Inclusive, not exclusive [Archive]

Robert Morein

October 22nd 05, 09:20 PM

Bob Neidorff, who has contributed to the hobby for many years without
offending anyone, shows exemplary humility in the FAQ that he periodically
publishes. He makes the following statement about amplifiers:

"11.5 Do all amplifiers with the same specifications sound alike?
Some say that they do. Some say that they don't. Some
demonstrated that many amplifier differences can be traced to
very slight frequency response difference. Let your own ears
guide you. If you want to compare amplifiers, you can do it
best in a controlled environment, such as your home, with your
music and your speakers. Also be very careful to match levels
precisely. All you need to match levels of amplifiers is a high
input-impedance digital voltmeter set to AC volts and a test
recording or signal generator. For best accuracy, set levels
with the speakers wired to the amplifier. "

Bob's advice is a model of moderation, inclusiveness, and good humor. He
advises reasonable diligence in amplifier comparison, using commonly
available instruments. He does not take a position on ABX, probably because
ABX devices are not widely available. Whether Bob personally favors ABX is
not part of his document. Regardless, he advises users to take the course
likely to provide them with the best information with the resources
available to them. He does not tell users to discard their observations.

Arny should be aware that Bob's FAQ influences far more consumers than his
posts or occasional publications. Arny, of course, has a reputation for
personal abrasiveness that undermines his own message. Mr. Neidorff does not
suffer from this handicap.

I applaud Mr. Neidorff for publishing the most useful information on audio
that I am aware of, unconstrained by either an ideological attitude, or
monetary considerations. As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends to draw
us together, in constrast to Arny's divisive influence. While there are not
many of us who could imagine an enjoyable shared experience with Arny, Mr.
Neidorff's FAQ provides us with such a vision.

My advice to Arny is, become a doubter. Abandon the certainty that has lead
to a widely held perception of obnoxiousness. Respect the opinions of other
people, and consider the possibility that the real truth lies between what
you believe, and what others believe. As J.S. Mill said, "Truth is found at
the meeting of opposites."

George M. Middius

October 22nd 05, 10:12 PM

Robert Morein said:

> My advice to Arny is, become a doubter. Abandon the certainty that has lead
> to a widely held perception of obnoxiousness. Respect the opinions of other
> people, and consider the possibility that the real truth lies between what
> you believe, and what others believe.

You might as well suggest Krooger stop fishing his dinner out of the
toilet bowl. It'll never happen.

[email protected]

October 23rd 05, 06:54 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Neidorff, who has contributed to the hobby for many years without
> offending anyone, shows exemplary humility in the FAQ that he periodically
> publishes. He makes the following statement about amplifiers:
>
> "11.5 Do all amplifiers with the same specifications sound alike?
> Some say that they do. Some say that they don't. Some
> demonstrated that many amplifier differences can be traced to
> very slight frequency response difference. Let your own ears
> guide you. If you want to compare amplifiers, you can do it
> best in a controlled environment, such as your home, with your
> music and your speakers. Also be very careful to match levels
> precisely. All you need to match levels of amplifiers is a high
> input-impedance digital voltmeter set to AC volts and a test
> recording or signal generator. For best accuracy, set levels
> with the speakers wired to the amplifier. "
>
> Bob's advice is a model of moderation, inclusiveness, and good humor. He
> advises reasonable diligence in amplifier comparison, using commonly
> available instruments.

Pretty much the same thing that's been said here for about 10 years.

He does not take a position on ABX, probably because
> ABX devices are not widely available.

Who ever said one was an absolute requirement?

Whether Bob personally favors ABX is
> not part of his document. Regardless, he advises users to take the course
> likely to provide them with the best information with the resources
> available to them. He does not tell users to discard their observations.
>
But he does give them the tools to help remove bias from their decisions.

> Arny should be aware that Bob's FAQ influences far more consumers than his
> posts or occasional publications. Arny, of course, has a reputation for
> personal abrasiveness that undermines his own message. Mr. Neidorff does
> not
> suffer from this handicap.
>

Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally answers
polite questions, politely.

> I applaud Mr. Neidorff for publishing the most useful information on audio
> that I am aware of, unconstrained by either an ideological attitude, or
> monetary considerations. As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends to draw
> us together, in constrast to Arny's divisive influence.

How about your own behavior? You are not exactly a role model for
non-abrasive discourse.

While there are not
> many of us who could imagine an enjoyable shared experience with Arny, Mr.
> Neidorff's FAQ provides us with such a vision.
>
Unlike yours or George's.

> My advice to Arny is, become a doubter. Abandon the certainty that has
> lead
> to a widely held perception of obnoxiousness.

Ignore reality. Brilliant.

Respect the opinions of other
> people, and consider the possibility that the real truth lies between what
> you believe, and what others believe.

Ignore the evidence.

Robert Morein

October 23rd 05, 07:44 AM

" > wrote in message
et...
>
[snip]
>
> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally answers
> polite questions, politely.
>
No, he doesn't, Mikey. I have seen him diss complete strangers.
My post was not addressed to you, as you are simply a creation of Arny
Krueger.
You have no independent mental ability.

[email protected]

October 23rd 05, 10:31 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> et...
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally answers
>> polite questions, politely.
>>
> No, he doesn't, Mikey. I have seen him diss complete strangers.
> My post was not addressed to you, as you are simply a creation of Arny
> Krueger.
> You have no independent mental ability.
>
I have enough independent mental capability to realize you are either a
ignoramous or a troll.

I came here already convinced of the efficacy of ABX and double blind
testing for audio. Arny and I simply agree on it, you moron.

I've done enough independent reading on the subject of audio to know what's
real and what's illusion. I didn't need Arny for that.

The first post I made engendered a vicious attack from Steve Zipser in my
private E-mail. That was 10 years ago and nothng has changed. There is a
group of people who for whatever reason don't want to hear about the fact
that audio is full of scam artists and pseudo science trying to pass itself
off as high end audio, when it's sole purpose is to make audiophile's
believe they must constantly upgrade or buy into some new tweak in order to
get better sound.

Your talk of inclusion is about as phoney as you are.

Arny Krueger

October 23rd 05, 11:44 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> Arny should be aware that Bob's FAQ influences far more
> consumers than his posts or occasional publications.

Bob confuses me with someone who gives a $#!^

Anybody who posts on RAO for fame and fortune needs a clue.

> Arny, of course, has a reputation for personal
> abrasiveness that undermines his own message.

It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
abuse recommend you for a personality award, Bob.

> Mr. Neidorff does not suffer from this handicap.

Neidorff does not actively post, at least not using his
name. The text of these FAQs was old 5 years ago.

> I applaud Mr. Neidorff for publishing the most useful
> information on audio that I am aware of, unconstrained by
> either an ideological attitude, or monetary
> considerations. As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends
> to draw us together, in constrast to Arny's divisive
> influence.

It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
abuse recommend you for an inclusiveness award, Bob.

>While there are not many of us who could
> imagine an enjoyable shared experience with Arny, Mr.
> Neidorff's FAQ provides us with such a vision.

It's a nice FAQ.

> My advice to Arny is, become a doubter.

Like I ever stopped?

>Abandon the
> certainty that has lead to a widely held perception of
> obnoxiousness.

It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
abuse recommend you for a charm award, Bob.

> Respect the opinions of other people, and
> consider the possibility that the real truth lies between
> what you believe, and what others believe. As J.S. Mill
> said, "Truth is found at the meeting of opposites."

Unfortunately, discussing audio with you Bob rarely if ever
has anything to do with the truth.

Robert Morein

October 23rd 05, 01:21 PM

" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > et...
> >>
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally answers
> >> polite questions, politely.
> >>
> > No, he doesn't, Mikey. I have seen him diss complete strangers.
> > My post was not addressed to you, as you are simply a creation of Arny
> > Krueger.
> > You have no independent mental ability.
> >
> I have enough independent mental capability to realize you are either a
> ignoramous or a troll.
>
I'm sorry, Mikey, but your inferior mental capacity does not permit you to
make judgements of that sort.

> I came here already convinced of the efficacy of ABX and double blind
> testing for audio. Arny and I simply agree on it, you moron.
>
You did not come from anywhere, Mikey. You are under the control of Arny.

> I've done enough independent reading on the subject of audio to know
what's
> real and what's illusion. I didn't need Arny for that.

Reading should not cause you to deny experience.
>
> The first post I made engendered a vicious attack from Steve Zipser in my
> private E-mail. That was 10 years ago and nothng has changed.

That is because you need to change, and you have not. This will dog you the
rest of your life.

There is a
> group of people who for whatever reason don't want to hear about the fact
> that audio is full of scam artists and pseudo science trying to pass
itself
> off as high end audio, when it's sole purpose is to make audiophile's
> believe they must constantly upgrade or buy into some new tweak in order
to
> get better sound.

That is actually true, but to fight it with pseudo science of your own is a
great sin.
>
>
> Your talk of inclusion is about as phoney as you are.
>
I'm sorry, Mikey, but your mental weakness does not permit you to make
judgements of that sort.

Robert Morein

October 23rd 05, 01:26 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Arny should be aware that Bob's FAQ influences far more
> > consumers than his posts or occasional publications.
>
> Bob confuses me with someone who gives a $#!^
>
> Anybody who posts on RAO for fame and fortune needs a clue.

Arny, we know you are an internet addict. Now, on Sunday morning, of all
days, you are spewing hate, thinking that your religious ablutions will
compensate. You would need to baptize in antibacterial soap.

>
> > Arny, of course, has a reputation for personal
> > abrasiveness that undermines his own message.
>
> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
> abuse recommend you for a personality award, Bob.
>
Thank you! I really do try to care.

> > Mr. Neidorff does not suffer from this handicap.
>
> Neidorff does not actively post, at least not using his
> name. The text of these FAQs was old 5 years ago.
>
Truth springs eternal.

> > I applaud Mr. Neidorff for publishing the most useful
> > information on audio that I am aware of, unconstrained by
> > either an ideological attitude, or monetary
> > considerations. As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends
> > to draw us together, in constrast to Arny's divisive
> > influence.
>
> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
> abuse recommend you for an inclusiveness award, Bob.
>
Once again, I am most gratified that my efforts are taken in the way they
are intended.

> >While there are not many of us who could
> > imagine an enjoyable shared experience with Arny, Mr.
> > Neidorff's FAQ provides us with such a vision.
>
> It's a nice FAQ.
>
> > My advice to Arny is, become a doubter.
>
> Like I ever stopped?
>
Do you harbor any doubts about ABX, Arny? Pray tell.

> >Abandon the
> > certainty that has lead to a widely held perception of
> > obnoxiousness.
>
> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
> abuse recommend you for a charm award, Bob.

While the repeated praise is slightly embarassing, I accept it in the spirit
of love.
>
> > Respect the opinions of other people, and
> > consider the possibility that the real truth lies between
> > what you believe, and what others believe. As J.S. Mill
> > said, "Truth is found at the meeting of opposites."
>
> Unfortunately, discussing audio with you Bob rarely if ever
> has anything to do with the truth.
>
The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX. Unfortunately, there is
very little truth there to discuss.

George M. Middius

October 23rd 05, 05:45 PM

Gawd, Mickey, are you really really really this stupid? Even I am
awestruck at your incredibly moronic misapprehensions of reality.

> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally answers
> polite questions, politely.

This globule of concentrated stupidity ranks right up there with Booby's
claim that Arnii Krooger is "tough to beat in a debate".

I am almost nonplused by your far-out looniness, Mickey. If you were new
to Usenet, we might be able to laugh off this milestone of lameness. But
you're not new -- you've been playing here for years. You've seen
Krooger's cavalcades of lies and fanatical egotism first-hand. And yet you
mouth such fatuous idiocy that you take our breaths away.

Why don't you dispense with this ridiculous nonsense already and just
admit you adore Arnii? You can keep the whys and wherefores to yourself.
I'm sure the reality would put our speculations to shame.

[email protected]

October 23rd 05, 09:28 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > et...
>> >>
>> > [snip]
>> >>
>> >> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally
>> >> answers
>> >> polite questions, politely.
>> >>
>> > No, he doesn't, Mikey. I have seen him diss complete strangers.
>> > My post was not addressed to you, as you are simply a creation of Arny
>> > Krueger.
>> > You have no independent mental ability.
>> >
>> I have enough independent mental capability to realize you are either a
>> ignoramous or a troll.
>>
> I'm sorry, Mikey, but your inferior mental capacity does not permit you to
> make judgements of that sort.
>
>> I came here already convinced of the efficacy of ABX and double blind
>> testing for audio. Arny and I simply agree on it, you moron.
>>
> You did not come from anywhere, Mikey. You are under the control of Arny.
>
>> I've done enough independent reading on the subject of audio to know
> what's
>> real and what's illusion. I didn't need Arny for that.
>
> Reading should not cause you to deny experience.
>>
>> The first post I made engendered a vicious attack from Steve Zipser in my
>> private E-mail. That was 10 years ago and nothng has changed.
>
> That is because you need to change, and you have not. This will dog you
> the
> rest of your life.
>
> There is a
>> group of people who for whatever reason don't want to hear about the fact
>> that audio is full of scam artists and pseudo science trying to pass
> itself
>> off as high end audio, when it's sole purpose is to make audiophile's
>> believe they must constantly upgrade or buy into some new tweak in order
> to
>> get better sound.
>
> That is actually true, but to fight it with pseudo science of your own is
> a
> great sin.
>>
>>
>> Your talk of inclusion is about as phoney as you are.
>>
> I'm sorry, Mikey, but your mental weakness does not permit you to make
> judgements of that sort.
>
>

[email protected]

October 23rd 05, 09:30 PM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> Gawd, Mickey, are you really really really this stupid? Even I am
> awestruck at your incredibly moronic misapprehensions of reality.
>
>> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally answers
>> polite questions, politely.
>
> This globule of concentrated stupidity ranks right up there with Booby's
> claim that Arnii Krooger is "tough to beat in a debate".
>
> I am almost nonplused by your far-out looniness, Mickey. If you were new
> to Usenet, we might be able to laugh off this milestone of lameness. But
> you're not new -- you've been playing here for years. You've seen
> Krooger's cavalcades of lies and fanatical egotism first-hand. And yet you
> mouth such fatuous idiocy that you take our breaths away.
>
I've also seen you doing much worse.

> Why don't you dispense with this ridiculous nonsense already and just
> admit you adore Arnii? You can keep the whys and wherefores to yourself.
> I'm sure the reality would put our speculations to shame.
>
>
Why don't you dispense with your pretense f having an interest in audio,
when all you really want to do is stalk somebody that knows something about
it?

