In Case you Missed It

[[email protected]]

Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf

[Bill Riel]

In article t>,
says...
> Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
>
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf

Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.

--
Bill

[Robert Morein]

"Bill Riel" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article t>,
> says...
> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> >
> > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
>
> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
>
> --
> Bill

If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate relays.
IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if it
was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from criticism.

The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a person with
a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true scientist.

IOW, it's bull****.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article t>,
>> says...
>> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
>> >
>> > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
>>
>> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
>>
>> --
>> Bill
>
> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate relays.
> IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if
> it
> was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> criticism.
>
> The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a person
> with
> a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true scientist.
>
> IOW, it's bull****.
>
>
IOW it's right in line with all other ABX research and 100% correct.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> In article t>,
> >> says...
> >> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> >> >
> >> >
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> >>
> >> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill
> >
> > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
relays.
> > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if
> > it
> > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> > criticism.
> >
> > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a person
> > with
> > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
scientist.
> >
> > IOW, it's bull****.
> >
Expelling rank air from its bladder, the mckelviphibian vocalized:

> IOW gruuuntt it's right urrrghh in line with greeeek all other gruuunt ABX
research urrrgh and greeeek 100% gruuunnt correct.
>
According to creationists, the mckelviphibian and the housefly were put on
earth for a reason. However, mimicry of higher life forms is merely
incidental to the purpose of the mckelviphibian as a coprophage.

[[email protected]]

Bill Riel wrote:
> In article t>,
> says...
> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> >
> > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
>
> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
>
> --
> Bill

The "in case you missed it" is a 1987 Brad Meyer's
account about a few loopholes that he said should deceive listeners to
falsely differentiate audio components from each other when in fact no
differences were present.
It is now 2005. Where are the published reports of identification of
components when ABXing? Falsely or correctly. NYOB is obviously
searching the old issues of "Stereo Review". He will not find any
there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX makes
it all sound the same. Even Brad Meyer's laboriously researched false
clues can not withstand the brain-deafening "test".
When will simple minds grasp that reproduction of complex musical
signals is beyond the reach of their primitive "testing" tools?
Ludovic Mirabel
_______________________________________________

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > In article t>,
> > says...
> > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> > >
> > > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> >
> > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> >
> > --
> > Bill

> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate relays.
> IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if it
> was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from criticism.

> The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a person with
> a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true scientist.

> IOW, it's bull****.

You have no idea who E. Brad Meyer is, do you?





--

-S

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
> > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > In article t>,
> > > says...
> > > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> > > >
> > > >
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> > >
> > > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bill
>
> > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
relays.
> > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if
it
> > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
criticism.
>
> > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a person
with
> > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
scientist.
>
> > IOW, it's bull****.
>
> You have no idea who E. Brad Meyer is, do you?
>
Incorrect.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bill Riel wrote:
> > In article t>,
> > says...
> > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> > >
> > >
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> >
> > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> >
> > --
> > Bill
>
> The "in case you missed it" is a 1987 Brad Meyer's
> account about a few loopholes that he said should deceive listeners to
> falsely differentiate audio components from each other when in fact no
> differences were present.
> It is now 2005. Where are the published reports of identification of
> components when ABXing? Falsely or correctly. NYOB is obviously
> searching the old issues of "Stereo Review". He will not find any
> there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX makes
> it all sound the same. Even Brad Meyer's laboriously researched false
> clues can not withstand the brain-deafening "test".
> When will simple minds grasp that reproduction of complex musical
> signals is beyond the reach of their primitive "testing" tools?
> Ludovic Mirabel
> _______________________________________________
>
Ludovic, I don't know. These idiots have obviously never had an Acoustat
TNT-200 a Hafler XL-600, a Parasound HCA-2200, and an Odyessey in their
hands. With different circuit topologies, they sound markedly different, yet
none of these amplifiers have ever been labeled as "improperly operating",
or "defective", by anybody.

These people, and amphibians, love to play pretend, with their pretentious
put-ons of pseudoscience and authority. The idiocy was apparently started by
one Arny Krueger, who, righteously indignant at the fakery that infects the
high end, overreacted by slaughtering the truth in the manner of the French
Terror. These people spew pure poison, and to anyone who is reading, I say:

The choices of hifi componentry are not simple. A complex interplay of
amplifier, speakers, and signal source determine the pleasure of end result.
Trust your ears and your gut. Be not deceived by appearance, price, or false
prophets of either simplicity or complexity. And if you see a
mckelviphibian, hit it with your shoe, pick it up with a paper towel, and
flush it down the toilet.

[Bret Ludwig]

Robert Morein wrote:

<<snip>>


> Ludovic, I don't know. These idiots have obviously never had an Acoustat
> TNT-200 a Hafler XL-600, a Parasound HCA-2200, and an Odyessey in their
> hands. With different circuit topologies, they sound markedly different, yet
> none of these amplifiers have ever been labeled as "improperly operating",
> or "defective", by anybody.
>

The differences between stock Haflers and ones properly modified with
reinforced power supplies, internal shielding and bypassing, and other
relatively inexpensive mods are noticeable to all but the most casual,
or deaf, listeners, and the modified ones "sound better" in the opinion
and judgment of _every_ listener, as far as I know, experiencing the
comparison. Based on this example of unanimity, in the perceptions of
listeners, despite the relatively small change in measured performance,
I think one may reasonably conclude amplifiers do sound somewhat
different, and some sound better than others, at least in the
perception of an overwhelming majority.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> >> In article t>,
>> >> says...
>> >> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
>> >> >
>> >> >
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
>> >>
>> >> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Bill
>> >
>> > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
> relays.
>> > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even
>> > if
>> > it
>> > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
>> > criticism.
>> >
>> > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a person
>> > with
>> > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
> scientist.
>> >
>> > IOW, it's bull****.
>> >
> Expelling rank air from its bladder, the mckelviphibian vocalized:
>
>> IOW gruuuntt it's right urrrghh in line with greeeek all other gruuunt
>> ABX
> research urrrgh and greeeek 100% gruuunnt correct.
>>
> According to creationists, the mckelviphibian and the housefly were put on
> earth for a reason. However, mimicry of higher life forms is merely
> incidental to the purpose of the mckelviphibian as a coprophage.
>
I notice you generate this drek every time you get caught with the truth.

The comparisons in the article are right in line with present day ABX
comparisons.
Note the comments on applying EQ to an anp that is less than flat and how it
then becomes indistinguishable from the amp that has flat FR.

Your ridiculous posturing and overall nastiness, doesn't change the fact
that your crap about relays is more denial.

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bill Riel wrote:
>> In article t>,
>> says...
>> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
>> >
>> > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
>>
>> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
>>
>> --
>> Bill
>
> The "in case you missed it" is a 1987 Brad Meyer's
> account about a few loopholes that he said should deceive listeners to
> falsely differentiate audio components from each other when in fact no
> differences were present.
> It is now 2005. Where are the published reports of identification of
> components when ABXing? Falsely or correctly. NYOB is obviously
> searching the old issues of "Stereo Review".

Not at all, it was posted on RAHE, where I can only assume you've been
banned, due to you having your head handed to you so many times and you not
taking it all that well.

He will not find any
> there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX makes
> it all sound the same. Even Brad Meyer's laboriously researched false
> clues can not withstand the brain-deafening "test".
> When will simple minds grasp that reproduction of complex musical
> signals is beyond the reach of their primitive "testing" tools?
> Ludovic Mirabel

When will simple minds realize that sighted listening for subtle differences
is worthless?

When will simple minds understand that once the responses of 2 devices is
close enough, they sound identical?

When will simple minds understand that despite their protestations, ABX and
other double blind protocols are the standard way serious researchers look
for differences?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Bill Riel wrote:
>> > In article t>,
>> > says...
>> > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
>> > >
>> > >
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
>> >
>> > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bill
>>
>> The "in case you missed it" is a 1987 Brad Meyer's
>> account about a few loopholes that he said should deceive listeners to
>> falsely differentiate audio components from each other when in fact no
>> differences were present.
>> It is now 2005. Where are the published reports of identification of
>> components when ABXing? Falsely or correctly. NYOB is obviously
>> searching the old issues of "Stereo Review". He will not find any
>> there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX makes
>> it all sound the same. Even Brad Meyer's laboriously researched false
>> clues can not withstand the brain-deafening "test".
>> When will simple minds grasp that reproduction of complex musical
>> signals is beyond the reach of their primitive "testing" tools?
>> Ludovic Mirabel
>> _______________________________________________
>>
> Ludovic, I don't know. These idiots have obviously never had an Acoustat
> TNT-200 a Hafler XL-600, a Parasound HCA-2200, and an Odyessey in their
> hands.

You'd be wrong, but that's typical.

With different circuit topologies, they sound markedly different, yet
> none of these amplifiers have ever been labeled as "improperly operating",
> or "defective", by anybody.
>
Sound differnt? IN what DBT did you determine this?

> These people, and amphibians, love to play pretend, with their pretentious
> put-ons of pseudoscience and authority.

That's so cute, you can't really write words like "scientific fact," so you
pretend nothing is known about the way people hear or the fact that amps
that measure close enough to each other sound identical.

The idiocy was apparently started by
> one Arny Krueger, who, righteously indignant at the fakery that infects
> the
> high end, overreacted by slaughtering the truth in the manner of the
> French
> Terror. These people spew pure poison, and to anyone who is reading, I
> say:
>

Complete bull**** Robert, and you know it. The ABX methodology, that Arny
developed for audio comparisons was to help find the differences, that he as
a then true beleiver in such things expected to find.

> The choices of hifi componentry are not simple. A complex interplay of
> amplifier, speakers, and signal source determine the pleasure of end
> result.

What horse****. You get an amp that drive your speakers and a good CD
player, fi you value accuracy, and a turntable if you don't, and a pair of
speakers that you like. There's never been any evidence of system synergy
and you know that as well.

> Trust your ears and your gut. Be not deceived by appearance, price, or
> false
> prophets of either simplicity or complexity. And if you see a
> mckelviphibian, hit it with your shoe, pick it up with a paper towel, and
> flush it down the toilet.
>
Snore.

[[email protected]]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> <<snip>>
>
>
>> Ludovic, I don't know. These idiots have obviously never had an Acoustat
>> TNT-200 a Hafler XL-600, a Parasound HCA-2200, and an Odyessey in their
>> hands. With different circuit topologies, they sound markedly different,
>> yet
>> none of these amplifiers have ever been labeled as "improperly
>> operating",
>> or "defective", by anybody.
>>
>
> The differences between stock Haflers and ones properly modified with
> reinforced power supplies, internal shielding and bypassing, and other
> relatively inexpensive mods are noticeable to all but the most casual,
> or deaf, listeners, and the modified ones "sound better" in the opinion
> and judgment of _every_ listener, as far as I know, experiencing the
> comparison. Based on this example of unanimity, in the perceptions of
> listeners, despite the relatively small change in measured performance,
> I think one may reasonably conclude amplifiers do sound somewhat
> different, and some sound better than others, at least in the
> perception of an overwhelming majority.
>
If the comparisons weren't done blind then you know they are worthless.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>>
>> The "in case you missed it" is a 1987 Brad Meyer's
>> account about a few loopholes that he said should deceive listeners to
>> falsely differentiate audio components from each other when in fact no
>> differences were present.
>> It is now 2005. Where are the published reports of identification of
>> components when ABXing? Falsely or correctly. NYOB is obviously
>> searching the old issues of "Stereo Review".
>
> Not at all, it was posted on RAHE, where I can only assume you've been
> banned, due to you having your head handed to you so many times and you
> not taking it all that well.
>

Why are you referring to Arny? What does he have to do with this?

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >> > . ..
> >> >> In article t>,
> >> >> says...
> >> >> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> >> >>
> >> >> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Bill
> >> >
> >> > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
> > relays.
> >> > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even
> >> > if
> >> > it
> >> > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> >> > criticism.
> >> >
> >> > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a
person
> >> > with
> >> > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
> > scientist.
> >> >
> >> > IOW, it's bull****.
> >> >
> > Expelling rank air from its bladder, the mckelviphibian vocalized:
> >
> >> IOW gruuuntt it's right urrrghh in line with greeeek all other gruuunt
> >> ABX
> > research urrrgh and greeeek 100% gruuunnt correct.
> >>
> > According to creationists, the mckelviphibian and the housefly were put
on
> > earth for a reason. However, mimicry of higher life forms is merely
> > incidental to the purpose of the mckelviphibian as a coprophage.
> >
> I notice you gruuunt generate this urrrghhh drek every greeeek time you
get caught with the truth.
>
The mckelviphibian's powers of mimicry frequently attract the attention of
mammals. With their far greater intelligence, the mckelviphibian is easy
prey. When cornered in sandy soil, the mckelviphibian assumes a posture
referred to by amphibiologists as "ass up head down". With the head buried
in soft sand, the predator is supposed to be intimidated by the size of the
ass. This gave rise to a popular expression that is incorrectly attributed
to ostriches.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> > <<snip>>
> >
> >
> >> Ludovic, I don't know. These idiots have obviously never had an
Acoustat
> >> TNT-200 a Hafler XL-600, a Parasound HCA-2200, and an Odyessey in their
> >> hands. With different circuit topologies, they sound markedly
different,
> >> yet
> >> none of these amplifiers have ever been labeled as "improperly
> >> operating",
> >> or "defective", by anybody.
> >>
> >
> > The differences between stock Haflers and ones properly modified with
> > reinforced power supplies, internal shielding and bypassing, and other
> > relatively inexpensive mods are noticeable to all but the most casual,
> > or deaf, listeners, and the modified ones "sound better" in the opinion
> > and judgment of _every_ listener, as far as I know, experiencing the
> > comparison. Based on this example of unanimity, in the perceptions of
> > listeners, despite the relatively small change in measured performance,
> > I think one may reasonably conclude amplifiers do sound somewhat
> > different, and some sound better than others, at least in the
> > perception of an overwhelming majority.
> >
> If the comparisons weren't done by an ass then you know they are
worthless.
>
If you eat with your other end, you might taste something.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
[snip]
people spew pure poison, and to anyone who is reading, I

> Complete truth Robert, and you know it. The ABX methodology, that Arny
> developed for audio comparisons was to help find the differences, that he
as
> a then true beleiver

Incorrect spelling: "beleiver".
Rest of post: garbage. Grade: F.

[Robert Morein]

In fact, in some caves, there exist whole communities of creatures that have
no sight. Blind mckelviphibians, devoid of all pigmentation, choke down
fistfuls of bugs while crooning mornfully, echoing off endless caverns of
limestone.

As part of our acclaimed PBS documentary, "McKelviphibian; Creature from the
Black Lagoon", we took sensitive sound recording equipment into one of these
caves. Listen now, for a voice that sounds almost human:
>
> When will mckelviphibians understand that despite their protestations, ABX
and
> other double blind protocols are the standard way serious amphibians look
> for differences in mating calls?
>
>

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:

>If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate relays.
>IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if it
>was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from criticism.


Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my preamp
(gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or subtract
anything in the signal.

Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter :-)

--

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

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>> >> > . ..
>> >> >> In article t>,
>> >> >> says...
>> >> >> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Bill
>> >> >
>> >> > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
>> > relays.
>> >> > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers.
>> >> > Even
>> >> > if
>> >> > it
>> >> > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
>> >> > criticism.
>> >> >
>> >> > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a
> person
>> >> > with
>> >> > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
>> > scientist.
>> >> >
>> >> > IOW, it's bull****.
>> >> >
>> > Expelling rank air from its bladder, the mckelviphibian vocalized:
>> >
>> >> IOW gruuuntt it's right urrrghh in line with greeeek all other gruuunt
>> >> ABX
>> > research urrrgh and greeeek 100% gruuunnt correct.
>> >>
>> > According to creationists, the mckelviphibian and the housefly were put
> on
>> > earth for a reason. However, mimicry of higher life forms is merely
>> > incidental to the purpose of the mckelviphibian as a coprophage.
>> >
>> I notice you gruuunt generate this urrrghhh drek every greeeek time you
> get caught with the truth.
>>
> The mckelviphibian's powers of mimicry frequently attract the attention of
> mammals. With their far greater intelligence, the mckelviphibian is easy
> prey. When cornered in sandy soil, the mckelviphibian assumes a posture
> referred to by amphibiologists as "ass up head down". With the head buried
> in soft sand, the predator is supposed to be intimidated by the size of
> the
> ass. This gave rise to a popular expression that is incorrectly
> attributed
> to ostriches.
>
>
Thank you for admitting that you were wrong, again.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >
>> > <<snip>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Ludovic, I don't know. These idiots have obviously never had an
> Acoustat
>> >> TNT-200 a Hafler XL-600, a Parasound HCA-2200, and an Odyessey in
>> >> their
>> >> hands. With different circuit topologies, they sound markedly
> different,
>> >> yet
>> >> none of these amplifiers have ever been labeled as "improperly
>> >> operating",
>> >> or "defective", by anybody.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The differences between stock Haflers and ones properly modified with
>> > reinforced power supplies, internal shielding and bypassing, and other
>> > relatively inexpensive mods are noticeable to all but the most casual,
>> > or deaf, listeners, and the modified ones "sound better" in the opinion
>> > and judgment of _every_ listener, as far as I know, experiencing the
>> > comparison. Based on this example of unanimity, in the perceptions of
>> > listeners, despite the relatively small change in measured performance,
>> > I think one may reasonably conclude amplifiers do sound somewhat
>> > different, and some sound better than others, at least in the
>> > perception of an overwhelming majority.
>> >
>> If the comparisons weren't done by an ass then you know they are
> worthless.
>>
> If you eat with your other end, you might taste something.
>
Thank you for admitting that you must commit forgery when cornered by the
truth.
The truth being you are a clueless dickhead.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> [snip]
> people spew pure poison, and to anyone who is reading, I
>
>> Complete truth Robert, and you know it. The ABX methodology, that Arny
>> developed for audio comparisons was to help find the differences, that he
> as
>> a then true beleiver
>
> Incorrect spelling: "beleiver".
> Rest of post: garbage. Grade: F.
>
IOW, I got it right again, and you don't know what the **** you're talking
about, again.

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert Morein > wrote:
> >
> > > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > > In article t>,
> > > > says...
> > > > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Bill
> >
> > > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
> relays.
> > > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if
> it
> > > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> criticism.
> >
> > > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a person
> with
> > > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
> scientist.
> >
> > > IOW, it's bull****.
> >
> > You have no idea who E. Brad Meyer is, do you?
> >
> Incorrect.

I don't believe you.




--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> Bill Riel wrote:
> > In article t>,
> > says...
> > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> > >
> > > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> >
> > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> >
> > --
> > Bill

> The "in case you missed it" is a 1987 Brad Meyer's
> account about a few loopholes that he said should deceive listeners to
> falsely differentiate audio components from each other when in fact no
> differences were present.

First of all, it's a 1991 article. It's called

"The Amp/Speaker Interface
Are your speakers turning your amplifier into a tone control?"

It describes conditions under which two amps can sound different in
a controlled listening comparison.

The Meyer article you are misremembering is 'Do All Amps Sound the Same?"
from 1987.


> It is now 2005. Where are the published reports of identification of
> components when ABXing? Falsely or correctly. NYOB is obviously
> searching the old issues of "Stereo Review".


Second of all, the link to the PDF was posted on Sound & Vision's
website this month, because the article was referred to in the
September S&V letters column.



> He will not find any
> there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX makes
> it all sound the same.


Except when it doesn't:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm

You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain one.
Back into the killfile you go.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >> >> > . ..
> >> >> >> In article t>,
> >> >> >> says...
> >> >> >> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Bill
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
> >> > relays.
> >> >> > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers.
> >> >> > Even
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> >> >> > criticism.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a
> > person
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
> >> > scientist.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > IOW, it's bull****.
> >> >> >
> >> > Expelling rank air from its bladder, the mckelviphibian vocalized:
> >> >
> >> >> IOW gruuuntt it's right urrrghh in line with greeeek all other
gruuunt
> >> >> ABX
> >> > research urrrgh and greeeek 100% gruuunnt correct.
> >> >>
> >> > According to creationists, the mckelviphibian and the housefly were
put
> > on
> >> > earth for a reason. However, mimicry of higher life forms is merely
> >> > incidental to the purpose of the mckelviphibian as a coprophage.
> >> >
> >> I notice you gruuunt generate this urrrghhh drek every greeeek time
you
> > get caught with the truth.
> >>
> > The mckelviphibian's powers of mimicry frequently attract the attention
of
> > mammals. With their far greater intelligence, the mckelviphibian is easy
> > prey. When cornered in sandy soil, the mckelviphibian assumes a posture
> > referred to by amphibiologists as "ass up head down". With the head
buried
> > in soft sand, the predator is supposed to be intimidated by the size of
> > the
> > ass. This gave rise to a popular expression that is incorrectly
> > attributed
> > to ostriches.
> >
> >
> Thank you for gruunnt admitting that urrrrgh you were greeeeek wrong,
again.
>
This is one example of the mckelviphibian's talent for mimicry of the
krugersaurus. Many naturalists have debated whether a behavior represents
intelligence innate to the species, or mere mimicry. Since the
mckelviphibian's brain has negligible corticial matter, mimicry provides it
with an ability to exhibit behavior more sophisticated than could be
independently created by its primitive ganglion. In fact, the total volume
of corticial matter in the mckelviphibian is dwarfed by the "mushroom
bodies" of the cockroach, those particular extensions of the insectoid
cephaliod ganglion that are intimately connected with the antennae.

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Robert Morein > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > > > > In article t>,
> > > > > says...
> > > > > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Bill
> > >
> > > > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
> > relays.
> > > > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers.
Even if
> > it
> > > > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> > criticism.
> > >
> > > > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a
person
> > with
> > > > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
> > scientist.
> > >
> > > > IOW, it's bull****.
> > >
> > > You have no idea who E. Brad Meyer is, do you?
> > >
> > Incorrect.
>
> I don't believe you.
>
Answer too long?

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
> >If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
relays.
> >IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if
it
> >was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
criticism.
>
>
> Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my preamp
> (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or subtract
> anything in the signal.
>
> Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter :-)
>
The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a Stereophile article that
predated the current acrimony.

I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B relays with plated
palladium/oxide contacts. Even with brand new relays, there was clearly a
degrading effect. All those days of wasted fabrication!

From the change in the sound, I think there was something nonlinear going
on, ala rectification.

I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile comment remains,
specifically challenging the power handling capacity.

[Robert Morein]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
[snip]
> > If the comparisons weren't done by an ass then you know they are
> worthless.

What an amazing criteria! All science must be done by asses!!!!!

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > ink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > . ..
>> >> >> >> In article
>> >> >> >> t>,
>> >> >> >> says...
>> >> >> >> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Bill
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
>> >> >> > inadequate
>> >> > relays.
>> >> >> > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers.
>> >> >> > Even
>> >> >> > if
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
>> >> >> > criticism.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a
>> > person
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
>> >> > scientist.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > IOW, it's bull****.
>> >> >> >
>> >> > Expelling rank air from its bladder, the mckelviphibian vocalized:
>> >> >
>> >> >> IOW gruuuntt it's right urrrghh in line with greeeek all other
> gruuunt
>> >> >> ABX
>> >> > research urrrgh and greeeek 100% gruuunnt correct.
>> >> >>
>> >> > According to creationists, the mckelviphibian and the housefly were
> put
>> > on
>> >> > earth for a reason. However, mimicry of higher life forms is merely
>> >> > incidental to the purpose of the mckelviphibian as a coprophage.
>> >> >
>> >> I notice you gruuunt generate this urrrghhh drek every greeeek time
> you
>> > get caught with the truth.
>> >>
>> > The mckelviphibian's powers of mimicry frequently attract the attention
> of
>> > mammals. With their far greater intelligence, the mckelviphibian is
>> > easy
>> > prey. When cornered in sandy soil, the mckelviphibian assumes a posture
>> > referred to by amphibiologists as "ass up head down". With the head
> buried
>> > in soft sand, the predator is supposed to be intimidated by the size of
>> > the
>> > ass. This gave rise to a popular expression that is incorrectly
>> > attributed
>> > to ostriches.
>> >
>> >
>> Thank you for gruunnt admitting that urrrrgh you were greeeeek wrong,
> again.
>>
> This is one example of the mckelviphibian's talent for mimicry of the
> krugersaurus. Many naturalists have debated whether a behavior represents
> intelligence innate to the species, or mere mimicry. Since the
> mckelviphibian's brain has negligible corticial matter, mimicry provides
> it
> with an ability to exhibit behavior more sophisticated than could be
> independently created by its primitive ganglion. In fact, the total volume
> of corticial matter in the mckelviphibian is dwarfed by the "mushroom
> bodies" of the cockroach, those particular extensions of the insectoid
> cephaliod ganglion that are intimately connected with the antennae.
>
Observe how when confronted with facts that contradict Moron's fantasy
world, he resorts to infantile attacks.

Way to go Bob.

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert Morein > wrote:
> >
> > > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Robert Morein > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> > > > > . ..
> > > > > > In article t>,
> > > > > > says...
> > > > > > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > > > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
> > > relays.
> > > > > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers.
> Even if
> > > it
> > > > > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> > > criticism.
> > > >
> > > > > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a
> person
> > > with
> > > > > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
> > > scientist.
> > > >
> > > > > IOW, it's bull****.
> > > >
> > > > You have no idea who E. Brad Meyer is, do you?
> > > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > I don't believe you.
> >
> Answer too long?

No, simply insufficiently convincing.


--

-S

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Robert Morein > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Robert Morein > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > . ..
> > > > > > > In article
t>,
> > > > > > > says...
> > > > > > > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Bill
> > > > >
> > > > > > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
inadequate
> > > > relays.
> > > > > > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers.
> > Even if
> > > > it
> > > > > > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
from
> > > > criticism.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a
> > person
> > > > with
> > > > > > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
> > > > scientist.
> > > > >
> > > > > > IOW, it's bull****.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no idea who E. Brad Meyer is, do you?
> > > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> > >
> > > I don't believe you.
> > >
> > Answer too long?
>
> No, simply insufficiently convincing.
>
Oh.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > ink.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > . ..
> >> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> >> >> t>,
> >> >> >> >> says...
> >> >> >> >> > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Bill
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
> >> >> >> > inadequate
> >> >> > relays.
> >> >> >> > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between
amplifiers.
> >> >> >> > Even
> >> >> >> > if
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
from
> >> >> >> > criticism.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by
a
> >> > person
> >> >> >> > with
> >> >> >> > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
> >> >> > scientist.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > IOW, it's bull****.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> > Expelling rank air from its bladder, the mckelviphibian vocalized:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> IOW gruuuntt it's right urrrghh in line with greeeek all other
> > gruuunt
> >> >> >> ABX
> >> >> > research urrrgh and greeeek 100% gruuunnt correct.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > According to creationists, the mckelviphibian and the housefly
were
> > put
> >> > on
> >> >> > earth for a reason. However, mimicry of higher life forms is
merely
> >> >> > incidental to the purpose of the mckelviphibian as a coprophage.
> >> >> >
> >> >> I notice you gruuunt generate this urrrghhh drek every greeeek time
> > you
> >> > get caught with the truth.
> >> >>
> >> > The mckelviphibian's powers of mimicry frequently attract the
attention
> > of
> >> > mammals. With their far greater intelligence, the mckelviphibian is
> >> > easy
> >> > prey. When cornered in sandy soil, the mckelviphibian assumes a
posture
> >> > referred to by amphibiologists as "ass up head down". With the head
> > buried
> >> > in soft sand, the predator is supposed to be intimidated by the size
of
> >> > the
> >> > ass. This gave rise to a popular expression that is incorrectly
> >> > attributed
> >> > to ostriches.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Thank you for gruunnt admitting that urrrrgh you were greeeeek wrong,
> > again.
> >>
> > This is one example of the mckelviphibian's talent for mimicry of the
> > krugersaurus. Many naturalists have debated whether a behavior
represents
> > intelligence innate to the species, or mere mimicry. Since the
> > mckelviphibian's brain has negligible corticial matter, mimicry provides
> > it
> > with an ability to exhibit behavior more sophisticated than could be
> > independently created by its primitive ganglion. In fact, the total
volume
> > of corticial matter in the mckelviphibian is dwarfed by the "mushroom
> > bodies" of the cockroach, those particular extensions of the insectoid
> > cephaliod ganglion that are intimately connected with the antennae.
> >
> Observe how gruunntt when confronted urrrghhh with facts greeeek that
contradict gruuuntt Moron's urrrghhh fantasy
> world, he greeeek resorts to gruuuntt infantile urrrrgh attacks greeeeek.
>
> Way to grunnnt urrrrgh grreeekk Bob.
>
This is what amphibiologists call a "reflex response".

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert Morein > wrote:
> >
> > > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Robert Morein > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Robert Morein > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > . ..
> > > > > > > > In article
> t>,
> > > > > > > > says...
> > > > > > > > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Bill
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
> inadequate
> > > > > relays.
> > > > > > > IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers.
> > > Even if
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
> from
> > > > > criticism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The conclusions, as is typically is the case, are presented by a
> > > person
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > a flair for writing, but without the analytic ability of a true
> > > > > scientist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > IOW, it's bull****.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no idea who E. Brad Meyer is, do you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe you.
> > > >
> > > Answer too long?
> >
> > No, simply insufficiently convincing.
> >
> Oh.

Next time, you might want to actually provide evidence, like Mr. Meyer
did. Just a thought.

Or not. I'm about done with the newsgroup again for awhile. RAHE's
back up.


--

-S

[George Middius]

Sillybot prepares to have his firmware refreshed.

>I'm about done with the newsgroup again for awhile.

You're not allowed to preach about aBxism on RAHE, Silly. You'll be banned like
Krooger was.

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Robert Morein" > said:
> >
> > >If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
> relays.
> > >IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if
> it
> > >was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> criticism.
> >
> >
> > Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my preamp
> > (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or subtract
> > anything in the signal.
> >
> > Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter :-)
> >
> The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a Stereophile article that
> predated the current acrimony.
>
> I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B relays with plated
> palladium/oxide contacts.

Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however it's
conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high current (>5 A) apps.

http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf

>Even with brand new relays, there was clearly a
> degrading effect. All those days of wasted fabrication!
>
> From the change in the sound, I think there was something nonlinear going
> on, ala rectification.
>
> I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile comment remains,
> specifically challenging the power handling capacity.

You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating power, you f'd
up.
Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they sure might
care if your delivering 1V and 10A.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Robert Morein" > said:
> > >
> > > >If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
> > relays.
> > > >IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even
if
> > it
> > > >was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> > criticism.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my preamp
> > > (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or subtract
> > > anything in the signal.
> > >
> > > Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter :-)
> > >
> > The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a Stereophile article
that
> > predated the current acrimony.
> >
> > I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B relays with
plated
> > palladium/oxide contacts.
>
> Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however it's
> conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high current (>5 A) apps.
>
> http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
>
> >Even with brand new relays, there was clearly a
> > degrading effect. All those days of wasted fabrication!
> >
> > From the change in the sound, I think there was something nonlinear
going
> > on, ala rectification.
> >
> > I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile comment remains,
> > specifically challenging the power handling capacity.
>
> You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating power, you f'd
> up.
> Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they sure might
> care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
>
> ScottW
>
No, I don't mean current handling. Palladium does have that problem, but the
timbre change could not be explained by a modest increase in the resistance
of the speaker feed.

