intended to
replace properly designed listening tests.

>Production of "severe listenrs" is not a goal, >btw. Try again.

Try what? "Severe listeners" is another way of saying better
listeners, which is a goal.

[EddieM]

> ScottW wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Production of "severe listeners" is not a goal, btw.


LoL !

[Arny Krueger]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
>> So there can be no mistake here is the reason for
listener training.
>>
>> 1.2.2 PCABX provides formal listener training based on
relevant
>> listening challenges of increasing difficulty, such as is
provided at
>> http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm . These
challenges
>> simultaneously educate, test and self-qualify the
listener and his
>> listening equipment. The goal of this training is the
production of
>> "Severe Listeners" who reliably detect large, small and
subtle
>> audible differences between audio products.
>> http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm is a list of audio
products
>> currently available for audition at www.pcabx.com.

> Except for amplifiers and CD or DVD players this training
isn't worth
> the disk space it occupies.

Scott, this just shows how much you've missed about the
PCABX web site.

Answer these questions if you can, Scott:

(1) What kind of product tests are demonstrated at the PCABX
web site, IOW which kinds of products are demonstrated?

(2) Are there any tests of DVD players at the PCABX web
site? If not, where do you get off mentioning them in
relation to it?

> Further PCABX training is flawed due to uncontrolled
reproduction variables.

Name those variables and state how they are totally
uncontrolled.

> Production of "severe listenrs" is not a goal, btw.

As far as who is concerned?

>Try again.

Indeed.

[EddieM]

> wrote
>
>
> So there can be no mistake here is the reason for listener training.
>
> 1.2.2 PCABX provides formal listener training based on relevant
> listening challenges of increasing difficulty, such as is provided at
> http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .



What do I do ? I downloaded some tones
and they all went tooiiinnggg toooiinnngg tooooiiinnnggg

booiinnggg ..... boooiiinggg .... boooiiinnggg

And then another page is asking if I want to make
donation to paypal.




The **** is thattt ?


>These challenges
> simultaneously educate, test and self-qualify the listener and his
> listening equipment. The goal of this training is the production of
> "Severe Listeners" who reliably detect large, small and subtle audible
> differences between audio products.
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm is a list of audio products
> currently available for audition at www.pcabx.com.
>
> The fact that other organizations, such as those previously mentioned
> use listener training should tell you that it works.
> Of course this kind of truth is not something I expect you to
> acknowldege.

[[email protected]]

Eddie keeps digging deeper:

>What do I do ? I downloaded some tones
>and they all went tooiiinnggg toooiinnngg tooooiiinnnggg

>booiinnggg ..... boooiiinggg .... boooiiinnggg

That's the sound of your own incompetence.


>And then another page is asking if I want to make
>donation to paypal.

>The **** is thattt ?
Inability to formulate a complete question, noted.

Ask a grownup.

[Arny Krueger]

EddieM wrote:
> > wrote
>>
>>
>> So there can be no mistake here is the reason for
listener training.
>>
>> 1.2.2 PCABX provides formal listener training based on
relevant
>> listening challenges of increasing difficulty, such as is
provided at
>> http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .

> What do I do ? I downloaded some tones
> and they all went tooiiinnggg toooiinnngg tooooiiinnnggg

> booiinnggg ..... boooiiinggg .... boooiiinnggg

OK, so you missed all of the musical sounds.

> And then another page is asking if I want to make
> donation to paypal.

> The **** is thattt ?

A part of some other web site, bozo-breath.

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > Except for amplifiers and CD or DVD players this training
> isn't worth
> > the disk space it occupies.
>
> Scott, this just shows how much you've missed about the
> PCABX web site.
>
> Answer these questions if you can, Scott:
>
> (1) What kind of product tests are demonstrated at the PCABX
> web site, IOW which kinds of products are demonstrated?

amps, soundcards, coders&decoders & minidisc
>
> (2) Are there any tests of DVD players at the PCABX web
> site? If not, where do you get off mentioning them in
> relation to it?


Sorry... thanks for pointing out the PCABX is useless for the vast
majority of audio equipment sources in use today.


>
> > Further PCABX training is flawed due to uncontrolled
> reproduction variables.
>
> Name those variables and state how they are totally
> uncontrolled.

Why don't you tell me how you are controlling the noise level of my PC
at work. It sucks BTW.

As comparison... when you made ABX boxes... didn't you try to make
sure they didn't have an audible influsion on the signal they switched?

>
> > Production of "severe listenrs" is not a goal, btw.
>
> As far as who is concerned?

What do you think sever listeners will accomplish? Whatever that
is.. is the goal. Production of severe listeners who do nothing seems
pretty silly to me.
Like selling street racers in a country without roads.
Such is genius of PCABX.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> What do you think sever listeners will accomplish? Whatever that
> is.. is the goal. Production of severe listeners who do nothing seems
> pretty silly to me.
> Like selling street racers in a country without roads.
> Such is genius of PCABX.
>

Its more like selling garbage trucks in
a country without landfills.



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

[Arny Krueger]

ScottW wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Except for amplifiers and CD or DVD players this
training
>> isn't worth
>>> the disk space it occupies.
>>
>> Scott, this just shows how much you've missed about the
>> PCABX web site.
>>
>> Answer these questions if you can, Scott:
>>
>> (1) What kind of product tests are demonstrated at the
PCABX
>> web site, IOW which kinds of products are demonstrated?

> amps, soundcards, coders&decoders & minidisc

OK, so you can read after all, Scott.

>> (2) Are there any tests of DVD players at the PCABX web
>> site? If not, where do you get off mentioning them in
>> relation to it?

> Sorry... thanks for pointing out the PCABX is useless for
the vast
> majority of audio equipment sources in use today.