[email protected]

October 23rd 05, 09:30 PM

[email protected]

October 23rd 05, 09:32 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > Arny should be aware that Bob's FAQ influences far more
>> > consumers than his posts or occasional publications.
>>
>> Bob confuses me with someone who gives a $#!^
>>
>> Anybody who posts on RAO for fame and fortune needs a clue.
>
> Arny, we know you are an internet addict. Now, on Sunday morning, of all
> days, you are spewing hate, thinking that your religious ablutions will
> compensate. You would need to baptize in antibacterial soap.
>
>>
>> > Arny, of course, has a reputation for personal
>> > abrasiveness that undermines his own message.
>>
>> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
>> abuse recommend you for a personality award, Bob.
>>
> Thank you! I really do try to care.
>
>> > Mr. Neidorff does not suffer from this handicap.
>>
>> Neidorff does not actively post, at least not using his
>> name. The text of these FAQs was old 5 years ago.
>>
> Truth springs eternal.
>
>> > I applaud Mr. Neidorff for publishing the most useful
>> > information on audio that I am aware of, unconstrained by
>> > either an ideological attitude, or monetary
>> > considerations. As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends
>> > to draw us together, in constrast to Arny's divisive
>> > influence.
>>
>> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
>> abuse recommend you for an inclusiveness award, Bob.
>>
> Once again, I am most gratified that my efforts are taken in the way they
> are intended.
>
>
>> >While there are not many of us who could
>> > imagine an enjoyable shared experience with Arny, Mr.
>> > Neidorff's FAQ provides us with such a vision.
>>
>> It's a nice FAQ.
>>
>> > My advice to Arny is, become a doubter.
>>
>> Like I ever stopped?
>>
> Do you harbor any doubts about ABX, Arny? Pray tell.
>
>> >Abandon the
>> > certainty that has lead to a widely held perception of
>> > obnoxiousness.
>>
>> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
>> abuse recommend you for a charm award, Bob.
>
> While the repeated praise is slightly embarassing, I accept it in the
> spirit
> of love.
>>
>> > Respect the opinions of other people, and
>> > consider the possibility that the real truth lies between
>> > what you believe, and what others believe. As J.S. Mill
>> > said, "Truth is found at the meeting of opposites."
>>
>> Unfortunately, discussing audio with you Bob rarely if ever
>> has anything to do with the truth.
>>
> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX. Unfortunately, there is
> very little truth there to discuss.
>
At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and that it
not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.

Robert Morein

October 24th 05, 12:06 AM

" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> > Arny should be aware that Bob's FAQ influences far more
> >> > consumers than his posts or occasional publications.
> >>
> >> Bob confuses me with someone who gives a $#!^
> >>
> >> Anybody who posts on RAO for fame and fortune needs a clue.
> >
> > Arny, we know you are an internet addict. Now, on Sunday morning, of all
> > days, you are spewing hate, thinking that your religious ablutions will
> > compensate. You would need to baptize in antibacterial soap.
> >
> >>
> >> > Arny, of course, has a reputation for personal
> >> > abrasiveness that undermines his own message.
> >>
> >> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
> >> abuse recommend you for a personality award, Bob.
> >>
> > Thank you! I really do try to care.
> >
> >> > Mr. Neidorff does not suffer from this handicap.
> >>
> >> Neidorff does not actively post, at least not using his
> >> name. The text of these FAQs was old 5 years ago.
> >>
> > Truth springs eternal.
> >
> >> > I applaud Mr. Neidorff for publishing the most useful
> >> > information on audio that I am aware of, unconstrained by
> >> > either an ideological attitude, or monetary
> >> > considerations. As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends
> >> > to draw us together, in constrast to Arny's divisive
> >> > influence.
> >>
> >> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
> >> abuse recommend you for an inclusiveness award, Bob.
> >>
> > Once again, I am most gratified that my efforts are taken in the way
they
> > are intended.
> >
> >
> >> >While there are not many of us who could
> >> > imagine an enjoyable shared experience with Arny, Mr.
> >> > Neidorff's FAQ provides us with such a vision.
> >>
> >> It's a nice FAQ.
> >>
> >> > My advice to Arny is, become a doubter.
> >>
> >> Like I ever stopped?
> >>
> > Do you harbor any doubts about ABX, Arny? Pray tell.
> >
> >> >Abandon the
> >> > certainty that has lead to a widely held perception of
> >> > obnoxiousness.
> >>
> >> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
> >> abuse recommend you for a charm award, Bob.
> >
> > While the repeated praise is slightly embarassing, I accept it in the
> > spirit
> > of love.
> >>
> >> > Respect the opinions of other people, and
> >> > consider the possibility that the real truth lies between
> >> > what you believe, and what others believe. As J.S. Mill
> >> > said, "Truth is found at the meeting of opposites."
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, discussing audio with you Bob rarely if ever
> >> has anything to do with the truth.
> >>
> > The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX. Unfortunately, there
is
> > very little truth there to discuss.
> >
> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and that it
> not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.
>
Mikey, it's bad to reinterpret what other people say. I do not "pretend"
opinions. I give them honestly.

Robert Morein

October 24th 05, 12:08 AM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> Gawd, Mickey, are you really really really this stupid? Even I am
> awestruck at your incredibly moronic misapprehensions of reality.
>
Mikey is a classic example of a "stooge".
Congrats, Mikey. Since you have a weak mind, you have achieved all you
can--you are a good stooge.

Robert Morein

October 24th 05, 12:10 AM

" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Gawd, Mickey, are you really really really this stupid? Even I am
> > awestruck at your incredibly moronic misapprehensions of reality.
> >
> >> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally answers
> >> polite questions, politely.
> >
> > This globule of concentrated stupidity ranks right up there with Booby's
> > claim that Arnii Krooger is "tough to beat in a debate".
> >
> > I am almost nonplused by your far-out looniness, Mickey. If you were new
> > to Usenet, we might be able to laugh off this milestone of lameness. But
> > you're not new -- you've been playing here for years. You've seen
> > Krooger's cavalcades of lies and fanatical egotism first-hand. And yet
you
> > mouth such fatuous idiocy that you take our breaths away.
> >
> I've also seen you doing much worse.
>
>
> > Why don't you dispense with this ridiculous nonsense already and just
> > admit you adore Arnii? You can keep the whys and wherefores to yourself.
> > I'm sure the reality would put our speculations to shame.
> >
> >
> Why don't you dispense with your pretense f having an interest in audio,
> when all you really want to do is stalk somebody that knows something
about
> it?
>
Once again, Mikey, it is dishonest to assert someone else is "pretending".
You cannot know this. George and I are quite honest in our opinions. Be a
good boy and accept that.

[email protected]

October 24th 05, 06:24 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote
>> in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Gawd, Mickey, are you really really really this stupid? Even I am
>> > awestruck at your incredibly moronic misapprehensions of reality.
>> >
>> >> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally
>> >> answers
>> >> polite questions, politely.
>> >
>> > This globule of concentrated stupidity ranks right up there with
>> > Booby's
>> > claim that Arnii Krooger is "tough to beat in a debate".
>> >
>> > I am almost nonplused by your far-out looniness, Mickey. If you were
>> > new
>> > to Usenet, we might be able to laugh off this milestone of lameness.
>> > But
>> > you're not new -- you've been playing here for years. You've seen
>> > Krooger's cavalcades of lies and fanatical egotism first-hand. And yet
> you
>> > mouth such fatuous idiocy that you take our breaths away.
>> >
>> I've also seen you doing much worse.
>>
>>
>> > Why don't you dispense with this ridiculous nonsense already and just
>> > admit you adore Arnii? You can keep the whys and wherefores to
>> > yourself.
>> > I'm sure the reality would put our speculations to shame.
>> >
>> >
>> Why don't you dispense with your pretense f having an interest in audio,
>> when all you really want to do is stalk somebody that knows something
> about
>> it?
>>
> Once again, Mikey, it is dishonest to assert someone else is "pretending".
> You cannot know this. George and I are quite honest in our opinions. Be a
> good boy and accept that.
>
OK,your opinions are honest, therefore yo are both audio idiots.

[email protected]

October 24th 05, 06:25 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Arny should be aware that Bob's FAQ influences far more
>> >> > consumers than his posts or occasional publications.
>> >>
>> >> Bob confuses me with someone who gives a $#!^
>> >>
>> >> Anybody who posts on RAO for fame and fortune needs a clue.
>> >
>> > Arny, we know you are an internet addict. Now, on Sunday morning, of
>> > all
>> > days, you are spewing hate, thinking that your religious ablutions will
>> > compensate. You would need to baptize in antibacterial soap.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Arny, of course, has a reputation for personal
>> >> > abrasiveness that undermines his own message.
>> >>
>> >> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
>> >> abuse recommend you for a personality award, Bob.
>> >>
>> > Thank you! I really do try to care.
>> >
>> >> > Mr. Neidorff does not suffer from this handicap.
>> >>
>> >> Neidorff does not actively post, at least not using his
>> >> name. The text of these FAQs was old 5 years ago.
>> >>
>> > Truth springs eternal.
>> >
>> >> > I applaud Mr. Neidorff for publishing the most useful
>> >> > information on audio that I am aware of, unconstrained by
>> >> > either an ideological attitude, or monetary
>> >> > considerations. As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends
>> >> > to draw us together, in constrast to Arny's divisive
>> >> > influence.
>> >>
>> >> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
>> >> abuse recommend you for an inclusiveness award, Bob.
>> >>
>> > Once again, I am most gratified that my efforts are taken in the way
> they
>> > are intended.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >While there are not many of us who could
>> >> > imagine an enjoyable shared experience with Arny, Mr.
>> >> > Neidorff's FAQ provides us with such a vision.
>> >>
>> >> It's a nice FAQ.
>> >>
>> >> > My advice to Arny is, become a doubter.
>> >>
>> >> Like I ever stopped?
>> >>
>> > Do you harbor any doubts about ABX, Arny? Pray tell.
>> >
>> >> >Abandon the
>> >> > certainty that has lead to a widely held perception of
>> >> > obnoxiousness.
>> >>
>> >> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
>> >> abuse recommend you for a charm award, Bob.
>> >
>> > While the repeated praise is slightly embarassing, I accept it in the
>> > spirit
>> > of love.
>> >>
>> >> > Respect the opinions of other people, and
>> >> > consider the possibility that the real truth lies between
>> >> > what you believe, and what others believe. As J.S. Mill
>> >> > said, "Truth is found at the meeting of opposites."
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, discussing audio with you Bob rarely if ever
>> >> has anything to do with the truth.
>> >>
>> > The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX. Unfortunately, there
> is
>> > very little truth there to discuss.
>> >
>> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and that
>> it
>> not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.
>>
> Mikey, it's bad to reinterpret what other people say. I do not "pretend"
> opinions. I give them honestly.
>
Then you are honestly stupid.

Robert Morein

October 24th 05, 08:05 AM

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >>
> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> > wrote
> >> in message ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Gawd, Mickey, are you really really really this stupid? Even I am
> >> > awestruck at your incredibly moronic misapprehensions of reality.
> >> >
> >> >> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally
> >> >> answers
> >> >> polite questions, politely.
> >> >
> >> > This globule of concentrated stupidity ranks right up there with
> >> > Booby's
> >> > claim that Arnii Krooger is "tough to beat in a debate".
> >> >
> >> > I am almost nonplused by your far-out looniness, Mickey. If you were
> >> > new
> >> > to Usenet, we might be able to laugh off this milestone of lameness.
> >> > But
> >> > you're not new -- you've been playing here for years. You've seen
> >> > Krooger's cavalcades of lies and fanatical egotism first-hand. And
yet
> > you
> >> > mouth such fatuous idiocy that you take our breaths away.
> >> >
> >> I've also seen you doing much worse.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Why don't you dispense with this ridiculous nonsense already and just
> >> > admit you adore Arnii? You can keep the whys and wherefores to
> >> > yourself.
> >> > I'm sure the reality would put our speculations to shame.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Why don't you dispense with your pretense f having an interest in
audio,
> >> when all you really want to do is stalk somebody that knows something
> > about
> >> it?
> >>
> > Once again, Mikey, it is dishonest to assert someone else is
"pretending".
> > You cannot know this. George and I are quite honest in our opinions. Be
a
> > good boy and accept that.
> >
> OK,your opinions are honest, therefore yo are both audio idiots.
>
Sorry, Mikey, wrong again.
There is no such thing as an "audio idiot." There are, however, idiotic
people.
You are a member of the club of weak-minded people.

Robert Morein

October 24th 05, 08:06 AM

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Arny should be aware that Bob's FAQ influences far more
> >> >> > consumers than his posts or occasional publications.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bob confuses me with someone who gives a $#!^
> >> >>
> >> >> Anybody who posts on RAO for fame and fortune needs a clue.
> >> >
> >> > Arny, we know you are an internet addict. Now, on Sunday morning, of
> >> > all
> >> > days, you are spewing hate, thinking that your religious ablutions
will
> >> > compensate. You would need to baptize in antibacterial soap.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > Arny, of course, has a reputation for personal
> >> >> > abrasiveness that undermines his own message.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
> >> >> abuse recommend you for a personality award, Bob.
> >> >>
> >> > Thank you! I really do try to care.
> >> >
> >> >> > Mr. Neidorff does not suffer from this handicap.
> >> >>
> >> >> Neidorff does not actively post, at least not using his
> >> >> name. The text of these FAQs was old 5 years ago.
> >> >>
> >> > Truth springs eternal.
> >> >
> >> >> > I applaud Mr. Neidorff for publishing the most useful
> >> >> > information on audio that I am aware of, unconstrained by
> >> >> > either an ideological attitude, or monetary
> >> >> > considerations. As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends
> >> >> > to draw us together, in constrast to Arny's divisive
> >> >> > influence.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
> >> >> abuse recommend you for an inclusiveness award, Bob.
> >> >>
> >> > Once again, I am most gratified that my efforts are taken in the way
> > they
> >> > are intended.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >While there are not many of us who could
> >> >> > imagine an enjoyable shared experience with Arny, Mr.
> >> >> > Neidorff's FAQ provides us with such a vision.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a nice FAQ.
> >> >>
> >> >> > My advice to Arny is, become a doubter.
> >> >>
> >> >> Like I ever stopped?
> >> >>
> >> > Do you harbor any doubts about ABX, Arny? Pray tell.
> >> >
> >> >> >Abandon the
> >> >> > certainty that has lead to a widely held perception of
> >> >> > obnoxiousness.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's like your continual stream of gratuitous attacks and
> >> >> abuse recommend you for a charm award, Bob.
> >> >
> >> > While the repeated praise is slightly embarassing, I accept it in the
> >> > spirit
> >> > of love.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Respect the opinions of other people, and
> >> >> > consider the possibility that the real truth lies between
> >> >> > what you believe, and what others believe. As J.S. Mill
> >> >> > said, "Truth is found at the meeting of opposites."
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, discussing audio with you Bob rarely if ever
> >> >> has anything to do with the truth.
> >> >>
> >> > The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX. Unfortunately,
there
> > is
> >> > very little truth there to discuss.
> >> >
> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and that
> >> it
> >> not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.
> >>
> > Mikey, it's bad to reinterpret what other people say. I do not "pretend"
> > opinions. I give them honestly.
> >
> Then you are honestly stupid.
>
Mikey, you are not sufficiently apologetic. You did a bad thing. Now
apologize.

surf

October 24th 05, 02:47 PM

" > wrote ...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>>>
>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and that it
> not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.

Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?

Robert Morein

October 24th 05, 04:42 PM

George Middius

October 24th 05, 05:08 PM

Robert Morein said:

>> Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?

>Perhaps he "pretends" that he has.

Mocking tone, noted. Thanks Robret for admitting that you like to pretend aBxism
is, not a real testing protocol when all the big company's use it, LOt"s.

..
..
..
..

[email protected]

October 24th 05, 07:36 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > k.net...
>> >>
>> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> > wrote
>> >> in message ...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Gawd, Mickey, are you really really really this stupid? Even I am
>> >> > awestruck at your incredibly moronic misapprehensions of reality.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally
>> >> >> answers
>> >> >> polite questions, politely.
>> >> >
>> >> > This globule of concentrated stupidity ranks right up there with
>> >> > Booby's
>> >> > claim that Arnii Krooger is "tough to beat in a debate".
>> >> >
>> >> > I am almost nonplused by your far-out looniness, Mickey. If you were
>> >> > new
>> >> > to Usenet, we might be able to laugh off this milestone of lameness.
>> >> > But
>> >> > you're not new -- you've been playing here for years. You've seen
>> >> > Krooger's cavalcades of lies and fanatical egotism first-hand. And
> yet
>> > you
>> >> > mouth such fatuous idiocy that you take our breaths away.
>> >> >
>> >> I've also seen you doing much worse.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Why don't you dispense with this ridiculous nonsense already and
>> >> > just
>> >> > admit you adore Arnii? You can keep the whys and wherefores to
>> >> > yourself.
>> >> > I'm sure the reality would put our speculations to shame.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Why don't you dispense with your pretense f having an interest in
> audio,
>> >> when all you really want to do is stalk somebody that knows something
>> > about
>> >> it?
>> >>
>> > Once again, Mikey, it is dishonest to assert someone else is
> "pretending".
>> > You cannot know this. George and I are quite honest in our opinions. Be
> a
>> > good boy and accept that.
>> >
>> OK,your opinions are honest, therefore yo are both audio idiots.
>>
> Sorry, Mikey, wrong again.
> There is no such thing as an "audio idiot." There are, however, idiotic
> people.
> You are a member of the club of weak-minded people.
>
Have another biscuit.

Robert Morein

October 24th 05, 08:42 PM

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>>> Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>
>>Perhaps he "pretends" that he has.
>
> Mocking tone, noted. Thanks Robret for admitting that you like to pretend
> aBxism
> is, not a real testing protocol when all the big company's use it, LOt"s.
>
Thanks for admitting you don't have to buy a clue about imitating Krueger.
You were born to do this.

Robert Morein

October 24th 05, 09:49 PM

" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > k.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net>
> >> > wrote
> >> >> in message ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gawd, Mickey, are you really really really this stupid? Even I am
> >> >> > awestruck at your incredibly moronic misapprehensions of reality.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally
> >> >> >> answers
> >> >> >> polite questions, politely.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This globule of concentrated stupidity ranks right up there with
> >> >> > Booby's
> >> >> > claim that Arnii Krooger is "tough to beat in a debate".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am almost nonplused by your far-out looniness, Mickey. If you
were
> >> >> > new
> >> >> > to Usenet, we might be able to laugh off this milestone of
lameness.
> >> >> > But
> >> >> > you're not new -- you've been playing here for years. You've seen
> >> >> > Krooger's cavalcades of lies and fanatical egotism first-hand. And
> > yet
> >> > you
> >> >> > mouth such fatuous idiocy that you take our breaths away.
> >> >> >
> >> >> I've also seen you doing much worse.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Why don't you dispense with this ridiculous nonsense already and
> >> >> > just
> >> >> > admit you adore Arnii? You can keep the whys and wherefores to
> >> >> > yourself.
> >> >> > I'm sure the reality would put our speculations to shame.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Why don't you dispense with your pretense f having an interest in
> > audio,
> >> >> when all you really want to do is stalk somebody that knows
something
> >> > about
> >> >> it?
> >> >>
> >> > Once again, Mikey, it is dishonest to assert someone else is
> > "pretending".
> >> > You cannot know this. George and I are quite honest in our opinions.
Be
> > a
> >> > good boy and accept that.
> >> >
> >> OK,your opinions are honest, therefore yo are both audio idiots.
> >>
> > Sorry, Mikey, wrong again.
> > There is no such thing as an "audio idiot." There are, however, idiotic
> > people.
> > You are a member of the club of weak-minded people.
> >
> Have another biscuit.
>
Your offer to share is appreciated, but I'll stick to human food.

[email protected]

October 24th 05, 10:16 PM

"surf" > wrote in message
. ..
> " > wrote ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>>>>
>>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and that
>> it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.
>
>
> Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
No, but how is that relevant? Do you need to stand on the sun to know it's
hot?

Since the wealth of evidence is on the sinde of ABX and other forms of DBT,
I see nothing form anywhere else to make me think that they are invalid.

See my post where I quote Sean Olive, who I guarantee is more knowledgeable
on the subject than Robert or myself. His views are part of the mainstream
regarding audio testing. People who deny this to be true are simply
ignoring reality because it doesn't match their perceptions.

How many times do I, or any of the other DBT advocates have to say that
nobody is obliged to do a DBT of any kind and they are free to use whatever
criteria they wish for their buying decisions? It is only when claims are
made about technical aspects that don't match what is known, that a DBT is
suggested.

[email protected]

October 24th 05, 10:33 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > hlink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > k.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
> net>
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >> in message ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Gawd, Mickey, are you really really really this stupid? Even I am
>> >> >> > awestruck at your incredibly moronic misapprehensions of reality.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he generally
>> >> >> >> answers
>> >> >> >> polite questions, politely.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This globule of concentrated stupidity ranks right up there with
>> >> >> > Booby's
>> >> >> > claim that Arnii Krooger is "tough to beat in a debate".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I am almost nonplused by your far-out looniness, Mickey. If you
> were
>> >> >> > new
>> >> >> > to Usenet, we might be able to laugh off this milestone of
> lameness.
>> >> >> > But
>> >> >> > you're not new -- you've been playing here for years. You've seen
>> >> >> > Krooger's cavalcades of lies and fanatical egotism first-hand.
>> >> >> > And
>> > yet
>> >> > you
>> >> >> > mouth such fatuous idiocy that you take our breaths away.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> I've also seen you doing much worse.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Why don't you dispense with this ridiculous nonsense already and
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > admit you adore Arnii? You can keep the whys and wherefores to
>> >> >> > yourself.
>> >> >> > I'm sure the reality would put our speculations to shame.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Why don't you dispense with your pretense f having an interest in
>> > audio,
>> >> >> when all you really want to do is stalk somebody that knows
> something
>> >> > about
>> >> >> it?
>> >> >>
>> >> > Once again, Mikey, it is dishonest to assert someone else is
>> > "pretending".
>> >> > You cannot know this. George and I are quite honest in our opinions.
> Be
>> > a
>> >> > good boy and accept that.
>> >> >
>> >> OK,your opinions are honest, therefore yo are both audio idiots.
>> >>
>> > Sorry, Mikey, wrong again.
>> > There is no such thing as an "audio idiot." There are, however, idiotic
>> > people.
>> > You are a member of the club of weak-minded people.
>> >
>> Have another biscuit.
>>
> Your offer to share is appreciated, but I'll stick to human food.
>
>
Next try human thought.

Robert Morein

October 25th 05, 11:33 AM

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > hlink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > k.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
> > net>
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >> in message ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Gawd, Mickey, are you really really really this stupid? Even I
am
> >> >> >> > awestruck at your incredibly moronic misapprehensions of
reality.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Arny has a reputation for not tolerating nonsense, he
generally
> >> >> >> >> answers
> >> >> >> >> polite questions, politely.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > This globule of concentrated stupidity ranks right up there
with
> >> >> >> > Booby's
> >> >> >> > claim that Arnii Krooger is "tough to beat in a debate".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I am almost nonplused by your far-out looniness, Mickey. If you
> > were
> >> >> >> > new
> >> >> >> > to Usenet, we might be able to laugh off this milestone of
> > lameness.
> >> >> >> > But
> >> >> >> > you're not new -- you've been playing here for years. You've
seen
> >> >> >> > Krooger's cavalcades of lies and fanatical egotism first-hand.
> >> >> >> > And
> >> > yet
> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > mouth such fatuous idiocy that you take our breaths away.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I've also seen you doing much worse.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Why don't you dispense with this ridiculous nonsense already
and
> >> >> >> > just
> >> >> >> > admit you adore Arnii? You can keep the whys and wherefores to
> >> >> >> > yourself.
> >> >> >> > I'm sure the reality would put our speculations to shame.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Why don't you dispense with your pretense f having an interest in
> >> > audio,
> >> >> >> when all you really want to do is stalk somebody that knows
> > something
> >> >> > about
> >> >> >> it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Once again, Mikey, it is dishonest to assert someone else is
> >> > "pretending".
> >> >> > You cannot know this. George and I are quite honest in our
opinions.
> > Be
> >> > a
> >> >> > good boy and accept that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> OK,your opinions are honest, therefore yo are both audio idiots.
> >> >>
> >> > Sorry, Mikey, wrong again.
> >> > There is no such thing as an "audio idiot." There are, however,
idiotic
> >> > people.
> >> > You are a member of the club of weak-minded people.
> >> >
> >> Have another biscuit.
> >>
> > Your offer to share is appreciated, but I'll stick to human food.
> >
> >
> Next try human thought.
>
Mikey, it is very unoriginal to recycle the words of others, and points to
your mental inferiority.

Robert Morein

October 25th 05, 11:35 AM

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "surf" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > " > wrote ...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >>>>
> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and that
> >> it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.
> >
> >
> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> No

"Nuf said.
Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.

John Atkinson

October 25th 05, 12:04 PM

wrote:
> "surf" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > " > wrote ...
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >>>
> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
> >> [difference] testing.
> >
> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>
> No...

Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
this admission.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[email protected]

October 25th 05, 05:15 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "surf" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > " > wrote ...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >>>>
>> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and
>> >> that
>> >> it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.
>> >
>> >
>> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> No
>
> "Nuf said.
> Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.
>
>
This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope right,
and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly.

[email protected]

October 25th 05, 05:20 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "surf" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > " > wrote ...
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >>>
>> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
>> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
>> >> [difference] testing.
>> >
>> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>>
>> No...
>
> Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
> this admission.
>

Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed equipment is.

> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be bad.

You needn't participate in something to recognize it's value.

Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.

October 25th 05, 05:22 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "surf" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > " > wrote ...
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >>>
>> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
>> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
>> >> [difference] testing.
>> >
>> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>>
>> No...
>
> Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
> this admission.
>
So where are the measurements for the Shakti Stones you endorsed?

MINe 109

October 25th 05, 07:04 PM

In article t>,
> wrote:

> So where are the measurements for the Shakti Stones you endorsed?

Nice new nic!

Evidently, the Shakti On-lines is good for 3 horsepower:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/dynotests.htm

Stephen

October 25th 05, 07:50 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> > wrote:
>
>> So where are the measurements for the Shakti Stones you endorsed?
>
> Nice new nic!
>
> Evidently, the Shakti On-lines is good for 3 horsepower:
>
> http://www.shakti-innovations.com/dynotests.htm
>
Been there, seen that. Where are the audio related measurements?

Robert Morein

October 25th 05, 09:59 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
> > "surf" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > " > wrote ...
> > >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> > >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> > >>>
> > >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
> > >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
> > >> [difference] testing.
> > >
> > > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >
> > No...
>
> Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
> this admission.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
John, the RAO Manual of Style requires that you format your reply as,
"Thank you for admitting that you don't use ABX"

KroogerSoft is coming out with a MS Word add-on that will do this
automatically.

Robert Morein

October 25th 05, 10:06 PM

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >>
> >> "surf" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > " > wrote ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and
> >> >> that
> >> >> it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >> No
> >
> > "Nuf said.
> > Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.
> >
> >
> This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope right,
> and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly.
>
Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
Or are you just lying, Mikey?

Robert Morein

October 25th 05, 10:07 PM

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> >> Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>
> >Perhaps he "pretends" that he has.
>
> Mocking tone, noted. Thanks Robret for admitting that you like to pretend
aBxism
> is, not a real testing protocol when all the big company's use it, LOt"s.
>
Mikey needs to buy more than a clue. He needs a whole new brain.

Robert Morein

October 25th 05, 10:08 PM

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> "surf" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > " > wrote ...
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> >>>
> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
> >> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
> >> >> [difference] testing.
> >> >
> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >>
> >> No...
> >
> > Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
> > this admission.
> >
>
> Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed equipment is.
>
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
>
> So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be bad.
>
Mikey, you can't know that being hit by a car would be bad. You have to try
it.
Try it, and let us know.

October 25th 05, 11:20 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > link.net...
>> >>
>> >> "surf" > wrote in message
>> >> . ..
>> >> > " > wrote ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid and
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference testing.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> >> No
>> >
>> > "Nuf said.
>> > Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.
>> >
>> >
>> This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope
>> right,
>> and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly.
>>
> Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
> Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
> Or are you just lying, Mikey?
>
>
My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting your
ass kicked in a moderated forum.

It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.

And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about damping
factor, or amplifers in general.

October 25th 05, 11:21 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> "surf" > wrote in message
>> >> . ..
>> >> > " > wrote ...
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
>> >> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
>> >> >> [difference] testing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> >>
>> >> No...
>> >
>> > Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
>> > this admission.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed equipment
>> is.
>>
>> > John Atkinson
>> > Editor, Stereophile
>>
>> So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be bad.
>>
> Mikey, you can't know that being hit by a car would be bad. You have to
> try
> it.
> Try it, and let us know.
>
Thanks for admitting you're so stupid you don't know that getting hit by a
car would be bad.

