A Question about Testing for Arny, Stewart, eta al

[Jenn]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to learn some more information about testing, and the methods
used by what has been described as the "objectivist group". I confess
that this is not the group that I naturally gravitate toward, but I
would like to learn more. I will, as soon as I can, go to Arny's site
and other places to learn in depth, but I'm in a heavy rehearsal cycle
right now, so it is hard to eek out the time. In the meantime, I have
one question that I've been pondering which I hope you will answer:
In a double-blind testing procedure, is the same exact music heard on
both of the devices tested? In other words, is a musical passage heard
more than once, or is it only heard in linear fashion?
Thanks

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> In a double-blind testing procedure, is the same exact
music
> heard on both of the devices tested?

That is a fundamental requiment. Not only is the exact same
music heard on both devices, but this can happen any number
of times for each piece of equipment that the listener
requires, in order to complete one trial. A number of
trials, say 16 are completed. Therefore the exact same music
may be heard dozens and dozens of times on each device.

> In other words, is a musical passage heard more than
once,

For sure.

>or is it only heard in linear fashion?

No.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > In a double-blind testing procedure, is the same exact
> music
> > heard on both of the devices tested?
>
> That is a fundamental requiment. Not only is the exact same
> music heard on both devices, but this can happen any number
> of times for each piece of equipment that the listener
> requires, in order to complete one trial. A number of
> trials, say 16 are completed. Therefore the exact same music
> may be heard dozens and dozens of times on each device.
>
> > In other words, is a musical passage heard more than
> once,
>
> For sure.
>
> >or is it only heard in linear fashion?
>
> No.

I see, thanks. That would seem to be a fundamental requirement, which
is why I asked. Thanks again; I look forward to further investigation.

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to learn some more information about testing, and the methods
> used by what has been described as the "objectivist group". I confess
> that this is not the group that I naturally gravitate toward, but I
> would like to learn more. I will, as soon as I can, go to Arny's site
> and other places to learn in depth, but I'm in a heavy rehearsal cycle
> right now, so it is hard to eek out the time. In the meantime, I have
> one question that I've been pondering which I hope you will answer:
> In a double-blind testing procedure, is the same exact music heard on
> both of the devices tested? In other words, is a musical passage heard
> more than once, or is it only heard in linear fashion?
> Thanks

I hope you like castanets.



----== 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 =----

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'd like to learn some more information about testing, and the methods
> > used by what has been described as the "objectivist group". I confess
> > that this is not the group that I naturally gravitate toward, but I
> > would like to learn more. I will, as soon as I can, go to Arny's site
> > and other places to learn in depth, but I'm in a heavy rehearsal cycle
> > right now, so it is hard to eek out the time. In the meantime, I have
> > one question that I've been pondering which I hope you will answer:
> > In a double-blind testing procedure, is the same exact music heard on
> > both of the devices tested? In other words, is a musical passage heard
> > more than once, or is it only heard in linear fashion?
> > Thanks
>
> I hope you like castanets.

Sorry?

[MINe 109]

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I'd like to learn some more information about testing, and the methods
> > > used by what has been described as the "objectivist group". I confess
> > > that this is not the group that I naturally gravitate toward, but I
> > > would like to learn more. I will, as soon as I can, go to Arny's site
> > > and other places to learn in depth, but I'm in a heavy rehearsal cycle
> > > right now, so it is hard to eek out the time. In the meantime, I have
> > > one question that I've been pondering which I hope you will answer:
> > > In a double-blind testing procedure, is the same exact music heard on
> > > both of the devices tested? In other words, is a musical passage heard
> > > more than once, or is it only heard in linear fashion?
> > > Thanks
> >
> > I hope you like castanets.
>
> Sorry?

One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short looped recording of
castanets.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article
>

gy.com>,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>
...
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to learn some more information about testing,
and
>>>> the methods used by what has been described as the
>>>> "objectivist group". I confess that this is not the
group
>>>> that I naturally gravitate toward, but I would like to
>>>> learn more. I will, as soon as I can, go to Arny's
site
>>>> and other places to learn in depth, but I'm in a heavy
>>>> rehearsal cycle right now, so it is hard to eek out the
>>>> time. In the meantime, I have one question that I've
been
>>>> pondering which I hope you will answer:
>>>> In a double-blind testing procedure, is the same exact
>>>> music heard on both of the devices tested? In other
words,
>>>> is a musical passage heard more than once, or is it
only
>>>> heard in linear fashion?
>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> I hope you like castanets.
>>
>> Sorry?
>
> One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short looped
> recording of castanets.

Far be it for Stephen to break ranks with Middius and admit
that he's actually done any ABX testing of his own.