In your delusional fantasies, Scoot.

>>> Further PCABX training is flawed due to uncontrolled
>> reproduction variables.

>> Name those variables and state how they are totally
>> uncontrolled.

> Why don't you tell me how you are controlling the noise
level of my
> PC at work. It sucks BTW.

Irrelevant.

> As comparison... when you made ABX boxes... didn't you
try to make
> sure they didn't have an audible influsion on the signal
they
> switched?

If you mean did we fix our client's equipment like you want
me to fix yours, the answer is no.

>>> Production of "severe listenrs" is not a goal, btw.

>> As far as who is concerned?

> What do you think sever listeners will accomplish?

What's a sever listener, Scott - one who cuts a lot?


> Whatever that
> is.. is the goal. Production of severe listeners who do
nothing seems
> pretty silly to me.

Oh, you meant severe listeners. Severe listeners are very
reliably sensitive to audible differences among audio
products. Can you think of a use for people like that?

> Like selling street racers in a country without roads.

Are you saying that you aren't interested in having the
audible differences between audio products be reliably
detected, Scott?

> Such is genius of PCABX.

Thank you! ;-)

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> ScottW wrote:
> >>
> >> (1) What kind of product tests are demonstrated at the
> PCABX
> >> web site, IOW which kinds of products are demonstrated?
>
> > amps, soundcards, coders&decoders & minidisc
>
> OK, so you can read after all, Scott.
>
> >> (2) Are there any tests of DVD players at the PCABX web
> >> site? If not, where do you get off mentioning them in
> >> relation to it?
>
> > Sorry... thanks for pointing out the PCABX is useless for
> the vast
> > majority of audio equipment sources in use today.
>
> In your delusional fantasies, Scoot.

Then why haven't you provided any in your tests?

>
> >>> Further PCABX training is flawed due to uncontrolled
> >> reproduction variables.
>
> >> Name those variables and state how they are totally
> >> uncontrolled.
>
> > Why don't you tell me how you are controlling the noise
> level of my
> > PC at work. It sucks BTW.
>
> Irrelevant.

I named the variable and this is the best you can do? Perhaps if you
specified approve PCs for playing back the files or insisted people
copied the files to CD for playback on approved audio systems but you
don't do that.
You think people can evaluate audible amplifier differences with a
ghetto blaster?


>
> > As comparison... when you made ABX boxes... didn't you
> try to make
> > sure they didn't have an audible influsion on the signal
> they
> > switched?
>
> If you mean did we fix our client's equipment like you want
> me to fix yours, the answer is no.

You are stupid. In those cases the clients equipment was under
evaluation... in this case the equipment in question is test
equipment... nothing at all to do with the equipment under evaluation.
You might was well be measuring microohms with a megameter you moron.


>
> >>> Production of "severe listenrs" is not a goal, btw.
>
> >> As far as who is concerned?
>
> > What do you think sever listeners will accomplish?
>
> What's a sever listener, Scott - one who cuts a lot?

Anything to obfuscate you're way out, eh Arny? Typical response when
someone shows your pride and joy isn't what you claim.
>
>
> > Whatever that
> > is.. is the goal. Production of severe listeners who do
> nothing seems
> > pretty silly to me.
>
> Oh, you meant severe listeners. Severe listeners are very
> reliably sensitive to audible differences among audio
> products. Can you think of a use for people like that?

Is Harmon international hiring your desciples? If not, then no.

I don't think it is of interest to average audiophiles. In fact, I
agree that subjecting oneself to such training risks diminishing their
ability to sit back, relax, and enjoy the music.

>
> > Like selling street racers in a country without roads.
>
> Are you saying that you aren't interested in having the
> audible differences between audio products be reliably
> detected, Scott?

Listener training is fine for folks who are interested if they
understand the risks.

PCABX for equipment evaluation is as bad an example of snake oil as
any in the audio world today.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

ScottW wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (1) What kind of product tests are demonstrated at the
>> PCABX
>>>> web site, IOW which kinds of products are demonstrated?
>>
>>> amps, soundcards, coders&decoders & minidisc
>>
>> OK, so you can read after all, Scott.
>>
>>>> (2) Are there any tests of DVD players at the PCABX web
>>>> site? If not, where do you get off mentioning them in
>>>> relation to it?

>>> Sorry... thanks for pointing out the PCABX is useless
for the vast
>>> majority of audio equipment sources in use today.

>> In your delusional fantasies, Scoot.

> Then why haven't you provided any in your tests?

Laziness.

>>>>> Further PCABX training is flawed due to uncontrolled
reproduction
>>>>> variables.

>>>> Name those variables and state how they are totally
>>>> uncontrolled.

>>> Why don't you tell me how you are controlling the noise
level of my
>>> PC at work. It sucks BTW.

>> Irrelevant.

> I named the variable and this is the best you can do?

Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is noisy. Why
don't you control it? Why do you need my help to do the
right thing?

> Perhaps if you specified approve PCs for playing back the
files or insisted people
> copied the files to CD for playback on approved audio
systems but you
> don't do that.

I do it implicitly. I provide
http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm which says:

"If you have difficulty completing any samples rated
"Difficult" or easier, please consider upgrading your
playback system including loudspeakers, sound card,
amplifier and listening environment. Please see the sidebar
titled 'What Makes A Good Sound System For PCABX?'."

> You think people can evaluate audible amplifier
differences with a
> ghetto blaster?

Pardon me for thinking that people can read.


>>> As comparison... when you made ABX boxes... didn't you
try to make
>>> sure they didn't have an audible influsion on the signal
they switched?

>> If you mean did we fix our client's equipment like you
want
>> me to fix yours, the answer is no.