October 25th 05, 11:22 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> wrote:
>> > "surf" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> > > " > wrote ...
>> > >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> > >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> > >>>
>> > >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
>> > >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
>> > >> [difference] testing.
>> > >
>> > > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> >
>> > No...
>>
>> Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
>> this admission.
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>>
> John, the RAO Manual of Style requires that you format your reply as,
> "Thank you for admitting that you don't use ABX"
>
> KroogerSoft is coming out with a MS Word add-on that will do this
> automatically.
>
And I hear they named a software product after your dick, MORESOFT.

October 26th 05, 12:19 AM

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>>> Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>
>>Perhaps he "pretends" that he has.
>
> Mocking tone, noted. Thanks Robret for admitting that you like to pretend
> aBxism
> is, not a real testing protocol when all the big company's use it, LOt"s.
>
>
Would you consider Bang&Olafson to be a big comapany?
How about Nokia?
Harman? The BBC?

Alll of them use or have used ABX.

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 04:29 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > "surf" > wrote in message
> >> > . ..
> >> > > " > wrote ...
> >> > >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >> > >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
> >> > >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
> >> > >> [difference] testing.
> >> > >
> >> > > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >> >
> >> > No...
> >>
> >> Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
> >> this admission.
> >>
> >> John Atkinson
> >> Editor, Stereophile
> >>
> > John, the RAO Manual of Style requires that you format your reply as,
> > "Thank you for admitting that you don't use ABX"
> >
> > KroogerSoft is coming out with a MS Word add-on that will do this
> > automatically.
> >
> And I hear they named a software product after your dick, MORESOFT.
>
Mikey, it is frequently the case that people with inferior minds, such as
yourself, resort to crudity.

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 04:30 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "surf" > wrote in message
> >> >> . ..
> >> >> > " > wrote ...
> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
> >> >> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
> >> >> >> [difference] testing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >> >>
> >> >> No...
> >> >
> >> > Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
> >> > this admission.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed equipment
> >> is.
> >>
> >> > John Atkinson
> >> > Editor, Stereophile
> >>
> >> So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be
bad.
> >>
> > Mikey, you can't know that being hit by a car would be bad. You have to
> > try
> > it.
> > Try it, and let us know.
> >
> Thanks for admitting you're so stupid you don't know that getting hit by a
> car would be bad.
>
Mikey, I know it's bad. But you, as an ABX advocate, cannot assume that it
is apriori reasonable to assume that getting hit by a car is bad. Please try
it, and give us a report.

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 04:31 AM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > link.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "surf" > wrote in message
> >> >> . ..
> >> >> > " > wrote ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
and
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference
testing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >> >> No
> >> >
> >> > "Nuf said.
> >> > Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope
> >> right,
> >> and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly.
> >>
> > Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
> > Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
> > Or are you just lying, Mikey?
> >
> >
> My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting your
> ass kicked in a moderated forum.
>
> It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.
>
> And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about damping
> factor, or amplifers in general.
>
Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the definition of
damping factor.

paul packer

October 26th 05, 05:40 AM

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:20:30 GMT, "
> wrote:

>So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be bad.

>You needn't participate in something to recognize it's value.
>
>Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.

Funny, my eyes are still playing up. I wonder if any optometrists are
familiar with this effect:

Robert Morein

Robert Morein

Robert Morein

Robert Morein

Robert Morein

....probably not.

October 26th 05, 08:00 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > hlink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > link.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "surf" > wrote in message
>> >> >> . ..
>> >> >> > " > wrote ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
> and
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference
> testing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> >> >> No
>> >> >
>> >> > "Nuf said.
>> >> > Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope
>> >> right,
>> >> and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly.
>> >>
>> > Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
>> > Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
>> > Or are you just lying, Mikey?
>> >
>> >
>> My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting your
>> ass kicked in a moderated forum.
>>
>> It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.
>>
>> And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about damping
>> factor, or amplifers in general.
>>
> Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the definition
> of
> damping factor.
>
Yawn.

October 26th 05, 08:01 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> "surf" > wrote in message
>> >> >> . ..
>> >> >> > " > wrote ...
>> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
>> >> >> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
>> >> >> >> [difference] testing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No...
>> >> >
>> >> > Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
>> >> > this admission.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed equipment
>> >> is.
>> >>
>> >> > John Atkinson
>> >> > Editor, Stereophile
>> >>
>> >> So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be
> bad.
>> >>
>> > Mikey, you can't know that being hit by a car would be bad. You have to
>> > try
>> > it.
>> > Try it, and let us know.
>> >
>> Thanks for admitting you're so stupid you don't know that getting hit by
>> a
>> car would be bad.
>>
> Mikey, I know it's bad. But you, as an ABX advocate, cannot assume that it
> is apriori reasonable to assume that getting hit by a car is bad. Please
> try
> it, and give us a report.
>
Yawn.

October 26th 05, 08:02 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > "surf" > wrote in message
>> >> > . ..
>> >> > > " > wrote ...
>> >> > >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >> > >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
>> >> > >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
>> >> > >> [difference] testing.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> >> >
>> >> > No...
>> >>
>> >> Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
>> >> this admission.
>> >>
>> >> John Atkinson
>> >> Editor, Stereophile
>> >>
>> > John, the RAO Manual of Style requires that you format your reply as,
>> > "Thank you for admitting that you don't use ABX"
>> >
>> > KroogerSoft is coming out with a MS Word add-on that will do this
>> > automatically.
>> >
>> And I hear they named a software product after your dick, MORESOFT.
>>
> Mikey, it is frequently the case that people with inferior minds, such as
> yourself, resort to crudity.
>
Whereas with your sort of inferiority complex, they just become boring and
repetitive.

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 09:06 AM

> wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > hlink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > link.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "surf" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> . ..
> >> >> >> > " > wrote ...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> >> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
> > and
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference
> > testing.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >> >> >> No
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Nuf said.
> >> >> > Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope
> >> >> right,
> >> >> and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so badly.
> >> >>
> >> > Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
> >> > Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
> >> > Or are you just lying, Mikey?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting
your
> >> ass kicked in a moderated forum.
> >>
> >> It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.
> >>
> >> And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about
damping
> >> factor, or amplifers in general.
> >>
> > Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the
definition
> > of
> > damping factor.
> >
> Yawn.
>
Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say.

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 09:07 AM

> 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...
> >> >>
> >> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> "surf" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> . ..
> >> >> >> > " > wrote ...
> >> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >> >> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
> >> >> >> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
> >> >> >> >> [difference] testing.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
> >> >> > this admission.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed
equipment
> >> >> is.
> >> >>
> >> >> > John Atkinson
> >> >> > Editor, Stereophile
> >> >>
> >> >> So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be
> > bad.
> >> >>
> >> > Mikey, you can't know that being hit by a car would be bad. You have
to
> >> > try
> >> > it.
> >> > Try it, and let us know.
> >> >
> >> Thanks for admitting you're so stupid you don't know that getting hit
by
> >> a
> >> car would be bad.
> >>
> > Mikey, I know it's bad. But you, as an ABX advocate, cannot assume that
it
> > is apriori reasonable to assume that getting hit by a car is bad. Please
> > try
> > it, and give us a report.
> >
> Yawn.
>
Come on, Mikey, do us all a favor. Try stepping in front of a bus for
variety.

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 09:12 AM

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > "surf" > wrote in message
> >> >> > . ..
> >> >> > > " > wrote ...
> >> >> > >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >> >> > >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
> >> >> > >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
> >> >> > >> [difference] testing.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No...
> >> >>
> >> >> Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
> >> >> this admission.
> >> >>
> >> >> John Atkinson
> >> >> Editor, Stereophile
> >> >>
> >> > John, the RAO Manual of Style requires that you format your reply as,
> >> > "Thank you for admitting that you don't use ABX"
> >> >
> >> > KroogerSoft is coming out with a MS Word add-on that will do this
> >> > automatically.
> >> >
> >> And I hear they named a software product after your dick, MORESOFT.
> >>
> > Mikey, it is frequently the case that people with inferior minds, such
as
> > yourself, resort to crudity.
> >
> Whereas with your sort of inferiority complex, they just become boring and
> repetitive.
>
Mikey, kindly refrain from commenting upon your superiors. You are not
mentally equipped to understand us.

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 09:21 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:20:30 GMT, "
> > wrote:
>
>
> >So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be bad.
>
> >You needn't participate in something to recognize it's value.
> >
> >Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.
>
> Funny, my eyes are still playing up. I wonder if any optometrists are
> familiar with this effect:
>
>
> Robert Morein
>
> Robert Morein
>
> Robert Morein
>
> Robert Morein
>
> Robert Morein
>
> ...probably not.

Ah, velcome to mine Büro, Herr Packer. Open za left eye. I see some red in
there. I diagnose repetitive post reading injury. You are reading too hard,
mine freund. Zere are two choices. Ezer vee remove za eyeball und gif you a
glass that vill not turn red, or you change your habits for za besser.

Is time you take a little rest, no? Za vorld is populated by madmen. Zey are
all crazy except for sie und ich. Ich empfehle Sie jetzt, um einige Gruppen
mit ein besseren Gestalt zu lesen. I'm sorry, I forget you are English, I
mean, I recommend you now to read some groups mit ein better gestalt. Und,
if zat is not to your taste, I commend to you za pleasures of za weinstube,
und zee bierhalle. Wein, Frauen und Lied und Sie können diese Scheiße
vergessen.

paul packer

October 26th 05, 11:14 AM

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:21:37 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:20:30 GMT, "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be bad.
>>
>> >You needn't participate in something to recognize it's value.
>> >
>> >Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.
>>
>> Funny, my eyes are still playing up. I wonder if any optometrists are
>> familiar with this effect:
>>
>>
>> Robert Morein
>>
>> Robert Morein
>>
>> Robert Morein
>>
>> Robert Morein
>>
>> Robert Morein
>>
>> ...probably not.
>
>Ah, velcome to mine Büro, Herr Packer. Open za left eye. I see some red in
>there. I diagnose repetitive post reading injury. You are reading too hard,
>mine freund. Zere are two choices. Ezer vee remove za eyeball und gif you a
>glass that vill not turn red, or you change your habits for za besser.
>
>Is time you take a little rest, no? Za vorld is populated by madmen. Zey are
>all crazy except for sie und ich. Ich empfehle Sie jetzt, um einige Gruppen
>mit ein besseren Gestalt zu lesen. I'm sorry, I forget you are English, I
>mean, I recommend you now to read some groups mit ein better gestalt. Und,
>if zat is not to your taste, I commend to you za pleasures of za weinstube,
>und zee bierhalle. Wein, Frauen und Lied und Sie können diese Scheiße
>vergessen.

Well, I'm addicted to RAO and I'm a teatotaller. What now?

John Atkinson

October 26th 05, 02:03 PM

wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > wrote:
> >> "surf" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > " > wrote ...
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> >>>
> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
> >> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
> >> >> [difference] testing.
> >> >
> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >>
> >> No...
> >
> > Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
> > this admission.
> >
>
> Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed equipment
> is.

I am sorry, Mr, McKelvy. I have no idea how this response of yours
is any way connected to what I wrote.

> So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be
> bad.

As I said at the HE2005 debate, many of those who are the strongest
proponents of blind testing -- you, Steve Sullivan -- have little
or no experience of it. By contrast, I have taken part in or organized
literally 100s of such tests, which I why I feel, along with Sean
Olive,
whom you recently quoted, that a properly designed blind test where
the variables under tests are restricted to just that the experimenter
wishes to investigate are difficult and time-consuming.

> Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.

Okay, but that technqiue does introduce interfering variables, as
has been discussed at length on r.a.o. It also has no relevance to
your not using blind or ABX testing to choose your audio system. I
would have thought, given your blind faith in blind testing, that
when it came to spending your owen money you would make use of that
technique.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George Middius

October 26th 05, 03:52 PM

John Atkinson said:

>> Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.

>Okay, but that technqiue does introduce interfering variables, as
>has been discussed at length on r.a.o.

The 'borgs love to claim that Arnii's ****ware site counts as "experience" in
DBTs. The Normals find that claim laughable. The best that can be said about
that software is that it can help you learn what it's like to undertake a *real*
DBT. (Not my words, but those of somebody whose experience is on a par with
yours, John.)

>It also has no relevance to
>your not using blind or ABX testing to choose your audio system. I
>would have thought, given your blind faith in blind testing, that
>when it came to spending your owen money you would make use of that
>technique.

Bingo! You've put your finger on the disconnect in BorgLogic. aBxism isn't a
scientific tool for discovering truth. Rather, it's a set of rhetorical dodges
and articles of faith that are used for shoddy rationalizations of religious
beliefs. The way the 'borgs use aBxism as a crutch is a perversion of the
scientific principles that underlie both real DBTs and the technology employed
to create aBxism torture boxes.

Mickey's admission that he never "tested" his own purchases puts him on the same
level of hypocrisy as Sillyborg. (That individual recently admitted, right here
on RAO, that he cares so little about the sound of his system that he
mail-ordered a receiver without any audition at all.) It's clear from this
behavior that Their constant harping on aBxism is nothing but a red herring. The
truth is the 'borgs don't care (or can't perceive) how good or bad Their systems
sound, and they use aBxism in an attempt to distract from the fact that Their
purchases are governed entirely by financial considerations. (As a side note,
let's remember that RAO's standard-bearer of the aBxism religion, Arnii
Krooborg, has spent more on obsolete sound cards than most of us spent on our
whole systems.)

paul packer

October 26th 05, 04:00 PM

On 26 Oct 2005 06:03:29 -0700, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:

>. I would have thought, given your blind faith in blind testing, that
>when it came to spending your owen money you would make use of that
>technique.

"Blind faith in blind testing". I like that. The blind leading the
blind, sort of.

John Atkinson

October 26th 05, 09:47 PM

George Middius wrote:
> The best that can be said about [PCABX] is that it can help you
> learn what it's like to undertake a *real* DBT. (Not my words, but
> those of somebody whose experience is on a par with yours, John.)

I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is
any substitute for experiencing the real thing. And again, it is
astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
spending their own money.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Lionel

October 26th 05, 10:09 PM

John Atkinson wrote :

>
> And again, it is
> astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
> to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
> spending their own money.

Are you sure it is not possible to make the same astonishing constatation
ywith our Stereophile collaborators and the devices they are reviewing ?