Junction rectification effects occur whenever there is the slightest
dissimilarity in contact material. These are voltage dependent. Another
possibility would be this: Because the actual contact area of slightly
convex contacts is very small, the geometry may change as a function of
point heating. Regardless of whether these, or a third, unknown mechanism
turns out to be the culprit, the result is easily audible, as an unpleasant
artifact.

All I can tell you is: my self-constructed AB box is worthless. I have every
self-serving reason to hide this fact, because I put a lot of time in it.
But I won't, because that would be bad science.

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Robert Morein" > said:
> > > >
> > > > >If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
> > > relays.
> > > > >IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even
> if
> > > it
> > > > >was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> > > criticism.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my preamp
> > > > (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or subtract
> > > > anything in the signal.
> > > >
> > > > Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter :-)
> > > >
> > > The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a Stereophile article
> that
> > > predated the current acrimony.
> > >
> > > I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B relays with
> plated
> > > palladium/oxide contacts.
> >
> > Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however it's
> > conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high current (>5 A) apps.
> >
> > http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
> >
> > >Even with brand new relays, there was clearly a
> > > degrading effect. All those days of wasted fabrication!
> > >
> > > From the change in the sound, I think there was something nonlinear
> going
> > > on, ala rectification.
> > >
> > > I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile comment remains,
> > > specifically challenging the power handling capacity.
> >
> > You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating power, you f'd
> > up.
> > Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they sure might
> > care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
> >
> > ScottW
> >
> No, I don't mean current handling. Palladium does have that problem, but the
> timbre change could not be explained by a modest increase in the resistance
> of the speaker feed.
>
> Junction rectification effects occur whenever there is the slightest
> dissimilarity in contact material. These are voltage dependent. Another
> possibility would be this: Because the actual contact area of slightly
> convex contacts is very small, the geometry may change as a function of
> point heating. Regardless of whether these, or a third, unknown mechanism
> turns out to be the culprit, the result is easily audible, as an unpleasant
> artifact.
>
> All I can tell you is: my self-constructed AB box is worthless. I have every
> self-serving reason to hide this fact, because I put a lot of time in it.
> But I won't, because that would be bad science.

Swapping out the relays for something with suitable contact material
shouldn't be a big deal.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Robert Morein" > said:
> > > >
> > > > >If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with inadequate
> > > relays.
> > > > >IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers. Even
> if
> > > it
> > > > >was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> > > criticism.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my preamp
> > > > (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or subtract
> > > > anything in the signal.
> > > >
> > > > Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter :-)
> > > >
> > > The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a Stereophile article
> that
> > > predated the current acrimony.
> > >
> > > I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B relays with
> plated
> > > palladium/oxide contacts.
> >
> > Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however it's
> > conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high current (>5 A) apps.
> >
> > http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
> >
> > >Even with brand new relays, there was clearly a
> > > degrading effect. All those days of wasted fabrication!
> > >
> > > From the change in the sound, I think there was something nonlinear
> going
> > > on, ala rectification.
> > >
> > > I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile comment remains,
> > > specifically challenging the power handling capacity.
> >
> > You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating power, you f'd
> > up.
> > Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they sure might
> > care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
> >
> > ScottW
> >
> No, I don't mean current handling.

Then Stereophile meant current handling and you repeated their error.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > "Robert Morein" > said:
> > > > >
> > > > > >If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
inadequate
> > > > relays.
> > > > > >IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers.
Even
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > >was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune from
> > > > criticism.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my preamp
> > > > > (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or
subtract
> > > > > anything in the signal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter :-)
> > > > >
> > > > The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a Stereophile article
> > that
> > > > predated the current acrimony.
> > > >
> > > > I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B relays with
> > plated
> > > > palladium/oxide contacts.
> > >
> > > Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however it's
> > > conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high current (>5 A) apps.
> > >
> > > http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
> > >
> > > >Even with brand new relays, there was clearly a
> > > > degrading effect. All those days of wasted fabrication!
> > > >
> > > > From the change in the sound, I think there was something nonlinear
> > going
> > > > on, ala rectification.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile comment
remains,
> > > > specifically challenging the power handling capacity.
> > >
> > > You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating power, you
f'd
> > > up.
> > > Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they sure might
> > > care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> > >
> > No, I don't mean current handling.
>
> Then Stereophile meant current handling and you repeated their error.
>
> ScottW
>
Probably.
Ever since the cat's whisker detector, it has been known that mechanical
junctions have effects.
When the purpose of a mechanical junction is to supply power, or a digital
signal, methods of contact design, such as bifurcation, have been
practically successful.
But "dry" contacts, that must pass a delicate analog signal that dips to
millivolts near the crossover, are, like audio, an electronic backwater. Is
gold-on-gold with sufficiently low resistance sufficient? Silver oxide is
quoted as having excellent conductivity, but what about junction effects
that would not be noticed in power applications?
And what about changes in the mechanical interface, caused by local heating,
that occur on the time scale of the signal? This means that for me, cannot
be accepted without examination for comparator construction.

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message >> > >
>> > No, I don't mean current handling.
>>
>> Then Stereophile meant current handling and you repeated their error.
>>
>> ScottW
>>
> Probably.
> Ever since the cat's whisker detector, it has been known that mechanical
> junctions have effects.

Except there must be hundreds of mechanical junctions in the signal path.
I can't see how one more makes a difference.

> When the purpose of a mechanical junction is to supply power, or a digital
> signal, methods of contact design, such as bifurcation, have been
> practically successful.
> But "dry" contacts, that must pass a delicate analog signal that dips to
> millivolts near the crossover, are, like audio, an electronic backwater.
> Is
> gold-on-gold with sufficiently low resistance sufficient?

Must be in that it works on the connections of MM carts dealing
with uV signal levels.

> Silver oxide is
> quoted as having excellent conductivity, but what about junction effects
> that would not be noticed in power applications?

What about them?

> And what about changes in the mechanical interface, caused by local
> heating,
> that occur on the time scale of the signal?

If you don't have any resistance, you're not dissipating any power and not
generating any heat. That is generally the goal of any contact.

> This means that for me, cannot
> be accepted without examination for comparator construction.

Did Lionel write this?

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:rw2%e.123164$Ep.35475@lakeread02...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message >> > >
> >> > No, I don't mean current handling.
> >>
> >> Then Stereophile meant current handling and you repeated their error.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >>
> > Probably.
> > Ever since the cat's whisker detector, it has been known that mechanical
> > junctions have effects.
>
> Except there must be hundreds of mechanical junctions in the signal path.
> I can't see how one more makes a difference.
>
> > When the purpose of a mechanical junction is to supply power, or a
digital
> > signal, methods of contact design, such as bifurcation, have been
> > practically successful.
> > But "dry" contacts, that must pass a delicate analog signal that dips to
> > millivolts near the crossover, are, like audio, an electronic backwater.
> > Is
> > gold-on-gold with sufficiently low resistance sufficient?
>
> Must be in that it works on the connections of MM carts dealing
> with uV signal levels.
>
Maybe. I'm not a vinyl fanatic. It could be one more distortion that works
:)

> > Silver oxide is
> > quoted as having excellent conductivity, but what about junction effects
> > that would not be noticed in power applications?
>
> What about them?
I don't know.
>
> > And what about changes in the mechanical interface, caused by local
> > heating,
> > that occur on the time scale of the signal?
>
> If you don't have any resistance, you're not dissipating any power and
not
> generating any heat. That is generally the goal of any contact.
>
True. But resistance that does not cause noticeable power loss could still
cause mechanical effects at the point of contact, where the current density
could be appreciable.

> > This means that for me, relays cannot
> > be accepted without examination for comparator construction.
>
> Did Lionel write this?
Why do you say that?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> > >
>> > > Robert Morein wrote:
>> > > > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > > "Robert Morein" > said:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
> inadequate
>> > > > relays.
>> > > > > >IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between amplifiers.
> Even
>> > if
>> > > > it
>> > > > > >was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
>> > > > > >from
>> > > > criticism.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my preamp
>> > > > > (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or
> subtract
>> > > > > anything in the signal.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter :-)
>> > > > >
>> > > > The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a Stereophile
>> > > > article
>> > that
>> > > > predated the current acrimony.
>> > > >
>> > > > I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B relays
>> > > > with
>> > plated
>> > > > palladium/oxide contacts.
>> > >
>> > > Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however it's
>> > > conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high current (>5 A) apps.
>> > >
>> > > http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
>> > >
>> > > >Even with brand new relays, there was clearly a
>> > > > degrading effect. All those days of wasted fabrication!
>> > > >
>> > > > From the change in the sound, I think there was something nonlinear
>> > going
>> > > > on, ala rectification.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile comment
> remains,
>> > > > specifically challenging the power handling capacity.
>> > >
>> > > You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating power, you
> f'd
>> > > up.
>> > > Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they sure might
>> > > care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
>> > >
>> > > ScottW
>> > >
>> > No, I don't mean current handling.
>>
>> Then Stereophile meant current handling and you repeated their error.
>>
>> ScottW
>>
> Probably.
> Ever since the cat's whisker detector, it has been known that mechanical
> junctions have effects.
> When the purpose of a mechanical junction is to supply power, or a digital
> signal, methods of contact design, such as bifurcation, have been
> practically successful.
> But "dry" contacts, that must pass a delicate analog signal that dips to
> millivolts near the crossover, are, like audio, an electronic backwater.
> Is
> gold-on-gold with sufficiently low resistance sufficient? Silver oxide is
> quoted as having excellent conductivity, but what about junction effects
> that would not be noticed in power applications?
> And what about changes in the mechanical interface, caused by local
> heating,
> that occur on the time scale of the signal? This means that for me, cannot
> be accepted without examination for comparator construction.
>
Currently available ABX boxes such as those made by QSC, have no trouble
being audibly transparent.

[[email protected]]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:rw2%e.123164$Ep.35475@lakeread02...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message >> > >
>>> > No, I don't mean current handling.
>>>
>>> Then Stereophile meant current handling and you repeated their error.
>>>
>>> ScottW
>>>
>> Probably.
>> Ever since the cat's whisker detector, it has been known that mechanical
>> junctions have effects.
>
> Except there must be hundreds of mechanical junctions in the signal path.
> I can't see how one more makes a difference.
>
>> When the purpose of a mechanical junction is to supply power, or a
>> digital
>> signal, methods of contact design, such as bifurcation, have been
>> practically successful.
>> But "dry" contacts, that must pass a delicate analog signal that dips to
>> millivolts near the crossover, are, like audio, an electronic backwater.
>> Is
>> gold-on-gold with sufficiently low resistance sufficient?
>
> Must be in that it works on the connections of MM carts dealing
> with uV signal levels.
>
>> Silver oxide is
>> quoted as having excellent conductivity, but what about junction effects
>> that would not be noticed in power applications?
>
> What about them?
>
>> And what about changes in the mechanical interface, caused by local
>> heating,
>> that occur on the time scale of the signal?
>
> If you don't have any resistance, you're not dissipating any power and not
> generating any heat. That is generally the goal of any contact.
>
>> This means that for me, cannot
>> be accepted without examination for comparator construction.
>
> Did Lionel write this?
>
Nah, just the Moronasaurus.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:31:04 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

> Silver oxide is
>quoted as having excellent conductivity,

By audiophools. Try finding hard evidence.

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Bill Riel wrote:
> > > In article t>,
> > > says...
> > > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
> > >
> > > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bill
>
> > The "in case you missed it" is a 1987 Brad Meyer's
> > account about a few loopholes that he said should deceive listeners to
> > falsely differentiate audio components from each other when in fact no
> > differences were present.
>
> First of all, it's a 1991 article. It's called
>
> "The Amp/Speaker Interface
> Are your speakers turning your amplifier into a tone control?"
>
> It describes conditions under which two amps can sound different in
> a controlled listening comparison.
>
> The Meyer article you are misremembering is 'Do All Amps Sound the Same?"
> from 1987.
>
>
> > It is now 2005. Where are the published reports of identification of
> > components when ABXing? Falsely or correctly. NYOB is obviously
> > searching the old issues of "Stereo Review".
>
>
> Second of all, the link to the PDF was posted on Sound & Vision's
> website this month, because the article was referred to in the
> September S&V letters column.
>
>
>
> > He will not find any
> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX makes
> > it all sound the same.
>
>
> Except when it doesn't:
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
>
> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain one.
> Back into the killfile you go.

This is the second time in one week Sullivan responds by
assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going mute
when things get hot.
Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true believer-
ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible. This
is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days ( his
stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th) that
the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only evidence
that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
So let us see once more (I've done it three times
before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the defunct
"Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research" report
dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the early
eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and beggars...

The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers. They
had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of 10
comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
Now listen carefully because you will be inclined to
doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
"research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts and
one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it shows
ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation at the
loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
Next they compared something called Paoli 60M (no
data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
difference.
The third "positive" result was a comparison of
ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they offer
that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with *audible*
clipping.
The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect that
no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100 (I have
one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP they
heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against a a
cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
(One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at that
time)- yes, they heard a difference.
?
This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
"evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
does.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
[snip]
> >
> > You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain one.
> > Back into the killfile you go.
>
[snip]
> The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
> outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
> that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect that
> no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
>[snip]
> ?
> This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
> a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> does.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Thank you, Ludovic, for a systematic deconstruction of the tainted logic of
ABX. The leader of the ABX batallion might be tempted to reply with a
contemptuous "ROTFL", but, if he has any comprehension of the utter
destruction of his audio faith, he would honestly have to reply with a
rueful "PIMP", or an even sorrier "IJSM".

As currently constituted, "ABX" does not pass a reality check. It
contradicts widely held experience among the audio community. It does not
hold water. It is as worthless as a theory that proclaims that the Earth is
flat. Its' adherents bludgeon the wit, assault the senses, and adulterate
the meaning of quality.

But as we have seen, these people, so deficient either in experience, aural
acuity, or both, behave like insane Maoists of the Cultural Revolution,
desiring to tear down everything that is good and beautiful that they do not
understand. This is why their influence is evil; this is why they must be
constantly held up to ridicule, as you have just done.

I will content myself with a few muffled chortles :)

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> Robert Morein wrote:
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> > >
> >> > > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> > > > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> >> > > > ...
> >> > > > > "Robert Morein" > said:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
> > inadequate
> >> > > > relays.
> >> > > > > >IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between
amplifiers.
> > Even
> >> > if
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > >was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
> >> > > > > >from
> >> > > > criticism.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my
preamp
> >> > > > > (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or
> > subtract
> >> > > > > anything in the signal.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter
:-)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a Stereophile
> >> > > > article
> >> > that
> >> > > > predated the current acrimony.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B relays
> >> > > > with
> >> > plated
> >> > > > palladium/oxide contacts.
> >> > >
> >> > > Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however it's
> >> > > conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high current (>5 A) apps.
> >> > >
> >> > > http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
> >> > >
> >> > > >Even with brand new relays, there was clearly a
> >> > > > degrading effect. All those days of wasted fabrication!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > From the change in the sound, I think there was something
nonlinear
> >> > going
> >> > > > on, ala rectification.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile comment
> > remains,
> >> > > > specifically challenging the power handling capacity.
> >> > >
> >> > > You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating power, you
> > f'd
> >> > > up.
> >> > > Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they sure
might
> >> > > care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
> >> > >
> >> > > ScottW
> >> > >
> >> > No, I don't mean current handling.
> >>
> >> Then Stereophile meant current handling and you repeated their error.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >>
> > Probably.
> > Ever since the cat's whisker detector, it has been known that mechanical
> > junctions have effects.
> > When the purpose of a mechanical junction is to supply power, or a
digital
> > signal, methods of contact design, such as bifurcation, have been
> > practically successful.
> > But "dry" contacts, that must pass a delicate analog signal that dips to
> > millivolts near the crossover, are, like audio, an electronic backwater.
> > Is
> > gold-on-gold with sufficiently low resistance sufficient? Silver oxide
is
> > quoted as having excellent conductivity, but what about junction effects
> > that would not be noticed in power applications?
> > And what about changes in the mechanical interface, caused by local
> > heating,
> > that occur on the time scale of the signal? This means that for me,
cannot
> > be accepted without examination for comparator construction.
> >
> Currently available ABX boxes such as those made by QSC, have no trouble
> being audibly transparent.
>
Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid people. Quoting
Mikey the mckelviphibian,
"If the comparisons weren't done by an ass then you know they are
worthless."

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> > oups.com...
>>> > >
>>> > > Robert Morein wrote:
>>> > > > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>>> > > > ...
>>> > > > > "Robert Morein" > said:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > >If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
>> inadequate
>>> > > > relays.
>>> > > > > >IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between
>>> > > > > >amplifiers.
>> Even
>>> > if
>>> > > > it
>>> > > > > >was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
>>> > > > > >from
>>> > > > criticism.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my preamp
>>> > > > > (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or
>> subtract
>>> > > > > anything in the signal.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter :-)
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a Stereophile
>>> > > > article
>>> > that
>>> > > > predated the current acrimony.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B relays
>>> > > > with
>>> > plated
>>> > > > palladium/oxide contacts.
>>> > >
>>> > > Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however it's
>>> > > conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high current (>5 A) apps.
>>> > >
>>> > > http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
>>> > >
>>> > > >Even with brand new relays, there was clearly a
>>> > > > degrading effect. All those days of wasted fabrication!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > From the change in the sound, I think there was something
>>> > > > nonlinear
>>> > going
>>> > > > on, ala rectification.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile comment
>> remains,
>>> > > > specifically challenging the power handling capacity.
>>> > >
>>> > > You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating power, you
>> f'd
>>> > > up.
>>> > > Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they sure might
>>> > > care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
>>> > >
>>> > > ScottW
>>> > >
>>> > No, I don't mean current handling.
>>>
>>> Then Stereophile meant current handling and you repeated their error.
>>>
>>> ScottW
>>>
>> Probably.
>> Ever since the cat's whisker detector, it has been known that mechanical
>> junctions have effects.
>> When the purpose of a mechanical junction is to supply power, or a
>> digital
>> signal, methods of contact design, such as bifurcation, have been
>> practically successful.
>> But "dry" contacts, that must pass a delicate analog signal that dips to
>> millivolts near the crossover, are, like audio, an electronic backwater.
>> Is
>> gold-on-gold with sufficiently low resistance sufficient? Silver oxide is
>> quoted as having excellent conductivity, but what about junction effects
>> that would not be noticed in power applications?
>> And what about changes in the mechanical interface, caused by local
>> heating,
>> that occur on the time scale of the signal? This means that for me,
>> cannot
>> be accepted without examination for comparator construction.
>>
> Currently available ABX boxes such as those made by QSC, have no trouble
> being audibly transparent.

Tell us how you know that.

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> [snip]
> > >
> > > You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain one.
> > > Back into the killfile you go.
> >
> [snip]
> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect that
> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
> >[snip]
> > ?
> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> > does.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> Thank you, Ludovic, for a systematic deconstruction of the tainted logic of
> ABX. The leader of the ABX batallion might be tempted to reply with a
> contemptuous "ROTFL",

I'm not the 'leader', AFAIK, but I will happily contribute a hearty 'ROTFL'.

Ludovic asks for positive ABX results, but doesn't like it when he's
pointed to them. This is his pattern.

Of course, *Meyer's* 1991 article *also* reports positive
ABX test results, and explains underw what circumstances they tend
to arise.

> As currently constituted, "ABX" does not pass a reality check.

Curiously, the AES pays not the slightest attention to such pronouncements
from such 'leaders' as yourself. Oh, how deluded they are! If
only they would listen to you!

> It
> contradicts widely held experience among the audio community.

A community rather notorious for embracing reality-challenged beliefs.



--

-S

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >>
>> >> Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> >> > oups.com...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> > > > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>> >> > > > ...
>> >> > > > > "Robert Morein" > said:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > >If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
>> > inadequate
>> >> > > > relays.
>> >> > > > > >IME, this can easily mask subtle differences between
> amplifiers.
>> > Even
>> >> > if
>> >> > > > it
>> >> > > > > >was not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
>> >> > > > > >from
>> >> > > > criticism.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my
> preamp
>> >> > > > > (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell don't add or
>> > subtract
>> >> > > > > anything in the signal.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another matter
> :-)
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a Stereophile
>> >> > > > article
>> >> > that
>> >> > > > predated the current acrimony.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B relays
>> >> > > > with
>> >> > plated
>> >> > > > palladium/oxide contacts.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however it's
>> >> > > conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high current (>5 A) apps.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >Even with brand new relays, there was clearly a
>> >> > > > degrading effect. All those days of wasted fabrication!
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > From the change in the sound, I think there was something
> nonlinear
>> >> > going
>> >> > > > on, ala rectification.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile comment
>> > remains,
>> >> > > > specifically challenging the power handling capacity.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating power,
>> >> > > you
>> > f'd
>> >> > > up.
>> >> > > Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they sure
> might
>> >> > > care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > ScottW
>> >> > >
>> >> > No, I don't mean current handling.
>> >>
>> >> Then Stereophile meant current handling and you repeated their error.
>> >>
>> >> ScottW
>> >>
>> > Probably.
>> > Ever since the cat's whisker detector, it has been known that
>> > mechanical
>> > junctions have effects.
>> > When the purpose of a mechanical junction is to supply power, or a
> digital
>> > signal, methods of contact design, such as bifurcation, have been
>> > practically successful.
>> > But "dry" contacts, that must pass a delicate analog signal that dips
>> > to
>> > millivolts near the crossover, are, like audio, an electronic
>> > backwater.
>> > Is
>> > gold-on-gold with sufficiently low resistance sufficient? Silver oxide
> is
>> > quoted as having excellent conductivity, but what about junction
>> > effects
>> > that would not be noticed in power applications?
>> > And what about changes in the mechanical interface, caused by local
>> > heating,
>> > that occur on the time scale of the signal? This means that for me,
> cannot
>> > be accepted without examination for comparator construction.
>> >
>> Currently available ABX boxes such as those made by QSC, have no trouble
>> being audibly transparent.
>>
> Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid people.

How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their amps
against something you think is better.

Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding and rugged as
hell.

Quoting
> Mikey the mckelviphibian,
> "If the comparisons weren't done by an ass then you know they are
> worthless."
>
Thanks for proving again that without forgery, you have nothing.

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Bill Riel wrote:
>> > > In article t>,
>> > > says...
>> > > > Worthwhile reading, if you care anything about audio.
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf
>> > >
>> > > Hey, good link - thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Bill
>>
>> > The "in case you missed it" is a 1987 Brad Meyer's
>> > account about a few loopholes that he said should deceive listeners to
>> > falsely differentiate audio components from each other when in fact no
>> > differences were present.
>>
>> First of all, it's a 1991 article. It's called
>>
>> "The Amp/Speaker Interface
>> Are your speakers turning your amplifier into a tone control?"
>>
>> It describes conditions under which two amps can sound different in
>> a controlled listening comparison.
>>
>> The Meyer article you are misremembering is 'Do All Amps Sound the Same?"
>> from 1987.
>>
>>
>> > It is now 2005. Where are the published reports of identification of
>> > components when ABXing? Falsely or correctly. NYOB is obviously
>> > searching the old issues of "Stereo Review".
>>
>>
>> Second of all, the link to the PDF was posted on Sound & Vision's
>> website this month, because the article was referred to in the
>> September S&V letters column.
>>
>>
>>
>> > He will not find any
>> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX makes
>> > it all sound the same.
>>
>>
>> Except when it doesn't:
>>
>> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
>>
>> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain one.
>> Back into the killfile you go.
>
> This is the second time in one week Sullivan responds by
> assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
> convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going mute
> when things get hot.
> Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true believer-
> ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible. This
> is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days ( his
> stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th) that
> the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only evidence
> that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
> So let us see once more (I've done it three times
> before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
> acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the defunct
> "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
> And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research" report
> dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the early
> eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and beggars...
>
> The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers. They
> had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of 10
> comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
> Now listen carefully because you will be inclined to
> doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
> "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
> stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts and
> one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
> And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
> difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it shows
> ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation at the
> loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
> Next they compared something called Paoli 60M (no
> data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
> difference.
> The third "positive" result was a comparison of
> ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they offer
> that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with *audible*
> clipping.
> The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
> outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
> that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect that
> no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
> I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
> When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100 (I have
> one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP they
> heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against a a
> cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
> (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
> Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at that
> time)- yes, they heard a difference.
> ?
> This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
> a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> does.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > > This means that for me, relays cannot
> > > be accepted without examination for comparator construction.
> >
> > Did Lionel write this?

> Why do you say that?

Truly pathetic Bob. You actually think you can edit your post to
cover your own pathetic bumbling and then play stupid about it?

Keep it up and even the resistance is gonna bounce you for sheer
mental incompetence. You do for the resistance what Arny does for
objectivsts.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> > > > This means that for me, relays cannot
> > > > be accepted without examination for comparator construction.
> > >
> > > Did Lionel write this?
>
> > Why do you say that?
>
> Remarkable comeback, Bob. Your writing is top drawer, as I would expect
from a person of your remarkable >intellect. Keep it up and the resistance
will give you a medal for valorous service. If only the objectivists had
such potent >advocacy!
>
> ScottW
>
Thank's Scott. I knew I always liked you.

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Curiously, the AES pays not the slightest attention to such pronouncements
> from such 'leaders' as yourself. Oh, how deluded they are! If
> only they would listen to you!
>
Steven,
I do not fancy myself a leader. I am a humble servant of the Truth.
However, I thank you for your praise, however exaggerated it may be.

Kind regards,
Bob Morein

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
[snip]
> > ?
> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> > does.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
>
What did he lie about?

[[email protected]]

> >>
> >>
> >> I said:
> >> > He will not find any
> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX makes
> >> > it all sound the same.
> >>
> >>Sullivan answered:
> >> Except when it doesn't:
> >>
> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
> >>
> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain one.
> >> Back into the killfile you go.
> >
I answered:
> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan responds by
> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going mute
> > when things get hot.
> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true believer-
> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible. This
> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days ( his
> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th) that
> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only evidence
> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
> > So let us see once more (I've done it three times
> > before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the defunct
> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research" report
> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the early
> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and beggars...
> >
> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers. They
> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of 10
> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
> > Now listen carefully because you will be inclined to
> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts and
> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
> > And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it shows
> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation at the
> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
> > Next they compared something called Paoli 60M (no
> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
> > difference.
> > The third "positive" result was a comparison of
> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they offer
> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with *audible*
> > clipping.
> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect that
> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
> > I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100 (I have
> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP they
> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against a a
> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at that
> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
> > ?
> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> > does.
> > Ludovic Mirabel

NYOB rushes to help out:
> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.

Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars. A
good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc. and
like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had executive
powers over me!!!

I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real living,
thinking being.
Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test ending
invariably in " It all sounds the same" would make the already
long-winded mag. completely unreadable. Just imagine the "Wine
Spectator" filled with statistics of replies to "Was wine X more
like wine A or wine B?" instead of "We liked wine A better than
wine B".
Who would read it?
And how reliable would be the responses of a panel trying to keep in
mind what A and B were like to compare with X for *difference*instead
of simply comparing A and B for preference? Just as reliable as ABXing
amplifiers for longer than 3 minutes.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
[snip[
> >>
> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid people.
>
> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their amps
> against something you think is better.
>
> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding

Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I said:
> > >> > He will not find any
> > >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX
makes
> > >> > it all sound the same.
> > >>
> > >>Sullivan answered:
> > >> Except when it doesn't:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
> > >>
> > >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain
one.
> > >> Back into the killfile you go.
> > >
[snip]
>
> NYOB rushes to help out:
> > I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
>
> Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars.

I'll save you the trouble. They are liars.

A
> good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
> The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
> deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc. and
> like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
> answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
> you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
> Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?

Letting them off as deadly bores is a bit too easy. Lurking beneath their
glassy eyed personas are human monsters, where mere mere machinery replaces
human virtue.

> You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
> the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
> that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
> thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had executive
> powers over me!!!
>
Indeed, that's the kind of the McCarty does as well. These people are all
borderline psychopaths.

> I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
> others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real living,
> thinking being.

Here, here!

> Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
> Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
> he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test ending
> invariably in " It all sounds the same" would make the already
> long-winded mag. completely unreadable. Just imagine the "Wine
> Spectator" filled with statistics of replies to "Was wine X more
> like wine A or wine B?" instead of "We liked wine A better than
> wine B".
> Who would read it?

This is not the strongest argument. Your previous argument was stronger,
where you highlighted the ample evidence that ABX, as it is practiced,
actually homogenizes differences easily perceptible in sighted testing.
Stereophile attempts to relate to readers in a human way, connecting with
their dreams and fantasies, while providing useful information. While
Stereophile may not be definitive (and Atkinson never claims it is), it
deserves a place in the sun.

> And how reliable would be the responses of a panel trying to keep in
> mind what A and B were like to compare with X for *difference*instead
> of simply comparing A and B for preference? Just as reliable as ABXing
> amplifiers for longer than 3 minutes.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Here, here!

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> [snip]
> > > ?
> > > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
> > > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> > > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> > > does.
> > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > >
> > I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
> >
> What did he lie about?

That ABX always produces 'no difference' results. It doesn't,
not even for amps.


--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:


> Letting them off as deadly bores is a bit too easy. Lurking beneath their
> glassy eyed personas are human monsters, where mere mere machinery replaces
> human virtue.

LOL. Such melodrama! Now you're getting *hysterical*, sir.

This seems as good a high-comedy note as any to revert back to lurking.
Let me suggest, Mr. Morein, that if you enjoy 'exaggerated praise'
(i.e., sarcasm directed your way) feel free to post to RAHE,
hydrogenaudio.org, and any other forum where poorly-reasoned
claims get the treatment they deserve.

> Here, here!

Where, where?


> > Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
> > Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
> > he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test ending
> > invariably in " It all sounds the same" would make the already
> > long-winded mag. completely unreadable. Just imagine the "Wine
> > Spectator" filled with statistics of replies to "Was wine X more
> > like wine A or wine B?" instead of "We liked wine A better than
> > wine B".
> > Who would read it?

> This is not the strongest argument.

That's polite of you. In fact, it's not even an honest argument.
And Ludovic knows it.


> Your previous argument was stronger,
> where you highlighted the ample evidence that ABX, as it is practiced,
> actually homogenizes differences easily perceptible in sighted testing.

Which , of course, proves nothing. What independent evidence for those
differences exists? When ABX has positive outcomes for amps -- which
it does - a reasonable independent reason has always been found.

> Stereophile attempts to relate to readers in a human way, connecting with
> their dreams and fantasies,

Oh, you can say *that* again. Thanks for my new .sigfile, btw.

> while providing useful information. While
> Stereophile may not be definitive (and Atkinson never claims it is), it
> deserves a place in the sun.

Or better yet, the fireplace.