> You are stupid.

Really Scotty? I've just proven that you can read. Why
should I take advice from an illiterate like you?

> In those cases the clients equipment was under
> evaluation... in this case the equipment in question is
test
> equipment... nothing at all to do with the equipment under
evaluation.

I test the suitability of people's systems implicitly. I
provide http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Really Scotty? I've just proven that you can read. Why
>should I take advice from an illiterate like you?


Oh dear.

--

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

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> Really Scotty? I've just proven that you can read. Why
> should I take advice from an illiterate like you?
>

You're really ****ed up, my dear Arny.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Arny Krueger]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Correction:

> Really Scotty? I've just proven that you can't read. Why
> should I take advice from an illiterate like you?

[George Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

>>Really Scotty? I've just proven that you can read. Why
>>should I take advice from an illiterate like you?

>Oh dear.

Thank's Mr. Dewwal for, admitting you can't understand a simple typo, I made
when I prooved Scottey was a lier. Sue me for assuming you don't wear two pair's
of glasses. LOl!

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> Correction:
>
>> Really Scotty? I've just proven that you can't read. Why
>> should I take advice from an illiterate like you?
>

My Dear Dimbulb,

This is exactly what happens when you automatically start an argument with
everyone you come to contact with. You simply cannot keep track of what side
you are arguing in each case and the whole thing backfires. It should also
be emphasized that insults are not effective at all when you have to
correct/restate/reverse them. You should study the classic Looney Tunes
"duck season - rabbit season" argument before you proceed or else you may
end up Daffy again. You're welcome, my dear!

Cheers,

Margaret

[Sander deWaal]

George Middius > said:


>>>Really Scotty? I've just proven that you can read. Why
>>>should I take advice from an illiterate like you?

>>Oh dear.

>Thank's Mr. Dewwal for, admitting you can't understand a simple typo, I made
>when I prooved Scottey was a lier. Sue me for assuming you don't wear two pair's
>of glasses. LOl!


Relax pal, it was just irony, however.
At least, you tweakos never cease to amaze me.


Haw haw haw, note.

--

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

[Arny Krueger]

Margaret von B. wrote:

> This is exactly what happens when you automatically start
an argument
> with everyone you come to contact with.

Maggie, your inability to see yourself in the mirror noted.

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>
>> This is exactly what happens when you automatically start
> an argument
>> with everyone you come to contact with.
>
> Maggie, your inability to see yourself in the mirror noted.
>
>

Some deep doobie philosophy, I see. Party on, boys!

Cheers,

Margaret

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> ScottW wrote:
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> ScottW wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) What kind of product tests are demonstrated at the
> >> PCABX
> >>>> web site, IOW which kinds of products are demonstrated?
> >>
> >>> amps, soundcards, coders&decoders & minidisc
> >>
> >> OK, so you can read after all, Scott.
> >>
> >>>> (2) Are there any tests of DVD players at the PCABX web
> >>>> site? If not, where do you get off mentioning them in
> >>>> relation to it?
>
> >>> Sorry... thanks for pointing out the PCABX is useless
> for the vast
> >>> majority of audio equipment sources in use today.
>
> >> In your delusional fantasies, Scoot.
>
> > Then why haven't you provided any in your tests?
>
> Laziness.
>
> >>>>> Further PCABX training is flawed due to uncontrolled
> reproduction
> >>>>> variables.
>
> >>>> Name those variables and state how they are totally
> >>>> uncontrolled.
>
> >>> Why don't you tell me how you are controlling the noise
> level of my
> >>> PC at work. It sucks BTW.
>
> >> Irrelevant.
>
> > I named the variable and this is the best you can do?
>
> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is noisy. Why
> don't you control it?

It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how a big
company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to say allowing
individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.

>Why do you need my help to do the
> right thing?
>
> > Perhaps if you specified approve PCs for playing back the
> files or insisted people
> > copied the files to CD for playback on approved audio
> systems but you
> > don't do that.
>
> I do it implicitly. I provide
> http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm which says:
>
> "If you have difficulty completing any samples rated
> "Difficult" or easier, please consider upgrading your
> playback system including loudspeakers, sound card,
> amplifier and listening environment.

Are you now claiming that listener training is a substitute for system
certification?

> Please see the sidebar
> titled 'What Makes A Good Sound System For PCABX?'."

I saw that and it is totally inadequate. You think power supply noise
levels have no impact on sound cards for just one example?

>
> > You think people can evaluate audible amplifier
> differences with a
> > ghetto blaster?
>
> Pardon me for thinking that people can read.
>
>
> >>> As comparison... when you made ABX boxes... didn't you
> try to make
> >>> sure they didn't have an audible influsion on the signal
> they switched?
>
> >> If you mean did we fix our client's equipment like you
> want
> >> me to fix yours, the answer is no.
>
> > You are stupid.
>
> Really Scotty? I've just proven that you can read. Why
> should I take advice from an illiterate like you?

I rest my case.

>
> > In those cases the clients equipment was under
> > evaluation... in this case the equipment in question is
> test
> > equipment... nothing at all to do with the equipment under
> evaluation.
>
> I test the suitability of people's systems implicitly. I
> provide http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .

You don't test... they have a tool you provide to test. A tool that
is certified by subjective human perception. What a joke.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>>
>> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is noisy. Why
>> don't you control it?
>
> It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how a big
> company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to say allowing
> individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.
>

Of course Arny understands. He is a
Perfesionel Komputer Constultent



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

[George M. Middius]

Scottie said:

> It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how a big
> company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to say allowing
> individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.

Where did you get that idea? I always customize my desktop.