October 26th 05, 10:10 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> > hlink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " > wrote in message
>> >> >> > link.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "surf" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> . ..
>> >> >> >> > " > wrote ...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >> >> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's
>> >> >> >> >> invalid
>> > and
>> >> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> >> it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference
>> > testing.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> >> >> >> No
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Nuf said.
>> >> >> > Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble telescope
>> >> >> right,
>> >> >> and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so
>> >> >> badly.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
>> >> > Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
>> >> > Or are you just lying, Mikey?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting
> your
>> >> ass kicked in a moderated forum.
>> >>
>> >> It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.
>> >>
>> >> And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about
> damping
>> >> factor, or amplifers in general.
>> >>
>> > Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the
> definition
>> > of
>> > damping factor.
>> >
>> Yawn.
>>
> Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say.
>
I just get bored when you are so completely, utterly and consistently wrong
about damn near everything, Robert. Your predictability is nothing short of
stunning.

October 26th 05, 10:19 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > wrote:
>> >> "surf" > wrote in message
>> >> . ..
>> >> > " > wrote ...
>> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
>> >> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
>> >> >> [difference] testing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> >>
>> >> No...
>> >
>> > Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
>> > this admission.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed equipment
>> is.
>
> I am sorry, Mr, McKelvy. I have no idea how this response of yours
> is any way connected to what I wrote.
>
>> So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would be
>> bad.
>
> As I said at the HE2005 debate, many of those who are the strongest
> proponents of blind testing -- you, Steve Sullivan -- have little
> or no experience of it.

Irrelevant to it being useful and to your denail of that fact.

By contrast, I have taken part in or organized
> literally 100s of such tests, which I why I feel, along with Sean
> Olive,
> whom you recently quoted, that a properly designed blind test where
> the variables under tests are restricted to just that the experimenter
> wishes to investigate are difficult and time-consuming.
>

Yet useful nonetheless. and they are still part of the reason why Sean Olive
chose to work where he does.

>> Come to think of it, I did do some of the PCABX trials.
>
> Okay, but that technqiue does introduce interfering variables, as
> has been discussed at length on r.a.o. It also has no relevance to
> your not using blind or ABX testing

Who said anything about blind faith, that's certainly not me. That's the
people who refuse to accept the fact that sighted testing for subtle
difference is worthless.

to choose your audio system.

I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would perform or
I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.

I
> would have thought, given your blind faith in blind testing, that
> when it came to spending your owen money you would make use of that
> technique.
>
There's that crap about blind faith again, you really do seem to be
confusing you and the hearing impaired idiots you employ as reviewers,
especially Fremer, with people like me who know what their systems are
actually capable of. Otherwise you guys wouldn't keep making the stupid
mistakes you do. Also if you had any integrity, you would test things like
Shakti stones for any actual audible effect, instead of your chicken ****
cop out about how you never tried them, so you can't say for sure.

>

October 26th 05, 10:20 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> >> > oups.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > "surf" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > . ..
>> >> >> > > " > wrote ...
>> >> >> > >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >> >> > >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> > >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's invalid
>> >> >> > >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
>> >> >> > >> [difference] testing.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just bookmarking
>> >> >> this admission.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John Atkinson
>> >> >> Editor, Stereophile
>> >> >>
>> >> > John, the RAO Manual of Style requires that you format your reply
>> >> > as,
>> >> > "Thank you for admitting that you don't use ABX"
>> >> >
>> >> > KroogerSoft is coming out with a MS Word add-on that will do this
>> >> > automatically.
>> >> >
>> >> And I hear they named a software product after your dick, MORESOFT.
>> >>
>> > Mikey, it is frequently the case that people with inferior minds, such
> as
>> > yourself, resort to crudity.
>> >
>> Whereas with your sort of inferiority complex, they just become boring
>> and
>> repetitive.
>>
> Mikey, kindly refrain from commenting upon your superiors. You are not
> mentally equipped to understand us.
>
I wasn't talking to a superior, I was talking to you.

Arny Krueger

October 26th 05, 10:33 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ps.com

> I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that
> PCABX is any substitute for experiencing the real thing.

How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this topic.

No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are* many cases
where PCABX *is* the real thing.

Classic examples - testing perceptual encoders and just
about anything else with digital I/O.

The most common cases where PCABX involves estimation
involve equipment that has analog inputs and/or outputs. But
only people who are paranoid about good converters suffer
with this.

> And again, it is astonishing that not one of the ABX
> advocates actually adheres
> to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
> spending their own money.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

I've ABXed a fair amount of equipment that I own including
stuff I engineered and built, and so have many others. I've
also ABXed equipment belonging to my friends. Often the
question at hand was: "Is it worth spending my time and/or
money on this?

October 26th 05, 11:17 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > 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...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>> >> >> message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "surf" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> . ..
>> >> >> >> > " > wrote ...
>> >> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
>> >> >> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's
>> >> >> >> >> invalid
>> >> >> >> >> and that it not one of the most widely used [protocols] for
>> >> >> >> >> [difference] testing.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Amazing. Not even to choose the products he buys. Just
>> >> >> > bookmarking
>> >> >> > this admission.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for admitting you don't kow what competently designed
> equipment
>> >> >> is.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > John Atkinson
>> >> >> > Editor, Stereophile
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So what? I haven't been hit by a car either, but I know it would
>> >> >> be
>> > bad.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Mikey, you can't know that being hit by a car would be bad. You have
> to
>> >> > try
>> >> > it.
>> >> > Try it, and let us know.
>> >> >
>> >> Thanks for admitting you're so stupid you don't know that getting hit
> by
>> >> a
>> >> car would be bad.
>> >>
>> > Mikey, I know it's bad. But you, as an ABX advocate, cannot assume that
> it
>> > is apriori reasonable to assume that getting hit by a car is bad.
>> > Please
>> > try
>> > it, and give us a report.
>> >
>> Yawn.
>>
> Come on, Mikey, do us all a favor. Try stepping in front of a bus for
> variety.
>
Are you still here? I thought you'd be off somewhere buying a clue.

October 26th 05, 11:27 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ps.com
>
>
>> I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that
>> PCABX is any substitute for experiencing the real thing.
>
> How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this topic.
>

Apparently until he finds the integrity he keeps leaving in his other pants.
Some people are pathalogical liars. Funn how so many of them all seem to
have a problem understandig blind testing.

> No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are* many cases where PCABX *is*
> the real thing.
>

If only he were. Unless the real thing is........oh, never mind.

> Classic examples - testing perceptual encoders and just about anything
> else with digital I/O.
>
> The most common cases where PCABX involves estimation involve equipment
> that has analog inputs and/or outputs. But only people who are paranoid
> about good converters suffer with this.
>

Not only them, there are those who wish to pretend that they are not trying
to pull the wool over the eyes of the audio buying public.
>
>> And again, it is astonishing that not one of the ABX
>> advocates actually adheres
>> to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
>> spending their own money.
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>
Such a nice way of shaying he's full of ****, again.

> I've ABXed a fair amount of equipment that I own including stuff I
> engineered and built, and so have many others. I've also ABXed equipment
> belonging to my friends. Often the question at hand was: "Is it worth
> spending my time and/or money on this?
>
The blind comparisons I have done were not really ABX, because at the time I
didn't even know about it, I just knew that it was proper to try and control
bias.

That the bull**** artists like Atkinson think that those who understand the
value and the purpose of blind testing, must use it before they buy anything
shows the depths of either their stupidity, or the lengths they will go to
deceive.

Either way they still get it wrong and it ****es them off that we know it.

October 26th 05, 11:28 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Oct 2005 06:03:29 -0700, "John Atkinson"
> > wrote:
>
>>. I would have thought, given your blind faith in blind testing, that
>>when it came to spending your owen money you would make use of that
>>technique.
>
> "Blind faith in blind testing". I like that. The blind leading the
> blind, sort of.

That's the people who trust that Shakti Stones have an audible effect.

Steven Sullivan

October 26th 05, 11:47 PM

John Atkinson > wrote:

> George Middius wrote:
> > The best that can be said about [PCABX] is that it can help you
> > learn what it's like to undertake a *real* DBT. (Not my words, but
> > those of somebody whose experience is on a par with yours, John.)

> I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is
> any substitute for experiencing the real thing. And again, it is
> astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
> to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
> spending their own money.

What 'advice' is that?

The *advice* to keep the uncontested flaws of sighted
comparison in mind when making *claims* about audible
difference?

The *advice* to do the same when *reading* claims
of audible difference, in magazines like yours?

The *advice* to be aware that differences you perceive in
a sighted comparison of sounds, stand a significant *chance* of
being wholly imaginary, depending on the circumstances?

The *advice* that two things might sound different
for far more mundane reasons than SACD vs CD,
burned-in vs new, high-end vs. mid-fi, Shakti stone
versus 'untreated', etc.?

I suspect every ABX advocate takes all of those
pieces of advice to heart, when spending their own
money. I know I do.

Would you dismiss the 'advice' of
those who advocate DBTs of medicine
and health care products, simply because consumers
themselves aren't usually able to perform them?

If someone has the wherewithal to perform DBTs in their
home, more power to them -- they're very fortunate.
But as we average consumers routinely
depend on well-equipped labs to do the
most definitive, least biased comparisons of products,
so too might one *advise* audiophiles to agitate for, say,
*Stereophile* or some other mainstream audio magazine,
to step into the 20th century, and
perform that service for the consumers it claims to
want to inform.

The only astonishing thing is the bald-faced
sophistry you're engaging in by bringing up
this 'advice' straw man. I fear rmp has
coarsened your debating skills.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

October 27th 05, 12:40 AM

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>> George Middius wrote:
>> > The best that can be said about [PCABX] is that it can help you
>> > learn what it's like to undertake a *real* DBT. (Not my words, but
>> > those of somebody whose experience is on a par with yours, John.)
>
>> I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is
>> any substitute for experiencing the real thing. And again, it is
>> astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
>> to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
>> spending their own money.
>
>
> What 'advice' is that?
>
> The *advice* to keep the uncontested flaws of sighted
> comparison in mind when making *claims* about audible
> difference?
>
> The *advice* to do the same when *reading* claims
> of audible difference, in magazines like yours?
>
> The *advice* to be aware that differences you perceive in
> a sighted comparison of sounds, stand a significant *chance* of
> being wholly imaginary, depending on the circumstances?
>
> The *advice* that two things might sound different
> for far more mundane reasons than SACD vs CD,
> burned-in vs new, high-end vs. mid-fi, Shakti stone
> versus 'untreated', etc.?
>
> I suspect every ABX advocate takes all of those
> pieces of advice to heart, when spending their own
> money. I know I do.
>
>
> Would you dismiss the 'advice' of
> those who advocate DBTs of medicine
> and health care products, simply because consumers
> themselves aren't usually able to perform them?
>
> If someone has the wherewithal to perform DBTs in their
> home, more power to them -- they're very fortunate.
> But as we average consumers routinely
> depend on well-equipped labs to do the
> most definitive, least biased comparisons of products,
> so too might one *advise* audiophiles to agitate for, say,
> *Stereophile* or some other mainstream audio magazine,
> to step into the 20th century, and
> perform that service for the consumers it claims to
> want to inform.
>
> The only astonishing thing is the bald-faced
> sophistry you're engaging in by bringing up
> this 'advice' straw man. I fear rmp has
> coarsened your debating skills.
>
>

Now, Now, you can't expect to get rational discussion about why it's bad to
do the right thing. Especially from someone who hasn't the time or the
courage to find the truth about Shakti Stones, Mpingo Disks, or Green Pens.

I think I'm going to visit the Audio Critic website so I can be cleansed of
Atkinson's unmitigated bull****.

dizzy

October 27th 05, 02:07 AM

On 26 Oct 2005 13:47:21 -0700, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:

>I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is
>any substitute for experiencing the real thing. And again, it is
>astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
>to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
>spending their own money.

That's pretty bad. ABX is a valuable tool for research and design,
but not "real easy" for the average Joe to partake in, and not
necessarily beneficial, either (keeping in mind that speakers differ
enough so the "ABX" isn't required).

October 27th 05, 05:56 AM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Oct 2005 13:47:21 -0700, "John Atkinson"
> > wrote:
>
>>I don't disagree, George. But it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is
>>any substitute for experiencing the real thing. And again, it is
>>astonishing that not one of the ABX advocates actually adheres
>>to their own advice to perform such tests when it comes to
>>spending their own money.
>
> That's pretty bad. ABX is a valuable tool for research and design,
> but not "real easy" for the average Joe to partake in, and not
> necessarily beneficial, either (keeping in mind that speakers differ
> enough so the "ABX" isn't required).
>
This fact has been pointed out many times. Atkinson knows it. He also is
probably well aware that ABX double-blind protocols were used at the BBC
when they decided it was impractical to design and build their own speakers.
They ultimately decided on Dynaudio speakers.

If you like I can send you the .pdf file that outlines the entire process.

paul packer

October 27th 05, 07:41 AM

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, > wrote:

>I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
>performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would perform or
>I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.

This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
to each component individually, various components together, all the
components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
chose on the basis of specs?

John Atkinson

October 27th 05, 12:10 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ps.com
>> it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute for
>> experiencing the real thing.
>
> How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this topic.
> No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are* many cases
> where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic examples - testing
> perceptual encoders and just about anything else with digital
> I/O.

Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I have said
on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX is a perfectly
valid means of testing codecs, A/D converters, etc, where their
effects on sound quality are directly preserved as computer
data files.

But PCABX cannot be used to directly compare the components that
comprise a typical audio system -- CD players, D/A converters,
amplifiers, loudspeakers -- which was the unambiguous context
for my comment, Mike McKelvy's choosing components for his
audio system.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

October 27th 05, 01:19 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> ps.com

>>> it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute for
>>> experiencing the real thing.

>> How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this
>> topic. No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are* many
>> cases where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic examples
>> - testing perceptual encoders and just about anything
>> else with digital I/O.

> Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I
> have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX
> is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs, A/D
> converters, etc, where their effects on sound quality are
> directly preserved as computer data files.

But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
John. You continue to make pronouncements as if from on
high, pronoucements that are based on outdated and narrow
thinking.

> But PCABX cannot be used to directly compare the
> components that comprise a typical audio system -- CD
> players, D/A converters, amplifiers, loudspeakers --

So you say, Atkinson. However as your comments at the HE2005
debate showed, when it comes to testing methodologies, your
mind is locked in a loop that has been running in place
wihtout changing in any meannigful way for more than 20
years. What's worse is the fact that the loop is a part of a
broken program.

BTW John, just for grins compare the following to the
old-fashioned stuff you publish along similar lines:

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wire_size/4BSTleft-z.gif

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wire_size/4BST-left-ph.gif

John, you'll probably die before you catch up with the work
I did years ago, in terms of either technical or subjective
testing.

Very sad.

October 27th 05, 07:32 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, > wrote:
>
>
>>I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
>>performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would perform
>>or
>>I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.
>
> This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
> to each component individually, various components together, all the
> components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
> chose on the basis of specs?
>
On the basis of actual performance.