> > And how reliable would be the responses of a panel trying to keep in
> > mind what A and B were like to compare with X for *difference*instead
> > of simply comparing A and B for preference? Just as reliable as ABXing
> > amplifiers for longer than 3 minutes.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> Here, here!

where, WHERE?



--

-S

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
>
> > Letting them off as deadly bores is a bit too easy. Lurking beneath
their
> > glassy eyed personas are human monsters, where mere mere machinery
replaces
> > human virtue.
>
> LOL. Such melodrama! Now you're getting *hysterical*, sir.
>
> This seems as good a high-comedy note as any to revert back to lurking.
> Let me suggest, Mr. Morein, that if you enjoy 'exaggerated praise'
> (i.e., sarcasm directed your way) feel free to post to RAHE,
> hydrogenaudio.org, and any other forum where poorly-reasoned
> claims get the treatment they deserve.
>
> > Here, here!
>
Then why did you investigate Ludovic's MD degree?
What possible relevance could there be to the discussion?
Why did you assume that, since Ludovic disagrees with your opinion about
ABX, that his personal veracity was in question?

That's evil!

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > [snip]
> > > > ?
> > > > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call
me
> > > > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> > > > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> > > > does.
> > > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > > >
> > > I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
> > >
> > What did he lie about?
>
> That ABX always produces 'no difference' results. It doesn't,
> not even for amps.
>
He did not say that.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
> [snip[
>> >>
>> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid people.
>>
>> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their amps
>> against something you think is better.
>>
>> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
>
> Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
>
>
It's called a double blind comparison.

Do you know anyone who has veen able to tell the difference between a QSC
amp and any other competent amp in a level matched blnd comparison? If you
don't, you cannot say with certainty, that they sound different than other
amps.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Morein > wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> Curiously, the AES pays not the slightest attention to such
>> pronouncements
>> from such 'leaders' as yourself. Oh, how deluded they are! If
>> only they would listen to you!
>>
> Steven,
> I do not fancy myself a leader. I am a humble servant of the Truth.

Then why lie so often?

> However, I thank you for your praise, however exaggerated it may be.
>
Inability to recognize sarcasm noted.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
> [snip]
>> > ?
>> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
>> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
>> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
>> > does.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
>>
> What did he lie about?
>
He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result. That is
simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I said:
>> >> > He will not find any
>> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX makes
>> >> > it all sound the same.
>> >>
>> >>Sullivan answered:
>> >> Except when it doesn't:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
>> >>
>> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain one.
>> >> Back into the killfile you go.
>> >
> I answered:
>> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan responds by
>> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
>> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going mute
>> > when things get hot.
>> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true believer-
>> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible. This
>> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days ( his
>> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th) that
>> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only evidence
>> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
>> > So let us see once more (I've done it three times
>> > before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
>> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the defunct
>> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
>> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research" report
>> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the early
>> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and beggars...
>> >
>> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers. They
>> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of 10
>> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
>> > Now listen carefully because you will be inclined to
>> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
>> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
>> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts and
>> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
>> > And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
>> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it shows
>> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation at the
>> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
>> > Next they compared something called Paoli 60M (no
>> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
>> > difference.
>> > The third "positive" result was a comparison of
>> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they offer
>> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with *audible*
>> > clipping.
>> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
>> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
>> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect that
>> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
>> > I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
>> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100 (I have
>> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP they
>> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against a a
>> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
>> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
>> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at that
>> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
>> > ?
>> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
>> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
>> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
>> > does.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> NYOB rushes to help out:
>> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
>
> Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars. A
> good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
> The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
> deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc. and
> like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
> answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
> you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
> Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?

Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the truth. I
doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.

> You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
> the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
> that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
> thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had executive
> powers over me!!!
>
> I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
> others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real living,
> thinking being.

Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you must
demean the messenger.

> Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
> Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
> he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test ending
> invariably in " It all sounds the same"

See, you still continue to lie.

would make the already

SNIP of irrelevant crap.

Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons done where
people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's. When you
stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least about that
subject.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> I said:
>> > >> > He will not find any
>> > >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX
> makes
>> > >> > it all sound the same.
>> > >>
>> > >>Sullivan answered:
>> > >> Except when it doesn't:
>> > >>
>> > >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
>> > >>
>> > >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain
> one.
>> > >> Back into the killfile you go.
>> > >
> [snip]
>>
>> NYOB rushes to help out:
>> > I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
>>
>> Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars.
>
> I'll save you the trouble. They are liars.
>
> A
>> good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
>> The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
>> deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc. and
>> like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
>> answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
>> you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
>> Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
>
> Letting them off as deadly bores is a bit too easy. Lurking beneath their
> glassy eyed personas are human monsters, where mere mere machinery
> replaces
> human virtue.
>
>> You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
>> the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
>> that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
>> thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had executive
>> powers over me!!!
>>
> Indeed, that's the kind of the McCarty does as well. These people are all
> borderline psychopaths.
>
>> I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
>> others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real living,
>> thinking being.
>
> Here, here!
>
>> Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
>> Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
>> he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test ending
>> invariably in " It all sounds the same" would make the already
>> long-winded mag. completely unreadable. Just imagine the "Wine
>> Spectator" filled with statistics of replies to "Was wine X more
>> like wine A or wine B?" instead of "We liked wine A better than
>> wine B".
>> Who would read it?
>
> This is not the strongest argument. Your previous argument was stronger,
> where you highlighted the ample evidence that ABX, as it is practiced,
> actually homogenizes differences easily perceptible in sighted testing.

How is an incorrect statement a stong argument?

> Stereophile attempts to relate to readers in a human way, connecting with
> their dreams and fantasies,

Especially fantasies. In their constant repeating of the everything sounds
different mantra.

while providing useful information.

They make good measurements when they bother to do them.

While
> Stereophile may not be definitive (and Atkinson never claims it is), it
> deserves a place in the sun.
>
>> And how reliable would be the responses of a panel trying to keep in
>> mind what A and B were like to compare with X for *difference*instead
>> of simply comparing A and B for preference? Just as reliable as ABXing
>> amplifiers for longer than 3 minutes.
>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>
> Here, here!
>
Wrong, wrong. As usual.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Morein > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Letting them off as deadly bores is a bit too easy. Lurking beneath
> their
>> > glassy eyed personas are human monsters, where mere mere machinery
> replaces
>> > human virtue.
>>
>> LOL. Such melodrama! Now you're getting *hysterical*, sir.
>>
>> This seems as good a high-comedy note as any to revert back to lurking.
>> Let me suggest, Mr. Morein, that if you enjoy 'exaggerated praise'
>> (i.e., sarcasm directed your way) feel free to post to RAHE,
>> hydrogenaudio.org, and any other forum where poorly-reasoned
>> claims get the treatment they deserve.
>>
>> > Here, here!
>>
> Then why did you investigate Ludovic's MD degree?
> What possible relevance could there be to the discussion?
> Why did you assume that, since Ludovic disagrees with your opinion about
> ABX, that his personal veracity was in question?
>
> That's evil!
>
Attempts to find out the truth are evil?
Sheesh, you really are ****ed in the head.

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
> [snip[
>> >>
>> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid people.
>>
>> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their amps
>> against something you think is better.
>>
>> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
>
> Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
>
>

Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Robert Morein > wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Curiously, the AES pays not the slightest attention to such
>>> pronouncements
>>> from such 'leaders' as yourself. Oh, how deluded they are! If
>>> only they would listen to you!
>>>
>> Steven,
>> I do not fancy myself a leader. I am a humble servant of the Truth.
>
> Then why lie so often?
>
>> However, I thank you for your praise, however exaggerated it may be.
>>
> Inability to recognize sarcasm noted.
>

If irony weren't so sarcastic.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> > [snip[
> >> >>
> >> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid people.
> >>
> >> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their amps
> >> against something you think is better.
> >>
> >> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
> >
> > Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
> >
> >
> It's called a double blind comparison.
>
> Do you know anyone who has veen able to tell the difference between a QSC
> amp and any other competent amp in a level matched blnd comparison? If
you
> don't, you cannot say with certainty, that they sound different than other
> amps.
>
Nor can you say they sound the same. Anyway, QSC amps are garbage-can amps.
They are for deaf people.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> > [snip[
> >> >>
> >> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid people.
> >>
> >> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their amps
> >> against something you think is better.
> >>
> >> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
> >
> > Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
> >
> >
>
> Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.
>
But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest? :):):)

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> Robert Morein > wrote:
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> Curiously, the AES pays not the slightest attention to such
> >>> pronouncements
> >>> from such 'leaders' as yourself. Oh, how deluded they are! If
> >>> only they would listen to you!
> >>>
> >> Steven,
> >> I do not fancy myself a leader. I am a humble servant of the Truth.
> >
> > Then why lie so often?
> >
> >> However, I thank you for your praise, however exaggerated it may be.
> >>
> > Inability to recognize sarcasm noted.
> >
>
> If irony weren't so sarcastic.
>
Once again, I thank Steven from the bottom of my heart for his kind thoughts
and admiration.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> > [snip]
> >> > ?
> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call
me
> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> >> > does.
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >
> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
> >>
> > What did he lie about?
> >
> He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result. That
is
> simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.
>
He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
intelligence quotient.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Robert Morein > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Letting them off as deadly bores is a bit too easy. Lurking beneath
> > their
> >> > glassy eyed personas are human monsters, where mere mere machinery
> > replaces
> >> > human virtue.
> >>
> >> LOL. Such melodrama! Now you're getting *hysterical*, sir.
> >>
> >> This seems as good a high-comedy note as any to revert back to
lurking.
> >> Let me suggest, Mr. Morein, that if you enjoy 'exaggerated praise'
> >> (i.e., sarcasm directed your way) feel free to post to RAHE,
> >> hydrogenaudio.org, and any other forum where poorly-reasoned
> >> claims get the treatment they deserve.
> >>
> >> > Here, here!
> >>
> > Then why did you investigate Ludovic's MD degree?
> > What possible relevance could there be to the discussion?
> > Why did you assume that, since Ludovic disagrees with your opinion about
> > ABX, that his personal veracity was in question?
> >
> > That's evil!
> >
> Attempts to find out the truth are evil?
> Sheesh, you really are ****ed in the head.
>
Mikey, you are evil too.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I said:
> >> > >> > He will not find any
> >> > >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX
> > makes
> >> > >> > it all sound the same.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>Sullivan answered:
> >> > >> Except when it doesn't:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
> >> > >>
> >> > >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain
> > one.
> >> > >> Back into the killfile you go.
> >> > >
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> NYOB rushes to help out:
> >> > I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
> >>
> >> Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars.
> >
> > I'll save you the trouble. They are liars.
> >
> > A
> >> good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
> >> The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
> >> deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc. and
> >> like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
> >> answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
> >> you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
> >> Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
> >
> > Letting them off as deadly bores is a bit too easy. Lurking beneath
their
> > glassy eyed personas are human monsters, where mere mere machinery
> > replaces
> > human virtue.
> >
> >> You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
> >> the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
> >> that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
> >> thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had executive
> >> powers over me!!!
> >>
> > Indeed, that's the kind of the McCarty does as well. These people are
all
> > borderline psychopaths.
> >
> >> I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
> >> others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real living,
> >> thinking being.
> >
> > Here, here!
> >
> >> Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
> >> Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
> >> he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test ending
> >> invariably in " It all sounds the same" would make the already
> >> long-winded mag. completely unreadable. Just imagine the "Wine
> >> Spectator" filled with statistics of replies to "Was wine X more
> >> like wine A or wine B?" instead of "We liked wine A better than
> >> wine B".
> >> Who would read it?
> >
> > This is not the strongest argument. Your previous argument was stronger,
> > where you highlighted the ample evidence that ABX, as it is practiced,
> > actually homogenizes differences easily perceptible in sighted testing.
>
> How is an incorrect statement a stong argument?
>
> > Stereophile attempts to relate to readers in a human way, connecting
with
> > their dreams and fantasies,
>
> Especially fantasies. In their constant repeating of the everything
sounds
> different mantra.
>
> while providing useful information.
>
> They make good measurements when they bother to do them.
>
> While
> > Stereophile may not be definitive (and Atkinson never claims it is), it
> > deserves a place in the sun.
> >
> >> And how reliable would be the responses of a panel trying to keep in
> >> mind what A and B were like to compare with X for *difference*instead
> >> of simply comparing A and B for preference? Just as reliable as ABXing
> >> amplifiers for longer than 3 minutes.
> >> Ludovic Mirabel
> >>
> > Here, here!
> >
> Wrong, wrong. As usual.
>
Mikey, you are evil.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I said:
> >> >> > He will not find any
> >> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX
makes
> >> >> > it all sound the same.
> >> >>
> >> >>Sullivan answered:
> >> >> Except when it doesn't:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain
one.
> >> >> Back into the killfile you go.
> >> >
> > I answered:
> >> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan responds
by
> >> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
> >> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going mute
> >> > when things get hot.
> >> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true believer-
> >> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible. This
> >> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days ( his
> >> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th) that
> >> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
evidence
> >> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
> >> > So let us see once more (I've done it three times
> >> > before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
> >> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the defunct
> >> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
> >> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research" report
> >> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the early
> >> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
beggars...
> >> >
> >> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers.
They
> >> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of 10
> >> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
> >> > Now listen carefully because you will be inclined to
> >> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
> >> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
> >> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts and
> >> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
> >> > And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
> >> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it shows
> >> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation at
the
> >> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
> >> > Next they compared something called Paoli 60M (no
> >> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
> >> > difference.
> >> > The third "positive" result was a comparison of
> >> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they offer
> >> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with *audible*
> >> > clipping.
> >> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
> >> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
> >> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect
that
> >> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
> >> > I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
> >> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100 (I
have
> >> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP they
> >> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against a a
> >> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
> >> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
> >> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at that
> >> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
> >> > ?
> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call
me
> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> >> > does.
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> > NYOB rushes to help out:
> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
> >
> > Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars. A
> > good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
> > The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
> > deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc. and
> > like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
> > answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
> > you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
> > Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
>
> Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the truth.
I
> doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.
>
> > You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
> > the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
> > that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
> > thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had executive
> > powers over me!!!
> >
> > I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
> > others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real living,
> > thinking being.
>
> Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you must
> demean the messenger.
>
> > Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
> > Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
> > he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test ending
> > invariably in " It all sounds the same"
>
> See, you still continue to lie.
>
> would make the already
>
> SNIP of irrelevant crap.
>
> Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons done
where
> people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's. When
you
> stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least about
that
> subject.
>
Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly mismatched in
power and technology.
But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby in order
to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Then why did you investigate Ludovic's MD degree?
> What possible relevance could there be to the discussion?
> Why did you assume that, since Ludovic disagrees with your opinion about
> ABX, that his personal veracity was in question?

In Sillybot's defense, RAO has the odious precedent of the Krooborg. With
a creature like that in our midst, it's not entirely unreasonable to take
precautions when dealing with everybody else.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> > [snip[
>> >> >>
>> >> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid people.
>> >>
>> >> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their
>> >> amps
>> >> against something you think is better.
>> >>
>> >> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
>> >
>> > Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
>> >
>> >
>> It's called a double blind comparison.
>>
>> Do you know anyone who has veen able to tell the difference between a QSC
>> amp and any other competent amp in a level matched blnd comparison? If
> you
>> don't, you cannot say with certainty, that they sound different than
>> other
>> amps.
>>
> Nor can you say they sound the same. Anyway, QSC amps are garbage-can
> amps.
> They are for deaf people.
>
Based on what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> > [snip[
>> >> >>
>> >> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid people.
>> >>
>> >> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their
>> >> amps
>> >> against something you think is better.
>> >>
>> >> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
>> >
>> > Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
>> >
If their specifications are correct as stated, they are very clean. There'
no reason to assume they would sound different that any other SS amp capable
of driving 2 ohm loads.

You can check the specs for their 2 channel amps here:
http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm
>> >
>>
>> Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.
>>
> But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest? :):):)
>
Have you considered that your comments regarding QSC amps is pure crapola?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> > [snip]
>> >> > ?
>> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call
> me
>> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
>> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
>> >> > does.
>> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >
>> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
>> >>
>> > What did he lie about?
>> >
>> He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result. That
> is
>> simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.
>>
> He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
> intelligence quotient.
>
Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
it all sound the same.

If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a lie
and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Robert Morein > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Letting them off as deadly bores is a bit too easy. Lurking beneath
>> > their
>> >> > glassy eyed personas are human monsters, where mere mere machinery
>> > replaces
>> >> > human virtue.
>> >>
>> >> LOL. Such melodrama! Now you're getting *hysterical*, sir.
>> >>
>> >> This seems as good a high-comedy note as any to revert back to
> lurking.
>> >> Let me suggest, Mr. Morein, that if you enjoy 'exaggerated praise'
>> >> (i.e., sarcasm directed your way) feel free to post to RAHE,
>> >> hydrogenaudio.org, and any other forum where poorly-reasoned
>> >> claims get the treatment they deserve.
>> >>
>> >> > Here, here!
>> >>
>> > Then why did you investigate Ludovic's MD degree?
>> > What possible relevance could there be to the discussion?
>> > Why did you assume that, since Ludovic disagrees with your opinion
>> > about
>> > ABX, that his personal veracity was in question?
>> >
>> > That's evil!
>> >
>> Attempts to find out the truth are evil?
>> Sheesh, you really are ****ed in the head.
>>
> Mikey, you are evil too.
>
Snore.

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> > >
> > > > > This means that for me, relays cannot
> > > > > be accepted without examination for comparator construction.
> > > >
> > > > Did Lionel write this?
> >
> > > Why do you say that?
> >
> > Remarkable comeback, Bob. Your writing is top drawer, as I would expect
> from a person of your remarkable >intellect. Keep it up and the resistance
> will give you a medal for valorous service. If only the objectivists had
> such potent >advocacy!
> >
> > ScottW
> >
> Thank's Scott. I knew I always liked you.

Stop fantasizing about me you perve.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I said:
>> >> >> > He will not find any
>> >> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX
> makes
>> >> >> > it all sound the same.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Sullivan answered:
>> >> >> Except when it doesn't:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain
> one.
>> >> >> Back into the killfile you go.
>> >> >
>> > I answered:
>> >> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan responds
> by
>> >> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
>> >> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going mute
>> >> > when things get hot.
>> >> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true believer-
>> >> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible.
>> >> > This
>> >> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days (
>> >> > his
>> >> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th) that
>> >> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
> evidence
>> >> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
>> >> > So let us see once more (I've done it three times
>> >> > before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
>> >> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the defunct
>> >> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
>> >> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research" report
>> >> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the early
>> >> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
> beggars...
>> >> >
>> >> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers.
> They
>> >> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of 10
>> >> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
>> >> > Now listen carefully because you will be inclined to
>> >> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
>> >> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
>> >> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts and
>> >> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
>> >> > And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
>> >> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it
>> >> > shows
>> >> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation at
> the
>> >> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
>> >> > Next they compared something called Paoli 60M (no
>> >> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
>> >> > difference.
>> >> > The third "positive" result was a comparison of
>> >> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they offer
>> >> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with *audible*
>> >> > clipping.
>> >> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
>> >> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
>> >> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect
> that
>> >> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
>> >> > I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
>> >> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100 (I
> have
>> >> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP
>> >> > they
>> >> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against a
>> >> > a
>> >> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
>> >> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
>> >> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at
>> >> > that
>> >> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
>> >> > ?
>> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call
> me
>> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
>> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
>> >> > does.
>> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> > NYOB rushes to help out:
>> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
>> >
>> > Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars. A
>> > good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
>> > The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
>> > deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc. and
>> > like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
>> > answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
>> > you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
>> > Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
>>
>> Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the truth.
> I
>> doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.
>>
>> > You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
>> > the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
>> > that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
>> > thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had executive
>> > powers over me!!!
>> >
>> > I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
>> > others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real living,
>> > thinking being.
>>
>> Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you must
>> demean the messenger.
>>
>> > Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
>> > Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
>> > he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test ending
>> > invariably in " It all sounds the same"
>>
>> See, you still continue to lie.
>>
>> would make the already
>>
>> SNIP of irrelevant crap.
>>
>> Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons done
> where
>> people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's. When
> you
>> stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least about
> that
>> subject.
>>
> Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly mismatched in
> power and technology.
> But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby in
> order
> to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.
>
Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all sound the
same.
It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
comparison reveals it to be so.

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> Stereophile attempts to relate to readers in a human way, connecting with
> their dreams and fantasies,

and we shall call it... audioporn.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > This means that for me, relays cannot
> > > > > > be accepted without examination for comparator construction.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did Lionel write this?
> > >
> > > > Why do you say that?
> > >
> > > Remarkable comeback, Bob. Your writing is top drawer, as I would
expect
> > from a person of your remarkable >intellect. Keep it up and the
resistance
> > will give you a medal for valorous service. If only the objectivists had
> > such potent >advocacy!
> > >
> > > ScottW
> > >
> > Thank's Scott. I knew I always liked you.
>
> Stop fantasizing about me you perve.
>
> ScottW
>
Scott, why you sensitive guy, you!

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > nk.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> > [snip[
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid
people.
> >> >>
> >> >> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their
> >> >> amps
> >> >> against something you think is better.
> >> >>
> >> >> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
> >> >
> >> > Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
> >> >
> If their specifications are correct as stated, they are very clean.
There'
> no reason to assume they would sound different that any other SS amp
capable
> of driving 2 ohm loads.
>
> You can check the specs for their 2 channel amps here:
> http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.
> >>
> > But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest? :):):)
> >
> Have you considered that your comments regarding QSC amps is pure crapola?
>
They are PA quality amps, Mikey, nothing more. Some people can hear the
difference, and others cannot.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > nk.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> > [snip]
> >> >> > ?
> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
call
> > me
> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> >> >> > does.
> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >> >
> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
> >> >>
> >> > What did he lie about?
> >> >
> >> He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result.
That
> > is
> >> simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.
> >>
> > He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
> > intelligence quotient.
> >
> Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
> it all sound the same.
>
> If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a lie
> and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.
>
No, Mikey. He means it as a "figure of speech." Do you know what that means?

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > Then why did you investigate Ludovic's MD degree?
> > What possible relevance could there be to the discussion?
> > Why did you assume that, since Ludovic disagrees with your opinion about
> > ABX, that his personal veracity was in question?
>
> In Sillybot's defense, RAO has the odious precedent of the Krooborg. With
> a creature like that in our midst, it's not entirely unreasonable to take
> precautions when dealing with everybody else.
>
Is Krueger a graduate of the University of the Pacific?

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I said:
> >> >> >> > He will not find any
> >> >> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX
> > makes
> >> >> >> > it all sound the same.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Sullivan answered:
> >> >> >> Except when it doesn't:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain
> > one.
> >> >> >> Back into the killfile you go.
> >> >> >
> >> > I answered:
> >> >> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan
responds
> > by
> >> >> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
> >> >> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going
mute
> >> >> > when things get hot.
> >> >> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
believer-
> >> >> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible.
> >> >> > This
> >> >> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days (
> >> >> > his
> >> >> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th)
that
> >> >> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
> > evidence
> >> >> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
> >> >> > So let us see once more (I've done it three times
> >> >> > before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
> >> >> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
defunct
> >> >> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
> >> >> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research" report
> >> >> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the
early
> >> >> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
> > beggars...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers.
> > They
> >> >> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of 10
> >> >> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
> >> >> > Now listen carefully because you will be inclined
to
> >> >> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
> >> >> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
> >> >> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts
and
> >> >> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
> >> >> > And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
> >> >> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it
> >> >> > shows
> >> >> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation
at
> > the
> >> >> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
> >> >> > Next they compared something called Paoli 60M (no
> >> >> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
> >> >> > difference.
> >> >> > The third "positive" result was a comparison of
> >> >> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they
offer
> >> >> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
*audible*
> >> >> > clipping.
> >> >> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
> >> >> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will
say
> >> >> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect
> > that
> >> >> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
> >> >> > I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
> >> >> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100 (I
> > have
> >> >> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP
> >> >> > they
> >> >> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against
a
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
> >> >> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
> >> >> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
> >> >> > ?
> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
call
> > me
> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> >> >> > does.
> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >
> >> > NYOB rushes to help out:
> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
> >> >
> >> > Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars.
A
> >> > good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
> >> > The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
> >> > deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc. and
> >> > like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
> >> > answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
> >> > you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
> >> > Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
> >>
> >> Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the
truth.
> > I
> >> doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.
> >>
> >> > You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
> >> > the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
> >> > that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
> >> > thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had executive
> >> > powers over me!!!
> >> >
> >> > I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
> >> > others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
living,
> >> > thinking being.
> >>
> >> Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you must
> >> demean the messenger.
> >>
> >> > Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
> >> > Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX. What
> >> > he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
ending
> >> > invariably in " It all sounds the same"
> >>
> >> See, you still continue to lie.
> >>
> >> would make the already
> >>
> >> SNIP of irrelevant crap.
> >>
> >> Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons done
> > where
> >> people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's.
When
> > you
> >> stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least about
> > that
> >> subject.
> >>
> > Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly mismatched in
> > power and technology.
> > But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby in
> > order
> > to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.
> >
> Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all sound
the
> same.
> It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
> comparison reveals it to be so.
>
I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.
Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi poloi that
a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is. You do not seem to
understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in a
heartbeat. It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not. Some amplifiers
sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room. Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
and early Aragons.

Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and call
it rain?" This is what you're doing. You're acting like a colorblind person
in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that you
cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in your
stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.

You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your brain.

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > Stereophile attempts to relate to readers in a human way, connecting
with
> > their dreams and fantasies,
>
> and we shall call it... audioporn.
>
> ScottW
>
Hahahahahhahahaaa!
I don't agree, but it's a good one!

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I said:
>> >> >> >> > He will not find any
>> >> >> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria, ABX
>> > makes
>> >> >> >> > it all sound the same.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Sullivan answered:
>> >> >> >> Except when it doesn't:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you
>> >> >> >> remain
>> > one.
>> >> >> >> Back into the killfile you go.
>> >> >> >
>> >> > I answered:
>> >> >> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan
> responds
>> > by
>> >> >> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
>> >> >> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going
> mute
>> >> >> > when things get hot.
>> >> >> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
> believer-
>> >> >> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is irresistible.
>> >> >> > This
>> >> >> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days (
>> >> >> > his
>> >> >> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th)
> that
>> >> >> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
>> > evidence
>> >> >> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
>> >> >> > So let us see once more (I've done it three times
>> >> >> > before) why it remained a private website and not an article- not
>> >> >> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
> defunct
>> >> >> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like JAES.
>> >> >> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research"
>> >> >> > report
>> >> >> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the
> early
>> >> >> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
>> > beggars...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about amplifiers.
>> > They
>> >> >> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of
>> >> >> > 10
>> >> >> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard it.
>> >> >> > Now listen carefully because you will be inclined
> to
>> >> >> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
>> >> >> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
>> >> >> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10 watts
> and
>> >> >> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
>> >> >> > And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
>> >> >> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it
>> >> >> > shows
>> >> >> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with indignation
> at
>> > the
>> >> >> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
>> >> >> > Next they compared something called Paoli 60M
>> >> >> > (no
>> >> >> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
>> >> >> > difference.
>> >> >> > The third "positive" result was a comparison of
>> >> >> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they
> offer
>> >> >> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
> *audible*
>> >> >> > clipping.
>> >> >> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no
>> >> >> > difference"
>> >> >> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will
> say
>> >> >> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect
>> > that
>> >> >> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
>> >> >> > I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
>> >> >> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100
>> >> >> > (I
>> > have
>> >> >> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony CDP
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15 against
> a
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the same
>> >> >> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
>> >> >> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line at
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
>> >> >> > ?
>> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
> call
>> > me
>> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
>> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
>> >> >> > anyone
>> >> >> > does.
>> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >
>> >> > NYOB rushes to help out:
>> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
>> >> >
>> >> > Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you liars.
> A
>> >> > good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
>> >> > The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
>> >> > deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc.
>> >> > and
>> >> > like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of an
>> >> > answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
>> >> > you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
>> >> > Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
>> >>
>> >> Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the
> truth.
>> > I
>> >> doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.
>> >>
>> >> > You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan took
>> >> > the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to prove
>> >> > that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
>> >> > thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had
>> >> > executive
>> >> > powers over me!!!
>> >> >
>> >> > I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
>> >> > others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
> living,
>> >> > thinking being.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you must
>> >> demean the messenger.
>> >>
>> >> > Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against John
>> >> > Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX.
>> >> > What
>> >> > he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
> ending
>> >> > invariably in " It all sounds the same"
>> >>
>> >> See, you still continue to lie.
>> >>
>> >> would make the already
>> >>
>> >> SNIP of irrelevant crap.
>> >>
>> >> Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons done
>> > where
>> >> people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's.
> When
>> > you
>> >> stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least about
>> > that
>> >> subject.
>> >>
>> > Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly mismatched
>> > in
>> > power and technology.
>> > But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby in
>> > order
>> > to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.
>> >
>> Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all sound
> the
>> same.
>> It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
>> comparison reveals it to be so.
>>
> I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.

And your evidence of this is what?

> Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi poloi
> that
> a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
> reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is.

The best there is is something that reproduces the input as an inaudibley
different output. A trivially easy task.

You do not seem to
> understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in a
> heartbeat.

I understand there are people who believe this, so far I don't know of
anyone who has proven to have this ability. The only way they ould
demoisntrate it would be to compare their sighted listening to a DBT.

It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not.

Bul****.

Some amplifiers
> sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room.

SET's?

Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
> and early Aragons.
>

A statement that you can't prove and won't becuase you know you're full of
****.

> Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and call
> it rain?" This is what you're doing.

No, I'm just telling you a scientific fact, sighted listening is inherently
flawed, unless the differences are gross.

You're acting like a colorblind person
> in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that you
> cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in your
> stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.
>


Then it should be a simple matter to demosnstrate this abiltiy by doing a
comparison of sighted bs. blind listening. I predict you won't ever do it,
because you know you're full of ****.

> You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your brain.
>
I'm smart enough to know you're full of ****.
I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
differences sighted aren't able to so blind.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >> > ?
>> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
> call
>> > me
>> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
>> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
>> >> >> > anyone
>> >> >> > does.
>> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a liar.
>> >> >>
>> >> > What did he lie about?
>> >> >
>> >> He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result.
> That
>> > is
>> >> simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.
>> >>
>> > He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
>> > intelligence quotient.
>> >
>> Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
>> it all sound the same.
>>
>> If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a lie
>> and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.
>>
> No, Mikey. He means it as a "figure of speech." Do you know what that
> means?
>
Yes, it's what you are trying to cop out with, when you know he's lying.