Maybe you're thinking of installing apps that update the registry.
That's a privilege often restricted to admins.

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is noisy. Why
> >> don't you control it?
> >
> > It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how a big
> > company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to say allowing
> > individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.
> >
>
> Of course Arny understands. He is a
> Perfesionel Komputer Constultent
>
>
Hey, Art, here's more material for your endless stream of oh-so-clever
posts:
>
http://tinyurl.com/b76sg

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is noisy. Why
>> >> don't you control it?
>> >
>> > It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how a big
>> > company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to say allowing
>> > individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.
>> >
>>
>> Of course Arny understands. He is a
>> Perfesionel Komputer Constultent
>>
>>
> Hey, Art, here's more material for your endless stream of oh-so-clever
> posts:
>>
> http://tinyurl.com/b76sg
>

Have you had any succes racing monkey bikes?

http://tinyurl.com/bgpqm



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

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is noisy. Why
> >> >> don't you control it?
> >> >
> >> > It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how a big
> >> > company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to say allowing
> >> > individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Of course Arny understands. He is a
> >> Perfesionel Komputer Constultent
> >>
> >>
> > Hey, Art, here's more material for your endless stream of oh-so-clever
> > posts:
> >>
> > http://tinyurl.com/b76sg
> >
>
> Have you had any succes racing monkey bikes?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bgpqm
>
>
>

Ah! I see you've been inspired that 'material'. Now, just drop trou,
refill the bowl and you're ready to post again in the unique Sackman
tradition!

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is noisy. Why
>> >> >> don't you control it?
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how a big
>> >> > company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to say allowing
>> >> > individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Of course Arny understands. He is a
>> >> Perfesionel Komputer Constultent
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Hey, Art, here's more material for your endless stream of oh-so-clever
>> > posts:
>> >>
>> > http://tinyurl.com/b76sg
>> >
>>
>> Have you had any succes racing monkey bikes?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/bgpqm
>>
>>
>>
>
> Ah! I see you've been inspired that 'material'. Now, just drop trou,
> refill the bowl and you're ready to post again in the unique Sackman
> tradition!
>

I don't want to interrupt your dinner, I have manners, you know.



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

[Margaret von B.]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Scottie said:
>
>> It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how a big
>> company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to say allowing
>> individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.
>
> Where did you get that idea? I always customize my desktop.
>

I bet Scottie is a "special employee". Every company has them. :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[Arny Krueger]

ScottW wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:

>>> I named the variable and this is the best you can do?
>>
>> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is noisy.
Why
>> don't you control it?

> It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how
a big
> company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to
say allowing
> individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.

So why not use some other PC for your PCABX testing?

>> Why do you need my help to do the right thing?

>>> Perhaps if you specified approve PCs for playing back
the
>> files or insisted people
>>> copied the files to CD for playback on approved audio
>> systems but you
>>> don't do that.

>> I do it implicitly. I provide
>> http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm which says:
>>
>> "If you have difficulty completing any samples rated
>> "Difficult" or easier, please consider upgrading your
>> playback system including loudspeakers, sound card,
>> amplifier and listening environment.
>
> Are you now claiming that listener training is a
substitute for
> system certification?
>
>> Please see the sidebar
>> titled 'What Makes A Good Sound System For PCABX?'."

> I saw that and it is totally inadequate.

One what grounds?

> You think power supply noise levels have no impact on
sound cards for just one example?

What impact might power supply noise have on sound cards?

>>> You think people can evaluate audible amplifier
differences with a
>>> ghetto blaster?

>> Pardon me for thinking that people can read.

Note that Scotty does not want to take responsibility for
his own actions and property.


>> I test the suitability of people's systems implicitly. I
>> provide http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .

> You don't test... they have a tool you provide to test.

Thanks Scotty for admitting that I provide people with a
tool for testing the suitibility of their PC for PCABX
testing.

> A tool that is certified by subjective human perception.

What's wrong with that?

> What a joke.

So far Scotty, that's what your complaints have been - a
joke.

[EddieM]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> Margaret von B. wrote:
>
>
>
>> This is exactly what happens when you automatically start
> an argument
>> with everyone you come to contact with.
>
> Maggie, your inability to see yourself in the mirror noted.




Your inability to smell for yourself that you are a well-formed
matter discharged from the bowel through the anus during
defecation

[[email protected]]

EddieM wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote
> >> Margaret von B. wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> This is exactly what happens when you automatically start
> > an argument
> >> with everyone you come to contact with.
> >
> > Maggie, your inability to see yourself in the mirror noted.
>
>
>
>
> Your inability to smell for yourself that you are a well-formed
> matter discharged from the bowel through the anus during
> defecation
>
>
And you are the product of The Immaculate Defecation, eh?

[dave weil]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:34:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> What a joke.
>
>So far Scotty, that's what your complaints have been - a
>joke.

Well, he DOES live down the road from Neverland.

[EddieM]

> wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>> > Arny Krueger wrote
>> >> Margaret von B. wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> This is exactly what happens when you automatically start
>> > >an argument
>> >> with everyone you come to contact with.
>> >
>> > Maggie, your inability to see yourself in the mirror noted.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Your inability to smell for yourself that you are a well-formed
>> matter discharged from the bowel through the anus during
>> defecation
>>
>>
> And you are the product of The Immaculate Defecation, eh?


Thing, could you provide some reasons why you get so ferociously
enraged when someone liken Arnii to a well-formed feces ?

[Arny Krueger]

wrote:
> EddieM wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> Margaret von B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is exactly what happens when you automatically
start an
>>>> argument with everyone you come to contact with.
>>>
>>> Maggie, your inability to see yourself in the mirror
noted.