John Atkinson

October 27th 05, 07:50 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> >> in message
> >> ps.com
> >>> it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute for
> >>> experiencing the real thing.
>
> >> How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this
> >> topic. No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are* many
> >> cases where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic examples
> >> - testing perceptual encoders and just about anything
> >> else with digital I/O.
>
> > Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I
> > have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX
> > is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs, A/D
> > converters, etc, where their effects on sound quality are
> > directly preserved as computer data files.
>
> But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
> John.

Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
selection of components for a domestic playback system.

> > PCABX cannot be used to directly compare the
> > components that comprise a typical audio system -- CD
> > players, D/A converters, amplifiers, loudspeakers --
>
> So you say, Atkinson.

Just as you have said in the past, Mr. Krueger. if it
was correct when you said it, it is equally correct
when I say it, surely?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

paul packer

October 28th 05, 02:23 AM

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:32:38 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
>>>performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would perform
>>>or
>>>I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.
>>
>> This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
>> to each component individually, various components together, all the
>> components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
>> chose on the basis of specs?
>>
>On the basis of actual performance.

Evasive answer noted.

paul packer

October 28th 05, 02:42 AM

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:19:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>But in your %$# posturing

No swearing, Arnie. :-)

Arny Krueger

October 28th 05, 03:25 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "John Atkinson" >
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> ps.com
>>>>> it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute
>>>>> for experiencing the real thing.
>>
>>>> How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this
>>>> topic. No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are*
>>>> many cases where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic
>>>> examples - testing perceptual encoders and just about
>>>> anything else with digital I/O.
>>
>>> Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I
>>> have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX
>>> is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs, A/D
>>> converters, etc, where their effects on sound quality
>>> are directly preserved as computer data files.
>>
>> But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
>> John.
>
> Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
> snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
> no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
> selection of components for a domestic playback system.

Do you read what you write, John? Did you really say that
codecs and ADCs have nothing to do with selection of
components for a domestic playback system?

(1) Dolby Digital is based on the AC-3 codec, pure and
simple.

(2) Many modern surround receivers have DSP-based signal
processing which requires there be ADCs to convert analog
inputs to digital.

Those are just the two most likely examples of
contradictions of your poorly-informed claim, John.

dave weil

October 28th 05, 07:05 AM

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:25:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Those are just the two most likely examples of
>contradictions of your poorly-informed claim, John.

More blather from the King of the Confederacy of Dunces.

October 28th 05, 09:20 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>>> in message
>>> oups.com
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> "John Atkinson" >
>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>> it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute
>>>>>> for experiencing the real thing.
>>>
>>>>> How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this
>>>>> topic. No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are*
>>>>> many cases where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic
>>>>> examples - testing perceptual encoders and just about
>>>>> anything else with digital I/O.
>>>
>>>> Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I
>>>> have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX
>>>> is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs, A/D
>>>> converters, etc, where their effects on sound quality
>>>> are directly preserved as computer data files.
>>>
>>> But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
>>> John.
>>
>> Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
>> snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
>> no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
>> selection of components for a domestic playback system.
>
> Do you read what you write, John? Did you really say that codecs and ADCs
> have nothing to do with selection of components for a domestic playback
> system?
>
> (1) Dolby Digital is based on the AC-3 codec, pure and simple.
>
> (2) Many modern surround receivers have DSP-based signal processing which
> requires there be ADCs to convert analog inputs to digital.
>
> Those are just the two most likely examples of contradictions of your
> poorly-informed claim, John.
>
>
Perhaps he doesn't really use any modern equipment.
I wonder if he has one of those tube CD players I once read about. I
laughed so hard at that one it hurt.

Arny Krueger

October 28th 05, 03:01 PM

> wrote in message
k.net
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> ups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "John Atkinson" >
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> "John Atkinson" >
>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>>> it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute
>>>>>>> for experiencing the real thing.
>>>>
>>>>>> How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this
>>>>>> topic. No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are*
>>>>>> many cases where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic
>>>>>> examples - testing perceptual encoders and just about
>>>>>> anything else with digital I/O.
>>>>
>>>>> Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I
>>>>> have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that
>>>>> PCABX is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs,
>>>>> A/D converters, etc, where their effects on sound
>>>>> quality are directly preserved as computer data files.
>>>>
>>>> But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
>>>> John.
>>>
>>> Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
>>> snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
>>> no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
>>> selection of components for a domestic playback system.
>>
>> Do you read what you write, John? Did you really say
>> that codecs and ADCs have nothing to do with selection
>> of components for a domestic playback system?
>>
>> (1) Dolby Digital is based on the AC-3 codec, pure and
>> simple. (2) Many modern surround receivers have
>> DSP-based
>> signal processing which requires there be ADCs to
>> convert analog inputs to digital. Those are just the two
>> most likely examples of
>> contradictions of your poorly-informed claim, John.

> Perhaps he doesn't really use any modern equipment.

I doubt that. But he doesn't seem to have a good grasp on
what's under the covers of some common modern gear. There's
a codec or two inside every surround processor and receiver.
Ooops, not really meat for Stereophile.

> I wonder if he has one of those tube CD players I once
> read about.

Last I heard, Art does.

> I laughed so hard at that one it hurt.

Art complaining about dunces is real solid irony. And, he's
the best supporter Middius ever had!

October 29th 05, 01:58 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:32:38 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
>>>>performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would
>>>>perform
>>>>or
>>>>I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.
>>>
>>> This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
>>> to each component individually, various components together, all the
>>> components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
>>> chose on the basis of specs?
>>>
>>On the basis of actual performance.
>
> Evasive answer noted.
>
Think about it. It might come to you.

paul packer

October 29th 05, 10:45 AM

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:58:16 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:32:38 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
>>>>>performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would
>>>>>perform
>>>>>or
>>>>>I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.
>>>>
>>>> This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
>>>> to each component individually, various components together, all the
>>>> components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
>>>> chose on the basis of specs?
>>>>
>>>On the basis of actual performance.
>>
>> Evasive answer noted.
>>
>Think about it. It might come to you.

By performance you don't mean sound quality, do you? And if so, and if
as you say you chose on the basis of each component's actual
performance, is it possible that you noticed along the way that one
amplifier often sounds different from another? Or did you only notice
that about speakers? Trust me, I'd really like to understand the
selection process.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 05, 11:20 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> By performance you don't mean sound quality, do you?

What else might it mean?

> And
> if so, and if as you say you chose on the basis of each
> component's actual performance, is it possible that you
> noticed along the way that one amplifier often sounds
> different from another?

That gets back to the core of the debate. Noticing that one
amplifier often sounds
different from another is a true and genuine experince.

As a rule, in actual use, all amplifiers sound different.
Anybody who makes a big point of this fact is just punching
their membership card in the dumb guys union.

If you want to pretend to be even a little smart Paul, you
have to ask the question: "Why does one amplifier often
sound different from another?"

The list of answers turns out to start with the following:

(1) The amps sound different because they aren't
level-matched when auditioned.
(2) The amps sound different because the music isn't
time-synched during the audition.
(3) The amps sound different because the listener's didn't
have their biases under nearly as good of control during the
audition as they thought.

Do these seem like bold assertions? Why not test them?

Why not do an amplifier comparison that addresses these
three issues fully. IOW do a test that nails these issues
stone cold.

Been there, done that many times.

The results are that if you address just these three
relatively simple issues, all of a sudden you notice that
good amplifiers no longer sound different from another.

> Trust me, I'd really like to understand the
> selection process.

No Paul you don't want to understand the selection process.
I say that with considerable confidence because when
presented with correct answers on a silver platter, you
figuratively spit on them every time. In short, you
illustrate Christ's parable about not casting pearls before
swine.

Is it arrogance that makes you act that way, Paul? Is it
lack of proper educational background? Is it lack of basic
native intelligence? Is it something else?

You tell me!

paul packer

October 29th 05, 03:03 PM

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:20:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>
>> By performance you don't mean sound quality, do you?
>
>What else might it mean?

From the Objectivist brigade, almost anything.

>> And
>> if so, and if as you say you chose on the basis of each
>> component's actual performance, is it possible that you
>> noticed along the way that one amplifier often sounds
>> different from another?
>
>That gets back to the core of the debate. Noticing that one
>amplifier often sounds
>different from another is a true and genuine experince.
>
>As a rule, in actual use, all amplifiers sound different.
>Anybody who makes a big point of this fact is just punching
>their membership card in the dumb guys union.
>
>If you want to pretend to be even a little smart Paul,

Gratuitous, Arnie. No one's pretending anything. Unless of course you
are.

> you have to ask the question: "Why does one amplifier often
>sound different from another?"
>
>The list of answers turns out to start with the following:
>
>(1) The amps sound different because they aren't
>level-matched when auditioned.

Level matched? When I audition I do so at the same level, the level
I've been listening at since 1965, the level which is comfortable for
me. Any other level is not relevant. I think if I say that level
matching by instrument will not always produce the same perceived
loudness, you'll know what I mean. But what I really mean is, the
level I set at the start of each listening session, instinctively, is
the best possible level matching, because it is a 'real-world'
condition. And remember we're talking 'perception' here, not absolute
fact. The amps have already been determined as measuring the same.

>(2) The amps sound different because the music isn't
>time-synched during the audition.

That's A/B audition, I presume. Not what I'm talking about.

>(3) The amps sound different because the listener's didn't
>have their biases under nearly as good of control during the
>audition as they thought.

Oh piffle! Sorry, but no other word describes that statement.

>Do these seem like bold assertions?

No, they just seem nonsensical.

> Why not test them?

Because I've got better things to do, like listening to music.

>Why not do an amplifier comparison that addresses these
>three issues fully. IOW do a test that nails these issues
>stone cold.
>
>Been there, done that many times.
>
>The results are that if you address just these three
>relatively simple issues, all of a sudden you notice that
>good amplifiers no longer sound different from another.

What do you mean by good amplifiers? Ones that all measure zero
distortion or as good as?

>> Trust me, I'd really like to understand the
>> selection process.
>
>No Paul you don't want to understand the selection process.

Well, I did, but I have to say what you've presented seems to me so
silly I simply can't take it seriously.

>I say that with considerable confidence because when
>presented with correct answers on a silver platter, you
>figuratively spit on them every time. In short, you
>illustrate Christ's parable about not casting pearls before
>swine.

Yep. These pearls I have to stamp all over.

>Is it arrogance that makes you act that way, Paul? Is it
>lack of proper educational background? Is it lack of basic
>native intelligence? Is it something else?

Answers on the back of an old warranty card addressed to Arnold
Krueger esquire.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 05, 03:38 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

>>> And
>>> if so, and if as you say you chose on the basis of each
>>> component's actual performance, is it possible that you
>>> noticed along the way that one amplifier often sounds
>>> different from another?

>> That gets back to the core of the debate. Noticing that
>> one amplifier often sounds
>> different from another is a true and genuine experince.
>
>> As a rule, in actual use, all amplifiers sound different.
>> Anybody who makes a big point of this fact is just
>> punching their membership card in the dumb guys union.

>> If you want to pretend to be even a little smart Paul,
>> you have to ask the question: "Why does one amplifier
>> often sound different from another?"

>> The list of answers turns out to start with the
>> following:
>>
>> (1) The amps sound different because they aren't
>> level-matched when auditioned.

> Level matched? When I audition I do so at the same level,
> the level I've been listening at since 1965, the level
> which is comfortable for me.

So Paul you're saying that the volume control on your system
is locked down and has only one setting, and furthermore, if
you bring any other component in to audition, you match the
level of the system with the new component in it to be
within 0.1 dB of what it was before?

> Any other level is not
> relevant. I think if I say that level matching by
> instrument will not always produce the same perceived
> loudness, you'll know what I mean.

Well Paul, I'll know that you don't get what I mean by level
matching.

But, I knew that all along.

> But what I really mean
> is, the level I set at the start of each listening
> session, instinctively, is the best possible level
> matching, because it is a 'real-world' condition.

Like I said Paul, in the real world, all amps almost always
sound different. The same amp compared to itself even sounds
different in the real world, because subjective level
matching isn't that reliable.

> And remember we're talking 'perception' here, not
> absolute
> fact. The amps have already been determined as measuring
> the same.

Then Paul I know for sure you don't *get it* because no two
amps measure the same, not even the left and right channels
of the same amp.

> That's A/B audition, I presume. Not what I'm talking
> about.

Right Paul, when I talk about comparing amps I know what I'm
talking about. You don't know what you're talking about so
what I'm talking about is not, by definition the same thing
you're talking about.

>> (3) The amps sound different because the listener's
>> didn't have their biases under nearly as good of control
>> during the audition as they thought.

> Oh piffle! Sorry, but no other word describes that
> statement.

See former comments about Paul not knowing what he's talking
about.

>> Do these seem like bold assertions?
>
> No, they just seem nonsensical.

Good Paul, because that end's the possibility of any further
discussions between us, and I will get on with the rest of
my life.

But Paul when I get sentimental and want to think of a
really dumb, conceited guy who has an unparalleled
dedication to cluelessness, I'll either think of you,
Middius or Sackman.

John Atkinson

October 29th 05, 04:47 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> >> in message
> >> oups.com
> >>> I have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX
> >>> is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs, A/D
> >>> converters, etc, where their effects on sound quality
> >>> are directly preserved as computer data files.
> >>
> >> But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
> >> John.
> >
> > Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
> > snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
> > no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
> > selection of components for a domestic playback system.
>
> Do you read what you write, John? Did you really say that
> codecs and ADCs have nothing to do with selection of
> components for a domestic playback system?

That is correct, Mr. Krueger. Codecs and ADCs have no relevance
to do with the _selection_ of components for a domestic
playback system, even though, as you correctly point out
below, many components incorporate those specific technologies.

> (1) Dolby Digital is based on the AC-3 codec, pure and
> simple.

Of course. I haven't said otherwise. But using PCABX to test
the efficacy of the encoding section of a codec such as DD
is of zero relevance to someone visiting an audio dealer to
choose a DVD player or receiver.

> (2) Many modern surround receivers have DSP-based signal
> processing which requires there be ADCs to convert analog
> inputs to digital.

Of course. But there is no obvious way how a blind test using
PCABX can be helpful to someone in a store choosing a receiver
or DVD player.

> Those are just the two most likely examples of
> contradictions of your poorly-informed claim.

You really don't seem capable of comprehending what others
write, Mr. Krueger. I clearly wrote that "codecs, A/D
converters etc, have no relevance to what was being discussed,
which was the selection of components for a domestic playback
system."