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you remain one.
> > > > Back into the killfile you go.
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > The other 7 comparisons produced "no difference"
> > > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan will say
> > > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so perfect that
> > > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
> > >[snip]
> > > ?
> > > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to call me
> > > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> > > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if anyone
> > > does.
> > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > >
> > Thank you, Ludovic, for a systematic deconstruction of the tainted logic of
> > ABX. The leader of the ABX batallion might be tempted to reply with a
> > contemptuous "ROTFL",
>
> I'm not the 'leader', AFAIK, but I will happily contribute a hearty 'ROTFL'.
>
> Ludovic asks for positive ABX results, but doesn't like it when he's
> pointed to them. This is his pattern.
>
> Of course, *Meyer's* 1991 article *also* reports positive
> ABX test results, and explains underw what circumstances they tend
> to arise.
>
> > As currently constituted, "ABX" does not pass a reality check.
>
> Curiously, the AES pays not the slightest attention to such pronouncements
> from such 'leaders' as yourself. Oh, how deluded they are! If
> only they would listen to you!
>
Quote a few COMPONENT COMPARISONS from JAES that used ABX and had a
positive outcome

> > It
> > contradicts widely held experience among the audio community.
>
> A community rather notorious for embracing reality-challenged beliefs.
>
Let's be patient and start once more da capo.
It all began with a hypothesis that ABX is the right tool for telling
differences between components as reproducers of music. Not codecs, not
phase differences, not any other artifact, properly researched in
laboratories, but MUSIC.
It was promoted as a tool suitable for use by the generality of
audiophiles- not just for laboratory use.
Hypotheses need validation by research. The proper place for such
research is a professional, peer-reviewed journal such as JAES.
Acceptance means that the peers considered the protocol, the
statistical criteria, the panel selection etc. consistent with
scientific research standards. Such systematic research was never done.

That Sullivan offers the risible contents of the ancient PCABX
website as his lone piece of "evidence" for near to 40 years since
the ABX was revealed from on high can mean one of two things: !) He
is a fanatic who'll reach for anything in desperation or 2) that
while posing as a self-appointed representative of "science", he
does not have a clue what constitutes legitimate research to validate a
hypothesis and be acceptable to any self-respecting editorial pencil.
Most likely it is a combination of 1 and 2.
On the other hand that he, in all seriousness, gloats because
inspite of ABXing PCABX "researchers" managed to hear the
difference between a 7 watt kit amp and a 400 watt transistor or
between a functioning and a broken down amp. (loud hurrahs!)* may mean
that he is not simply clueless. True it looks like it when he offers
it as "proof" that ABXing helps to distinguish amp from amp. But
maybe he has such contempt for his readers that he counts on them being
even more clueless than he is though idiocy, (depending on
circumstances) may be a more serious crime than lying.
Ludovic Mirabel
*P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
"golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
"Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!

>
> --
>
> -S

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> > [snip[
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid
> people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their
>> >> >> amps
>> >> >> against something you think is better.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
>> >> >
>> If their specifications are correct as stated, they are very clean.
> There'
>> no reason to assume they would sound different that any other SS amp
> capable
>> of driving 2 ohm loads.
>>
>> You can check the specs for their 2 channel amps here:
>> http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.
>> >>
>> > But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest? :):):)
>> >
>> Have you considered that your comments regarding QSC amps is pure
>> crapola?
>>
> They are PA quality amps, Mikey, nothing more. Some people can hear the
> difference, and others cannot.
>
That's what all the cowards say, when they don't wish to do a comparison
that relies only one's ears.

But then we already knew you were posturing.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > nk.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I said:
> >> >> >> >> > He will not find any
> >> >> >> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria,
ABX
> >> > makes
> >> >> >> >> > it all sound the same.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>Sullivan answered:
> >> >> >> >> Except when it doesn't:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you
> >> >> >> >> remain
> >> > one.
> >> >> >> >> Back into the killfile you go.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> > I answered:
> >> >> >> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan
> > responds
> >> > by
> >> >> >> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
> >> >> >> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going
> > mute
> >> >> >> > when things get hot.
> >> >> >> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
> > believer-
> >> >> >> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is
irresistible.
> >> >> >> > This
> >> >> >> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten days
(
> >> >> >> > his
> >> >> >> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being 12th)
> > that
> >> >> >> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
> >> > evidence
> >> >> >> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
> >> >> >> > So let us see once more (I've done it three times
> >> >> >> > before) why it remained a private website and not an article-
not
> >> >> >> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
> > defunct
> >> >> >> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like
JAES.
> >> >> >> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research"
> >> >> >> > report
> >> >> >> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the
> > early
> >> >> >> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
> >> > beggars...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about
amplifiers.
> >> > They
> >> >> >> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out of
> >> >> >> > 10
> >> >> >> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard
it.
> >> >> >> > Now listen carefully because you will be
inclined
> > to
> >> >> >> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
> >> >> >> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400 watt
> >> >> >> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10
watts
> > and
> >> >> >> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
> >> >> >> > And guess what; the distinguished panel heard a
> >> >> >> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says it
> >> >> >> > shows
> >> >> >> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with
indignation
> > at
> >> > the
> >> >> >> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
> >> >> >> > Next they compared something called Paoli 60M
> >> >> >> > (no
> >> >> >> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
> >> >> >> > difference.
> >> >> >> > The third "positive" result was a comparison
of
> >> >> >> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they
> > offer
> >> >> >> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
> > *audible*
> >> >> >> > clipping.
> >> >> >> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no
> >> >> >> > difference"
> >> >> >> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan
will
> > say
> >> >> >> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so
perfect
> >> > that
> >> >> >> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
> >> >> >> > I'll quote just a few more "positive" results.
> >> >> >> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips 100
> >> >> >> > (I
> >> > have
> >> >> >> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony
CDP
> >> >> >> > they
> >> >> >> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15
against
> > a
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the
same
> >> >> >> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
> >> >> >> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line
at
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
> >> >> >> > ?
> >> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
> > call
> >> > me
> >> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> >> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
> >> >> >> > anyone
> >> >> >> > does.
> >> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >> >
> >> >> > NYOB rushes to help out:
> >> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
liar.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you
liars.
> > A
> >> >> > good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
> >> >> > The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
> >> >> > deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc.
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of
an
> >> >> > answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
> >> >> > you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a gulag.
> >> >> > Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the
> > truth.
> >> > I
> >> >> doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.
> >> >>
> >> >> > You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan
took
> >> >> > the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to
prove
> >> >> > that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
> >> >> > thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had
> >> >> > executive
> >> >> > powers over me!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial and
> >> >> > others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
> > living,
> >> >> > thinking being.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you
must
> >> >> demean the messenger.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against
John
> >> >> > Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX.
> >> >> > What
> >> >> > he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
> > ending
> >> >> > invariably in " It all sounds the same"
> >> >>
> >> >> See, you still continue to lie.
> >> >>
> >> >> would make the already
> >> >>
> >> >> SNIP of irrelevant crap.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons
done
> >> > where
> >> >> people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's.
> > When
> >> > you
> >> >> stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least
about
> >> > that
> >> >> subject.
> >> >>
> >> > Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly mismatched
> >> > in
> >> > power and technology.
> >> > But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby in
> >> > order
> >> > to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.
> >> >
> >> Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all sound
> > the
> >> same.
> >> It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
> >> comparison reveals it to be so.
> >>
> > I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.
>
> And your evidence of this is what?
>
> > Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi poloi
> > that
> > a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
> > reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is.
>
> The best there is is something that reproduces the input as an inaudibley
> different output. A trivially easy task.
>
> You do not seem to
> > understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in a
> > heartbeat.
>
> I understand there are people who believe this, so far I don't know of
> anyone who has proven to have this ability. The only way they ould
> demoisntrate it would be to compare their sighted listening to a DBT.
>
> It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not.
>
> Bul****.
>
> Some amplifiers
> > sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room.
>
> SET's?
>
> Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
> > and early Aragons.
> >
>
> A statement that you can't prove and won't becuase you know you're full of
> ****.
>
> > Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and
call
> > it rain?" This is what you're doing.
>
> No, I'm just telling you a scientific fact, sighted listening is
inherently
> flawed, unless the differences are gross.
>
> You're acting like a colorblind person
> > in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that
you
> > cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in
your
> > stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.
> >

> Then it should be a simple matter to demosnstrate this abiltiy by doing a
> comparison of sighted bs. blind listening. I predict you won't ever do
it,
> because you know you're full of ****.
>
Impossible, given that, according to Stereophile, Arny's ABX device uses
undersized relays.

> > You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your
brain.
> >
> I'm smart enough to know you're full of ****.
> I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
> differences sighted aren't able to so blind.
>
Let's analyze this. We have a dumb guy who asserts he is smart enough to
know certain things. But dumb people are dumb because they make mistakes.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be dumb. Ergo, Mikey is not smart enough to know
the things he mistakenly thinks he knows.

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>
>>
Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient confidence
to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps of good
quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to see if the "Golden Ear" can
improve his score. If so and if he could reach the 95% confidence level
needed for a positive, then there's reason to study this individual in order
to find out what is different in the way his hearing works. There could be
all kinds of possibilities that such research might apply to, audio
equipment being a rather insignificant one.

[[email protected]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> Then why did you investigate Ludovic's MD degree?
>> What possible relevance could there be to the discussion?
>> Why did you assume that, since Ludovic disagrees with your opinion about
>> ABX, that his personal veracity was in question?
>
> In Sillybot's defense, RAO has the odious precedent of B.J. Richman. With
> a creature like that in our midst, it's not entirely unreasonable to take
> precautions when dealing with everybody else.
>
>
>
I agree, one can't be too cautious. There are vermin hiding behind aliases.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > nk.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> > [snip[
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid
> > people.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of
their
> >> >> >> amps
> >> >> >> against something you think is better.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
> >> >> >
> >> If their specifications are correct as stated, they are very clean.
> > There'
> >> no reason to assume they would sound different that any other SS amp
> > capable
> >> of driving 2 ohm loads.
> >>
> >> You can check the specs for their 2 channel amps here:
> >> http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.
> >> >>
> >> > But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest? :):):)
> >> >
> >> Have you considered that your comments regarding QSC amps is pure
> >> crapola?
> >>
> > They are PA quality amps, Mikey, nothing more. Some people can hear the
> > difference, and others cannot.
> >
> That's what all the cowards say, when they don't wish to do a comparison
> that relies only one's ears.
>
> But then we already knew you were posturing.
>
Mikey, I'm sorry, but QSC amps are junk.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > nk.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > nk.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> > [snip]
> >> >> >> > ?
> >> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
> > call
> >> > me
> >> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
> >> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
> >> >> >> > anyone
> >> >> >> > does.
> >> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
liar.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > What did he lie about?
> >> >> >
> >> >> He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result.
> > That
> >> > is
> >> >> simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.
> >> >>
> >> > He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
> >> > intelligence quotient.
> >> >
> >> Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
> >> it all sound the same.
> >>
> >> If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a
lie
> >> and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.
> >>
> > No, Mikey. He means it as a "figure of speech." Do you know what that
> > means?
> >
> Yes, it's what you are trying to cop out with, when you know he's lying.
>
No, Mikey, that's not what it means. See "rhetorical device", under
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=figure+of+speech.
Your language skills are subnormal.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> > [snip[
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid
>> > people.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of
> their
>> >> >> >> amps
>> >> >> >> against something you think is better.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
>> >> >> >
>> >> If their specifications are correct as stated, they are very clean.
>> > There'
>> >> no reason to assume they would sound different that any other SS amp
>> > capable
>> >> of driving 2 ohm loads.
>> >>
>> >> You can check the specs for their 2 channel amps here:
>> >> http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sure can!!! By using a QSC ABX box.
>> >> >>
>> >> > But Art, have you considered the conflict of interest? :):):)
>> >> >
>> >> Have you considered that your comments regarding QSC amps is pure
>> >> crapola?
>> >>
>> > They are PA quality amps, Mikey, nothing more. Some people can hear the
>> > difference, and others cannot.
>> >
>> That's what all the cowards say, when they don't wish to do a comparison
>> that relies only one's ears.
>>
>> But then we already knew you were posturing.
>>
> Mikey, I'm sorry, but QSC amps are junk.
>
You're right, you're sorry.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> > [snip]
>> >> >> >> > ?
>> >> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
>> > call
>> >> > me
>> >> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
>> >> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
>> >> >> >> > anyone
>> >> >> >> > does.
>> >> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
> liar.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > What did he lie about?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> He keeps insisting that ABX always produces a no difference result.
>> > That
>> >> > is
>> >> >> simply not true and he knows it based on his own references.
>> >> >>
>> >> > He didn't say that. This would be apparent if you had a reasonable
>> >> > intelligence quotient.
>> >> >
>> >> Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
>> >> it all sound the same.
>> >>
>> >> If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a
> lie
>> >> and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.
>> >>
>> > No, Mikey. He means it as a "figure of speech." Do you know what that
>> > means?
>> >
>> Yes, it's what you are trying to cop out with, when you know he's lying.
>>
> No, Mikey, that's not what it means. See "rhetorical device", under
> http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=figure+of+speech.
> Your language skills are subnormal.
>
I know what a rhetorical device is, I also know when I'm being lied to.

Ludo has been telling this same lie for close to a decade. If it is indeed
a rhetorical device, then he's the most boring **** on usenet. Come to
think of it he's that anyway device or not. No wonder you like each other.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> ups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I said:
>> >> >> >> >> > He will not find any
>> >> >> >> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria,
> ABX
>> >> > makes
>> >> >> >> >> > it all sound the same.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>Sullivan answered:
>> >> >> >> >> Except when it doesn't:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you
>> >> >> >> >> remain
>> >> > one.
>> >> >> >> >> Back into the killfile you go.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I answered:
>> >> >> >> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan
>> > responds
>> >> > by
>> >> >> >> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
>> >> >> >> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going
>> > mute
>> >> >> >> > when things get hot.
>> >> >> >> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
>> > believer-
>> >> >> >> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is
> irresistible.
>> >> >> >> > This
>> >> >> >> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten
>> >> >> >> > days
> (
>> >> >> >> > his
>> >> >> >> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being
>> >> >> >> > 12th)
>> > that
>> >> >> >> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
>> >> > evidence
>> >> >> >> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
>> >> >> >> > So let us see once more (I've done it three times
>> >> >> >> > before) why it remained a private website and not an article-
> not
>> >> >> >> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
>> > defunct
>> >> >> >> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like
> JAES.
>> >> >> >> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research"
>> >> >> >> > report
>> >> >> >> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the
>> > early
>> >> >> >> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
>> >> > beggars...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about
> amplifiers.
>> >> > They
>> >> >> >> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > 10
>> >> >> >> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard
> it.
>> >> >> >> > Now listen carefully because you will be
> inclined
>> > to
>> >> >> >> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
>> >> >> >> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400
>> >> >> >> > watt
>> >> >> >> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10
> watts
>> > and
>> >> >> >> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
>> >> >> >> > And guess what; the distinguished panel heard
>> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says
>> >> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >> > shows
>> >> >> >> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with
> indignation
>> > at
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
>> >> >> >> > Next they compared something called Paoli 60M
>> >> >> >> > (no
>> >> >> >> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
>> >> >> >> > difference.
>> >> >> >> > The third "positive" result was a comparison
> of
>> >> >> >> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they
>> > offer
>> >> >> >> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
>> > *audible*
>> >> >> >> > clipping.
>> >> >> >> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no
>> >> >> >> > difference"
>> >> >> >> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan
> will
>> > say
>> >> >> >> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so
> perfect
>> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
>> >> >> >> > I'll quote just a few more "positive"
>> >> >> >> > results.
>> >> >> >> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips
>> >> >> >> > 100
>> >> >> >> > (I
>> >> > have
>> >> >> >> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony
> CDP
>> >> >> >> > they
>> >> >> >> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15
> against
>> > a
>> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the
> same
>> >> >> >> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
>> >> >> >> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line
> at
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
>> >> >> >> > ?
>> >> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
>> > call
>> >> > me
>> >> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
>> >> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
>> >> >> >> > anyone
>> >> >> >> > does.
>> >> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > NYOB rushes to help out:
>> >> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
> liar.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you
> liars.
>> > A
>> >> >> > good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
>> >> >> > The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
>> >> >> > deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc.
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of
> an
>> >> >> > answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
>> >> >> > you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a
>> >> >> > gulag.
>> >> >> > Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the
>> > truth.
>> >> > I
>> >> >> doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan
> took
>> >> >> > the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to
> prove
>> >> >> > that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
>> >> >> > thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had
>> >> >> > executive
>> >> >> > powers over me!!!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
>> > living,
>> >> >> > thinking being.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you
> must
>> >> >> demean the messenger.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against
> John
>> >> >> > Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX.
>> >> >> > What
>> >> >> > he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
>> > ending
>> >> >> > invariably in " It all sounds the same"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> See, you still continue to lie.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> would make the already
>> >> >>
>> >> >> SNIP of irrelevant crap.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons
> done
>> >> > where
>> >> >> people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's.
>> > When
>> >> > you
>> >> >> stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least
> about
>> >> > that
>> >> >> subject.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly
>> >> > mismatched
>> >> > in
>> >> > power and technology.
>> >> > But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby
>> >> > in
>> >> > order
>> >> > to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.
>> >> >
>> >> Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all
>> >> sound
>> > the
>> >> same.
>> >> It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
>> >> comparison reveals it to be so.
>> >>
>> > I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.
>>
>> And your evidence of this is what?
>>
>> > Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi poloi
>> > that
>> > a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
>> > reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is.
>>
>> The best there is is something that reproduces the input as an inaudibley
>> different output. A trivially easy task.
>>
>> You do not seem to
>> > understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in a
>> > heartbeat.
>>
>> I understand there are people who believe this, so far I don't know of
>> anyone who has proven to have this ability. The only way they ould
>> demoisntrate it would be to compare their sighted listening to a DBT.
>>
>> It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not.
>>
>> Bul****.
>>
>> Some amplifiers
>> > sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room.
>>
>> SET's?
>>
>> Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
>> > and early Aragons.
>> >
>>
>> A statement that you can't prove and won't becuase you know you're full
>> of
>> ****.
>>
>> > Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and
> call
>> > it rain?" This is what you're doing.
>>
>> No, I'm just telling you a scientific fact, sighted listening is
> inherently
>> flawed, unless the differences are gross.
>>
>> You're acting like a colorblind person
>> > in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that
> you
>> > cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in
> your
>> > stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.
>> >
>
>> Then it should be a simple matter to demosnstrate this abiltiy by doing a
>> comparison of sighted bs. blind listening. I predict you won't ever do
> it,
>> because you know you're full of ****.
>>
> Impossible, given that, according to Stereophile, Arny's ABX device uses
> undersized relays.
>
>> > You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your
> brain.
>> >
>> I'm smart enough to know you're full of ****.
>> I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
>> differences sighted aren't able to so blind.
>>
> Let's analyze this. We have a dumb guy who asserts he is smart enough to
> know certain things. But dumb people are dumb because they make mistakes.

Thanks for admitting you are a dumb guy.

> Otherwise, they wouldn't be dumb. Ergo, Mikey is not smart enough to know
> the things he mistakenly thinks he knows.
>
A valid syllogism is not the same as a fact.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:35:58 GMT, "
> wrote:

>> However, I thank you for your praise, however exaggerated it may be.
>>
>Inability to recognize sarcasm noted.

Inability to recognize sarcasm noted.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
> wrote:


>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different

You mean HUGELY different, don't you?

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
> > between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
> > Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
> > when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
> > "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
> > "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
> >
> >>
> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
confidence
> to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps of
good
> quality, is AFAWK impossible,
[snip]

You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
I concur with Ludovic completely.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
> Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
> I concur with Ludovic completely.

So do I. All right-thinking people agree. <G>

Except for one detail, that is: Calling the aBxism sect "scientists" is on
a par with saying creationism is a "science". They are nonintersecting
sets.

[[email protected]]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
> > wrote:
>
>
>>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different
>
> You mean HUGELY different, don't you?

No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
>> > between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
>> > Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
>> > when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
>> > "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>> > "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>> >
>> >>
>> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
> confidence
>> to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps of
> good
>> quality, is AFAWK impossible,
> [snip]
>
> You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
> Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
> I concur with Ludovic completely.
>
>
That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.

[[email protected]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
>> Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
>> I concur with Ludovic completely.
>
> So do I. All right-thinking people agree. <G>
>
> Except for one detail, that is: Calling the aBxism sect "scientists" is on
> a par with saying creationism is a "science". They are nonintersecting
> sets.
>
>
No, calling sighted listening relaible or even worthwhile when listening for
subtle differences, is worthless and anybody who soys otherwise is a fool or
a liar or both.

[[email protected]]

Sullivan's straight man says:
> >> >> Here's a direct quote: ABX makes
> >> >> it all sound the same.
> >> >>
Rejoinder by R. Morein
> >> >> If you had a reasonable intelligence quotient you'd realize that is a
> > lie
> >> >> and that he has been shown that it is a lie many times.
> >> >>
> >> > No, Mikey. He means it as a "figure of speech." Do you know what that
> >> > means?
> >> >
> >> Yes, it's what you are trying to cop out with, when you know he's lying.
> >>
> > No, Mikey, that's not what it means. See "rhetorical device", under
> > http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=figure+of+speech.
> > Your language skills are subnormal.
> >
> I know what a rhetorical device is, I also know when I'm being lied to.
>
Dear clown #2: while you're at it you might also ask for
information about the use of inverted commas. Like in: "It all sounds
the same"
Second thoughts: Perhaps you'd better not. It would deprive the usenet
and the posterity of your priceless rhetorical pearls like the one
below; {{For the benefit of future generations of schoolkids explain
which "device" you're talking off. Damn it -inverted commas again- I
hope you don't become insomniac over it. (Insomnia=sleeplessness but
may be you know that.)}}
Ludovic Mirabel
> Ludo has been telling this same lie for close to a decade. If it is indeed
> a rhetorical device, then he's the most boring **** on usenet. Come to
> think of it he's that anyway device or not. No wonder you like each other.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
> >> > between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
> >> > Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
> >> > when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists
a
> >> > "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
> >> > "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
> > confidence
> >> to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps of
> > good
> >> quality, is AFAWK impossible,
> > [snip]
> >
> > You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
> > Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
> > I concur with Ludovic completely.
> >
> >
> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
>
Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
Now I'm going to be generous with you, Mikey, because you are a "special"
person. You may not realize that repeating lies is as bad as originating
them. But we have to realize that for you, it may be a tremendous mental
effort to create even one lie. Nevertheless, Mikey, you have to learn that
repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it. Visit your priest in
confessional without delay.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > nk.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I said:
> >> >> >> >> >> > He will not find any
> >> >> >> >> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's
criteria,
> > ABX
> >> >> > makes
> >> >> >> >> >> > it all sound the same.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>Sullivan answered:
> >> >> >> >> >> Except when it doesn't:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you
> >> >> >> >> >> remain
> >> >> > one.
> >> >> >> >> >> Back into the killfile you go.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I answered:
> >> >> >> >> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan
> >> > responds
> >> >> > by
> >> >> >> >> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is
Sullivan's
> >> >> >> >> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of
going
> >> > mute
> >> >> >> >> > when things get hot.
> >> >> >> >> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
> >> > believer-
> >> >> >> >> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is
> > irresistible.
> >> >> >> >> > This
> >> >> >> >> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten
> >> >> >> >> > days
> > (
> >> >> >> >> > his
> >> >> >> >> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being
> >> >> >> >> > 12th)
> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their
only
> >> >> > evidence
> >> >> >> >> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
> >> >> >> >> > So let us see once more (I've done it three
times
> >> >> >> >> > before) why it remained a private website and not an
article-
> > not
> >> >> >> >> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
> >> > defunct
> >> >> >> >> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like
> > JAES.
> >> >> >> >> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research"
> >> >> >> >> > report
> >> >> >> >> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from
the
> >> > early
> >> >> >> >> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
> >> >> > beggars...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about
> > amplifiers.
> >> >> > They
> >> >> >> >> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out
> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> > 10
> >> >> >> >> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard
> > it.
> >> >> >> >> > Now listen carefully because you will be
> > inclined
> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
> >> >> >> >> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400
> >> >> >> >> > watt
> >> >> >> >> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10
> > watts
> >> > and
> >> >> >> >> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
> >> >> >> >> > And guess what; the distinguished panel
heard
> >> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> >> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says
> >> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> >> > shows
> >> >> >> >> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with
> > indignation
> >> > at
> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
> >> >> >> >> > Next they compared something called Paoli
60M
> >> >> >> >> > (no
> >> >> >> >> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
> >> >> >> >> > difference.
> >> >> >> >> > The third "positive" result was a
comparison
> > of
> >> >> >> >> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But...
they
> >> > offer
> >> >> >> >> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
> >> > *audible*
> >> >> >> >> > clipping.
> >> >> >> >> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no
> >> >> >> >> > difference"
> >> >> >> >> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan
> > will
> >> > say
> >> >> >> >> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so
> > perfect
> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
> >> >> >> >> > I'll quote just a few more "positive"
> >> >> >> >> > results.
> >> >> >> >> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips
> >> >> >> >> > 100
> >> >> >> >> > (I
> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> >> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony
> > CDP
> >> >> >> >> > they
> >> >> >> >> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15
> > against
> >> > a
> >> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> >> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the
> > same
> >> >> >> >> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
> >> >> >> >> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the
line
> > at
> >> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
> >> >> >> >> > ?
> >> >> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares
to
> >> > call
> >> >> > me
> >> >> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check
his
> >> >> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
> >> >> >> >> > anyone
> >> >> >> >> > does.
> >> >> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > NYOB rushes to help out:
> >> >> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
> > liar.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you
> > liars.
> >> > A
> >> >> >> > good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
> >> >> >> > The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you
are
> >> >> >> > deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics
etc.
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short
of
> > an
> >> >> >> > answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon.
Fortunately
> >> >> >> > you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a
> >> >> >> > gulag.
> >> >> >> > Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge
the
> >> > truth.
> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan
> > took
> >> >> >> > the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to
> > prove
> >> >> >> > that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S.
but
> >> >> >> > thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had
> >> >> >> > executive
> >> >> >> > powers over me!!!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
> >> > living,
> >> >> >> > thinking being.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you
> > must
> >> >> >> demean the messenger.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against
> > John
> >> >> >> > Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the
ABX.
> >> >> >> > What
> >> >> >> > he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
> >> > ending
> >> >> >> > invariably in " It all sounds the same"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> See, you still continue to lie.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> would make the already
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> SNIP of irrelevant crap.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons
> > done
> >> >> > where
> >> >> >> people were able to reliably tell the difference between the
DUT's.
> >> > When
> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least
> > about
> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> subject.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly
> >> >> > mismatched
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > power and technology.
> >> >> > But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > order
> >> >> > to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is
not.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all
> >> >> sound
> >> > the
> >> >> same.
> >> >> It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an
ABX
> >> >> comparison reveals it to be so.
> >> >>
> >> > I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.
> >>
> >> And your evidence of this is what?
> >>
> >> > Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi
poloi
> >> > that
> >> > a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
> >> > reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is.
> >>
> >> The best there is is something that reproduces the input as an
inaudibley
> >> different output. A trivially easy task.
> >>
> >> You do not seem to
> >> > understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in
a
> >> > heartbeat.
> >>
> >> I understand there are people who believe this, so far I don't know of
> >> anyone who has proven to have this ability. The only way they ould
> >> demoisntrate it would be to compare their sighted listening to a DBT.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not.
> >>
> >> Bul****.
> >>
> >> Some amplifiers
> >> > sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room.
> >>
> >> SET's?
> >>
> >> Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
> >> > and early Aragons.
> >> >
> >>
> >> A statement that you can't prove and won't becuase you know you're full
> >> of
> >> ****.
> >>
> >> > Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and
> > call
> >> > it rain?" This is what you're doing.
> >>
> >> No, I'm just telling you a scientific fact, sighted listening is
> > inherently
> >> flawed, unless the differences are gross.
> >>
> >> You're acting like a colorblind person
> >> > in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that
> > you
> >> > cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in
> > your
> >> > stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.
> >> >
> >
> >> Then it should be a simple matter to demosnstrate this abiltiy by doing
a
> >> comparison of sighted bs. blind listening. I predict you won't ever do
> > it,
> >> because you know you're full of ****.
> >>
> > Impossible, given that, according to Stereophile, Arny's ABX device uses
> > undersized relays.
> >
> >> > You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your
> > brain.
> >> >
> >> I'm smart enough to know you're full of ****.
> >> I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
> >> differences sighted aren't able to so blind.
> >>
> > Let's analyze this. We have a dumb guy who asserts he is smart enough to
> > know certain things. But dumb people are dumb because they make
mistakes.
>
> Thanks for admitting you are a dumb guy.
>
> > Otherwise, they wouldn't be dumb. Ergo, Mikey is not smart enough to
know
> > the things he mistakenly thinks he knows.
> >
> A valid syllogism is not the same as a fact.
>
That's correct. We must instantiate "dumb guy" to "Mikey".
The syllogism then becomes a derivation of fact: "Mikey is not smart enough
to know the things he mistakenly thinks he knows."

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different
> >
> > You mean HUGELY different, don't you?
>
> No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.
>
Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing amplifiers. For
some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many amplifiers to be
as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your toy of the
hearing-impaired.

Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your QSC amp is a
lousy amp.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

" Silver oxide is quoted as having excellent conductivity" - Morein

"The electrical conductivity of the silver oxides formed is
negligible" -
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=RSINAK000068000008003220000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Eeny meany miney mo.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
>> >> > between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
>> >> > Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
>> >> > when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists
> a
>> >> > "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>> >> > "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
>> > confidence
>> >> to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps
>> >> of
>> > good
>> >> quality, is AFAWK impossible,
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
>> > Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
>> > I concur with Ludovic completely.
>> >
>> >
>> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
>>
> Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.

No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.

Mikey, you have to learn that
> repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.

I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.

Visit your priest in
> confessional without delay.
>
Sorry, I'm not a believer.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different
>> >
>> > You mean HUGELY different, don't you?
>>
>> No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.
>>
> Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing amplifiers. For
> some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many amplifiers to be
> as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your toy of
> the
> hearing-impaired.
>
> Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your QSC amp is
> a
> lousy amp.
>
So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.

[Robert Morein]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> " Silver oxide is quoted as having excellent conductivity" - Morein
>
> "The electrical conductivity of the silver oxides formed is
> negligible" -
>
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=RSINAK000068000008003220000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
>
> Eeny meany miney mo.

Silver oxide is commonly regarded as having excellent conductivity. The
mechanism is supposed to be the easy conversion of oxide back to free
silver.
The citation is interesting, and it actually serves to further question the
sonic transparency of silver/silver oxide relays. At low voltages, perhaps
the conversion does not readily occur.

Thank you, Goofball.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different
> >> >
> >> > You mean HUGELY different, don't you?
> >>
> >> No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.
> >>
> > Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing amplifiers.
For
> > some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many amplifiers to
be
> > as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your toy of
> > the
> > hearing-impaired.
> >
> > Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your QSC amp
is
> > a
> > lousy amp.
> >
> So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.
>
I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance of a
hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 17:43:16 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> " Silver oxide is quoted as having excellent conductivity" - Morein
>>
>> "The electrical conductivity of the silver oxides formed is
>> negligible" -
>>
>http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=RSINAK000068000008003220000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
>>
>> Eeny meany miney mo.
>
>Silver oxide is commonly regarded as having excellent conductivity. The
>mechanism is supposed to be the easy conversion of oxide back to free
>silver.

It has been discussed before on audio NGs. (Plill Allison et al.) As I
remember, the oxide is soft and also it can be converted back to
silver at *high* temperatures.