>> Your inability to smell for yourself that you are a
well-formed
>> matter discharged from the bowel through the anus during
>> defecation

> And you are the product of The Immaculate Defecation, eh?

Yup, Eddie is another Middius clone.

[Surf]

"EddieM" says to Kroogourd...
>
> Your inability to smell for yourself that you are a well-formed
> matter discharged from the bowel through the anus during
> defecation


<snicker>

[Surf]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote ...
>
> A part of some other web site, bozo-breath.


Mikey - is this your adult?

You and Thing must be SO proud.

[Arny Krueger]

Surf wrote:
> "EddieM" says to Kroogourd...
>>
>> Your inability to smell for yourself that you are a
well-formed
>> matter discharged from the bowel through the anus during
>> defecation
>
>
> <snicker>

From Eddie's fecal obsession with pandering to Surf's fecal
obsession.

[Arny Krueger]

Surf wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote ...
>>
>> A part of some other web site, bozo-breath.
>
>
> Mikey - is this your adult?

Just Eddie is yours, Surf.

[George Middius]

Arnii Krooborg said:

>obsession.

Thanks for admitting Mr. Krooger that you are a dimbulb.

[George Middius]

Little **** said:

>And you

Thanks for admitting Mr. Maledorkski that Arnii Krooger is a dimbulb.

[George Middius]

Arnii Krooborg said:

>fecal obsession

Thanks for admitting Mr. Krooger that you are a dimbulb with a one-track mind.

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Scottie said:
>
> > It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how a big
> > company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to say allowing
> > individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.
>
> Where did you get that idea? I always customize my desktop.

Terminology, we refer to PCs as laptops and desktops. I wasn't
referring to the desktop display which we can configure.

>
> Maybe you're thinking of installing apps that update the registry.
> That's a privilege often restricted to admins.

Admin priviledges are tightly restricted.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> ScottW wrote:
>
> >>> I named the variable and this is the best you can do?
> >>
> >> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is noisy.
> Why
> >> don't you control it?
>
> > It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand how
> a big
> > company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to
> say allowing
> > individuals to customize their desktops is not an option.
>
> So why not use some other PC for your PCABX testing?


That isn't the point. The point is the PC isn't usually verified for
audio reproduction to the extent that even a cheap ghetto blaster is.

>
> >> Why do you need my help to do the right thing?
>
> >>> Perhaps if you specified approve PCs for playing back
> the
> >> files or insisted people
> >>> copied the files to CD for playback on approved audio
> >> systems but you
> >>> don't do that.
>
> >> I do it implicitly. I provide
> >> http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm which says:
> >>
> >> "If you have difficulty completing any samples rated
> >> "Difficult" or easier, please consider upgrading your
> >> playback system including loudspeakers, sound card,
> >> amplifier and listening environment.
> >
> > Are you now claiming that listener training is a
> substitute for
> > system certification?

Note that Arny does not want to address this conundrum he has created
by mixing listener training and tool certification.

> >
> >> Please see the sidebar
> >> titled 'What Makes A Good Sound System For PCABX?'."
>
> > I saw that and it is totally inadequate.
>
> One what grounds?

What is this, a reflex response? Oh look... here in the very next
sentence are some grounds.

>
> > You think power supply noise levels have no impact on
> sound cards for just one example?
>
> What impact might power supply noise have on sound cards?


There isn't much filtering on sound cards... my crappy work PC has
tons of noice on the analog out that is correlated to disk activity. I
suspect supply noise but it could be bus noise coupling in. Point is
your silly guidelines are grossly inadequate.
>
> >>> You think people can evaluate audible amplifier
> differences with a
> >>> ghetto blaster?
>
> >> Pardon me for thinking that people can read.
>
> Note that Scotty does not want to take responsibility for
> his own actions and property.

Note: Another irrelevant comment clearly demonstrating Arny has
difficulty following a thread.
>
>
> >> I test the suitability of people's systems implicitly. I
> >> provide http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .
>
> > You don't test... they have a tool you provide to test.
>
> Thanks Scotty for admitting that I provide people with a
> tool for testing the suitibility of their PC for PCABX
> testing.
>
> > A tool that is certified by subjective human perception.
>
> What's wrong with that?

Oh my God. You aren't this stupid. You really want to say human
perception is sufficient to determine if your test equipment isn't
influencing human perception.

I think I'll propose a cost savings and fire the metrology department.
Arny believes in self or circular caliabration. The DVM calibrates the
supply, the supply calibrates the scope, the scope calibrates the
DVM... we're good to go.
(note: lest Arny take this last paragraph seriously it is written with
extreme saracasm intended)

>
> > What a joke.
>
> So far Scotty, that's what your complaints have been - a
> joke.

A bad joke for you. Face facts.... PCABX for comparing equipment is
useless without a lot of rigor the average user cannot undertake.
Listener training maybe, but there is still no clearly demonstrated use
for "severe listeners".

ScottW

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:34:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >> What a joke.
> >
> >So far Scotty, that's what your complaints have been - a
> >joke.
>
> Well, he DOES live down the road from Neverland.

and this last week I haven't had any need for LFE. Nature is taking
care of that for us :).

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Surf wrote:
>> "EddieM" says to Kroogourd...
>>>
>>> Your inability to smell for yourself that you are a
> well-formed
>>> matter discharged from the bowel through the anus during
>>> defecation
>>
>>
>> <snicker>
>
> From Eddie's fecal obsession with pandering to Surf's fecal
> obsession.
>
>

Of course, its just not possible
to have any discussion at all about you
without the metnion of fecal matter



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

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius said:


>Maybe you're thinking of installing apps that update the registry.
>That's a privilege often restricted to admins.