Your argument seems to be that because codecs and ADCs are indeed
of relevance to the _components_, that automatically means that
PCABX testing of those technologies is relevant to the
_selection_ of those components in a store. Remember, contrary to
Steven Sullivan's claim that this is a strawman argument, you have
frequently argued on the newsgroups that ABX testing and PCABX
_are_ of use to consumers in choosing products for their systems. I
am just pointing out that PCABX testing, which is all Mr. McKelvy
admitted having any experience of, is of no relevance in that
situation.

You appear to disagree. So please tell me how a consumer can
make meaningful use of your PCABX computer program in making a
buying decision?

While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
might be of practical help to them.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius

October 29th 05, 05:18 PM

John Atkinson said to the Krooborg:

> You appear to disagree. So please tell me how a consumer can
> make meaningful use of your PCABX computer program in making a
> buying decision?

A reasonable question to ask, since Arnii's ****ware can only be used to
compare recorded snippets of sound that exist only in the digital domain.

However, as we all know from dealing with Arnii "Krazyborg" Krooger for many
years, reality is irrelevant to the Beast's "debating trade" posturing. The
truth is that Turdy hopes his ****ware site will spread his loathsome
Kroopaganda to unsuspecting victims. His intent is to lure sympathetic nerds
to the site and then assimilate them into the Hive with the mind-numbing
rituals of clicking castanets and other dorky substitutes for human music. The
fact that nobody has ever succumbed to this crude brainwashing regimen doesn't
deter Mr. ****. After all, the Krooborg believes his antics on Usenet
constitute a "business". Not to mention his persistent delusion that he is
single-handedly wreaking havoc on the E.H.E.E. by repeating faux-clever lines
such as "tube bigot" and "vinyl uber alles".

As an aside, I would like to add my voice to the chorus applauding Ludo's
direct comparison of medical DBTs and the version used for audio equipment.
The medical ones are based on real science, whereas the dumbed-down knockoff
in audio is just an exercise in voluntary roboticism. Thanks for pointing out
the crucial differences, Ludovic.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 05, 05:50 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> ups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "John Atkinson" >
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>>>> I have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that
>>>>> PCABX is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs,
>>>>> A/D converters, etc, where their effects on sound
>>>>> quality
>>>>> are directly preserved as computer data files.
>>>>
>>>> But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
>>>> John.
>>>
>>> Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
>>> snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
>>> no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
>>> selection of components for a domestic playback system.
>>
>> Do you read what you write, John? Did you really say that
>> codecs and ADCs have nothing to do with selection of
>> components for a domestic playback system?
>
> That is correct, Mr. Krueger. Codecs and ADCs have no
> relevance
> to do with the _selection_ of components for a domestic
> playback system, even though, as you correctly point out
> below, many components incorporate those specific
> technologies.
>
>> (1) Dolby Digital is based on the AC-3 codec, pure and
>> simple.

> Of course. I haven't said otherwise. But using PCABX to
> test
> the efficacy of the encoding section of a codec such as DD
> is of zero relevance to someone visiting an audio dealer
> to
> choose a DVD player or receiver.

Given that DD receivers don't have encoding sections in
their codecs, this would be nonsense statement number one.
DD recieivers have only decoding sections in their codecs.
Whether these decoding sections vary sonically does not seem
to have been investigated very thoroughly.

>> (2) Many modern surround receivers have DSP-based signal
>> processing which requires there be ADCs to convert analog
>> inputs to digital.

> Of course. But there is no obvious way how a blind test
> using PCABX can be helpful to someone in a store choosing
> a receiver or DVD player.

That would be nonsense statement number two. Just because
the means for setting up a test like that is not obvious to
you John, doesn't mean that it would be that tough for
someone else to do it.

> I clearly wrote that "codecs, A/D
> converters etc, have no relevance to what was being
> discussed, which was the selection of components for a
> domestic playback system."

And both of your responses were total nonsense, for very
good reasons.

> Your argument seems to be that because codecs and ADCs
> are indeed of relevance to the _components_, that
> automatically means that PCABX testing of those
> technologies is relevant to the _selection_ of those
> components in a store.

Gratuitous addition of the clause "in a store" noted. By now
Atkinson you should know that one of the strengths of PCABX
is that with it, auditions need not be done in a store. The
decode section of a Codec is in fact a perfect candidate for
PCABX testing - the codec has digital going in and digital
coming out.

> Remember, contrary to Steven
> Sullivan's claim that this is a strawman argument, you
> have frequently argued on the newsgroups that ABX testing
> and PCABX _are_ of use to consumers in choosing products
> for their systems.

Whether an issue is a strawman argument or not is often
dependent on the context. Just because So this issue is a
strawman argument in one context is not binding on all other
context. This becomes Atkinson nonsense statement number
three for just this one post.

>I am just pointing out that PCABX
> testing, which is all Mr. McKelvy admitted having any
> experience of, is of no relevance in that situation.

Based on what are now three nonsense statements.

> You appear to disagree. So please tell me how a consumer
> can
> make meaningful use of your PCABX computer program in
> making a buying decision?

(1) Identify a sound quality issue relating to a buying
decision.

(2) Encapsulate that issue in a set of files for a PCABX
test.

(3) Distribute PCABX files to interested consumers for
their review, using a PCABX comparator running in their PC.

(4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality issue
on the outcome of his personal PCABX listening test.

(5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
quality issue into his buying decision.

In the case at hand:

(1) Consumer has a concern about the sound quality of the
Dolby decoder in one or more surround receivers.

(2) PCABX files based on operation of the Dolby decoder(s)
are prepared in the lab.

(3) Distribute PCABX files to consumers interested in the
surround receiver(s) for their review, using a PCABX
comparator running in their PC.

(4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality of
the Dolby Digital decoders in the various receiver(s) on the
outcome of his personal PCABX listening test.

(5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
quality issue into his buying decision related to the
surround receiver(s).

> While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd
> that two
> of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the
> newsgroups,
> Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of
> true ABX testing and have not used it in the only
> circumstance where it might be of practical help to them.

Everybody knows that setting up ABX tests requires skills
and equipment that aren't readily available to everybody.
If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX tests
would the current Stereophile staff participated in? ( Note,
an AES demo should not be confused with participating in a
*real* ABX test.)

Lionel

October 29th 05, 07:07 PM

George Minus Middius wrote :

> John Atkinson said to the Krooborg:

Why are you such asslicker, eh George ?

October 29th 05, 09:19 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:58:16 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:32:38 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components
>>>>>>actual
>>>>>>performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would
>>>>>>perform
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
>>>>> to each component individually, various components together, all the
>>>>> components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
>>>>> chose on the basis of specs?
>>>>>
>>>>On the basis of actual performance.
>>>
>>> Evasive answer noted.
>>>
>>Think about it. It might come to you.
>
> By performance you don't mean sound quality, do you? And if so, and if
> as you say you chose on the basis of each component's actual
> performance, is it possible that you noticed along the way that one
> amplifier often sounds different from another?

Where have I ever denied that? The next question becomes, why do they sound
different?

Is it because they ahve differences in performance or could it be other
factors such as spl not matched?

Or did you only notice
> that about speakers? Trust me, I'd really like to understand the
> selection process.

My selection process is based on the fact that I have friends who are audio
technicians who can do actual bench tests and let me know from both the
actual performance and their first hand experience. I get to know if a unit
under consideration is reliable based on how often they see them in for
repair and what sort of real world performance they are capable of.

In other cases, such as CD players, the very first one I got as a present,
so I had no choice to make. The next one I got based on research of my own
that indicated to me that any differences between them was likely to be so
small that there was nothing really to worry about other than build quality,
so I chose a Rotel, base on my own personal experience with them from my
days selling audio equipment. They were among the most reliable products I
had seen. Rarely would one of their units not work out of the box and if
did work out of the box, it never came back except for damage caused by
misuse or abuse.

QSC amp are another case in point. They do what they are supposed to, play
cleanly and for a very long time, although the same could be said about a
lot of pro gear that some people seem to think don't have a place in a home
hi-fi. Crown, Mackie and several others are equally competent and Crown,
and now Behringer have units without fans for those who worry about such
things.

The world of pro audio and so called pro-sumer audio is an area that IMO are
overlooked and should be investigated by anyone who wants some serious power
for very reasonable prices, particularly if you have difficult loads to
drive or if you have horn speakers.

The list is long and should be examined.

John Atkinson

October 29th 05, 10:44 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX tests
> would the current Stereophile staff participated in?

I have participated in five blind tests organized by officers of
the AES and held at AES Conventions at meetings, of which three
used the ABX protocol. Regarding other blind tests, as you are
well aware because you heard me say so at the HE2005 debate, Mr.
Krueger, I have taken in a large number of blind tests, many
of which used the ABX protocol or box, sme hsich were ABC/HR, and
many of involved monadic testing with a hidden reference. In all,
I have participated in well over 100 such tests since my first in
1977. Hence my feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared
with, say, Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by
actual experience.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

October 30th 05, 01:18 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX
>> tests would the current Stereophile staff participated
>> in?

<Note that the following comments relate only to John
Atkinson>

> I have participated in five blind tests organized by
> officers of the AES and held at AES Conventions at
> meetings, of which three used the ABX protocol. Regarding
> other blind tests, as you are well aware because you
> heard me say so at the HE2005 debate, Mr. Krueger, I have
> taken in a large number of blind tests, many
> of which used the ABX protocol or box, sme hsich were
> ABC/HR, and many of involved monadic testing with a
> hidden reference. In all, I have participated in well
> over 100 such tests since my first in 1977.

Thus it seems safe to conclude that the situation is as
follows:

If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX
tests would the current Stereophile staff participated in?

"None, other than JoHn Atkinson."

paul packer

October 30th 05, 01:21 AM

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:19:48 GMT, > wrote:

>My selection process is based on the fact that I have friends who are audio
>technicians who can do actual bench tests and let me know from both the
>actual performance and their first hand experience. I get to know if a unit
>under consideration is reliable based on how often they see them in for
>repair and what sort of real world performance they are capable of.

Again "performance" is ambiguous. I assume you mean how they measure.
So your criteria are measurement and reliability, though the latter
can only be guessed at.

>In other cases, such as CD players, the very first one I got as a present,
>so I had no choice to make. The next one I got based on research of my own

And what research would this be?

>that indicated to me that any differences between them was likely to be so
>small

I presume you mean sound quality differences. I'm reading between the
lines here.

> that there was nothing really to worry about other than build quality,
>so I chose a Rotel, base on my own personal experience with them from my
>days selling audio equipment. They were among the most reliable products I
>had seen. Rarely would one of their units not work out of the box and if
>did work out of the box, it never came back except for damage caused by
>misuse or abuse.

Rotel are quite expensive compared to certain other brands. Are not
JVC, Pioneer etc reliable? I've always found them so.

>QSC amp are another case in point. They do what they are supposed to, play
>cleanly and for a very long time, although the same could be said about a
>lot of pro gear that some people seem to think don't have a place in a home
>hi-fi. Crown, Mackie and several others are equally competent and Crown,
>and now Behringer have units without fans for those who worry about such
>things.

I wonder what you mean by "play cleanly"? Don't clip, I guess. But how
loud do you like your music? One surely doesn't need to go to a Crown
to avoid clipping.

John Atkinson

October 30th 05, 01:29 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> > using PCABX to test the efficacy of the encoding section of
> > a codec such as Dolby Digital is of zero relevance to someone
> > visiting an audio dealer to choose a DVD player or receiver.
>
> Given that DD receivers don't have encoding sections in
> their codecs, this would be nonsense statement number one.

That was my point, Mr. Krueger. PCABX is perfect for testing
the encoding of a codec. Which is why it is of no relevance
to someone looking to purchase an audio component which does
not embody an encoding section.

> DD recieivers have only decoding sections in their codecs.
> Whether these decoding sections vary sonically does not seem
> to have been investigated very thoroughly.

No. And PCABX is of limited practical use when investigating
that performance in the context of purchasing an audio
component. You imagine a dealer will lend you a receiver
for benchtesting before you buy it?

<snip of the usual namecalling from Mr. Krueger>

> > please tell me how a consumer can make meaningful use of
> > your PCABX computer program in making a buying decision?
>
> (1) Identify a sound quality issue relating to a buying
> decision.
>
> (2) Encapsulate that issue in a set of files for a PCABX
> test.
>
> (3) Distribute PCABX files to interested consumers for
> their review, using a PCABX comparator running in their PC.
>
> (4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality issue
> on the outcome of his personal PCABX listening test.
>
> (5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
> quality issue into his buying decision.
>
> In the case at hand:
>
> (1) Consumer has a concern about the sound quality of the
> Dolby decoder in one or more surround receivers.
>
> (2) PCABX files based on operation of the Dolby decoder(s)
> are prepared in the lab.
>
> (3) Distribute PCABX files to consumers interested in the
> surround receiver(s) for their review, using a PCABX
> comparator running in their PC.
>
> (4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality of
> the Dolby Digital decoders in the various receiver(s) on the
> outcome of his personal PCABX listening test.
>
> (5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
> quality issue into his buying decision related to the
> surround receiver(s).

Thank you for finally addressing the issue rather than
retreating into abusive langage, Mr. Krueger. I must
admit that while the procedure you outline above is
logically sound, it is also extraordinarily complex for
someone wanting to use to choose what components to buy.

So let's be realistic here: Mike McKelvy and Steven
Sullivan have already admitted that they did not use PCABX
or even old-fashioned ABX to help them purchase their audio
systems. However, as you have a claim to be the originator
of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure whereby
you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase situation, it is
to be expected that you have indeed followed that procedure
when choosing what components to buy. When, for example,
you purchased a digital mixer for your live sound mixing at
your church, it is reasonable to assume that you followed
your own advice above. Did you indeed do so? Did you do so for
the microphones you purchased? Did you do so for your amplifiers?
For your speakers?

If you didn't for even one of those purchases, then don't you
feel that odd, just as I find odd the fact that the most vocal
proponents for ABX testing have little or no experience of it,
even when their own money is tied up in the decision? AS I say
below:

> > I reiterate that I find it odd that two of the strongest
> > proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups, Mike McKelvy
> > and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX testing
> > and have not used it in the only circumstance where it might
> > be of practical help to them.
>
> Everybody knows that setting up ABX tests requires skills
> and equipment that aren't readily available to everybody.

"Everybody," Mr. Kreuger? When I made this exact point a few
years back, you claimed I was wrong, that ABX testing was _not_
difficult and that _anyone_ could do it, even when purchasing
audio components. What happened to change your mind and agree
with me? Were you just blowing smoke back then? Or are you
doing so now?