>The citation is interesting, and it actually serves to further question the
>sonic transparency of silver/silver oxide relays. At low voltages, perhaps
>the conversion does not readily occur.
>

I did some work on atomic oxygen once, including silver film sensors
and lamps for rocket measurements.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1985JQSRT..34..123J&amp;db_key=PHY&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=

>Thank you, Goofball.
>

[Robert Morein]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 17:43:16 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> " Silver oxide is quoted as having excellent conductivity" - Morein
> >>
> >> "The electrical conductivity of the silver oxides formed is
> >> negligible" -
> >>
>
>http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=RSINAK
000068000008003220000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
> >>
> >> Eeny meany miney mo.
> >
> >Silver oxide is commonly regarded as having excellent conductivity. The
> >mechanism is supposed to be the easy conversion of oxide back to free
> >silver.
>
> It has been discussed before on audio NGs. (Plill Allison et al.) As I
> remember, the oxide is soft and also it can be converted back to
> silver at *high* temperatures.
>
>
> >The citation is interesting, and it actually serves to further question
the
> >sonic transparency of silver/silver oxide relays. At low voltages,
perhaps
> >the conversion does not readily occur.
> >
>
> I did some work on atomic oxygen once, including silver film sensors
> and lamps for rocket measurements.
>
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1985JQSRT..34..123J&amp;db_key=PHY&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=
>
> >Thank you, Goofball.
> >
So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due to current
induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large currents? At low
currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical semiconductor
properties?

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
> >> >> > between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
> >> >> > Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
> >> >> > when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists
> > a
> >> >> > "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
> >> >> > "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> of
> >> > good Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
> >> > confidence
> >> >> to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps

> >> >> quality, is AFAWK impossible,
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> > You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
> >> > Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
> >> > I concur with Ludovic completely.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
> >>
> > Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
>
> No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.
>
> Mikey, you have to learn that
> > repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.
>
> I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.
>
> Visit your priest in
> > confessional without delay.
> >
> Sorry, I'm not a believer.

One single REFERENCE dear clown #2(Journal, Author(s), title,
year, page) to any audio component comparison, accepted by any journal,
and concluded with a positive outcome ("Yes we heard a difference") by
the majority of panelists-clearly stated in the conclusions.
Between you and your consultant clown # 1 you have 40 years
of printed material to find one single one.
And don't come up again with the pathetic, private, never
submitted (or rejected?) to an editorial pencil PCABX web site. Not
even to one with the very minimal requirements of the defunct "Stereo
Review let alone a proper peer-reviewed journal.
That's all it takes. And that you can not do.
Ludovic Mirabel
While you're at it consult someone how to make your prose
coherent: Eg.: " of
> >> > good Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
> >> > confidence
> >> >> to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps

> >> >> quality, is AFAWK impossible,

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different
>> >> >
>> >> > You mean HUGELY different, don't you?
>> >>
>> >> No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.
>> >>
>> > Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing amplifiers.
> For
>> > some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many amplifiers to
> be
>> > as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your toy of
>> > the
>> > hearing-impaired.
>> >
>> > Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your QSC amp
> is
>> > a
>> > lousy amp.
>> >
>> So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.
>>
> I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance of a
> hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
>
Thank you for confirming your cowardice.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > nk.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You mean HUGELY different, don't you?
> >> >>
> >> >> No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.
> >> >>
> >> > Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing
amplifiers.
> > For
> >> > some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many amplifiers
to
> > be
> >> > as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your toy
of
> >> > the
> >> > hearing-impaired.
> >> >
> >> > Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your QSC
amp
> > is
> >> > a
> >> > lousy amp.
> >> >
> >> So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.
> >>
> > I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance of
a
> > hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
> >
> Thank you for confirming your cowardice.
>
Mikey, that's plagiarism, again! Didn't you decide to stop being a parasite
of Arny Krueger?

[///////////////@////////////.com]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 17:45:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:


>>
>I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance of a
>hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
>

Nothing could be dumber than Robert Morein accusing strangers he
doesn't like of being Brian Maccarty.

one day he may grow a brain

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:51:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due to current
>induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large currents? At low
>currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical semiconductor
>properties?
>
Dunno. Most low power relays I have come across in data loggers and
the like are reed relays. They are sealed and inert gas filled (or
mercury wetted) so oxidation/contamination is not a issue.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 17:45:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance of a
> >hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
> >
>
> Nothing could be dumber than Robert Morein accusing strangers he
> doesn't like of being Brian Maccarty.
>
Nothing could be dumber than this, Brian:
http://www.worldjazz.com

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
> >> >> > between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
> >> >> > Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
> >> >> > when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists
> > a
> >> >> > "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
> >> >> > "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
> >> > confidence
> >> >> to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between amps
> >> >> of
> >> > good
> >> >> quality, is AFAWK impossible,
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> > You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
> >> > Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
> >> > I concur with Ludovic completely.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
> >>
> > Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
>
> No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.
>
> Mikey, you have to learn that
> > repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.
>
> I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.
>
> Visit your priest in
> > confessional without delay.
> >
> Sorry, I'm not a believer.


R. Morein says:
I concur with Ludovic completely.
> >> >
> >> >
NYOB answers:
> >> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
> >>
> > Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
>
> No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.
>
> Mikey, you have to learn that
> > repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.
>
> I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.
> Sorry, I'm not a believer.
You've been repeatedly challenged to support your "nonbeliever's"
beliefs. Scientologists too worship at the altar of their version of
"science"- not far from yours but more sophisticated.
Anyone who wants to find out why you do not take up the challenge is
advised to look up my Oct.1st exchange with one of your spiritual
advisors, Sullivan, in the "Time for the borgs...' thread.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:51:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>>So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due to current
>>induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large currents? At low
>>currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical semiconductor
>>properties?
>>
> Dunno. Most low power relays I have come across in data loggers and
> the like are reed relays. They are sealed and inert gas filled (or
> mercury wetted) so oxidation/contamination is not a issue.

Frequently used in in security systems, they are very relaible.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You mean HUGELY different, don't you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing
> amplifiers.
>> > For
>> >> > some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many amplifiers
> to
>> > be
>> >> > as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your toy
> of
>> >> > the
>> >> > hearing-impaired.
>> >> >
>> >> > Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your QSC
> amp
>> > is
>> >> > a
>> >> > lousy amp.
>> >> >
>> >> So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.
>> >>
>> > I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance of
> a
>> > hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
>> >
>> Thank you for confirming your cowardice.
>>
> Mikey, that's plagiarism, again! Didn't you decide to stop being a
> parasite
> of Arny Krueger?
>
Thanks again for confirming you really have nothing to say about audio.
If it weren't for the chance to make personal attacks, you'd be speechless
as well as a liar and idiot.

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 17:45:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance of a
>>hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
>>
>
> Nothing could be dumber than Robert Morein accusing strangers he
> doesn't like of being Brian Maccarty.
>
> one day he may grow a brain

Sometimes he accuses them of being Powell.
Just as stupid, just as pointless, but it beats trying to deal with the
truth.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:51:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due to current
> >>induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large currents? At
low
> >>currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical semiconductor
> >>properties?
> >>
> > Dunno. Most low power relays I have come across in data loggers and
> > the like are reed relays. They are sealed and inert gas filled (or
> > mercury wetted) so oxidation/contamination is not a issue.
>
> Frequently used in in security systems, they are very relaible.
>
For discrete signaling, reed relays are useful.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 17:45:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance of
a
> >>hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
> >>
> >
> > Nothing could be dumber than Robert Morein accusing strangers he
> > doesn't like of being Brian Maccarty.
> >
> > one day he may grow a brain
>
> Sometimes he accuses them of being Powell.
> Just as stupid, just as pointless, but it beats trying to deal with the
> truth.
>
I'm sorry, Mikey, but you are a defacto dumb person.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > nk.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You mean HUGELY different, don't you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing
> > amplifiers.
> >> > For
> >> >> > some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many
amplifiers
> > to
> >> > be
> >> >> > as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your
toy
> > of
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > hearing-impaired.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your QSC
> > amp
> >> > is
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > lousy amp.
> >> >> >
> >> >> So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.
> >> >>
> >> > I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance
of
> > a
> >> > hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
> >> >
> >> Thank you for confirming your cowardice.
> >>
> > Mikey, that's plagiarism, again! Didn't you decide to stop being a
> > parasite
> > of Arny Krueger?
> >
> Thanks again for confirming you really have nothing to say about audio.
You answer plagiarism with more plagiarism.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > ink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
>> >> >> > between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this
>> >> >> > trial.
>> >> >> > Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
>> >> >> > when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his
>> >> >> > panelists
>> > a
>> >> >> > "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>> >> >> > "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
>> >> > confidence
>> >> >> to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between
>> >> >> amps
>> >> >> of
>> >> > good
>> >> >> quality, is AFAWK impossible,
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> > You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
>> >> > Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
>> >> > I concur with Ludovic completely.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
>> >>
>> > Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
>>
>> No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.
>>
>> Mikey, you have to learn that
>> > repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.
>>
>> I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.
>>
>> Visit your priest in
>> > confessional without delay.
>> >
>> Sorry, I'm not a believer.
>
>
> R. Morein says:
> I concur with Ludovic completely.
>> >> >
>> >> >
> NYOB answers:
>> >> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
>> >>
>> > Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
>>
>> No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.
>>
>> Mikey, you have to learn that
>> > repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.
>>
>> I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.
>> Sorry, I'm not a believer.
> You've been repeatedly challenged to support your "nonbeliever's"
> beliefs. Scientologists too worship at the altar of their version of
> "science"- not far from yours but more sophisticated.


How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations doing ANY
kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of DBT?

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>

>
>
> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations doing
> ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of DBT?
>

How about 20 million consumers.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 17:45:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance of a
>>hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
>>
>
> Nothing could be dumber than Robert Morein accusing strangers he
> doesn't like of being Brian Maccarty.
>
> one day he may grow a brain

Bose products suck. They are overpriced junk and sound lousy.
You agree, don't you?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations doing
> > ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of DBT?

> How about 20 million consumers.

The 'borgs aren't welcome in real production houses, real studios, or real
design shops. That's why they bring their traveling magic show to Usenet.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:00:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:51:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due to current
>> >>induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large currents? At
>low
>> >>currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical semiconductor
>> >>properties?
>> >>
>> > Dunno. Most low power relays I have come across in data loggers and
>> > the like are reed relays. They are sealed and inert gas filled (or
>> > mercury wetted) so oxidation/contamination is not a issue.
>>
>> Frequently used in in security systems, they are very relaible.
>>
>For discrete signaling, reed relays are useful.
>

HP/Agilent find other uses for them. They are used forthermocouple
multiplexing, for example.
http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/nav/-536896332.536881093/pd.html

[Robert Morein]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:00:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:51:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due to
current
> >> >>induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large currents? At
> >low
> >> >>currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical
semiconductor
> >> >>properties?
> >> >>
> >> > Dunno. Most low power relays I have come across in data loggers and
> >> > the like are reed relays. They are sealed and inert gas filled (or
> >> > mercury wetted) so oxidation/contamination is not a issue.
> >>
> >> Frequently used in in security systems, they are very relaible.
> >>
> >For discrete signaling, reed relays are useful.
> >
>
> HP/Agilent find other uses for them. They are used forthermocouple
> multiplexing, for example.
> http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/nav/-536896332.536881093/pd.html

Yes, they are great devices. I've always thought of them as an excellent way
to handle signals. But when something is promoted as the required standard
testing device, extreme scrutiny should be applied.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > ink.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
> >> >> >> > between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this
> >> >> >> > trial.
> >> >> >> > Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
> >> >> >> > when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his
> >> >> >> > panelists
> >> > a
> >> >> >> > "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
> >> >> >> > "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
> >> >> > confidence
> >> >> >> to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between
> >> >> >> amps
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> > good
> >> >> >> quality, is AFAWK impossible,
> >> >> > [snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
> >> >> > Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
> >> >> > I concur with Ludovic completely.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
> >> >>
> >> > Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
> >>
> >> No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.
> >>
> >> Mikey, you have to learn that
> >> > repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.
> >>
> >> I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.
> >>
> >> Visit your priest in
> >> > confessional without delay.
> >> >
> >> Sorry, I'm not a believer.
> >
> >
> > R. Morein says:
> > I concur with Ludovic completely.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> > NYOB answers:
> >> >> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
> >> >>
> >> > Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
> >>
> >> No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.
> >>
> >> Mikey, you have to learn that
> >> > repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.
> >>
> >> I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.
> >> Sorry, I'm not a believer.
> > You've been repeatedly challenged to support your "nonbeliever's"
> > beliefs. Scientologists too worship at the altar of their version of
> > "science"- not far from yours but more sophisticated.
>
>
> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations doing ANY
> kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of DBT?

Have to start somewhere. References to published work,
please.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:52:11 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:00:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> " > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:51:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due to
>current
>> >> >>induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large currents? At
>> >low
>> >> >>currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical
>semiconductor
>> >> >>properties?
>> >> >>
>> >> > Dunno. Most low power relays I have come across in data loggers and
>> >> > the like are reed relays. They are sealed and inert gas filled (or
>> >> > mercury wetted) so oxidation/contamination is not a issue.
>> >>
>> >> Frequently used in in security systems, they are very relaible.
>> >>
>> >For discrete signaling, reed relays are useful.
>> >
>>
>> HP/Agilent find other uses for them. They are used forthermocouple
>> multiplexing, for example.
>> http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/nav/-536896332.536881093/pd.html
>
>Yes, they are great devices. I've always thought of them as an excellent way
>to handle signals. But when something is promoted as the required standard
>testing device, extreme scrutiny should be applied.
>

Too much "debating trade" for me. If you are worried about oxidation,
get rid of the oxygen. Reed relays are one solution. Cheap too! I
guess that would rule them out.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>>
>>
>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations doing
>> ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of DBT?
>>
>
> How about 20 million consumers.
Which ones are doing serious research?

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > ink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> > ink.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan
>> >> >> >> > was
>> >> >> >> > between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this
>> >> >> >> > trial.
>> >> >> >> > Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO
>> >> >> >> > "scientists"
>> >> >> >> > when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his
>> >> >> >> > panelists
>> >> > a
>> >> >> >> > "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>> >> >> >> > "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
>> >> >> > confidence
>> >> >> >> to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between
>> >> >> >> amps
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> > good
>> >> >> >> quality, is AFAWK impossible,
>> >> >> > [snip]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
>> >> >> > Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
>> >> >> > I concur with Ludovic completely.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
>> >>
>> >> No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Mikey, you have to learn that
>> >> > repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.
>> >>
>> >> Visit your priest in
>> >> > confessional without delay.
>> >> >
>> >> Sorry, I'm not a believer.
>> >
>> >
>> > R. Morein says:
>> > I concur with Ludovic completely.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> > NYOB answers:
>> >> >> That's because he, like you, is dishonest and a bad scientist.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Mikey, he provided complete documentation of the failure of ABX.
>> >>
>> >> No, he just keeps ingnoring the evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Mikey, you have to learn that
>> >> > repeating lies is bad business. Stop doing it.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not the one telling lies, that's you and Ludo.
>> >> Sorry, I'm not a believer.
>> > You've been repeatedly challenged to support your "nonbeliever's"
>> > beliefs. Scientologists too worship at the altar of their version of
>> > "science"- not far from yours but more sophisticated.
>>
>>
>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations doing
>> ANY
>> kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of DBT?
>
> Have to start somewhere. References to published work,
> please.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Go to your search engine and enter Audio ABX results.

You'll come back with stuff like:
http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/mue2003/research/rhartman/rhartman_web/chapter6.htm

Have you gone through all these references?
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm

Or these? http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm

I'll bet you never read this one either:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

Here's a page with more links: http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

As I said, it's harder to find people doing serious audio research that
aren't using ABX or some form of DBT protocol.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > ink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
>> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You mean HUGELY different, don't you?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing
>> > amplifiers.
>> >> > For
>> >> >> > some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many
> amplifiers
>> > to
>> >> > be
>> >> >> > as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need your
> toy
>> > of
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > hearing-impaired.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your
>> >> >> > QSC
>> > amp
>> >> > is
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > lousy amp.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a distance
> of
>> > a
>> >> > hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
>> >> >
>> >> Thank you for confirming your cowardice.
>> >>
>> > Mikey, that's plagiarism, again! Didn't you decide to stop being a
>> > parasite
>> > of Arny Krueger?
>> >
>> Thanks again for confirming you really have nothing to say about audio.
> You answer plagiarism with more plagiarism.
> Hahahahahahahaha!!!
>
And you answer nothing.

Once again proving you posture because you have nothing to say about audio,
that isn't bluster and bull****.

[Robert Morein]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:52:11 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:00:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> " > wrote in message
> >> nk.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:51:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due to
> >current
> >> >> >>induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large currents?
At
> >> >low
> >> >> >>currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical
> >semiconductor
> >> >> >>properties?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Dunno. Most low power relays I have come across in data loggers
and
> >> >> > the like are reed relays. They are sealed and inert gas filled (or
> >> >> > mercury wetted) so oxidation/contamination is not a issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> Frequently used in in security systems, they are very relaible.
> >> >>
> >> >For discrete signaling, reed relays are useful.
> >> >
> >>
> >> HP/Agilent find other uses for them. They are used forthermocouple
> >> multiplexing, for example.
> >> http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/nav/-536896332.536881093/pd.html
> >
> >Yes, they are great devices. I've always thought of them as an excellent
way
> >to handle signals. But when something is promoted as the required
standard
> >testing device, extreme scrutiny should be applied.
> >
>
> Too much "debating trade" for me. If you are worried about oxidation,
> get rid of the oxygen. Reed relays are one solution. Cheap too! I
> guess that would rule them out.

The ABXers assume their hardware is good enough to make a standard of
comparison out of. But standards deserve much more scrutiny than
run-of-the-mill uses.
I would have no problem with reed relays in my equipment. However, Ludovic
presents evidence that ABX fails far more than it should. Until it is
understood why, I prefer to regard every component and technique associated
with ABX with suspicion.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > ink.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > nk.net...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
> >> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently
different
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > You mean HUGELY different, don't you?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing
> >> > amplifiers.
> >> >> > For
> >> >> >> > some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many
> > amplifiers
> >> > to
> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> > as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need
your
> > toy
> >> > of
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > hearing-impaired.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your
> >> >> >> > QSC
> >> > amp
> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > lousy amp.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a
distance
> > of
> >> > a
> >> >> > hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Thank you for confirming your cowardice.
> >> >>
> >> > Mikey, that's plagiarism, again! Didn't you decide to stop being a
> >> > parasite
> >> > of Arny Krueger?
> >> >
> >> Thanks again for confirming you really have nothing to say about audio.
> > You answer plagiarism with more plagiarism.
> > Hahahahahahahaha!!!
> >
> And you answer nothing.
>
> Once again proving you posture because you have nothing to say about
audio,
> that isn't bluster and bull****.
>
You're a contemptible plagiarist. Talking down to dirt is unavoidable.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
[snip]
>
> As I said, it's harder to find people doing serious audio research that
> aren't using ABX or some form of DBT protocol.
>
That's already been explained to you, Mikey Mckelviphibian. Once again, they
have no choice. Most of the work of the AES these days concerns codec
quality and distinguishability. Since a codec is an algorithm, rather
than a physical device, there is no way to compare codecs other than with
ABX.

In the case of amplifiers, however, we have actual physical devices. The
deaf and dumb, like yourself, are condemned to substandard amplifiers,
because you have weak ears, weak brains, and hearts corrupted by a bad
faith. The use of ABX devices interposes a machine, namely the ABX device,
which in many or all cases is assumed to be transparent when it is not. When
this is the case, as Stereophile determined with Arny's box, it cannot be
used for amplifier comparison.

In addition, there is the question of labeling, as it relates to synchronous
detection. Did you know, Mikey, that ABX poses a problem in the area of
synchronous detection? You cannot prove that ABX does not handicap a human's
ability to detect differences. The burden is on the believers. But I'll say
it now: you can't prove it. In your case, you can't prove it because you
have a low IQ, a weak mind, a limited capacity for original reasoning. But I
suspect it will try the capabilities of competent individuals as well.

So, go on, Mikey. What can you do? You are stupid, you can't hear very well,
and you will spend the rest of your life suffering with these disabilities.
You truely are "special".

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:52:11 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:00:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> " > wrote in message
>> >> nk.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:51:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due to
>> >current
>> >> >> >>induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large
>> >> >> >>currents?
> At
>> >> >low
>> >> >> >>currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical
>> >semiconductor
>> >> >> >>properties?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Dunno. Most low power relays I have come across in data loggers
> and
>> >> >> > the like are reed relays. They are sealed and inert gas filled
>> >> >> > (or
>> >> >> > mercury wetted) so oxidation/contamination is not a issue.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Frequently used in in security systems, they are very relaible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >For discrete signaling, reed relays are useful.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> HP/Agilent find other uses for them. They are used forthermocouple
>> >> multiplexing, for example.
>> >> http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/nav/-536896332.536881093/pd.html
>> >
>> >Yes, they are great devices. I've always thought of them as an excellent
> way
>> >to handle signals. But when something is promoted as the required
> standard
>> >testing device, extreme scrutiny should be applied.
>> >
>>
>> Too much "debating trade" for me. If you are worried about oxidation,
>> get rid of the oxygen. Reed relays are one solution. Cheap too! I
>> guess that would rule them out.
>
> The ABXers assume their hardware is good enough to make a standard of
> comparison out of. But standards deserve much more scrutiny than
> run-of-the-mill uses.
> I would have no problem with reed relays in my equipment. However, Ludovic
> presents evidence that ABX fails far more than it should. Until it is
> understood why, I prefer to regard every component and technique
> associated
> with ABX with suspicion.

First it was oxides, then it was junction effects....now its lack of
awareness of the
subconscious mental processes.

I can't wait to see what comes under suspicion next.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> As I said, it's harder to find people doing serious audio research that
>> aren't using ABX or some form of DBT protocol.
>>
> That's already been explained to you, Mikey Mckelviphibian. Once again,
> they
> have no choice. Most of the work of the AES these days concerns codec
> quality and distinguishability.

Most, but not all and consumer audio is not the only place where DBT's are
used.
You still have yet to prove that the box causes any masking or audible
problems at all.

Would you like a link to a schematic of how to build your own ABX box?
Maybe you can find someone who can read one to build it for you.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > ink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> > ink.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:47:37 GMT, "
>> >> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently
> different
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > You mean HUGELY different, don't you?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> No. ABX reveals differences as small as .2 dB.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Mikey, we're not comparing or buying dB's. We're comparing
>> >> > amplifiers.
>> >> >> > For
>> >> >> >> > some reason, you cannot accept that many people find many
>> > amplifiers
>> >> > to
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> >> > as different as the colors of the spectrum. They don't need
> your
>> > toy
>> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > hearing-impaired.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Mikey, your ears don't work. Your brain doesn't work. And your
>> >> >> >> > QSC
>> >> > amp
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> > lousy amp.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> So you keep saying, if only you could prove it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > I don't need to, Mikey. You are a defacto dumb person. At a
> distance
>> > of
>> >> > a
>> >> >> > hundred feet, I would cast you for a Romero zombie flick.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Thank you for confirming your cowardice.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Mikey, that's plagiarism, again! Didn't you decide to stop being a
>> >> > parasite
>> >> > of Arny Krueger?
>> >> >
>> >> Thanks again for confirming you really have nothing to say about
>> >> audio.
>> > You answer plagiarism with more plagiarism.
>> > Hahahahahahahaha!!!
>> >
>> And you answer nothing.
>>
>> Once again proving you posture because you have nothing to say about
> audio,
>> that isn't bluster and bull****.
>>
> You're a contemptible plagiarist. Talking down to dirt is unavoidable.
>
It is if I'm talking to you.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>>
> I know what a rhetorical device is,

How do you ABX a rhetorical device?

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations doing
>>> ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of DBT?
>>>
>>
>> How about 20 million consumers.
> Which ones are doing serious research?


ZAP!!! Got you!!!

THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> ups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I said:
>> >> >> >> >> > He will not find any
>> >> >> >> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's criteria,
> ABX
>> >> > makes
>> >> >> >> >> > it all sound the same.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>Sullivan answered:
>> >> >> >> >> Except when it doesn't:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you
>> >> >> >> >> remain
>> >> > one.
>> >> >> >> >> Back into the killfile you go.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I answered:
>> >> >> >> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan
>> > responds
>> >> > by
>> >> >> >> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is Sullivan's
>> >> >> >> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of going
>> > mute
>> >> >> >> > when things get hot.
>> >> >> >> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
>> > believer-
>> >> >> >> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is
> irresistible.
>> >> >> >> > This
>> >> >> >> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten
>> >> >> >> > days
> (
>> >> >> >> > his
>> >> >> >> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being
>> >> >> >> > 12th)
>> > that
>> >> >> >> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their only
>> >> > evidence
>> >> >> >> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
>> >> >> >> > So let us see once more (I've done it three times
>> >> >> >> > before) why it remained a private website and not an article-
> not
>> >> >> >> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
>> > defunct
>> >> >> >> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like
> JAES.
>> >> >> >> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research"
>> >> >> >> > report
>> >> >> >> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from the
>> > early
>> >> >> >> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though and
>> >> > beggars...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about
> amplifiers.
>> >> > They
>> >> >> >> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7 out
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > 10
>> >> >> >> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they heard
> it.
>> >> >> >> > Now listen carefully because you will be
> inclined
>> > to
>> >> >> >> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
>> >> >> >> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400
>> >> >> >> > watt
>> >> >> >> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10
> watts
>> > and
>> >> >> >> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
>> >> >> >> > And guess what; the distinguished panel heard
>> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian says
>> >> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >> > shows
>> >> >> >> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with
> indignation
>> > at
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
>> >> >> >> > Next they compared something called Paoli 60M
>> >> >> >> > (no
>> >> >> >> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed a
>> >> >> >> > difference.
>> >> >> >> > The third "positive" result was a comparison
> of
>> >> >> >> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But... they
>> > offer
>> >> >> >> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
>> > *audible*
>> >> >> >> > clipping.
>> >> >> >> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no
>> >> >> >> > difference"
>> >> >> >> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan
> will
>> > say
>> >> >> >> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so
> perfect
>> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
>> >> >> >> > I'll quote just a few more "positive"
>> >> >> >> > results.
>> >> >> >> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips
>> >> >> >> > 100
>> >> >> >> > (I
>> >> > have
>> >> >> >> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against Sony
> CDP
>> >> >> >> > they
>> >> >> >> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15
> against
>> > a
>> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds the
> same
>> >> >> >> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
>> >> >> >> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the line
> at
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
>> >> >> >> > ?
>> >> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares to
>> > call
>> >> > me
>> >> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check his
>> >> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
>> >> >> >> > anyone
>> >> >> >> > does.
>> >> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > NYOB rushes to help out:
>> >> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
> liar.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you
> liars.
>> > A
>> >> >> > good lie requires a little imagination and can be entertaining,
>> >> >> > The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you are
>> >> >> > deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics etc.
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short of
> an
>> >> >> > answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon. Fortunately
>> >> >> > you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a
>> >> >> > gulag.
>> >> >> > Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge the
>> > truth.
>> >> > I
>> >> >> doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan
> took
>> >> >> > the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to
> prove
>> >> >> > that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S. but
>> >> >> > thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had
>> >> >> > executive
>> >> >> > powers over me!!!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a real
>> > living,
>> >> >> > thinking being.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so you
> must
>> >> >> demean the messenger.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years against
> John
>> >> >> > Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the ABX.
>> >> >> > What
>> >> >> > he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific test
>> > ending
>> >> >> > invariably in " It all sounds the same"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> See, you still continue to lie.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> would make the already
>> >> >>
>> >> >> SNIP of irrelevant crap.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX comparisons
> done
>> >> > where
>> >> >> people were able to reliably tell the difference between the DUT's.
>> > When
>> >> > you
>> >> >> stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least
> about
>> >> > that
>> >> >> subject.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly
>> >> > mismatched
>> >> > in
>> >> > power and technology.
>> >> > But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless hobby
>> >> > in
>> >> > order
>> >> > to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is not.
>> >> >
>> >> Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all
>> >> sound
>> > the
>> >> same.
>> >> It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an ABX
>> >> comparison reveals it to be so.
>> >>
>> > I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.
>>
>> And your evidence of this is what?
>>
>> > Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi poloi
>> > that
>> > a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
>> > reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is.
>>
>> The best there is is something that reproduces the input as an inaudibley
>> different output. A trivially easy task.
>>
>> You do not seem to
>> > understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in a
>> > heartbeat.
>>
>> I understand there are people who believe this, so far I don't know of
>> anyone who has proven to have this ability. The only way they ould
>> demoisntrate it would be to compare their sighted listening to a DBT.
>>
>> It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not.
>>
>> Bul****.
>>
>> Some amplifiers
>> > sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room.
>>
>> SET's?
>>
>> Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
>> > and early Aragons.
>> >
>>
>> A statement that you can't prove and won't becuase you know you're full
>> of
>> ****.
>>
>> > Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back and
> call
>> > it rain?" This is what you're doing.
>>
>> No, I'm just telling you a scientific fact, sighted listening is
> inherently
>> flawed, unless the differences are gross.
>>
>> You're acting like a colorblind person
>> > in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things that
> you
>> > cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no; in
> your
>> > stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.
>> >
>
>> Then it should be a simple matter to demosnstrate this abiltiy by doing a
>> comparison of sighted bs. blind listening. I predict you won't ever do
> it,
>> because you know you're full of ****.
>>
> Impossible, given that, according to Stereophile, Arny's ABX device uses
> undersized relays.
>
>> > You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your
> brain.
>> >
>> I'm smart enough to know you're full of ****.
>> I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
>> differences sighted aren't able to so blind.
>>
> Let's analyze this. We have a dumb guy who asserts he is smart enough to
> know certain things. But dumb people are dumb because they make mistakes.
> Otherwise, they wouldn't be dumb. Ergo, Mikey is not smart enough to know
> the things he mistakenly thinks he knows.
>
>

Watch out! You are beginning to step on Rummy's toes.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
>> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
>> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
>> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
>> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>>
>>>
> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
> confidence to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate between
> amps of good quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to see if the
> "Golden Ear" can improve his score. If so and if he could reach the 95%
> confidence level needed for a positive, then there's reason to study this
> individual in order to find out what is different in the way his hearing
> works. There could be all kinds of possibilities that such research might
> apply to, audio equipment being a rather insignificant one.
>

you don't need a 95% confidence level for a positive.
Anything over 50% indicates that it is more likely
than not that the result is not by chance and that one hears a difference.
Its enough
to cast your assertion into serious doubt.
It means that it is more likely than not that you are WRONG.
That is not good for your side.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
>> Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
>> I concur with Ludovic completely.
>
> So do I. All right-thinking people agree. <G>
>
> Except for one detail, that is: Calling the aBxism sect "scientists" is on
> a par with saying creationism is a "science". They are nonintersecting
> sets.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> You're missing the point, Mikey McKelviphibian.
>> Ludovic's point is that ABXers are dishonest, bad scientists.
>> I concur with Ludovic completely.
>
> So do I. All right-thinking people agree. <G>
>
> Except for one detail, that is: Calling the aBxism sect "scientists" is on
> a par with saying creationism is a "science". They are nonintersecting
> sets.
>

Sure, Creationism 'is' a science. Though it is a very, very bad science.
Like ABX

[[email protected]]

My discussion with NYOB:

> Have to start somewhere. References to published work,
> > please.
> > Ludovic Mirabel

NYOB answers:
> Go to your search engine and enter Audio ABX results.
>
> You'll come back with stuff like:
> http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/mue2003/research/rhartman/rhartman_web/chapter6.htm
>
> Have you gone through all these references?
> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm
>
> Or these? http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm
>
> I'll bet you never read this one either:
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
>
> Here's a page with more links: http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
>
> As I said, it's harder to find people doing serious audio research that
> aren't using ABX or some form of DBT protocol.