[Jenn]

In article >,
MINe 109 > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to learn some more information about testing, and the methods
> > > > used by what has been described as the "objectivist group". I confess
> > > > that this is not the group that I naturally gravitate toward, but I
> > > > would like to learn more. I will, as soon as I can, go to Arny's site
> > > > and other places to learn in depth, but I'm in a heavy rehearsal cycle
> > > > right now, so it is hard to eek out the time. In the meantime, I have
> > > > one question that I've been pondering which I hope you will answer:
> > > > In a double-blind testing procedure, is the same exact music heard on
> > > > both of the devices tested? In other words, is a musical passage heard
> > > > more than once, or is it only heard in linear fashion?
> > > > Thanks
> > >
> > > I hope you like castanets.
> >
> > Sorry?
>
> One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short looped recording of
> castanets.
>
> Stephen

I see...thanks (I think!)

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

Me:
> > One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short looped
> > recording of castanets.
>
> Far be it for Stephen to break ranks with Middius and admit
> that he's actually done any ABX testing of his own.

Nope. No ABX. Mac, remember?

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> Me:
>>> One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short looped
>>> recording of castanets.
>>
>> Far be it for Stephen to break ranks with Middius and
admit
>> that he's actually done any ABX testing of his own.
>
> Nope. No ABX. Mac, remember?

Macabx, remember?

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > Me:
> >>> One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short looped
> >>> recording of castanets.
> >>
> >> Far be it for Stephen to break ranks with Middius and
> admit
> >> that he's actually done any ABX testing of his own.
> >
> > Nope. No ABX. Mac, remember?
>
> Macabx, remember?

Dimly, but I haven't done any computer home listening tests.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>

>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Me:
>>>>> One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short looped
>>>>> recording of castanets.
>>>>
>>>> Far be it for Stephen to break ranks with Middius and
admit
>>>> that he's actually done any ABX testing of his own.
>>>
>>> Nope. No ABX. Mac, remember?
>>
>> Macabx, remember?
>
> Dimly, but I haven't done any computer home listening
tests.

AKA the RAO pledge of allegeance to Middius anti-scientific
dogma.

[George Middius]

The Krooborg has stuck himself with some P-chips again.

>>> Macabx, remember?

>> Dimly, but I haven't done any computer home listening tests.

>AKA the RAO pledge of allegeance

No such word in the English language.

>to Middius[sic] anti-scientific[sic] dogma.

You're in a daze, Arnii. Time to take a dump, maybe? No point in postponing the
inevitable.

But since you raised the science issue, explain why your version of "science"
always leads to a ****ty-sounding stereo.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:54:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"MINe 109" > wrote in message

>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>

>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Me:
>>>>>> One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short looped
>>>>>> recording of castanets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Far be it for Stephen to break ranks with Middius and
>admit
>>>>> that he's actually done any ABX testing of his own.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. No ABX. Mac, remember?
>>>
>>> Macabx, remember?
>>
>> Dimly, but I haven't done any computer home listening
>tests.
>
>AKA the RAO pledge of allegeance to Middius anti-scientific
>dogma.

Damn, I broke the pledge?

Why didn't anyone tell me there WAS a pledge?

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message

> The Krooborg has stuck himself with some P-chips again.
>
>>>> Macabx, remember?
>
>>> Dimly, but I haven't done any computer home listening
tests.
>
>> AKA the RAO pledge of allegeance
>
> No such word in the English language.
>
>> to Middius[sic] anti-scientific[sic] dogma.
>
> You're in a daze, Arnii. Time to take a dump, maybe? No
point
> in postponing the inevitable.

It's the usual Middius schtick. Middius hope it will hurt
him less if he can pick at the spelling and syntax. Note
that Middius supporters have imcluded some of the worst
functional illiterates in the history of RAO. But not a
chiding word from Middius to them. Scott Wheeler comes to
mind.

> But since you raised the science issue, explain why your
> version of "science" always leads to a ****ty-sounding
stereo.

Delusions of omniscience noted. Has Middius ever heard any
of my audio systems, ever? What about the ones that are in
public places? Does he know where they are?

Middius, let's talk about your imaginary stereo in your
imaginary home in your imaginary life along with your
imaginary persona. Tell us all about them!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Me:
> >>>>> One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short looped
> >>>>> recording of castanets.
> >>>>
> >>>> Far be it for Stephen to break ranks with Middius and
> admit
> >>>> that he's actually done any ABX testing of his own.
> >>>
> >>> Nope. No ABX. Mac, remember?
> >>
> >> Macabx, remember?
> >
> > Dimly, but I haven't done any computer home listening
> tests.
>
> AKA the RAO pledge of allegeance to Middius anti-scientific
> dogma.

No, it isn't. By that standard, six billion people are allied against
you.

Stephen

[George Middius]

dave weil said:

>>AKA the RAO pledge of allegeance to Middius

>Damn, I broke the pledge?
>Why didn't anyone tell me there WAS a pledge?

I did warn you not to venture into Krooger's borganoid world without a guide and
a map.