And 9 out of 10 times, you can login with resp. "admin" and "admin".

Don't ask me how I know this ;-)

--

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

[George M. Middius]

Scottie said:

> > > Are you now claiming that listener training is a substitute for
> > > system certification?

> Note that Arny does not want to address this conundrum he has created
> by mixing listener training and tool certification.

I agree with this, even though Scottie said it. In fact, ****-for-Brains
has also claimed there is no difference between a designer's objectives
in designing equipment and a consumer's objectives in evaluating
equipment.

When your brain is dead, it's dead. Time for the Krooborg to check in to
the great big DBT lab in the sky.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >Maybe you're thinking of installing apps that update the registry.
> >That's a privilege often restricted to admins.

> And 9 out of 10 times, you can login with resp. "admin" and "admin".
> Don't ask me how I know this ;-)

OK, but if it works for me on Monday, don't tell anybody where I heard it.

[Surf]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote

>.. fecal obsession
>.. fecal obsession.


If irony killed...

[Surf]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Surf wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote ...
>>>
>>> A part of some other web site, bozo-breath.
>>
>>
>> Mikey - is this your adult?
>
> Just Eddie is yours, Surf.
>
>

not working today?

[George M. Middius]

Surf said:

> >.. fecal obsession
> >.. fecal obsession.

> If irony killed...

Irony can't kill Arnii now. It's too busy taking a dump.

[Arny Krueger]

ScottW wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>
>>>>> I named the variable and this is the best you can do?
>>>>
>>>> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is
noisy.
>> Why
>>>> don't you control it?
>>
>>> It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand
how
>> a big
>>> company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to
>> say allowing
>>> individuals to customize their desktops is not an
option.
>>
>> So why not use some other PC for your PCABX testing?
>
>
> That isn't the point. The point is the PC isn't usually
verified
> for audio reproduction to the extent that even a cheap
ghetto blaster
> is.

My point is that the PCABX web site provides a means for
subjectively verifying a given PC for audio listening tests
by subjective means.

Case in point, what happens when you try to qualify your
work PC using the PCABX web site methodology for qualifying
it? Does it pass.


>>>> I do it implicitly. I provide
>>>> http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm which says:
>>>>
>>>> "If you have difficulty completing any samples rated
>>>> "Difficult" or easier, please consider upgrading your
>>>> playback system including loudspeakers, sound card,
>>>> amplifier and listening environment.
>>>
>>> Are you now claiming that listener training is a
>> substitute for
>>> system certification?

> Note that Arny does not want to address this conundrum he
has created
> by mixing listener training and tool certification.

They are separate functions of the web site.

>>>> Please see the sidebar
>>>> titled 'What Makes A Good Sound System For PCABX?'."
>>
>>> I saw that and it is totally inadequate.
>>
>> One what grounds?

> What is this, a reflex response?

No, its a reasonble question, Scott. You've made a claim,
now back it up.

> Oh look... here in the very next sentence are some
grounds.

The following exchange only details your misapprehensions
and ignorance, Scotty

>>> You think power supply noise levels have no impact on
>> sound cards for just one example?

>> What impact might power supply noise have on sound cards?

> There isn't much filtering on sound cards...

Not true.

> my crappy work PC has tons of noice on the analog out
that is correlated to disk activity.

Probably due to bus domination. I repeat Scotty - what would
happen if you tried to run the PCABX equipment qualification
test on this PC - would it pass or fail?

> I suspect supply noise but it could be bus noise coupling
in. Point
> is your silly guidelines are grossly inadequate.

I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
pass or fail?

>>>>> You think people can evaluate audible amplifier
differences with a
>>>>> ghetto blaster?

>>>> Pardon me for thinking that people can read.

>> Note that Scotty does not want to take responsibility for
>> his own actions and property.

> Note: Another irrelevant comment clearly demonstrating
Arny has
> difficulty following a thread.

I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
pass or fail?

>>>> I test the suitability of people's systems implicitly.
I
>>>> provide http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .
>>
>>> You don't test... they have a tool you provide to test.
>>
>> Thanks Scotty for admitting that I provide people with a
>> tool for testing the suitibility of their PC for PCABX
>> testing.
>>
>>> A tool that is certified by subjective human
perception.
>>
>> What's wrong with that?

> Oh my God. You aren't this stupid. You really want to
say human
> perception is sufficient to determine if your test
equipment isn't
> influencing human perception.

I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
pass or fail?

> I think I'll propose a cost savings and fire the
metrology
> department. Arny believes in self or circular
caliabration. The DVM
> calibrates the supply, the supply calibrates the scope,
the scope
> calibrates the DVM... we're good to go.
> (note: lest Arny take this last paragraph seriously it is
written with
> extreme saracasm intended)
>
>>
>>> What a joke.
>>
>> So far Scotty, that's what your complaints have been - a
>> joke.
>
> A bad joke for you. Face facts.... PCABX for comparing
equipment is
> useless without a lot of rigor the average user cannot
undertake.
> Listener training maybe, but there is still no clearly
demonstrated
> use for "severe listeners".

I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
pass or fail?

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> ScottW wrote:
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> ScottW wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> I named the variable and this is the best you can do?
> >>>>
> >>>> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is
> noisy.
> >> Why
> >>>> don't you control it?
> >>
> >>> It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand
> how
> >> a big
> >>> company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to
> >> say allowing
> >>> individuals to customize their desktops is not an
> option.
> >>
> >> So why not use some other PC for your PCABX testing?
> >
> >
> > That isn't the point. The point is the PC isn't usually
> verified
> > for audio reproduction to the extent that even a cheap
> ghetto blaster
> > is.
>
> My point is that the PCABX web site provides a means for
> subjectively verifying a given PC for audio listening tests
> by subjective means.