> Go to your search engine and enter Audio ABX results.
>
> You'll come back with stuff like:

Well, let's see
youhttp://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/mue2003/research/rhartman/rhartman_web/chapter6.htm
Introduction to this paper: "The ability of humans to detect the
location of a sound is generally referred to as localization. Sound
waves interact with the head, body, and pinnae creating temporal and
spectral differences between the left and right ear canal signals. The
brain uses these differences to interpret a probable number of sound
events and their respective locations. There are three major cues:
interaural time differences (arrival, phase, envelope), interaural
level differences, and the monaural pinnae influences. The physical
presence of these cues depends mostly on the spectral content of the
sound and its spatial origin relative to the listener. Perceptually,
the localization cues exhibit a relative dominance that varies
significantly with frequency. This research explores the relative
importance of low and high frequency localization cues during free
field listening. More specifically, it compares the horizontal shift
of a stereo image caused by spatially relocating low versus high
frequency bands of the audible spectrum. It is shown that contrary to
the popular belief that low frequencies are "hard to localize," the
horizontal position of a stereo image is most significantly affected by
moving low-to-mid frequencies as opposed to high frequencies. This can
most likely be attributed to the overall perceptual dominance of low
frequency interaural phase differences."
You explain what has it all to do with comparing components by ABX.
Which components
Next:

> Have you gone through all these references?
> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm

A long list of references . None to comparing audio components by ABX.
No, I did not read them and do not intend to. You must have. Tell us
what they said and we'll go from there.

> Or these? http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm

Quote from the commercial owner of the web site: "ELLIOTT SOUND
PRODUCTSMy thanks to all those who have bought (or are planning to buy)
project PCBs or other products. Without you, The Audio Pages would be
no more. Your continued support is greatly appreciated"
There is a long rant there against the sellers of those components that
this DIY seller does not supply. No component comparison by ABX
A very instructive audio research quote NYOB. How did you manage to dig
this out,just like that all by yourself?. That is how PH.Ds are made.
Congratulations!

> I'll bet you never read this one either: > http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
The only appropriate ABX reference you managed. Of course with a
negative outcome. See details in my "Summing up" posting today.

> Here's a page with more links: http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
RE abchr vs ABX
A discussion of merits of ABChr as against ABX. Nil, Zero, Zilch about
components.
Details in my "Summing up" posting. (Not worth wasting your time)
> As I said, it's harder to find people doing serious audio research that
> aren't using ABX or some form of DBT protocol.

I've been quite indulgent on you. One has a sort of soft spot for the
underprivileged. But my patience is wearing thin.
The subject NYOB is: Is Abx a good tool for differentiating audio
components? I am an audio consumer? So are the readers of this forum.
You apparently are into esoteric research. Talk to your peers. They are
burning to hear from you.

If I wanted to know what students have to write to get a degree in
psychoacoustics I'd read the appropriate journal..
I don't need you to dial ABX into Google and post the results.as they
pop up.
Now that you've done it it is pretty obvious that you did not
understand what popped up. Why should we suffer for it?
90% of what you copied here has not the slightest relation to audio
component comparison. One is a commercial. You added three more such
postings in the "Summing up" thread. Only one of those compares
components by ABX WITH THE USUAL "IT ALL SOUNDS THE SAME WHEN
ABXing" results.
I wasted enough of my time on your nonsense. .You did not really think
I'd let you bluff your way out . In the future you make a serious
effort or else I'll just repost this.
You want to keep sticking your neck out and making yourself a laughing
stock. Your choice.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:G_j0f.83$jw6.79@lakeread02...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:52:11 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:00:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> " > wrote in message
> >> >> nk.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:51:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due to
> >> >current
> >> >> >> >>induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large
> >> >> >> >>currents?
> > At
> >> >> >low
> >> >> >> >>currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical
> >> >semiconductor
> >> >> >> >>properties?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Dunno. Most low power relays I have come across in data loggers
> > and
> >> >> >> > the like are reed relays. They are sealed and inert gas filled
> >> >> >> > (or
> >> >> >> > mercury wetted) so oxidation/contamination is not a issue.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Frequently used in in security systems, they are very relaible.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >For discrete signaling, reed relays are useful.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> HP/Agilent find other uses for them. They are used forthermocouple
> >> >> multiplexing, for example.
> >> >> http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/nav/-536896332.536881093/pd.html
> >> >
> >> >Yes, they are great devices. I've always thought of them as an
excellent
> > way
> >> >to handle signals. But when something is promoted as the required
> > standard
> >> >testing device, extreme scrutiny should be applied.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Too much "debating trade" for me. If you are worried about oxidation,
> >> get rid of the oxygen. Reed relays are one solution. Cheap too! I
> >> guess that would rule them out.
> >
> > The ABXers assume their hardware is good enough to make a standard of
> > comparison out of. But standards deserve much more scrutiny than
> > run-of-the-mill uses.
> > I would have no problem with reed relays in my equipment. However,
Ludovic
> > presents evidence that ABX fails far more than it should. Until it is
> > understood why, I prefer to regard every component and technique
> > associated
> > with ABX with suspicion.
>
> First it was oxides, then it was junction effects....now its lack of
> awareness of the
> subconscious mental processes.
>
> I can't wait to see what comes under suspicion next.
>
> ScottW
>
All things, large and small, that can make good intentions into bad science.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> As I said, it's harder to find people doing serious audio research that
> >> aren't using ABX or some form of DBT protocol.
> >>
> > That's already been explained to you, Mikey Mckelviphibian. Once again,
> > they
> > have no choice. Most of the work of the AES these days concerns codec
> > quality and distinguishability.
>
> Most, but not all and consumer audio is not the only place where DBT's are
> used.
> You still have yet to prove that the box causes any masking or audible
> problems at all.
>
Since the ABXers proclaim that they have the solution that contradicts the
shared experience of thousands of people, the burden is on them.
ABX is a prison for the mind. Small ones like yours fit quite nicely.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 02:13:46 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>> I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
>> differences sighted aren't able to so blind.

I don't understand this sentence. Am I stupid?

[paul packer]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:33:36 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

> The deaf and dumb, like yourself, are condemned to substandard amplifiers,
>because you have weak ears, weak brains, and hearts corrupted by a bad
>faith.

I'd be interested to know what process of deduction you used to arrive
at that last conclusion, Robert. It could be important for all
mankind. :-)

[paul packer]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 16:46:38 +1000,
wrote:


>Nothing could be dumber than Robert Morein accusing strangers he
>doesn't like of being Brian Maccarty.

If it was Brian he'd be able to spell his own name, wouldn't he?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> > The deaf and dumb, like yourself, are condemned to substandard amplifiers,
> >because you have weak ears, weak brains, and hearts corrupted by a bad
> >faith.
>
> I'd be interested to know what process of deduction you used to arrive
> at that last conclusion, Robert. It could be important for all
> mankind. :-)

As evidenced by this and several other recent threads, the faith in
question is aBxism. Don't get your God-panties in a bunch. We'll do your
precious Christianity in late December. :-)

[paul packer]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 08:15:28 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> > The deaf and dumb, like yourself, are condemned to substandard amplifiers,
>> >because you have weak ears, weak brains, and hearts corrupted by a bad
>> >faith.
>>
>> I'd be interested to know what process of deduction you used to arrive
>> at that last conclusion, Robert. It could be important for all
>> mankind. :-)
>
>As evidenced by this and several other recent threads, the faith in
>question is aBxism. Don't get your God-panties in a bunch. We'll do your
>precious Christianity in late December. :-)

Thank you, George--I was aware that Christianity was not being
referenced. I will however look forward to December with great
anticipation. :-)

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
: ...

: > Let's analyze this. We have a dumb guy who asserts he is smart enough to
: > know certain things. But dumb people are dumb because they make mistakes.
: > Otherwise, they wouldn't be dumb. Ergo, Mikey is not smart enough to know
: > the things he mistakenly thinks he knows.
: >
: >
:
: Watch out! You are beginning to step on Rummy's toes.
:
wrap around version of previous postings in this thread:

ABX makes one responds by mute believer- irresistable
that not defunct JAES incined to watts and indignation at the offer *audible*
will say perfect CDP against same at liar truth took prove
living must John done about Bul****.

(4 Sander ;-),
Rudy

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > nk.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> > [snip[
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid
people.
> >> >>
> >> >> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their
> >> >> amps
> >> >> against something you think is better.
> >> >>
> >> >> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
> >> >
> >> > Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> It's called a double blind comparison.
> >>
> >> Do you know anyone who has veen able to tell the difference between a
QSC
> >> amp and any other competent amp in a level matched blnd comparison? If
> > you
> >> don't, you cannot say with certainty, that they sound different than
> >> other
> >> amps.
> >>
> > Nor can you say they sound the same. Anyway, QSC amps are garbage-can
> > amps.
> > They are for deaf people.
> >
> Based on what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>
Mikey, you're welcome to shut your eyes and eat a meal out of a garbage can.
If someone hands you a glass of **** and a glass of water, do you feel that
you must test them blind to tell the difference?
If you have an opportunity to eat **** on a bun, do you feel insecure to
tell the difference from hamburger?
These are the sensations I get when I listen to QSC amplifiers. They are
awful. But perhaps you are one of those unfortunates who really cannot tell
the difference between rain on your back, and ****.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:33:36 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> > The deaf and dumb, like yourself, are condemned to substandard
amplifiers,
> >because you have weak ears, weak brains, and hearts corrupted by a bad
> >faith.
>
> I'd be interested to know what process of deduction you used to arrive
> at that last conclusion, Robert. It could be important for all
> mankind. :-)

Bile, Paul. Even the pure of heart have bile. He's lucky I'm not Pat
Robertson :)

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 16:46:38 +1000,
> wrote:
>
>
> >Nothing could be dumber than Robert Morein accusing strangers he
> >doesn't like of being Brian Maccarty.
>
> If it was Brian he'd be able to spell his own name, wouldn't he?

A couple of years ago, one of Brian's hobbys used to be signing me up for
mortgage loan applications on the web. The apps go to cold-call operations,
so you get a call. I guess that because Brian doesn't like to receive phone
calls, he thought this would be a terrible nusiance. But he had one problem:
How could I be made to understand it was his retribution? He solved this by
filling out some of the apps with my name and phone number, but with a
misspelling of his name, as in, "MacCarthy", McCarthy", etc. This was
particularly noticeable when I received a solicitation in the form of a
letter. So my opinion is that Brian is just marginally sophisticated enough
to munge his own name.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 03:04:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 16:46:38 +1000,
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Nothing could be dumber than Robert Morein accusing strangers he
>> >doesn't like of being Brian Maccarty.
>>
>> If it was Brian he'd be able to spell his own name, wouldn't he?
>
>A couple of years ago, one of Brian's hobbys used to be signing me up for
>mortgage loan applications on the web. The apps go to cold-call operations,
>so you get a call. I guess that because Brian doesn't like to receive phone
>calls, he thought this would be a terrible nusiance. But he had one problem:
>How could I be made to understand it was his retribution? He solved this by
>filling out some of the apps with my name and phone number, but with a
>misspelling of his name, as in, "MacCarthy", McCarthy", etc. This was
>particularly noticeable when I received a solicitation in the form of a
>letter. So my opinion is that Brian is just marginally sophisticated enough
>to munge his own name.
>
>

what a crock of ****, from someone who posts anonymously..
When were the charges of identity fraud made?
answer never...because an anonymous joker from a non existant address
posted a load of crap on the internet....

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> > [snip[
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Sure they do. QSC makes crappy amps that are liked by stupid
> people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How would you know? You've never done a blind comparison of their
>> >> >> amps
>> >> >> against something you think is better.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Two things are sure, they make amps that are clean sounding
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you prove that QSC amps are "clean sounding" ?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> It's called a double blind comparison.
>> >>
>> >> Do you know anyone who has veen able to tell the difference between a
> QSC
>> >> amp and any other competent amp in a level matched blnd comparison?
>> >> If
>> > you
>> >> don't, you cannot say with certainty, that they sound different than
>> >> other
>> >> amps.
>> >>
>> > Nor can you say they sound the same. Anyway, QSC amps are garbage-can
>> > amps.
>> > They are for deaf people.
>> >
>> Based on what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
>>
> Mikey, you're welcome to shut your eyes and eat a meal out of a garbage
> can.

Wouldn't you go hungry then?

> If someone hands you a glass of **** and a glass of water, do you feel
> that
> you must test them blind to tell the difference?

No, I'd say the differences were gross.

> If you have an opportunity to eat **** on a bun, do you feel insecure to
> tell the difference from hamburger?

See above, but please, no more about your culinary choices.

> These are the sensations I get when I listen to QSC amplifiers.

Perhaps if you tried a healthier diet.

They are
> awful.

If theyare that bad it should be a cinch to show it in any form of DBT. Of
course you know you're wrong which is why you'll never put your ears on the
line.

But perhaps you are one of those unfortunates who really cannot tell
> the difference between rain on your back, and ****.
>
As I said, the differences are gross.

Has anybody checked the plumbing at your place?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:G_j0f.83$jw6.79@lakeread02...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:52:11 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:00:31 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> " > wrote in message
>> >> >> nk.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
> message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:51:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>So the reputation of silver oxide as a good conductor is due
>> >> >> >> >>to
>> >> >current
>> >> >> >> >>induced conversion at the contact point, valid for large
>> >> >> >> >>currents?
>> > At
>> >> >> >low
>> >> >> >> >>currents, does the oxide/silver junction exhibit typical
>> >> >semiconductor
>> >> >> >> >>properties?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Dunno. Most low power relays I have come across in data
>> >> >> >> > loggers
>> > and
>> >> >> >> > the like are reed relays. They are sealed and inert gas filled
>> >> >> >> > (or
>> >> >> >> > mercury wetted) so oxidation/contamination is not a issue.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Frequently used in in security systems, they are very relaible.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >For discrete signaling, reed relays are useful.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> HP/Agilent find other uses for them. They are used forthermocouple
>> >> >> multiplexing, for example.
>> >> >> http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/nav/-536896332.536881093/pd.html
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, they are great devices. I've always thought of them as an
> excellent
>> > way
>> >> >to handle signals. But when something is promoted as the required
>> > standard
>> >> >testing device, extreme scrutiny should be applied.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Too much "debating trade" for me. If you are worried about oxidation,
>> >> get rid of the oxygen. Reed relays are one solution. Cheap too! I
>> >> guess that would rule them out.
>> >
>> > The ABXers assume their hardware is good enough to make a standard of
>> > comparison out of. But standards deserve much more scrutiny than
>> > run-of-the-mill uses.
>> > I would have no problem with reed relays in my equipment. However,
> Ludovic
>> > presents evidence that ABX fails far more than it should. Until it is
>> > understood why, I prefer to regard every component and technique
>> > associated
>> > with ABX with suspicion.
>>
>> First it was oxides, then it was junction effects....now its lack of
>> awareness of the
>> subconscious mental processes.
>>
>> I can't wait to see what comes under suspicion next.
>>
>> ScottW
>>
> All things, large and small, that can make good intentions into bad
> science.
>
Like no level matching and no bias controls?

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of DBT?
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about 20 million consumers.
>> Which ones are doing serious research?
>
>
> ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>
> THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that it's
hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically neutral.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> > [snip]
>> >>
>> >> As I said, it's harder to find people doing serious audio research
>> >> that
>> >> aren't using ABX or some form of DBT protocol.
>> >>
>> > That's already been explained to you, Mikey Mckelviphibian. Once again,
>> > they
>> > have no choice. Most of the work of the AES these days concerns codec
>> > quality and distinguishability.
>>
>> Most, but not all and consumer audio is not the only place where DBT's
>> are
>> used.
>> You still have yet to prove that the box causes any masking or audible
>> problems at all.
>>
> Since the ABXers proclaim that they have the solution that contradicts the
> shared experience of thousands of people, the burden is on them.

The burden has been met and we won a long time ago, that's why ABX is used
in so much audio research.


> ABX is a prison for the mind. Small ones like yours fit quite nicely.
>
Convince the companies that depend on it then. Your propagand is simply
that, the whole rest of the world doing audio research is wrong and the King
oif the Drexel losers is correct, cool.

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> My discussion with NYOB:
>
> > Have to start somewhere. References to published work,
>> > please.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> NYOB answers:
>> Go to your search engine and enter Audio ABX results.
>>
>> You'll come back with stuff like:
>> http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/mue2003/research/rhartman/rhartman_web/chapter6.htm
>>
>> Have you gone through all these references?
>> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm
>>
>> Or these? http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm
>>
>> I'll bet you never read this one either:
>> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
>>
>> Here's a page with more links: http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
>>
>> As I said, it's harder to find people doing serious audio research that
>> aren't using ABX or some form of DBT protocol.
>
>> Go to your search engine and enter Audio ABX results.
>>
>> You'll come back with stuff like:
>
> Well, let's see
> youhttp://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/mue2003/research/rhartman/rhartman_web/chapter6.htm
> Introduction to this paper: "The ability of humans to detect the
> location of a sound is generally referred to as localization. Sound
> waves interact with the head, body, and pinnae creating temporal and
> spectral differences between the left and right ear canal signals. The
> brain uses these differences to interpret a probable number of sound
> events and their respective locations. There are three major cues:
> interaural time differences (arrival, phase, envelope), interaural
> level differences, and the monaural pinnae influences. The physical
> presence of these cues depends mostly on the spectral content of the
> sound and its spatial origin relative to the listener. Perceptually,
> the localization cues exhibit a relative dominance that varies
> significantly with frequency. This research explores the relative
> importance of low and high frequency localization cues during free
> field listening. More specifically, it compares the horizontal shift
> of a stereo image caused by spatially relocating low versus high
> frequency bands of the audible spectrum. It is shown that contrary to
> the popular belief that low frequencies are "hard to localize," the
> horizontal position of a stereo image is most significantly affected by
> moving low-to-mid frequencies as opposed to high frequencies. This can
> most likely be attributed to the overall perceptual dominance of low
> frequency interaural phase differences."
> You explain what has it all to do with comparing components by ABX.
> Which components
> Next:
>
>> Have you gone through all these references?
>> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm
>
> A long list of references . None to comparing audio components by ABX.
> No, I did not read them and do not intend to. You must have. Tell us
> what they said and we'll go from there.
>
>> Or these? http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm
>
> Quote from the commercial owner of the web site: "ELLIOTT SOUND
> PRODUCTSMy thanks to all those who have bought (or are planning to buy)
> project PCBs or other products. Without you, The Audio Pages would be
> no more. Your continued support is greatly appreciated"
> There is a long rant there against the sellers of those components that
> this DIY seller does not supply. No component comparison by ABX
> A very instructive audio research quote NYOB. How did you manage to dig
> this out,just like that all by yourself?. That is how PH.Ds are made.
> Congratulations!
>
>> I'll bet you never read this one either: >
>> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
> The only appropriate ABX reference you managed. Of course with a
> negative outcome. See details in my "Summing up" posting today.
>
>> Here's a page with more links: http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
> RE abchr vs ABX
> A discussion of merits of ABChr as against ABX. Nil, Zero, Zilch about
> components.
> Details in my "Summing up" posting. (Not worth wasting your time)
>> As I said, it's harder to find people doing serious audio research that
>> aren't using ABX or some form of DBT protocol.
>
> I've been quite indulgent on you. One has a sort of soft spot for the
> underprivileged. But my patience is wearing thin.
> The subject NYOB is: Is Abx a good tool for differentiating audio
> components? I am an audio consumer? So are the readers of this forum.
> You apparently are into esoteric research. Talk to your peers. They are
> burning to hear from you.
>
> If I wanted to know what students have to write to get a degree in
> psychoacoustics I'd read the appropriate journal..
> I don't need you to dial ABX into Google and post the results.as they
> pop up.
> Now that you've done it it is pretty obvious that you did not
> understand what popped up. Why should we suffer for it?
> 90% of what you copied here has not the slightest relation to audio
> component comparison. One is a commercial. You added three more such
> postings in the "Summing up" thread. Only one of those compares
> components by ABX WITH THE USUAL "IT ALL SOUNDS THE SAME WHEN
> ABXing" results.
> I wasted enough of my time on your nonsense. .You did not really think
> I'd let you bluff your way out . In the future you make a serious
> effort or else I'll just repost this.
> You want to keep sticking your neck out and making yourself a laughing
> stock. Your choice.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Thanks for confirming you didn't read thouroughly.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
>>> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
>>> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
>>> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
>>> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>>> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>>>
>>>>
>> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
>> confidence to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate
>> between amps of good quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to see
>> if the "Golden Ear" can improve his score. If so and if he could reach
>> the 95% confidence level needed for a positive, then there's reason to
>> study this individual in order to find out what is different in the way
>> his hearing works. There could be all kinds of possibilities that such
>> research might apply to, audio equipment being a rather insignificant
>> one.
>>
>
> you don't need a 95% confidence level for a positive.
> Anything over 50% indicates that it is more likely
> than not that the result is not by chance and that one hears a difference.
> Its enough
> to cast your assertion into serious doubt.
> It means that it is more likely than not that you are WRONG.
> That is not good for your side.
>
>
That's not what anybody doing scinetific research will tell you, the
standard is 95% confidence level.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > ink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> > nk.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ups.com...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> I said:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > He will not find any
>> >> >> >> >> >> > there. Neither correct nor false by Brad Meyer's
> criteria,
>> > ABX
>> >> >> > makes
>> >> >> >> >> >> > it all sound the same.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>Sullivan answered:
>> >> >> >> >> >> Except when it doesn't:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You were a liar before I killfiled you, and apparently you
>> >> >> >> >> >> remain
>> >> >> > one.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Back into the killfile you go.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I answered:
>> >> >> >> >> > This is the second time in one week Sullivan
>> >> > responds
>> >> >> > by
>> >> >> >> >> > assuring the reader that he kill-filed me. This is
> Sullivan's
>> >> >> >> >> > convenient way of producing garbage with the option of
> going
>> >> > mute
>> >> >> >> >> > when things get hot.
>> >> >> >> >> > Reluctant as I am to argue again with this true
>> >> > believer-
>> >> >> >> >> > ultimate bore, the opportunity for comic relief is
>> > irresistible.
>> >> >> >> >> > This
>> >> >> >> >> > is the thirteenth time in two years and second time in ten
>> >> >> >> >> > days
>> > (
>> >> >> >> >> > his
>> >> >> >> >> > stalwart ABX companion-in-arms McKelvy preceded him being
>> >> >> >> >> > 12th)
>> >> > that
>> >> >> >> >> > the Sullivan & Co. dig up this ancient website. as their
> only
>> >> >> > evidence
>> >> >> >> >> > that you can distinguish components even when ABXing.
>> >> >> >> >> > So let us see once more (I've done it three
> times
>> >> >> >> >> > before) why it remained a private website and not an
> article-
>> > not
>> >> >> >> >> > acceptable even to a fiercely objectivist rag-mag. like the
>> >> > defunct
>> >> >> >> >> > "Stereo Review"- let alone to a peer reviewed Journal like
>> > JAES.
>> >> >> >> >> > And there was plenty of time for it- their first "research"
>> >> >> >> >> > report
>> >> >> >> >> > dates from 1977 and as far as I know the last one is from
> the
>> >> > early
>> >> >> >> >> > eighties. Poor Sullivan has nothing else to quote though
>> >> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > beggars...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > The first report (the 1977 one) is about
>> > amplifiers.
>> >> >> > They
>> >> >> >> >> > had 1 (repeat one) listener in some of the "tests". In 7
>> >> >> >> >> > out
>> >> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> > 10
>> >> >> >> >> > comparisons they heard "no difference". In three they
>> >> >> >> >> > heard
>> > it.
>> >> >> >> >> > Now listen carefully because you will be
>> > inclined
>> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> > doubt that anyone would set up and then report this kind of
>> >> >> >> >> > "research". One of the three comparisons was between a 400
>> >> >> >> >> > watt
>> >> >> >> >> > stereo Dynaco amp and a pair of Heatkits: one measuring 10
>> > watts
>> >> > and
>> >> >> >> >> > one "just shy of 7 watts" (I'm quoting.)
>> >> >> >> >> > And guess what; the distinguished panel
> heard
>> >> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> > difference. And guess what else; Sullivan- the comedian
>> >> >> >> >> > says
>> >> >> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >> >> > shows
>> >> >> >> >> > ABX works. Same Sullivan tearing his wig daily with
>> > indignation
>> >> > at
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > loose standards of John Atkinson's "Stereophile"
>> >> >> >> >> > Next they compared something called Paoli
> 60M
>> >> >> >> >> > (no
>> >> >> >> >> > data given) still against 400 watt Dynaco. This too showed
>> >> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> > difference.
>> >> >> >> >> > The third "positive" result was a
> comparison
>> > of
>> >> >> >> >> > ARC 120 with CMLabs amp. They heard a difference. But...
> they
>> >> > offer
>> >> >> >> >> > that the AR amp. needed repair. There was unstability with
>> >> > *audible*
>> >> >> >> >> > clipping.
>> >> >> >> >> > The other 7 comparisons produced "no
>> >> >> >> >> > difference"
>> >> >> >> >> > outcome. Most of the amps are defunct. I wonder if Sullivan
>> > will
>> >> > say
>> >> >> >> >> > that already then the design of all the amplifiers was so
>> > perfect
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> >> > no differences would be heard- whoever produced them.
>> >> >> >> >> > I'll quote just a few more "positive"
>> >> >> >> >> > results.
>> >> >> >> >> > When they compared the very first cdplayer a 14 bit Philips
>> >> >> >> >> > 100
>> >> >> >> >> > (I
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> >> >> > one in the loft in case a museum ever wants it) against
>> >> >> >> >> > Sony
>> > CDP
>> >> >> >> >> > they
>> >> >> >> >> > heard the difference. Cartridges: The famous Shure V15
>> > against
>> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> > cheap Shure M70- positive. But Shure V15 vs. AKG -sounds
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> > same
>> >> >> >> >> > (One (1) listener report-in all seriousness).
>> >> >> >> >> > Speakers: a proud Yamaha product 5411 vs AR5 (top of the
> line
>> > at
>> >> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> >> > time)- yes, they heard a difference.
>> >> >> >> >> > ?
>> >> >> >> >> > This fervent repeater of silly dogmas dares
> to
>> >> > call
>> >> >> > me
>> >> >> >> >> > a liar because he counts on people not bothering to check
> his
>> >> >> >> >> > "evidence" and warns in advance that he will fall silent if
>> >> >> >> >> > anyone
>> >> >> >> >> > does.
>> >> >> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > NYOB rushes to help out:
>> >> >> >> >> I think the reason he calls you a liar, is because you are a
>> > liar.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Dear NYOB, Sullivan & Co. I will not reciprocate and call you
>> > liars.
>> >> > A
>> >> >> >> > good lie requires a little imagination and can be
>> >> >> >> > entertaining,
>> >> >> >> > The problem with you NYOB, Sullivan and such like is that you
> are
>> >> >> >> > deadly bores. Just like other fanatics in religion, politics
> etc.
>> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> > like schoolyard kids in the yard during the break, when short
> of
>> > an
>> >> >> >> > answer ad personam insults are your ultimate weapon.
> Fortunately
>> >> >> >> > you're unable to challenge me to fisticuffs or send me to a
>> >> >> >> > gulag.
>> >> >> >> > Tell the truth; you'd love to wouldn't you?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why, you've already demostrated that you refuse to acknowledge
> the
>> >> > truth.
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> doubt that a good beating would suddently make you stop lying.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > You think I'm exaggerating? Your spiritual guide Nr.2 Sullivan
>> > took
>> >> >> >> > the trouble to search the U.S. physicians' Register hoping to
>> > prove
>> >> >> >> > that I impersonated an M.D. degree. I never practiced in U.S.
> but
>> >> >> >> > thought it amusing to lead him on. Just imagine that he had
>> >> >> >> > executive
>> >> >> >> > powers over me!!!
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I won't bother further with you NYOB- you're too insubstantial
>> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> > others are dealing adequately with your impersonation of a
>> >> >> >> > real
>> >> > living,
>> >> >> >> > thinking being.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thank you for admitting that you can't admit you are wrong so
>> >> >> >> you
>> > must
>> >> >> >> demean the messenger.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Let's pursue the case Sullivan: He campaigned for years
>> >> >> >> > against
>> > John
>> >> >> >> > Atkinson's Stereophile for not using his prayer format: the
> ABX.
>> >> >> >> > What
>> >> >> >> > he forgets is that adding the results of pseudo-scientific
>> >> >> >> > test
>> >> > ending
>> >> >> >> > invariably in " It all sounds the same"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> See, you still continue to lie.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> would make the already
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> SNIP of irrelevant crap.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Ludo, the fact still remains that there have been ABX
>> >> >> >> comparisons
>> > done
>> >> >> > where
>> >> >> >> people were able to reliably tell the difference between the
> DUT's.
>> >> > When
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> >> stop denying this, people will stop calling you a liar, at least
>> > about
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> subject.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Yes, there were, in cases where amplifiers were hopelessly
>> >> >> > mismatched
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > power and technology.
>> >> >> > But the evil ABXers, with their desire to destroy a harmless
>> >> >> > hobby
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > order
>> >> >> > to suit their warped souls, try to make this meaningful. It is
> not.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Of course it's meaningful, it shows that ABX does NOT make it all
>> >> >> sound
>> >> > the
>> >> >> same.
>> >> >> It demonstrates that when the sound is sufficiently different, an
> ABX
>> >> >> comparison reveals it to be so.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I'm sure it does, Mikey. It also misses alot, as well.
>> >>
>> >> And your evidence of this is what?
>> >>
>> >> > Somehow, it has convinced you, Arny, and a few others of the hoi
> poloi
>> >> > that
>> >> > a very second rate amplifier, such as a QSC, which is made for sound
>> >> > reinforcement work, is the equal of the best there is.
>> >>
>> >> The best there is is something that reproduces the input as an
> inaudibley
>> >> different output. A trivially easy task.
>> >>
>> >> You do not seem to
>> >> > understand that there are some people who can tell the difference in
> a
>> >> > heartbeat.
>> >>
>> >> I understand there are people who believe this, so far I don't know of
>> >> anyone who has proven to have this ability. The only way they ould
>> >> demoisntrate it would be to compare their sighted listening to a DBT.
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't matter whether I can see it or not.
>> >>
>> >> Bul****.
>> >>
>> >> Some amplifiers
>> >> > sound so bad to me they drive me out of the room.
>> >>
>> >> SET's?
>> >>
>> >> Among these: QSC, Sunfire,
>> >> > and early Aragons.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> A statement that you can't prove and won't becuase you know you're
>> >> full
>> >> of
>> >> ****.
>> >>
>> >> > Have you ever heard of the expression, "You can't **** on my back
>> >> > and
>> > call
>> >> > it rain?" This is what you're doing.
>> >>
>> >> No, I'm just telling you a scientific fact, sighted listening is
>> > inherently
>> >> flawed, unless the differences are gross.
>> >>
>> >> You're acting like a colorblind person
>> >> > in a world of colors. There are other people who can hear things
>> >> > that
>> > you
>> >> > cannot; that Arny cannot, and that Steve Zipser could not. But no;
>> >> > in
>> > your
>> >> > stupid rant, you have to cut everyone down to your own low level.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> Then it should be a simple matter to demosnstrate this abiltiy by
>> >> doing
> a
>> >> comparison of sighted bs. blind listening. I predict you won't ever
>> >> do
>> > it,
>> >> because you know you're full of ****.
>> >>
>> > Impossible, given that, according to Stereophile, Arny's ABX device
>> > uses
>> > undersized relays.
>> >
>> >> > You are a stupid guy, Mikey, and your ears are no better than your
>> > brain.
>> >> >
>> >> I'm smart enough to know you're full of ****.
>> >> I'm smart enough to know that people who claim to be able to hear
>> >> differences sighted aren't able to so blind.
>> >>
>> > Let's analyze this. We have a dumb guy who asserts he is smart enough
>> > to
>> > know certain things. But dumb people are dumb because they make
> mistakes.
>>
>> Thanks for admitting you are a dumb guy.
>>
>> > Otherwise, they wouldn't be dumb. Ergo, Mikey is not smart enough to
> know
>> > the things he mistakenly thinks he knows.
>> >
>> A valid syllogism is not the same as a fact.
>>
> That's correct. We must instantiate "dumb guy" to "Mikey".
> The syllogism then becomes a derivation of fact: "Mikey is not smart
> enough
> to know the things he mistakenly thinks he knows."
>
Cahnge to trhe Drexel loser and then you've got something.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>>>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of DBT?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>
>>
>> ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>
>> THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that it's
> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically neutral.
>

now you are really being stupid.
You let other people do your DBT listening tests for you.
Good one, let strangers decide for you.
You are saying that since it is 'known' that everything sounds
the same, no need for you to listen at all before buying.
Matter of fact, 'knowing' this, there is no reason for the manufacurers
or anyone else to do DBT either. Since there haven't been any differences
for
25 years already, no need for anybody to waste their time with this.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
news:4HL0f.10380$
>>
> Convince the companies that depend on it then. Your propagand is simply
> that, the whole rest of the world doing audio research is wrong and the
> King oif the Drexel losers is correct, cool.
>

They ARE wrong, all modern amps sounds perfect, its been that way for 25
years, and no
more improvements are possible. We all 'know' that Mikey.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 03:04:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 16:46:38 +1000,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Nothing could be dumber than Robert Morein accusing strangers he
>>> >doesn't like of being Brian Maccarty.
>>>
>>> If it was Brian he'd be able to spell his own name, wouldn't he?
>>
>>A couple of years ago, one of Brian's hobbys used to be signing me up for
>>mortgage loan applications on the web. The apps go to cold-call
>>operations,
>>so you get a call. I guess that because Brian doesn't like to receive
>>phone
>>calls, he thought this would be a terrible nusiance. But he had one
>>problem:
>>How could I be made to understand it was his retribution? He solved this
>>by
>>filling out some of the apps with my name and phone number, but with a
>>misspelling of his name, as in, "MacCarthy", McCarthy", etc. This was
>>particularly noticeable when I received a solicitation in the form of a
>>letter. So my opinion is that Brian is just marginally sophisticated
>>enough
>>to munge his own name.
>>
>>
>
> what a crock of ****, from someone who posts anonymously..
> When were the charges of identity fraud made?
> answer never...because an anonymous joker from a non existant address
> posted a load of crap on the internet....
>
>


Bose really sucks, doesn't it?