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George Middius" > wrote in
> message
>
>> The Krooborg has stuck himself with some P-chips again.
>>
>>>>> Macabx, remember?
>>
>>>> Dimly, but I haven't done any computer home listening
> tests.
>>
>>> AKA the RAO pledge of allegeance
>>
>> No such word in the English language.
>>
>>> to Middius[sic] anti-scientific[sic] dogma.
>>
>> You're in a daze, Arnii. Time to take a dump, maybe? No
> point
>> in postponing the inevitable.
>
> It's the usual Middius schtick. Middius hope it will hurt
> him less if he can pick at the spelling and syntax. Note
> that Middius supporters have imcluded some of the worst
> functional illiterates in the history of RAO. But not a
> chiding word from Middius to them. Scott Wheeler comes to
> mind.
>
>> But since you raised the science issue, explain why your
>> version of "science" always leads to a ****ty-sounding
> stereo.
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted. Has Middius ever heard any
> of my audio systems, ever? What about the ones that are in
> public places? Does he know where they are?
>
> Middius, let's talk about your imaginary stereo in your
> imaginary home in your imaginary life along with your
> imaginary persona. Tell us all about them!
>

You're whining again, Arny.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >>
>>
>> >>> In article >,
>> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Me:
>> >>>>> One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short looped
>> >>>>> recording of castanets.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Far be it for Stephen to break ranks with Middius and
>> admit
>> >>>> that he's actually done any ABX testing of his own.
>> >>>
>> >>> Nope. No ABX. Mac, remember?
>> >>
>> >> Macabx, remember?
>> >
>> > Dimly, but I haven't done any computer home listening
>> tests.
>>
>> AKA the RAO pledge of allegeance to Middius anti-scientific
>> dogma.
>
> No, it isn't. By that standard, six billion people are allied against
> you.
>

Sounds about right considering his publicly available personal history.

Cheers,

Margaret

[George Middius]

WhineyWhiningWhinerBorg whined:

>> You're in a daze, Arnii. Time to take a dump, maybe? No point
>> in postponing the inevitable.

>It's the usual Middius schtick. Middius hope[hope] it will hurt
>him less if he can pick at the spelling and syntax.

Gosh, you're right. How could I have stooped that low? Lord knows that you,
Arnii Krooborg, never ever make an issue of that kind of error. You are the
glowing role model for tolerance and expansiveness. You put us all to shame.

Of course, if you did use such minor errors as an excuse to avoid dealing with
an issue that was beyond you, that would make you a hypocrite, right? And if you
did it in a substantial portion of your posts, say 10%, that would make you a
gigantic flaming asshole of a hypocrite, right? I'm sure we don't have to worry
about that possibility though, because you, Arnii Krooborg, always behave in
accordance with the precepts you establish for others. Right?

>> But since you raised the science issue, explain why your
>> version of "science" always leads to a ****ty-sounding stereo.

>Delusions of omniscience noted.

Arnii, you poor dumb ****. You're so pathetic I almost feel sorry for you.

>Has Middius ever heard any
>of my audio systems, ever? What about the ones that are in
>public places? Does he know where they are?

You're falling behind again. Here is what we do know:

• Arnii Krooborg has bad taste and bad breeding.

• Arnii Krooborg *prefers* bad-sounding music. We're not sure exactly why but we
do know it's closely linked to his class envy and his love of feces.

• Arnii Krooborg prefers to be surrounded by dysfunction and wreckage. Witness
his car, his house, and his family.

• Arnii Krooborg is utterly ignorant of music. Witness his adoration of trite
compositions and his inability to recall the names of performers and albums with
any degree of accuracy.

• Arnii Krooborg is impoverished and mentally infirm. These are well-known facts
so I won't bother to cite the mountain of extant supporting evidence.

• Arnii Krooborg is intensely paranoid about trivial matters. He actually
believes that his "enemies" are trying to cause him harm through Usenet posts.

Taking into account all of these facts, it's an absolute certainty that any
system you own, desire to own, or contributed to assembling is a pile of crap.


[more ranting snipped]

Poor Krooborg. Remember when you were devastated at the revelation that one of
your "enemies" earns a salary over [gasp!] $70K? I hate to tell you this but
some other RAOers make a lot more than that. You'd better start taking notes,
Arnii. You never know when one of your betters will deign to swat you like an
errant turd.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>

>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>

>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Me:
>>>>>>> One of Arny's test sounds is reportedly a short
looped
>>>>>>> recording of castanets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Far be it for Stephen to break ranks with Middius and
>> admit
>>>>>> that he's actually done any ABX testing of his own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. No ABX. Mac, remember?
>>>>
>>>> Macabx, remember?
>>>
>>> Dimly, but I haven't done any computer home listening
>> tests.
>>
>> AKA the RAO pledge of allegeance to Middius
anti-scientific
>> dogma.
>
> No, it isn't. By that standard, six billion people are
allied
> against you.

6 billion people think that they're high end audiophiles?
You're dreaming again Stephen.

[[email protected]]

At least his whining doesn't smell like a dead halibut.