Exactly, subjective:

A adjective
1 immanent, subjective
of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition is
an immanent act of mind"

2 subjective
taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a
subjective judgment"

You have subjective certification followed by subjective tests.

>
> Case in point, what happens when you try to qualify your
> work PC using the PCABX web site methodology for qualifying
> it? Does it pass.

Couldn't tell you as I'm not putting it on there. I suspect it would
as the noise is pretty distinct and easily filtered by the mind but we
will never know for sure so you can quit barking up that tree.
>
>
> >>>> I do it implicitly. I provide
> >>>> http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm which says:
> >>>>
> >>>> "If you have difficulty completing any samples rated
> >>>> "Difficult" or easier, please consider upgrading your
> >>>> playback system including loudspeakers, sound card,
> >>>> amplifier and listening environment.
> >>>
> >>> Are you now claiming that listener training is a
> >> substitute for
> >>> system certification?
>
> > Note that Arny does not want to address this conundrum he
> has created
> > by mixing listener training and tool certification.
>
> They are separate functions of the web site.

Really? Same clips. Explain how an "untrained" listener certifies
their computer?

>
> >>>> Please see the sidebar
> >>>> titled 'What Makes A Good Sound System For PCABX?'."
> >>
> >>> I saw that and it is totally inadequate.
> >>
> >> One what grounds?
>
> > What is this, a reflex response?
>
> No, its a reasonble question, Scott. You've made a claim,
> now back it up.
>
> > Oh look... here in the very next sentence are some
> grounds.
>
> The following exchange only details your misapprehensions
> and ignorance, Scotty
>
> >>> You think power supply noise levels have no impact on
> >> sound cards for just one example?
>
> >> What impact might power supply noise have on sound cards?
>
> > There isn't much filtering on sound cards...
>
> Not true.

Very true. And considering sound output requires another stage of
amplification for speaker use... this noise is prone to being
amplified.

And PCs are notorious for skimping on power supply capacity. And the
noise on the mobrds with their bus speeds is horrendous.
>
> > my crappy work PC has tons of noice on the analog out
> that is correlated to disk activity.
>
> Probably due to bus domination.

Give me a break... I said noise.... not total breakup.

>I repeat Scotty - what would
> happen if you tried to run the PCABX equipment qualification
> test on this PC - would it pass or fail?
>
> > I suspect supply noise but it could be bus noise coupling
> in. Point
> > is your silly guidelines are grossly inadequate.
>
> I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
> PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
> pass or fail?

You do have a habit of repeating irrelevance.
Lets see if this will continue.

>
> >>>>> You think people can evaluate audible amplifier
> differences with a
> >>>>> ghetto blaster?
>
> >>>> Pardon me for thinking that people can read.
>
> >> Note that Scotty does not want to take responsibility for
> >> his own actions and property.
>
> > Note: Another irrelevant comment clearly demonstrating
> Arny has
> > difficulty following a thread.
>
> I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
> PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
> pass or fail?
>
> >>>> I test the suitability of people's systems implicitly.
> I
> >>>> provide http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .
> >>
> >>> You don't test... they have a tool you provide to test.
> >>
> >> Thanks Scotty for admitting that I provide people with a
> >> tool for testing the suitibility of their PC for PCABX
> >> testing.
> >>
> >>> A tool that is certified by subjective human
> perception.
> >>
> >> What's wrong with that?
>
> > Oh my God. You aren't this stupid. You really want to
> say human
> > perception is sufficient to determine if your test
> equipment isn't
> > influencing human perception.


Note the Arny refuses to directly deal with this issue. There is no
test he can provide that will prove the PC is not masking subtle
equipment variance in his recordings.

Testing amps without speakers is really silly anyway, and he already
admitted PC-ABX isn't useful for digital sources so what is left.

Hey... Arny.... PCABX might be good for evaluating tone arm cartridge
interactions... resonant frequencies.... equivalent arm mass sort of
stuff. There's a dearth of useful info from the audio press on this.
We might find a use for you yet.

Kind of ironic... the only real use for your pride and joy is basic
compatibility testing of technology you disdain.


>
> I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
> PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
> pass or fail?
>
> > I think I'll propose a cost savings and fire the
> metrology
> > department. Arny believes in self or circular
> caliabration. The DVM
> > calibrates the supply, the supply calibrates the scope,
> the scope
> > calibrates the DVM... we're good to go.
> > (note: lest Arny take this last paragraph seriously it is
> written with
> > extreme saracasm intended)
> >
> >>
> >>> What a joke.
> >>
> >> So far Scotty, that's what your complaints have been - a
> >> joke.
> >
> > A bad joke for you. Face facts.... PCABX for comparing
> equipment is
> > useless without a lot of rigor the average user cannot
> undertake.
> > Listener training maybe, but there is still no clearly
> demonstrated
> > use for "severe listeners".
>
> I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
> PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
> pass or fail?