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
>>>> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
>>>> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
>>>> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
>>>> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>>>> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
>>> confidence to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate
>>> between amps of good quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to see
>>> if the "Golden Ear" can improve his score. If so and if he could reach
>>> the 95% confidence level needed for a positive, then there's reason to
>>> study this individual in order to find out what is different in the way
>>> his hearing works. There could be all kinds of possibilities that such
>>> research might apply to, audio equipment being a rather insignificant
>>> one.
>>>
>>
>> you don't need a 95% confidence level for a positive.
>> Anything over 50% indicates that it is more likely
>> than not that the result is not by chance and that one hears a
>> difference. Its enough
>> to cast your assertion into serious doubt.
>> It means that it is more likely than not that you are WRONG.
>> That is not good for your side.
>>
>>
> That's not what anybody doing scinetific research will tell you, the
> standard is 95% confidence level.
>

But we are not talking about scientific research.
The FACT is, if the confidence level for an individuals's result is, say,
60%, it is more likely than not that the
result is not from chance.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
>> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
>> inadequate relays. IME, this can easily mask subtle
>> differences between amplifiers. Even if it was not
>> constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
>> from criticism.

Poor, dear delusional Robert.

> Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my
> preamp (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell
> don't add or subtract anything in the signal.

In fact the line-level relays in the ABX RM-2 relay box had
ruthenium-plated contacts in vacuum-sealed glass capsules.
We special ordered them. At the time we were told that the
previous order had been made by a highly-repected builder of
recording studio consoles.

Omron was a supplier that was investigated at the time, but
while they had some very good stuff, they had nothing that
was really comparable.

The contact selection was made in consulation with a Bell
Labs PhD who had over 20 years experience in the field of
relay design and use. Needless to say the Bell system had
just a few relays at the time! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > said:
>>
>>> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
>>> inadequate relays. IME, this can easily mask subtle
>>> differences between amplifiers. Even if it was not
>>> constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
>>> from criticism.
>>
>>
>> Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in
>> my preamp (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as
>> hell don't add or subtract anything in the signal.
>>
>> Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another
>> matter :-)
>>
> The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a
> Stereophile article that predated the current acrimony.

I don't believe that Stereophile ever saw anything but a
very early prototype relay module that in no way compared
with the RM-2 production model.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Robert Morein" > said:
>>>
>>>> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed
>>>> with inadequate relays. IME, this can easily mask
>>>> subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if it was
>>>> not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it
>>>> immune from criticism.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in
>>> my preamp (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as
>>> hell don't add or subtract anything in the signal.
>>>
>>> Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another
>>> matter :-)
>>>
>> The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a
>> Stereophile article that predated the current acrimony.
>>
>> I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B
>> relays with plated palladium/oxide contacts.
>
> Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however
> it's conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high
> current (>5 A) apps.

> http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf

The ABX RM-2 relay module had separate relays and contacts
for speaker-level and line-level switching.

>> I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile
>> comment remains, specifically challenging the power
>> handling capacity.

AFAIK the RM-2 did not even exist as a prototype at the time
their ABX article was published.

> You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating
> power, you f'd up.

Right, particuarly the line-level relays.

> Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they
> sure might care if your delivering 1V and 10A.

We optimized the relays for the signals they handled.

The line-level relays could handle balanced lines. There was
a sophisticated timing circuit that elminated audible
switching transients, even when comparing integrated amps
with phono inputs.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:G_j0f.83$jw6.79@lakeread02

> I can't wait to see what comes under suspicion next.


http://www.matrixhifi.com/marco_directazul.htm

[Harry Lavo]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
>>>> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
>>>> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
>>>> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
>>>> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>>>> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
>>> confidence to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate
>>> between amps of good quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to see
>>> if the "Golden Ear" can improve his score. If so and if he could reach
>>> the 95% confidence level needed for a positive, then there's reason to
>>> study this individual in order to find out what is different in the way
>>> his hearing works. There could be all kinds of possibilities that such
>>> research might apply to, audio equipment being a rather insignificant
>>> one.
>>>
>>
>> you don't need a 95% confidence level for a positive.
>> Anything over 50% indicates that it is more likely
>> than not that the result is not by chance and that one hears a
>> difference. Its enough
>> to cast your assertion into serious doubt.
>> It means that it is more likely than not that you are WRONG.
>> That is not good for your side.
>>
>>
> That's not what anybody doing scinetific research will tell you, the
> standard is 95% confidence level.

Sure, that's because 20:1 odds pretty surely means that your results will
not be overturned in subsequent tests. But a betting man may take much
lower odds: 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 on up to 10:1 or so.

[[email protected]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>> "Robert Morein" > said:
>>
>>> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
>>> inadequate relays. IME, this can easily mask subtle
>>> differences between amplifiers. Even if it was not
>>> constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
>>> from criticism.
>
> Poor, dear delusional Robert.
>
>> Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my
>> preamp (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell
>> don't add or subtract anything in the signal.
>
> In fact the line-level relays in the ABX RM-2 relay box had
> ruthenium-plated contacts in vacuum-sealed glass capsules. We special
> ordered them. At the time we were told that the previous order had been
> made by a highly-repected builder of recording studio consoles.
>
> Omron was a supplier that was investigated at the time, but while they had
> some very good stuff, they had nothing that was really comparable.
>
> The contact selection was made in consulation with a Bell Labs PhD who had
> over 20 years experience in the field of relay design and use. Needless to
> say the Bell system had just a few relays at the time! ;-)
>
>
You mean Morein AND Stereophile got it wron, again?
I'm underwhelmed with surprise.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> "Robert Morein" > said:
> >>>
> >>>> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed
> >>>> with inadequate relays. IME, this can easily mask
> >>>> subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if it was
> >>>> not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it
> >>>> immune from criticism.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in
> >>> my preamp (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as
> >>> hell don't add or subtract anything in the signal.
> >>>
> >>> Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another
> >>> matter :-)
> >>>
> >> The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a
> >> Stereophile article that predated the current acrimony.
> >>
> >> I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B
> >> relays with plated palladium/oxide contacts.
> >
> > Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however
> > it's conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high
> > current (>5 A) apps.
>
> > http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
>
> The ABX RM-2 relay module had separate relays and contacts
> for speaker-level and line-level switching.
>
> >> I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile
> >> comment remains, specifically challenging the power
> >> handling capacity.
>
> AFAIK the RM-2 did not even exist as a prototype at the time
> their ABX article was published.
>
> > You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating
> > power, you f'd up.
>
> Right, particuarly the line-level relays.
>
> > Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they
> > sure might care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
>
> We optimized the relays for the signals they handled.
>
Stereophile does not agree with you.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
> > "Robert Morein" > said:
> >
> >> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
> >> inadequate relays. IME, this can easily mask subtle
> >> differences between amplifiers. Even if it was not
> >> constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
> >> from criticism.
>
> Poor, dear delusional Robert.
>
> > Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in my
> > preamp (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as hell
> > don't add or subtract anything in the signal.
>
> In fact the line-level relays in the ABX RM-2 relay box had
> ruthenium-plated contacts in vacuum-sealed glass capsules.
> We special ordered them. At the time we were told that the
> previous order had been made by a highly-repected builder of
> recording studio consoles.
>
Bad choice. Here are some conductivities for metals in units of ohm-meters:


pure silver: 1.591E-08

gold: 2.463E-08

ruthenium: 4.310E-7

I'm sure we all appreciate the quality of Bell carbon button microphones,
but the Bell System had nothing to do with high fidelity.

The transparency of a contact set at low power levels is a separate issue
from transparency at high power levels. The failure to separate the two is
proof that Arny Krueger is a BAD SCIENTIST.

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
>. The failure to separate the two is
> proof that Arny Krueger is a BAD SCIENTIST.
>
>

Did he poop on the rug again?

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >. The failure to separate the two is
> > proof that Arny Krueger is a BAD SCIENTIST.
> >
> >
>
> Did he poop on the rug again?
>
Worse than that. Ruthenium has 27.6 times the resistance of silver, and 17.5
times the resistance of gold. I cannot believe that Arny is so stupid. This
looks like a willful, deliberate design intended to sabotage high end audio.
Arny looks more and more like Brian McCarty, with a hidden, twisted agenda
motivated by retribution. Against what? We can only speculate as to what
twists Arny's life may have taken in the past, to cause this sickness.

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...


> We can only speculate as to what
> twists Arny's life may have taken in the past, to cause this sickness.
>
>

Been there, done that!!!
'
LoTs!!!!

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
>
>
> > We can only speculate as to what
> > twists Arny's life may have taken in the past, to cause this sickness.
> >
> >
>
> Been there, done that!!!
> '
> LoTs!!!!
>
Inspite of your joking tone, I sense you share my concern about these
sinister new developments.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > My discussion with NYOB:
> >
[snip]> > You want to keep sticking your neck out and making yourself a
laughing
> > stock. Your choice.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> Thanks for confirming you didn't read thouroughly.
>
Mikey, you're a plagiarist. Do you realize it is offensive?

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > nk.net...
> >> >>
> >> > [snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said, it's harder to find people doing serious audio research
> >> >> that
> >> >> aren't using ABX or some form of DBT protocol.
> >> >>
> >> > That's already been explained to you, Mikey Mckelviphibian. Once
again,
> >> > they
> >> > have no choice. Most of the work of the AES these days concerns codec
> >> > quality and distinguishability.
> >>
> >> Most, but not all and consumer audio is not the only place where DBT's
> >> are
> >> used.
> >> You still have yet to prove that the box causes any masking or audible
> >> problems at all.
> >>
> > Since the ABXers proclaim that they have the solution that contradicts
the
> > shared experience of thousands of people, the burden is on them.
>
> The burden has been met and we won a long time ago, that's why ABX is used
> in so much audio research.
>
>
> > ABX is a prison for the mind. Small ones like yours fit quite nicely.
> >
> Convince the companies that depend on it then. Your propagand is simply
> that, the whole rest of the world doing audio research is wrong and the
King
> oif the Drexel losers is correct, cool.
>
Mikey, you do have trouble writing your own lies. You are a plagiarist. As a
substitute for your inability to compose your thoughts, you steal the posts
of others. Shame on you.
I'm glad to see that you're trotting out the Drexel business. It shows
you're absolutely desperate for traction. Mikey, you're welcome to shut your
eyes and eat a meal out of a garbage can.
If someone hands you a glass of **** and a glass of water, do you feel that
you must test them blind to tell the difference?
If you have an opportunity to eat **** on a bun, do you feel insecure to
tell the difference from hamburger?
These are the sensations I get when I listen to QSC amplifiers. They are
awful. But perhaps you are one of those unfortunates who really cannot tell
the difference between rain on your back, and ****.

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>>
>>
>> > We can only speculate as to what
>> > twists Arny's life may have taken in the past, to cause this sickness.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Been there, done that!!!
>> '
>> LoTs!!!!
>>
> Inspite of your joking tone, I sense you share my concern about these
> sinister new developments.
>
I would like nothing better to see him cured of his
mental illness and his life turned around in a positive direction.

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >. The failure to separate the two is
> > > proof that Arny Krueger is a BAD SCIENTIST.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Did he poop on the rug again?
> >
> Worse than that. Ruthenium has 27.6 times the resistance of silver, and 17.5
> times the resistance of gold. I cannot believe that Arny is so stupid. This
> looks like a willful, deliberate design intended to sabotage high end audio.
> Arny looks more and more like Brian McCarty, with a hidden, twisted agenda
> motivated by retribution. Against what? We can only speculate as to what
> twists Arny's life may have taken in the past, to cause this sickness.

Morein... you are the biggest idiot on the planet. Somebody who
almost knows enough to get in trouble... but not quite.

Bulk resistivity of the contact material has little to nothing to do
with contact resistance. Plating contact thicknesses are probably on
the order of 50 to 150 microns. I'll let you figure the bulk
resistance over a typical contact area and then try to figure out why
relay contact resistance specs don't come within orders of magnitude of
these numbers.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >. The failure to separate the two is
> > > > proof that Arny Krueger is a BAD SCIENTIST.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Did he poop on the rug again?
> > >
> > Worse than that. Ruthenium has 27.6 times the resistance of silver, and
17.5
> > times the resistance of gold. I cannot believe that Arny is so stupid.
This
> > looks like a willful, deliberate design intended to sabotage high end
audio.
> > Arny looks more and more like Brian McCarty, with a hidden, twisted
agenda
> > motivated by retribution. Against what? We can only speculate as to what
> > twists Arny's life may have taken in the past, to cause this sickness.
>
> Morein... you are the biggest idiot on the planet. Somebody who
> almost knows enough to get in trouble... but not quite.
>
> Bulk resistivity of the contact material has little to nothing to do
> with contact resistance. Plating contact thicknesses are probably on

Probably, Scott? You have no business interjecting with your guesses. Until
you can stop guessing, shut up.

> the order of 50 to 150 microns. I'll let you figure the bulk
> resistance over a typical contact area and then try to figure out why
> relay contact resistance specs don't come within orders of magnitude of
> these numbers.
>
> ScottW
>
Scott, if your point were valid, silver relays would not be the universal
choice for amplifier output interruptors.
The contact area on a relay is very small, far smaller than the size of the
contact.

[Robert Morein]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> " > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >>>
> >>> > wrote in message
> >>> oups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
> >>>> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
> >>>> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
> >>>> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists
a
> >>>> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
> >>>> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
> >>> confidence to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate
> >>> between amps of good quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to
see
> >>> if the "Golden Ear" can improve his score. If so and if he could
reach
> >>> the 95% confidence level needed for a positive, then there's reason to
> >>> study this individual in order to find out what is different in the
way
> >>> his hearing works. There could be all kinds of possibilities that
such
> >>> research might apply to, audio equipment being a rather insignificant
> >>> one.
> >>>
> >>
> >> you don't need a 95% confidence level for a positive.
> >> Anything over 50% indicates that it is more likely
> >> than not that the result is not by chance and that one hears a
> >> difference. Its enough
> >> to cast your assertion into serious doubt.
> >> It means that it is more likely than not that you are WRONG.
> >> That is not good for your side.
> >>
> >>
> > That's not what anybody doing scinetific research will tell you, the
> > standard is 95% confidence level.
>
> Sure, that's because 20:1 odds pretty surely means that your results will
> not be overturned in subsequent tests. But a betting man may take much
> lower odds: 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 on up to 10:1 or so.
>
Mikey's talking about "scinetific" research. Very little of that is done.
It's a fake form of scientific research.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 03:04:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 16:46:38 +1000,
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >Nothing could be dumber than Robert Morein accusing strangers he
> >>> >doesn't like of being Brian Maccarty.
> >>>
> >>> If it was Brian he'd be able to spell his own name, wouldn't he?
> >>
> >>A couple of years ago, one of Brian's hobbys used to be signing me up
for
> >>mortgage loan applications on the web. The apps go to cold-call
> >>operations,
> >>so you get a call. I guess that because Brian doesn't like to receive
> >>phone
> >>calls, he thought this would be a terrible nusiance. But he had one
> >>problem:
> >>How could I be made to understand it was his retribution? He solved this
> >>by
> >>filling out some of the apps with my name and phone number, but with a
> >>misspelling of his name, as in, "MacCarthy", McCarthy", etc. This was
> >>particularly noticeable when I received a solicitation in the form of a
> >>letter. So my opinion is that Brian is just marginally sophisticated
> >>enough
> >>to munge his own name.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > what a crock of ****, from someone who posts anonymously..
> > When were the charges of identity fraud made?
> > answer never...because an anonymous joker from a non existant address
> > posted a load of crap on the internet....
> >
> >
>
>
> Bose really sucks, doesn't it?
>
Bose does suck bigtime. It's the only satisfaction Bwinie gets :)

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> " > wrote in message
> >>> ink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
> >>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
DBT?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> How about 20 million consumers.
> >> Which ones are doing serious research?
> >
> >
> > ZAP!!! Got you!!!
> >
> > THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that it's
> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically neutral.
>
I agree, Mikey, that you are an exceedingly repetitious amphibian. But as
you don't hear very well, everything is like a flat soda to you.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> > We can only speculate as to what
> >> > twists Arny's life may have taken in the past, to cause this
sickness.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Been there, done that!!!
> >> '
> >> LoTs!!!!
> >>
> > Inspite of your joking tone, I sense you share my concern about these
> > sinister new developments.
> >
> I would like nothing better to see him cured of his
> mental illness and his life turned around in a positive direction.
>
What can we do to help him? Buy him some decent relays? Or send Mikey over
for a visit?

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
[snip]
> >
Mikey, what is your educational level? Did you major in drywall?

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>>>>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
>>>>>> DBT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>>> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>>
>>>
>>> ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>>
>>> THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that it's
>> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically neutral.
>>
>
> now you are really being stupid.
> You let other people do your DBT listening tests for you.
> Good one, let strangers decide for you.
> You are saying that since it is 'known' that everything sounds
> the same, no need for you to listen at all before buying.

Why would anyone consider buying something that wouldn't sound accurate?
If you can't tell by now who makes stuff in that category, it is you who are
the stupid one.

> Matter of fact, 'knowing' this, there is no reason for the manufacurers
> or anyone else to do DBT either.

There is if they change a circuit design.

Since there haven't been any differences
> for
> 25 years already, no need for anybody to waste their time with this.
That doesn't excuse the people who keep claiming things have drastic
differences.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> news:4HL0f.10380$
>>>
>> Convince the companies that depend on it then. Your propagand is simply
>> that, the whole rest of the world doing audio research is wrong and the
>> King oif the Drexel losers is correct, cool.
>>
>
> They ARE wrong, all modern amps sounds perfect, its been that way for 25
> years, and no
> more improvements are possible. We all 'know' that Mikey.
Not sonically, but manufacturers make design changes to try and use fewer or
less expensive parts. They then use ABX to see if they degraded the sound.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
>>>>> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
>>>>> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
>>>>> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists a
>>>>> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>>>>> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
>>>> confidence to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate
>>>> between amps of good quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to
>>>> see if the "Golden Ear" can improve his score. If so and if he could
>>>> reach the 95% confidence level needed for a positive, then there's
>>>> reason to study this individual in order to find out what is different
>>>> in the way his hearing works. There could be all kinds of
>>>> possibilities that such research might apply to, audio equipment being
>>>> a rather insignificant one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you don't need a 95% confidence level for a positive.
>>> Anything over 50% indicates that it is more likely
>>> than not that the result is not by chance and that one hears a
>>> difference. Its enough
>>> to cast your assertion into serious doubt.
>>> It means that it is more likely than not that you are WRONG.
>>> That is not good for your side.
>>>
>>>
>> That's not what anybody doing scinetific research will tell you, the
>> standard is 95% confidence level.
>>
>
> But we are not talking about scientific research.
> The FACT is, if the confidence level for an individuals's result is, say,
> 60%, it is more likely than not that the
> result is not from chance.
Wrong again, just because you aren't doing research doesn't change the
statisitcs involved.

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > We can only speculate as to what
>> >> > twists Arny's life may have taken in the past, to cause this
> sickness.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Been there, done that!!!
>> >> '
>> >> LoTs!!!!
>> >>
>> > Inspite of your joking tone, I sense you share my concern about these
>> > sinister new developments.
>> >
>> I would like nothing better to see him cured of his
>> mental illness and his life turned around in a positive direction.
>>
> What can we do to help him? Buy him some decent relays? Or send Mikey
> over
> for a visit?
>

We can't do anything for him. He needs a spiritual awakening from within.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> I would like nothing better to see [Krooger] cured of his
> mental illness and his life turned around in a positive direction.

Yes, that would be very nice. Would you like to make a bet? I'll give you
50-1 against on $1000.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:59:49 GMT, "
> wrote:


>>
>> The contact selection was made in consulation with a Bell Labs PhD who had
>> over 20 years experience in the field of relay design and use. Needless to
>> say the Bell system had just a few relays at the time! ;-)
>>
>>
>You mean Morein AND Stereophile got it wron, again?

Yep, they got it wron. :-)

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
[snip]
> >
> No, calling sighted listening relaible or even worthwhile when listening
for
> subtle differences, is worthless and anybody who soys

Soybeans.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:46:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:


>> I'd be interested to know what process of deduction you used to arrive
>> at that last conclusion, Robert. It could be important for all
>> mankind. :-)
>
>Bile, Paul. Even the pure of heart have bile.

I usually take Quick Eze for that. :-)

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> " > wrote in message
> >>> ink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> " > wrote in message
> >>>>> ink.net...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
> >>>>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
> >>>>>> DBT?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How about 20 million consumers.
> >>>> Which ones are doing serious research?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ZAP!!! Got you!!!
> >>>
> >>> THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
> >> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
> >> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that
it's
> >> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically
neutral.
> >>
> >
> > now you are really being stupid.
> > You let other people do your DBT listening tests for you.
> > Good one, let strangers decide for you.
> > You are saying that since it is 'known' that everything sounds
> > the same, no need for you to listen at all before buying.
>
> Why would anyone consider buying something that wouldn't sound accurate?
> If you can't tell by now who makes stuff in that category, it is you who
are
> the stupid one.
>
> > Matter of fact, 'knowing' this, there is no reason for the manufacurers
> > or anyone else to do DBT either.
>
> There is if they change a circuit design.
>
> Since there haven't been any differences
> > for
> > 25 years already, no need for anybody to waste their time with this.
> That doesn't excuse the people who keep claiming things have drastic
> differences.
>
Of course not, Mikey. But permit me to refresh your primitive understanding
of morality with, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Whatever the bias of
sighted testing, it does not justify the flawed charlatan you worship. Nor
does it excuse the obvious problems with ABX methodology. The only benefit
I can see to you, a drywall "technician", is that it allows you to delude
yourself into thinking that your crappy QSC amp is as good as stuff you
can't afford.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > news:4HL0f.10380$
> >>>
> >> Convince the companies that depend on it then. Your propagand is
simply
> >> that, the whole rest of the world doing audio research is wrong and the
> >> King oif the Drexel losers is correct, cool.
> >>
> >
> > They ARE wrong, all modern amps sounds perfect, its been that way for 25
> > years, and no
> > more improvements are possible. We all 'know' that Mikey.
> Not sonically, but manufacturers make design changes to try and use fewer
or
> less expensive parts. They then use ABX to see if they degraded the
sound.
>
Yes, Mikey, that is how Harmon Kardon serves the great unwashed masses, of
which you are a member.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> " > wrote in message
> >>> ink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> oups.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
> >>>>> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
> >>>>> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
> >>>>> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists
a
> >>>>> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
> >>>>> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
> >>>> confidence to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate
> >>>> between amps of good quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to
> >>>> see if the "Golden Ear" can improve his score. If so and if he could
> >>>> reach the 95% confidence level needed for a positive, then there's
> >>>> reason to study this individual in order to find out what is
different
> >>>> in the way his hearing works. There could be all kinds of
> >>>> possibilities that such research might apply to, audio equipment
being
> >>>> a rather insignificant one.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> you don't need a 95% confidence level for a positive.
> >>> Anything over 50% indicates that it is more likely
> >>> than not that the result is not by chance and that one hears a
> >>> difference. Its enough
> >>> to cast your assertion into serious doubt.
> >>> It means that it is more likely than not that you are WRONG.
> >>> That is not good for your side.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> That's not what anybody doing scinetific research will tell you, the
> >> standard is 95% confidence level.
> >>
> >
> > But we are not talking about scientific research.
> > The FACT is, if the confidence level for an individuals's result is,
say,
> > 60%, it is more likely than not that the
> > result is not from chance.
> Wrong again, just because you aren't doing research doesn't change the
> statisitcs involved.
>
I believe Mikey is unaware that the confidence level depends upon the number
of trials. Any gambling system that gives the bettor 51% over the house is
undoubtedly real.
If a listener consistently, over a large number of trials, achieves 60%
recognition, statistics recognizes the result as above chance.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:21:40 +1000, wrote:


>>A couple of years ago, one of Brian's hobbys used to be signing me up for
>>mortgage loan applications on the web. The apps go to cold-call operations,
>>so you get a call. I guess that because Brian doesn't like to receive phone
>>calls, he thought this would be a terrible nusiance. But he had one problem:
>>How could I be made to understand it was his retribution? He solved this by
>>filling out some of the apps with my name and phone number, but with a
>>misspelling of his name, as in, "MacCarthy", McCarthy", etc. This was
>>particularly noticeable when I received a solicitation in the form of a
>>letter. So my opinion is that Brian is just marginally sophisticated enough
>>to munge his own name.
>>
>>
>
>what a crock of ****, from someone who posts anonymously..

Eh?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>> " > wrote in message
>> >>> ink.net...
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>> >>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
> DBT?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> How about 20 million consumers.
>> >> Which ones are doing serious research?
>> >
>> >
>> > ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>> >
>> > THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that it's
>> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically neutral.
>>
> I agree, Mikey, that you are an exceedingly repetitious amphibian. But as
> you don't hear very well, everything is like a flat soda to you.
>
So you're back to jr. high school insults again.

Stick a fork in you, your done.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>>>>>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
>>>>>>> DBT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>>>> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>>>
>>>> THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that it's
>>> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically neutral.
>>>
>>
>> now you are really being stupid.
>> You let other people do your DBT listening tests for you.
>> Good one, let strangers decide for you.
>> You are saying that since it is 'known' that everything sounds
>> the same, no need for you to listen at all before buying.
>
> Why would anyone consider buying something that wouldn't sound accurate?
> If you can't tell by now who makes stuff in that category, it is you who
> are the stupid one.
>
>> Matter of fact, 'knowing' this, there is no reason for the manufacurers
>> or anyone else to do DBT either.
>
> There is if they change a circuit design.
>
> Since there haven't been any differences
>> for
>> 25 years already, no need for anybody to waste their time with this.
> That doesn't excuse the people who keep claiming things have drastic
> differences.

Since there are no differences, there is no reason for researchers and/or
manufacturers to look for them. Obviously, since a $200 ss MOSFET amp sounds
the same as a
$20,000 ss Mosfet amp, they are wasting there time with DBT's. All those
different parts and circuit boards between the two amps just don't sonically
matter.
How can they be looking for something that, according to your wisdom, just
does not exist.
They really must be stupid, Mikey.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> news:4HL0f.10380$
>>>>
>>> Convince the companies that depend on it then. Your propagand is simply
>>> that, the whole rest of the world doing audio research is wrong and the
>>> King oif the Drexel losers is correct, cool.
>>>
>>
>> They ARE wrong, all modern amps sounds perfect, its been that way for 25
>> years, and no
>> more improvements are possible. We all 'know' that Mikey.
> Not sonically, but manufacturers make design changes to try and use fewer
> or less expensive parts. They then use ABX to see if they degraded the
> sound.


Well, you have repeatedly stated that DBT's "DON'T" test for preference,
they just test for differences.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > My discussion with NYOB:
>> >
> [snip]> > You want to keep sticking your neck out and making yourself a
> laughing
>> > stock. Your choice.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> Thanks for confirming you didn't read thouroughly.
>>
> Mikey, you're a plagiarist. Do you realize it is offensive?
>
Almost as bad as your redundancy.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
>>>>>> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
>>>>>> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
>>>>>> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his panelists
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>>>>>> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
>>>>> confidence to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate
>>>>> between amps of good quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to
>>>>> see if the "Golden Ear" can improve his score. If so and if he could
>>>>> reach the 95% confidence level needed for a positive, then there's
>>>>> reason to study this individual in order to find out what is different
>>>>> in the way his hearing works. There could be all kinds of
>>>>> possibilities that such research might apply to, audio equipment being
>>>>> a rather insignificant one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you don't need a 95% confidence level for a positive.
>>>> Anything over 50% indicates that it is more likely
>>>> than not that the result is not by chance and that one hears a
>>>> difference. Its enough
>>>> to cast your assertion into serious doubt.
>>>> It means that it is more likely than not that you are WRONG.
>>>> That is not good for your side.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's not what anybody doing scinetific research will tell you, the
>>> standard is 95% confidence level.
>>>
>>
>> But we are not talking about scientific research.
>> The FACT is, if the confidence level for an individuals's result is, say,
>> 60%, it is more likely than not that the
>> result is not from chance.
> Wrong again, just because you aren't doing research doesn't change the
> statisitcs involved.

It ABSOLUTELY does. Waht a 60% confidence level means
is that the chances are 60% the differences were not by chance,
therefore, it is more likely than not that the differenes were ,as you like
to put it, 'real'. For a condumer, tha's pretty damn strong. Most consumers
ouwld opt for a product that is 80% likely to be superor to a competitive
product.
>

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> I would like nothing better to see [Krooger] cured of his
>> mental illness and his life turned around in a positive direction.
>
> Yes, that would be very nice. Would you like to make a bet? I'll give you
> 50-1 against on $1000.
>

I have a better chance of winning the Big Game.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:44:19 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:


>Mikey, you're welcome to shut your eyes and eat a meal out of a garbage can.
>If someone hands you a glass of **** and a glass of water, do you feel that
>you must test them blind to tell the difference?
>If you have an opportunity to eat **** on a bun, do you feel insecure to
>tell the difference from hamburger?

Er....is the party getting a bit rough, Robert?

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > " > wrote in message
>>> > ink.net...
>>> >>
>>> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> " > wrote in message
>>> >>> ink.net...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>>> >>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
>> DBT?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>> >> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>> >
>>> > THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that it's
>>> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically neutral.
>>>
>> I agree, Mikey, that you are an exceedingly repetitious amphibian. But as
>> you don't hear very well, everything is like a flat soda to you.
>>
> So you're back to jr. high school insults again.
>
> Stick a fork in you, your done.
>

"at least" you stole something form someone other than Arny, even
if it was from your 5 year old neighborhood kid.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:44:19 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Mikey, you're welcome to shut your eyes and eat a meal out of a garbage
can.
> >If someone hands you a glass of **** and a glass of water, do you feel
that
> >you must test them blind to tell the difference?
> >If you have an opportunity to eat **** on a bun, do you feel insecure to
> >tell the difference from hamburger?
>
> Er....is the party getting a bit rough, Robert?

My apologies, Paul. Here, have some port wine and this cheddar. Help
yourself to the crackers.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> " > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> >
> >>> > " > wrote in message
> >>> > ink.net...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >>> >> ...
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> " > wrote in message
> >>> >>> ink.net...
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or
organizations
> >>> >>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
> >> DBT?
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> How about 20 million consumers.
> >>> >> Which ones are doing serious research?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > ZAP!!! Got you!!!
> >>> >
> >>> > THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
> >>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
> >>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that
it's
> >>> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically
neutral.
> >>>
> >> I agree, Mikey, that you are an exceedingly repetitious amphibian. But
as
> >> you don't hear very well, everything is like a flat soda to you.
> >>
> > So you're back to jr. high school insults again.
> >
> > Stick a fork in you, your done.
> >
>
> "at least" you stole something form someone other than Arny, even
> if it was from your 5 year old neighborhood kid.
>
Yes, it is encouraging that Mikey is seeking variety in plagiarism.
Mikey, is your "specialty" stapling or spackling?

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:46:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> I'd be interested to know what process of deduction you used to arrive
> >> at that last conclusion, Robert. It could be important for all
> >> mankind. :-)
> >
> >Bile, Paul. Even the pure of heart have bile.
>
> I usually take Quick Eze for that. :-)

We don't have that brand here.
Antiacid? Purgative? Laxative?

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> " > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> " > wrote in message
> >>>> ink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>> oups.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
> >>>>>> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this trial.
> >>>>>> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
> >>>>>> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his
panelists
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
> >>>>>> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
> >>>>> confidence to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate
> >>>>> between amps of good quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense to
> >>>>> see if the "Golden Ear" can improve his score. If so and if he
could
> >>>>> reach the 95% confidence level needed for a positive, then there's
> >>>>> reason to study this individual in order to find out what is
different
> >>>>> in the way his hearing works. There could be all kinds of
> >>>>> possibilities that such research might apply to, audio equipment
being
> >>>>> a rather insignificant one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> you don't need a 95% confidence level for a positive.
> >>>> Anything over 50% indicates that it is more likely
> >>>> than not that the result is not by chance and that one hears a
> >>>> difference. Its enough
> >>>> to cast your assertion into serious doubt.
> >>>> It means that it is more likely than not that you are WRONG.
> >>>> That is not good for your side.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> That's not what anybody doing scinetific research will tell you, the
> >>> standard is 95% confidence level.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But we are not talking about scientific research.
> >> The FACT is, if the confidence level for an individuals's result is,
say,
> >> 60%, it is more likely than not that the
> >> result is not from chance.
> > Wrong again, just because you aren't doing research doesn't change the
> > statisitcs involved.
>
> It ABSOLUTELY does. Waht a 60% confidence level means
> is that the chances are 60% the differences were not by chance,
> therefore, it is more likely than not that the differenes were ,as you
like
> to put it, 'real'. For a condumer, tha's pretty damn strong. Most
consumers
> ouwld opt for a product that is 80% likely to be superor to a competitive
> product.
> >
Excelllant comatery on thuh natcher of statisitcs.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:21:40 +1000, wrote:
>
>
> >>A couple of years ago, one of Brian's hobbys used to be signing me up
for
> >>mortgage loan applications on the web. The apps go to cold-call
operations,
> >>so you get a call. I guess that because Brian doesn't like to receive
phone
> >>calls, he thought this would be a terrible nusiance. But he had one
problem:
> >>How could I be made to understand it was his retribution? He solved this
by
> >>filling out some of the apps with my name and phone number, but with a
> >>misspelling of his name, as in, "MacCarthy", McCarthy", etc. This was
> >>particularly noticeable when I received a solicitation in the form of a
> >>letter. So my opinion is that Brian is just marginally sophisticated
enough
> >>to munge his own name.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >what a crock of ****, from someone who posts anonymously..
>
> Eh?

How anonymous can I be?
Brian, you already know my phone number: (215) 646-4894.

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> " > wrote in message
>> >> ink.net...
>> >>>
>> >>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> " > wrote in message
>> >>>> ink.net...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> > wrote in message
>> >>>>> oups.com...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> *P.S. The third successful differentiation quoted by Sullivan was
>> >>>>>> between Paoli and CM amps. There were 62% "corrects" in this
>> >>>>>> trial.
>> >>>>>> Some of you may remember the indignation of the RAO "scientists"
>> >>>>>> when I quoted the cable trial moderator calling one of his
> panelists
>> >>>>>> a
>> >>>>>> "golden ear" for getting 83% "corrects" differentiations.
>> >>>>>> "Not enough. We want a repeat"!!!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>> Certainly you would want a retest, since while not of sufficient
>> >>>>> confidence to be a positive, and since being able to differentiate
>> >>>>> between amps of good quality, is AFAWK impossible, it makes sense
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> see if the "Golden Ear" can improve his score. If so and if he
> could
>> >>>>> reach the 95% confidence level needed for a positive, then there's
>> >>>>> reason to study this individual in order to find out what is
> different
>> >>>>> in the way his hearing works. There could be all kinds of
>> >>>>> possibilities that such research might apply to, audio equipment
> being
>> >>>>> a rather insignificant one.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> you don't need a 95% confidence level for a positive.
>> >>>> Anything over 50% indicates that it is more likely
>> >>>> than not that the result is not by chance and that one hears a
>> >>>> difference. Its enough
>> >>>> to cast your assertion into serious doubt.
>> >>>> It means that it is more likely than not that you are WRONG.
>> >>>> That is not good for your side.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> That's not what anybody doing scinetific research will tell you, the
>> >>> standard is 95% confidence level.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> But we are not talking about scientific research.
>> >> The FACT is, if the confidence level for an individuals's result is,
> say,
>> >> 60%, it is more likely than not that the
>> >> result is not from chance.
>> > Wrong again, just because you aren't doing research doesn't change the
>> > statisitcs involved.
>>
>> It ABSOLUTELY does. Waht a 60% confidence level means
>> is that the chances are 60% the differences were not by chance,
>> therefore, it is more likely than not that the differenes were ,as you
> like
>> to put it, 'real'. For a condumer, tha's pretty damn strong. Most
> consumers
>> ouwld opt for a product that is 80% likely to be superor to a competitive
>> product.
>> >
> Excelllant comatery on thuh natcher of statisitcs.
>
>

thunk ya

[[email protected]]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:59:49 GMT, "
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> The contact selection was made in consulation with a Bell Labs PhD who
>>> had
>>> over 20 years experience in the field of relay design and use. Needless
>>> to
>>> say the Bell system had just a few relays at the time! ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>You mean Morein AND Stereophile got it wron, again?
>
> Yep, they got it wron. :-)

Wrong. Sometimes my brain goes faster than my fingers, so sue me.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>> " > wrote in message
>> >>> ink.net...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> >>>> ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> " > wrote in message
>> >>>>> ink.net...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>> >>>>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
>> >>>>>> DBT?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> How about 20 million consumers.
>> >>>> Which ones are doing serious research?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>> >>>
>> >>> THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>> >> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>> >> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that
> it's
>> >> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically
> neutral.
>> >>
>> >
>> > now you are really being stupid.
>> > You let other people do your DBT listening tests for you.
>> > Good one, let strangers decide for you.
>> > You are saying that since it is 'known' that everything sounds
>> > the same, no need for you to listen at all before buying.
>>
>> Why would anyone consider buying something that wouldn't sound accurate?
>> If you can't tell by now who makes stuff in that category, it is you who
> are
>> the stupid one.
>>
>> > Matter of fact, 'knowing' this, there is no reason for the manufacurers
>> > or anyone else to do DBT either.
>>
>> There is if they change a circuit design.
>>
>> Since there haven't been any differences
>> > for
>> > 25 years already, no need for anybody to waste their time with this.
>> That doesn't excuse the people who keep claiming things have drastic
>> differences.
>>
> Of course not, Mikey. But permit me to refresh your primitive
> understanding
> of morality with, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Then why do you think 100 will?

Whatever the bias of
> sighted testing, it does not justify the flawed charlatan you worship.

I do not worship you. I do not worship anybody.

You want to attack ABX and anybody who understands why it works, because you
don't like the guy who invented it. How ****ing pathetic can you be?

Nor
> does it excuse the obvious problems with ABX methodology.


The problems that the rest of the world doing audio research seem to either
ignore, or simply can not find to exist.

The only benefit
> I can see to you, a drywall "technician", is that it allows you to delude
> yourself into thinking that your crappy QSC amp is as good as stuff you
> can't afford.
>
I looked up drone, and there was a picture of you.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>>>>>>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
>>>>>>>> DBT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>>>>> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>>>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>>>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that
>>>> it's hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically
>>>> neutral.
>>>>
>>>
>>> now you are really being stupid.
>>> You let other people do your DBT listening tests for you.
>>> Good one, let strangers decide for you.
>>> You are saying that since it is 'known' that everything sounds
>>> the same, no need for you to listen at all before buying.
>>
>> Why would anyone consider buying something that wouldn't sound accurate?
>> If you can't tell by now who makes stuff in that category, it is you who
>> are the stupid one.
>>
>>> Matter of fact, 'knowing' this, there is no reason for the manufacurers
>>> or anyone else to do DBT either.
>>
>> There is if they change a circuit design.
>>
>> Since there haven't been any differences
>>> for
>>> 25 years already, no need for anybody to waste their time with this.
>> That doesn't excuse the people who keep claiming things have drastic
>> differences.
>

You can only improve hifi components until the pass a signal without any
audible change. Once you do that, looking for ways to use less parts to
achieve the same linearity, requires testing.

Researching other surround formats, equalizers, surround formats and their
decoding software. Lots of ways to use ABX.


> Since there are no differences,

Why do you keep saying there are no differences. I never said that.

there is no reason for researchers and/or
> manufacturers to look for them. Obviously, since a $200 ss MOSFET amp
> sounds the same as a
> $20,000 ss Mosfet amp, they are wasting there time with DBT's.

How do yo suppose they found out the $200.00 amp sounded the same as the
$20K one?

All those
> different parts and circuit boards between the two amps just don't
> sonically matter.

Since when?

> How can they be looking for something that, according to your wisdom, just
> does not exist.
> They really must be stupid, Mikey.
Not them, but if there's a mirror handy.................................

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >
>>>> > " > wrote in message
>>>> > ink.net...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> >> ...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> " > wrote in message
>>>> >>> ink.net...
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>>>> >>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
>>> DBT?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>>> >> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>>> >
>>>> > THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>>>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>>>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that
>>>> it's
>>>> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically
>>>> neutral.
>>>>
>>> I agree, Mikey, that you are an exceedingly repetitious amphibian. But
>>> as
>>> you don't hear very well, everything is like a flat soda to you.
>>>
>> So you're back to jr. high school insults again.
>>
>> Stick a fork in you, your done.
>>
>
> "at least" you stole something form someone other than Arny, even
> if it was from your 5 year old neighborhood kid.
Of course, look who I was talking to.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Robert Morein" > said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed
>>>>>> with inadequate relays. IME, this can easily mask
>>>>>> subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if it was
>>>>>> not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it
>>>>>> immune from criticism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in
>>>>> my preamp (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as
>>>>> hell don't add or subtract anything in the signal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another
>>>>> matter :-)
>>>>>
>>>> The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a
>>>> Stereophile article that predated the current acrimony.
>>>>
>>>> I built a remote control AB box using garden variety
>>>> P&B relays with plated palladium/oxide contacts.
>>>
>>> Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however
>>> it's conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high
>>> current (>5 A) apps.
>>
>>> http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
>>
>> The ABX RM-2 relay module had separate relays and
>> contacts for speaker-level and line-level switching.
>>
>>>> I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile
>>>> comment remains, specifically challenging the power
>>>> handling capacity.
>>
>> AFAIK the RM-2 did not even exist as a prototype at the
>> time their ABX article was published.
>>
>>> You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating
>>> power, you f'd up.
>>
>> Right, particuarly the line-level relays.
>>
>>> Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but
>>> they sure might care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
>>
>> We optimized the relays for the signals they handled.
>>
> Stereophile does not agree with you.

AFAIK Stereophile never reviewed the final ABX product.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Robert Morein" > said:
>>>
>>>> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed with
>>>> inadequate relays. IME, this can easily mask subtle
>>>> differences between amplifiers. Even if it was not
>>>> constructed by Krueger, that does not make it immune
>>>> from criticism.
>>
>> Poor, dear delusional Robert.
>>
>>> Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in
>>> my preamp (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as
>>> hell don't add or subtract anything in the signal.
>>
>> In fact the line-level relays in the ABX RM-2 relay box
>> had ruthenium-plated contacts in vacuum-sealed glass
>> capsules. We special ordered them. At the time we were
>> told that the previous order had been made by a
>> highly-repected builder of recording studio consoles.
>>
> Bad choice. Here are some conductivities for metals in
> units of ohm-meters:

> pure silver: 1.591E-08

> gold: 2.463E-08

> ruthenium: 4.310E-7

As if conductivity was all that mattered.

In relay contacts, durability matters lots.

> I'm sure we all appreciate the quality of Bell carbon
> button microphones, but the Bell System had nothing to do
> with high fidelity.

Tell that to your average classical FM radio station in the
day of.

> The transparency of a contact set at low power levels is
> a separate issue from transparency at high power levels.

That's why we used different relays for each application.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>> ...

>> Worse than that. Ruthenium has 27.6 times the resistance
>> of silver, and 17.5 times the resistance of gold. I
>> cannot believe that Arny is so stupid. This looks like a
>> willful, deliberate design intended to sabotage high end
>> audio. Arny looks more and more like Brian McCarty, with
>> a hidden, twisted agenda motivated by retribution.
>> Against what? We can only speculate as to what twists
>> Arny's life may have taken in the past, to cause this
>> sickness.

> Morein... you are the biggest idiot on the planet.
> Somebody who almost knows enough to get in trouble... but
> not quite.

Agreed. Ruthenium was chosen because it delivers optimal
contact performance and life for the currents and voltages
usually associated with line level and mic level audio
signals.

> Bulk resistivity of the contact material has little to
> nothing to do with contact resistance.

Agreed.

> Plating contact
> thicknesses are probably on the order of 50 to 150
> microns. I'll let you figure the bulk resistance over a
> typical contact area and then try to figure out why relay
> contact resistance specs don't come within orders of
> magnitude of these numbers.

Agreed.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>>>>>>>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
>>>>>>>>> DBT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>>>>>> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>>>>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>>>>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that
>>>>> it's hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically
>>>>> neutral.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> now you are really being stupid.
>>>> You let other people do your DBT listening tests for you.
>>>> Good one, let strangers decide for you.
>>>> You are saying that since it is 'known' that everything sounds
>>>> the same, no need for you to listen at all before buying.
>>>
>>> Why would anyone consider buying something that wouldn't sound accurate?
>>> If you can't tell by now who makes stuff in that category, it is you who
>>> are the stupid one.
>>>
>>>> Matter of fact, 'knowing' this, there is no reason for the manufacurers
>>>> or anyone else to do DBT either.
>>>
>>> There is if they change a circuit design.
>>>
>>> Since there haven't been any differences
>>>> for
>>>> 25 years already, no need for anybody to waste their time with this.
>>> That doesn't excuse the people who keep claiming things have drastic
>>> differences.
>>
>
> You can only improve hifi components until the pass a signal without any
> audible change. Once you do that, looking for ways to use less parts to
> achieve the same linearity, requires testing.
>
> Researching other surround formats, equalizers, surround formats and their
> decoding software. Lots of ways to use ABX.
>
>
>> Since there are no differences,
>
> Why do you keep saying there are no differences. I never said that.
>
> there is no reason for researchers and/or
>> manufacturers to look for them. Obviously, since a $200 ss MOSFET amp
>> sounds the same as a
>> $20,000 ss Mosfet amp, they are wasting there time with DBT's.
>
> How do yo suppose they found out the $200.00 amp sounded the same as the
> $20K one?
>
> All those
>> different parts and circuit boards between the two amps just don't
>> sonically matter.
>
> Since when?
>
>> How can they be looking for something that, according to your wisdom,
>> just does not exist.
>> They really must be stupid, Mikey.
> Not them, but if there's a mirror handy.................................
>

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or organizations
>>>>>>>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
>>>>>>>>> DBT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>>>>>> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>>>>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>>>>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that
>>>>> it's hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically
>>>>> neutral.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> now you are really being stupid.
>>>> You let other people do your DBT listening tests for you.
>>>> Good one, let strangers decide for you.
>>>> You are saying that since it is 'known' that everything sounds
>>>> the same, no need for you to listen at all before buying.
>>>
>>> Why would anyone consider buying something that wouldn't sound accurate?
>>> If you can't tell by now who makes stuff in that category, it is you who
>>> are the stupid one.
>>>
>>>> Matter of fact, 'knowing' this, there is no reason for the manufacurers
>>>> or anyone else to do DBT either.
>>>
>>> There is if they change a circuit design.
>>>
>>> Since there haven't been any differences
>>>> for
>>>> 25 years already, no need for anybody to waste their time with this.
>>> That doesn't excuse the people who keep claiming things have drastic
>>> differences.
>>
>
> You can only improve hifi components until the pass a signal without any
> audible change. Once you do that, looking for ways to use less parts to
> achieve the same linearity, requires testing.
>
> Researching other surround formats, equalizers, surround formats and their
> decoding software. Lots of ways to use ABX.
>
>
>> Since there are no differences,
>
> Why do you keep saying there are no differences. I never said that.
>
> there is no reason for researchers and/or
>> manufacturers to look for them. Obviously, since a $200 ss MOSFET amp
>> sounds the same as a
>> $20,000 ss Mosfet amp, they are wasting there time with DBT's.
>
> How do yo suppose they found out the $200.00 amp sounded the same as the
> $20K one?
>
> All those
>> different parts and circuit boards between the two amps just don't
>> sonically matter.
>
> Since when?
>

you are still contradicting yourself.
you haven't resolved anything.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > " > wrote in message
>>>>> > ink.net...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> >> ...
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> >>> ink.net...
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or
>>>>> >>>> organizations
>>>>> >>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form of
>>>> DBT?
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>>>> >> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>>>>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>>>>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that
>>>>> it's
>>>>> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically
>>>>> neutral.
>>>>>
>>>> I agree, Mikey, that you are an exceedingly repetitious amphibian. But
>>>> as
>>>> you don't hear very well, everything is like a flat soda to you.
>>>>
>>> So you're back to jr. high school insults again.
>>>
>>> Stick a fork in you, your done.
>>>
>>
>> "at least" you stole something form someone other than Arny, even
>> if it was from your 5 year old neighborhood kid.
> Of course, look who I was talking to.
Isn't it in your self interest to appear a little smarter than that?

[Sylvan Morein]

In article . com, "ScottW"
> wrote:

>
> Morein... you are the biggest idiot on the planet. Somebody who
> almost knows enough to get in trouble... but not quite.

You've hit the nail on the head, Scott. He was glib enough to get INTO
Drexel University - but expected that this fine institution would give him a
degree for "almost knowing enough". They wouldn't and finally kicked him
out. He can't stop. He has nothing else to do.

As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, ""I don't really have a
replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very gnawing thing." Now he's
gnawing on you and your group.

Think about it. . . My one and only son has lived in the same room, in the
same house, in MY house, since the early 1950's. He's never had a job.
NEVER. He always impressed everyone as a "smart guy", although I know now
he's just a bull**** artist. SURE he's "smart" - he went to college for
almost 20 years on my dime!

His room is filled with electronics, computers, wires, empty beer cans, and
all nature of trash. He rarely leaves the house, but spends hours in the
basement "inventing". Do you know how many times we've had police, FBI,
Secret Service, and other investigators here? They won't charge him because
he's mentally ill.

$100,000 to the first person that can get this 53 year old into a job, any
job, and out of my house.

Sylvan Morein, DDS



PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein
--

Robert Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm

> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
> By L. STUART DITZEN
> Philadelphia Inquirer
>
> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
> at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
>
> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
> so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
> to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>
> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
> pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
> do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
> by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>
> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>
> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
> years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
> computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
> thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
> rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
> patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.

>
> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
> ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.

>
> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
> Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>
> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
> tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
>
> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
> state Superior Court.
>
> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
> restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
> time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
> affairs was reasserted.
>
> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
> litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>
> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
> asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
> even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
> right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
> compensation.
>
> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
> Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
> happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
> that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>
> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
> "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
> intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
> pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
> Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>
> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
> and electronic systems.
>
> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
> calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
> nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.

>
> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
> and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
> through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
>
> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
> 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
> related to estimation theory.
>
> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
> Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
> it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
> industrial processes.
>
> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
> problem Kalata had presented.
>
> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
>
> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
>
> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
> into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
> became alienated from Kalata.
>
> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
> The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
> patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
> asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>
> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
> complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!

>
> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.

>
> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
> opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
> about 100 of them.
>
> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
> appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
> intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
> Pennsylvania courts.

> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>
> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
> hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
> from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
> make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
> an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
> bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

> But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
>
> "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
> gnawing thing."

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>> "Robert Morein" > said:
>> >>>
>> >>>> If it's Arny Krueger's ABX box, it was constructed
>> >>>> with inadequate relays. IME, this can easily mask
>> >>>> subtle differences between amplifiers. Even if it was
>> >>>> not constructed by Krueger, that does not make it
>> >>>> immune from criticism.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Dunno about Arny's soldering skills, but the relays in
>> >>> my preamp (gold-plated gasfilled OMRON types) sure as
>> >>> hell don't add or subtract anything in the signal.
>> >>>
>> >>> Now, if one's to ABX gear with a 4066, that's another
>> >>> matter :-)
>> >>>
>> >> The inadequate size of the relays was noted in a
>> >> Stereophile article that predated the current acrimony.
>> >>
>> >> I built a remote control AB box using garden variety P&B
>> >> relays with plated palladium/oxide contacts.
>> >
>> > Palladium doesn't oxidize, thats why its used.. however
>> > it's conductivity is poor so it isn't used in high
>> > current (>5 A) apps.
>>
>> > http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3236.pdf
>>
>> The ABX RM-2 relay module had separate relays and contacts
>> for speaker-level and line-level switching.
>>
>> >> I'm sure Arny used better relays, but the Stereophile
>> >> comment remains, specifically challenging the power
>> >> handling capacity.
>>
>> AFAIK the RM-2 did not even exist as a prototype at the time
>> their ABX article was published.
>>
>> > You mean current handling. If the relay is dissipating
>> > power, you f'd up.
>>
>> Right, particuarly the line-level relays.
>>
>> > Relays dont care if you're delivering 10V and 1A but they
>> > sure might care if your delivering 1V and 10A.
>>
>> We optimized the relays for the signals they handled.
>>
> Stereophile does not agree with you.
>
>
And that's relevant because.....???

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or
>>>>>>>>>> organizations doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX
>>>>>>>>>> orsome form of DBT?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>>>>>>> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>>>>>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>>>>>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that
>>>>>> it's hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically
>>>>>> neutral.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> now you are really being stupid.
>>>>> You let other people do your DBT listening tests for you.
>>>>> Good one, let strangers decide for you.
>>>>> You are saying that since it is 'known' that everything sounds
>>>>> the same, no need for you to listen at all before buying.
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone consider buying something that wouldn't sound
>>>> accurate?
>>>> If you can't tell by now who makes stuff in that category, it is you
>>>> who are the stupid one.
>>>>
>>>>> Matter of fact, 'knowing' this, there is no reason for the
>>>>> manufacurers
>>>>> or anyone else to do DBT either.
>>>>
>>>> There is if they change a circuit design.
>>>>
>>>> Since there haven't been any differences
>>>>> for
>>>>> 25 years already, no need for anybody to waste their time with this.
>>>> That doesn't excuse the people who keep claiming things have drastic
>>>> differences.
>>>
>>
>> You can only improve hifi components until the pass a signal without any
>> audible change. Once you do that, looking for ways to use less parts to
>> achieve the same linearity, requires testing.
>>
>> Researching other surround formats, equalizers, surround formats and
>> their decoding software. Lots of ways to use ABX.
>>
>>
>>> Since there are no differences,
>>
>> Why do you keep saying there are no differences. I never said that.
>>
>> there is no reason for researchers and/or
>>> manufacturers to look for them. Obviously, since a $200 ss MOSFET amp
>>> sounds the same as a
>>> $20,000 ss Mosfet amp, they are wasting there time with DBT's.
>>
>> How do yo suppose they found out the $200.00 amp sounded the same as the
>> $20K one?
>>
>> All those
>>> different parts and circuit boards between the two amps just don't
>>> sonically matter.
>>
>> Since when?
>>
>
> you are still contradicting yourself.
> you haven't resolved anything.
>
>
You don't want it to be resolved. Yo already know the answer about ABX, you
just refuse to admit it.

[Robert Morein]

"Sylvan Morein" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article . com, "ScottW"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > Morein... you are the biggest idiot on the planet. Somebody who
> > almost knows enough to get in trouble... but not quite.
>
> You've hit the nail on the head, Scott. He was glib enough to get INTO
> Drexel University - but expected that this fine institution would give him
a
> degree for "almost knowing enough".

Alright, Brian. You wouldn't listen, so you lost "worldjazz."
Then you wouldn't listen some more, and "coralseas" was taken from you.
You're going to be living in a cardboard box.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
[snip]
> >
> > you are still contradicting yourself.
> > you haven't resolved anything.
> >
> >
> You don't want it to be resolved. Yo already know the answer about ABX,
you
> just refuse to admit it.
>
Yes, Mikey, Art and I know the answer. ABX is trash.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
> [snip]
>> >
>> > you are still contradicting yourself.
>> > you haven't resolved anything.
>> >
>> >
>> You don't want it to be resolved. Yo already know the answer about ABX,
> you
>> just refuse to admit it.
>>
> Yes, Mikey, Art and I know the answer. ABX is trash.
>
>
Yep, that's why it's so widely used by people who know what they are talking
about.

Give me a list of people doing serious audio research that don't use ABX or
some form of DBT.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > " > wrote in message
>>>>>> > ink.net...
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> >> ...
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> >>> ink.net...
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> How about you try this, find out how many persons or
>>>>>> >>>> organizations
>>>>>> >>>> doing ANY kind of work in audio, are NOT using ABX orsome form
>>>>>> >>>> of
>>>>> DBT?
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> How about 20 million consumers.
>>>>>> >> Which ones are doing serious research?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > ZAP!!! Got you!!!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!
>>>>>> Where did you see me claim that picking ones audio system had to be a
>>>>>> scientific endeavor? In fact I've said more than a few times, that
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> hardly necessary anymore since most stuff is flat and sonically
>>>>>> neutral.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, Mikey, that you are an exceedingly repetitious amphibian. But
>>>>> as
>>>>> you don't hear very well, everything is like a flat soda to you.
>>>>>
>>>> So you're back to jr. high school insults again.
>>>>
>>>> Stick a fork in you, your done.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "at least" you stole something form someone other than Arny, even
>>> if it was from your 5 year old neighborhood kid.
>> Of course, look who I was talking to.

> Isn't it in your self interest to appear a little smarter than that?
It would only confuse Bob.

[Ayn Marx]

Robert Morein wrote:Blah................

Please do no crosspost this drivel to Aus.HI-Fi.
Thankyou./////////////////

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sylvan Morein" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> In article . com,
>> "ScottW"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Morein... you are the biggest idiot on the planet. Somebody who
>> > almost knows enough to get in trouble... but not quite.
>>
>> You've hit the nail on the head, Scott. He was glib enough to get INTO
>> Drexel University - but expected that this fine institution would give
>> him
> a
>> degree for "almost knowing enough".
>
> Alright, Brian. You wouldn't listen, so you lost "worldjazz."
> Then you wouldn't listen some more, and "coralseas" was taken from you.
> You're going to be living in a cardboard box.
>
>

No more ice cream for dessert, too?

[Clyde Slick]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:Blah................
>
> Please do no crosspost this drivel to Aus.HI-Fi.
> Thankyou./////////////////
>

Talk to Sylvan about that over an ice cream cone.