Repetitive obfuscation is akin to repititive lying.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> ScottW wrote:
>> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >>>> ScottW wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>> I named the variable and this is the best you can do?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Scottie, you seem to know that your PC at work is
>> noisy.
>> >> Why
>> >>>> don't you control it?
>> >>
>> >>> It's not really my PC, you probably don't understand
>> how
>> >> a big
>> >>> company supports it IT infrastructure but suffice it to
>> >> say allowing
>> >>> individuals to customize their desktops is not an
>> option.
>> >>
>> >> So why not use some other PC for your PCABX testing?
>> >
>> >
>> > That isn't the point. The point is the PC isn't usually
>> verified
>> > for audio reproduction to the extent that even a cheap
>> ghetto blaster
>> > is.
>>
>> My point is that the PCABX web site provides a means for
>> subjectively verifying a given PC for audio listening tests
>> by subjective means.
>
> Exactly, subjective:
>
> A adjective
> 1 immanent, subjective
> of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition is
> an immanent act of mind"
>
> 2 subjective
> taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a
> subjective judgment"
>
> You have subjective certification followed by subjective tests.
>
>>
>> Case in point, what happens when you try to qualify your
>> work PC using the PCABX web site methodology for qualifying
>> it? Does it pass.
>
> Couldn't tell you as I'm not putting it on there. I suspect it would
> as the noise is pretty distinct and easily filtered by the mind but we
> will never know for sure so you can quit barking up that tree.
>>
>>
>> >>>> I do it implicitly. I provide
>> >>>> http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm which says:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "If you have difficulty completing any samples rated
>> >>>> "Difficult" or easier, please consider upgrading your
>> >>>> playback system including loudspeakers, sound card,
>> >>>> amplifier and listening environment.
>> >>>
>> >>> Are you now claiming that listener training is a
>> >> substitute for
>> >>> system certification?
>>
>> > Note that Arny does not want to address this conundrum he
>> has created
>> > by mixing listener training and tool certification.
>>
>> They are separate functions of the web site.
>
> Really? Same clips. Explain how an "untrained" listener certifies
> their computer?
>
>>
>> >>>> Please see the sidebar
>> >>>> titled 'What Makes A Good Sound System For PCABX?'."
>> >>
>> >>> I saw that and it is totally inadequate.
>> >>
>> >> One what grounds?
>>
>> > What is this, a reflex response?
>>
>> No, its a reasonble question, Scott. You've made a claim,
>> now back it up.
>>
>> > Oh look... here in the very next sentence are some
>> grounds.
>>
>> The following exchange only details your misapprehensions
>> and ignorance, Scotty
>>
>> >>> You think power supply noise levels have no impact on
>> >> sound cards for just one example?
>>
>> >> What impact might power supply noise have on sound cards?
>>
>> > There isn't much filtering on sound cards...
>>
>> Not true.
>
> Very true. And considering sound output requires another stage of
> amplification for speaker use... this noise is prone to being
> amplified.
>
> And PCs are notorious for skimping on power supply capacity. And the
> noise on the mobrds with their bus speeds is horrendous.
>>
>> > my crappy work PC has tons of noice on the analog out
>> that is correlated to disk activity.
>>
>> Probably due to bus domination.
>
> Give me a break... I said noise.... not total breakup.
>
>>I repeat Scotty - what would
>> happen if you tried to run the PCABX equipment qualification
>> test on this PC - would it pass or fail?
>>
>> > I suspect supply noise but it could be bus noise coupling
>> in. Point
>> > is your silly guidelines are grossly inadequate.
>>
>> I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
>> PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
>> pass or fail?
>
> You do have a habit of repeating irrelevance.
> Lets see if this will continue.
>
>>
>> >>>>> You think people can evaluate audible amplifier
>> differences with a
>> >>>>> ghetto blaster?
>>
>> >>>> Pardon me for thinking that people can read.
>>
>> >> Note that Scotty does not want to take responsibility for
>> >> his own actions and property.
>>
>> > Note: Another irrelevant comment clearly demonstrating
>> Arny has
>> > difficulty following a thread.
>>
>> I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
>> PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
>> pass or fail?
>>
>> >>>> I test the suitability of people's systems implicitly.
>> I
>> >>>> provide http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .
>> >>
>> >>> You don't test... they have a tool you provide to test.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Scotty for admitting that I provide people with a
>> >> tool for testing the suitibility of their PC for PCABX
>> >> testing.
>> >>
>> >>> A tool that is certified by subjective human
>> perception.
>> >>
>> >> What's wrong with that?
>>
>> > Oh my God. You aren't this stupid. You really want to
>> say human
>> > perception is sufficient to determine if your test
>> equipment isn't
>> > influencing human perception.
>
>
> Note the Arny refuses to directly deal with this issue. There is no
> test he can provide that will prove the PC is not masking subtle
> equipment variance in his recordings.
>
> Testing amps without speakers is really silly anyway, and he already
> admitted PC-ABX isn't useful for digital sources so what is left.
>
> Hey... Arny.... PCABX might be good for evaluating tone arm cartridge
> interactions... resonant frequencies.... equivalent arm mass sort of
> stuff. There's a dearth of useful info from the audio press on this.
> We might find a use for you yet.
>
> Kind of ironic... the only real use for your pride and joy is basic
> compatibility testing of technology you disdain.
>
>
>>
>> I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
>> PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
>> pass or fail?
>>
>> > I think I'll propose a cost savings and fire the
>> metrology
>> > department. Arny believes in self or circular
>> caliabration. The DVM
>> > calibrates the supply, the supply calibrates the scope,
>> the scope
>> > calibrates the DVM... we're good to go.
>> > (note: lest Arny take this last paragraph seriously it is
>> written with
>> > extreme saracasm intended)
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> What a joke.
>> >>
>> >> So far Scotty, that's what your complaints have been - a
>> >> joke.
>> >
>> > A bad joke for you. Face facts.... PCABX for comparing
>> equipment is
>> > useless without a lot of rigor the average user cannot
>> undertake.
>> > Listener training maybe, but there is still no clearly
>> demonstrated
>> > use for "severe listeners".
>>
>> I repeat Scotty - what would happen if you tried to run the
>> PCABX equipment qualification test on this PC - would it
>> pass or fail?
>
> Repetitive obfuscation is akin to repititive lying.
>
Its all the same thing, in the Debating Trade



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