John Atkinson
Editor, Srereophile

John Atkinson

October 30th 05, 01:39 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX
> tests would the current Stereophile staff participated in?
>
> "None, other than JoHn Atkinson."

No, that's incorrect too, as you would be aware if you did anything
other than scan the magazine occasionally on the newsstand or read
articles on our website. And you keep making this point about "AES
demos," Mr. Krueger. The organizers of those tests, David Clark,
Tom Nousaine, Dan Dugan, etc, all referred to them as tests and
indeed, the results were discussed in the AES Journal as though
they _were_ tests.

As you were not present at those tests, had no first-hand knowledge
of the tests, and are not a subscriber to the Journal, I fail to
see why you hold such strong opinions on them, Mr. Krueger. Unless,
of course, they are just another example of tests that produced
results that fail to fit in your faith so must be rejected out of
hand as "demos." "Pulling a Ferstler" is what that is called on the
newsgroups, Mr. Krueger; "bad science" is what it is called in the
outside world.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Clyde Slick

October 30th 05, 01:06 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX
>> tests would the current Stereophile staff participated in?
>>
>> "None, other than JoHn Atkinson."
>
> No, that's incorrect too, as you would be aware if you did anything
> other than scan the magazine occasionally on the newsstand or read
> articles on our website. And you keep making this point about "AES
> demos," Mr. Krueger. The organizers of those tests, David Clark,
> Tom Nousaine, Dan Dugan, etc, all referred to them as tests and
> indeed, the results were discussed in the AES Journal as though
> they _were_ tests.
>
> As you were not present at those tests, had no first-hand knowledge
> of the tests, and are not a subscriber to the Journal, I fail to
> see why you hold such strong opinions on them, Mr. Krueger. Unless,
> of course, they are just another example of tests that produced
> results that fail to fit in your faith so must be rejected out of
> hand as "demos." "Pulling a Ferstler" is what that is called on the
> newsgroups, Mr. Krueger; "bad science" is what it is called in the
> outside world.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>

Maybe Arny will find the Fisher-Price toy wrecking ball under his Christmas
tree.

Arny Krueger

October 30th 05, 01:57 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message

>>> using PCABX to test the efficacy of the encoding
>>> section of a codec such as Dolby Digital is of zero
>>> relevance to someone visiting an audio dealer to choose
>>> a DVD player or receiver.

>> Given that DD receivers don't have encoding sections in
>> their codecs, this would be nonsense statement number
>> one.

> That was my point, Mr. Krueger.

No it wasn't, it was simply a dumb mistake.

Just because you transposed encoding with decoding doesn't
mean that PCABX isn't equally efficient for testing the
efficacy of the decoding section such as Dolby Digital.

> PCABX is perfect for
> testing the encoding of a codec.

PCABX is equally perfect for testing the decoding of a
codec.

> Which is why it is of no
> relevance to someone looking to purchase an audio
> component which
> does not embody an encoding section.

You're just making another phony distinction, John because
PCABX is equally effective for evaluating encoders and
decoders. Their common property is that they are
digital-in, digital-out.

>> DD recieivers have only decoding sections in their
>> codecs. Whether these decoding sections vary sonically
>> does not seem to have been investigated very thoroughly.

> No.

No what?

> And PCABX is of limited practical use when
> investigating that performance in the context of
> purchasing an audio component.

No logical foundation for this claim as been laid. It's just
another one of your phoney pronouncements from on high,
John.

You're busted!

>You imagine a dealer will
> lend you a receiver
> for benchtesting before you buy it?

Read on...

< snip of the usual namecalling from Mr. Krueger>

Namecalling in question related to statements, not people.
Atkinson is deceptively trying to make it seem that I was
insulting him personally. In fact I was commenting on his
statements.

>>> please tell me how a consumer can make meaningful use of
>>> your PCABX computer program in making a buying decision?
>>
>> (1) Identify a sound quality issue relating to a buying
>> decision.
>>
>> (2) Encapsulate that issue in a set of files for a PCABX
>> test.
>>
>> (3) Distribute PCABX files to interested consumers for
>> their review, using a PCABX comparator running in their
>> PC.
>>
>> (4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality
>> issue on the outcome of his personal PCABX listening
>> test.
>>
>> (5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
>> quality issue into his buying decision.
>>
>> In the case at hand:
>>
>> (1) Consumer has a concern about the sound quality of the
>> Dolby decoder in one or more surround receivers.
>>
>> (2) PCABX files based on operation of the Dolby
>> decoder(s) are prepared in the lab.
>>
>> (3) Distribute PCABX files to consumers interested in
>> the surround receiver(s) for their review, using a PCABX
>> comparator running in their PC.
>>
>> (4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality of
>> the Dolby Digital decoders in the various receiver(s) on
>> the outcome of his personal PCABX listening test.
>>
>> (5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
>> quality issue into his buying decision related to the
>> surround receiver(s).

> Thank you for finally addressing the issue rather than
> retreating into abusive langage, Mr. Krueger.

There was no language abusing you, John. I did make some
negative characterizations of what you said.

> I must
> admit that while the procedure you outline above is
> logically sound, it is also extraordinarily complex for
> someone wanting to use to choose what components to buy.

The purchaser need only compete steps 4 and 5.

I have to admit that I'm getting sick of being lied to, and
having lies told about what I wrote.

Steven Sullivan

October 30th 05, 05:23 AM

John Atkinson > wrote:

> While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
> of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
> Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
> testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
> might be of practical help to them.

Please cease and desist in this specious and disingenuous line of
reasoning , Mr. Atkinson. First, I am of the belief that
electrical, acoustical and physiological principles make it likely
that components within certain classes are more likely to sound the
same than not, when certain minimal levels of performance are met;
I also recognize the fundamentally 'noisy' nature of perception.
Second, when there is no DBT data available (my own or others'), I
therefore qualify claims I make about audible qualities of these
components, or even speakers (which are likely to sound diferent,
based on the priciples noted), noting that differences I hear could
be imaginary. Third, if I wanted to do ABX of components I own, it
would require auditioning two different examples of every
component, as well as buying an ABX box. That is rather much to
ask of me, compared to asking it of, say, Stereophile. So in the
end the reason I have not done ABX of my gear is much the same
reason I haven't done them of the Nexium pills I take -- with one
difference: there *is* DBT data for the medicine. I would indeed
VERY MUCH like for there to be good DBT data available for
components on the market, as there are for FDA-approved
pharmaceuticals. I think the lack of same is a glaring deficiency
in the 'audiophile' hobby.

I do have the resources to do ABX testing of sound files, and have
done so. This suggests that had I multiple components
available to me, and an ABX box, I'd do ABX tests of them, too.
And you, no doubt, would the argue that my results only have
relevance to me. So why all this showy posturing on your part?

It is not required, btw, that what I write be consistent with what
Arny or any other objectivist write, on *every* point, any more
than Mikey Fremer has to agree at all times with Jonathan
Valin...though I would hope neither Arny or I would end up arguing
over the laughably dubious issues such 'golden ears' argue over
within their strange, hermetic belief system -- the equivalent of
fighting over which unicorn has the sharpest horn.

Steven Sullivan

October 30th 05, 05:30 AM

John Atkinson > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX tests
> > would the current Stereophile staff participated in?

> I have participated in five blind tests organized by officers of
> the AES and held at AES Conventions at meetings, of which three
> used the ABX protocol. Regarding other blind tests, as you are
> well aware because you heard me say so at the HE2005 debate, Mr.
> Krueger, I have taken in a large number of blind tests, many
> of which used the ABX protocol or box, sme hsich were ABC/HR, and
> many of involved monadic testing with a hidden reference. In all,
> I have participated in well over 100 such tests since my first in
> 1977. Hence my feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared
> with, say, Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by
> actual experience.

Your premise here is that ABX of components is fundamentally
different from ABX of sound files. Problem is, it's not. The
essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations to an
'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done this at
least three times, therefore matching your experience with ABX
tests. To claim that component ABX is somehow essentially
different, amounts to special pleading.

If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components for me,
I would be happy to oblige you the next time I am in NYC. Just
drop me an email.

Arny Krueger

October 30th 05, 07:12 AM

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> I would hope neither
> Arny or I would end up arguing over the laughably dubious
> issues such 'golden ears' argue over within their
> strange, hermetic belief system -- the equivalent of
> fighting over which unicorn has the sharpest horn.

Hmm "The American Journal of Unicorn Horn Tests". That would
be a good name for one of the golden eared ragazines, no?

John Atkinson

October 30th 05, 01:23 PM

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> John Atkinson > wrote:
> > I have participated in five blind tests organized by officers
> > of the AES and held at AES Conventions at meetings, of which
> > three used the ABX protocol. Regarding other blind tests, as
> > you are well aware because you heard me say so at the HE2005
> > debate, Mr. Krueger, I have taken in a large number of blind
> > tests, many of which used the ABX protocol or box, [some of
> > which] were ABC/HR, and many of [which] involved monadic
> > testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated
> > in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. Hence my
> > feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared with, say,
> > Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by actual
> > experience.
>
> Your premise here is that ABX of components is fundamentally
> different from ABX of sound files. Problem is, it's not.

In what way? In an ABX test of anything other than something
that produces an an audio sound file as its output, a PCABX
involves _recordings_ of the original components. You are thus
_not_ comparing the original components.

> The essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations
> to an 'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done
> this at least three times...

Using the PCABX program to compare sound files, you said in an
earlier posting, Mr. Sullivan,

>...therefore matching your experience with ABX tests.

Excuse me. Since when does 3 PCABX tests equate to my "well over
100" tests "since my first in 1977"?

> To claim that component ABX is somehow essentially
> different, amounts to special pleading.

No, it's merely pointing out that a simulation of a test of
something like a cable or an amplifier or a loudspeaker is
still just a simulation, Mr. Sullivan. Just as 1000s of hours
of experience with Microsoft Flight Simulator is still not
the same as actually flying an airplane. To say that they are
equivalent is "special pleading."

> If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components
> for me, I would be happy to oblige you the next time I am in
> NYC.

And just why would I go to that expense for you personally, Mr.
Sullivan? If I run such tests at an audio show in the future,
you are perfectly welcome to take part.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Clyde Slick

October 30th 05, 01:28 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I would hope neither
>> Arny or I would end up arguing over the laughably dubious
>> issues such 'golden ears' argue over within their
>> strange, hermetic belief system -- the equivalent of
>> fighting over which unicorn has the sharpest horn.
>
> Hmm "The American Journal of Unicorn Horn Tests". That would be a good
> name for one of the golden eared ragazines, no?
>

As Good as "The SciientiffiK Jernal of Testing Krooturds" would be
as a name for your website.

John Atkinson

October 30th 05, 01:35 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> >>> please tell me how a consumer can make meaningful use of
> >>> your PCABX computer program in making a buying decision?
> >>
> >> (1) Identify a sound quality issue relating to a buying
> >> decision.
> >>
> >> (2) Encapsulate that issue in a set of files for a PCABX
> >> test.
> >>
> >> (3) Distribute PCABX files to interested consumers for
> >> their review, using a PCABX comparator running in their
> >> PC.
> >>
> >> (4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality
> >> issue on the outcome of his personal PCABX listening
> >> test.
> >>
> >> (5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
> >> quality issue into his buying decision.
> >>
> >> In the case at hand:
> >>
> >> (1) Consumer has a concern about the sound quality of the
> >> Dolby decoder in one or more surround receivers.
> >>
> >> (2) PCABX files based on operation of the Dolby
> >> decoder(s) are prepared in the lab.
> >>
> >> (3) Distribute PCABX files to consumers interested in
> >> the surround receiver(s) for their review, using a PCABX
> >> comparator running in their PC.
> >>
> >> (4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality of
> >> the Dolby Digital decoders in the various receiver(s) on
> >> the outcome of his personal PCABX listening test.
> >>
> >> (5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
> >> quality issue into his buying decision related to the
> >> surround receiver(s).
>
> > Thank you for finally addressing the issue rather than
> > retreating into abusive langage, Mr. Krueger. I must
> > admit that while the procedure you outline above is
> > logically sound, it is also extraordinarily complex for
> > someone wanting to use to choose what components to buy.
>
> The purchaser need only compete steps 4 and 5.

But then he would have nothing to compare in his "personal
PCABX listening test," Mr. Krueger.

> I have to admit that I'm getting sick of being lied to, and
> having lies told about what I wrote.

No-one is doing so Mr. Krueger. I am merely contesting your
assertions. You have said in the past that for me to do so
shows a lack of respect, but that is disingenuous of you.

>> So let's be realistic here: Mike McKelvy and Steven
>> Sullivan have already admitted that they did not use PCABX
>> or even old-fashioned ABX to help them purchase their audio
>> systems. However, as you have a claim to be the originator
>> of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure whereby
>> you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase situation, it is
>> to be expected that you have indeed followed that procedure
>> when choosing what components to buy. When, for example,
>> you purchased a digital mixer for your live sound mixing at
>> your church, it is reasonable to assume that you followed
>> your own advice above. Did you indeed do so? Did you do so for
>> the microphones you purchased? Did you do so for your amplifiers?
>> For your speakers?

No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
purchase decisions.

In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
reason.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson

October 30th 05, 01:48 PM

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> John Atkinson > wrote:
> > While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
> > of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
> > Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
> > testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
> > might be of practical help to them.
>
> Please cease and desist in this specious and disingenuous line of
> reasoning , Mr. Atkinson.

I raise this argument precisely because it is _not_ specious,
Mr. Sullivan.

> First, I am of the belief that electrical, acoustical and
> physiological principles make it likely that components within
> certain classes are more likely to sound the same than not, when
> certain minimal levels of performance are met...

"Believe" but not know, Mr. Sullivan.

> I also recognize the fundamentally 'noisy' nature of perception.

But as you have not taken part in any meaningful ABX tests of real
components, Mr. Sullivan -- see my other response to you this
morning for my reasoning behind this statement -- you have no
personal knowledge of how this "perceptual noise" affects a test or
how it can be accounted for.

> Second, when there is no DBT data available (my own or others'), I
> therefore qualify claims I make about audible qualities of these
> components, or even speakers (which are likely to sound diferent,
> based on the priciples noted), noting that differences I hear could
> be imaginary.

But you have no knowledge that this might be the case, Mr. Sullivan.
You are proceeding from faith rather than experience, which is the
point I have been repeatedly been making. Those with no experience
of something are more likely to have unquestioned faith in it than
those who do have experience. Which is why you, Mr, McKelvy and Mr.
Krueger become so abusive on this subject (you less than the others,
I do note): I am questioning your _faith_.

> Third, if I wanted to do ABX of components I own, it would require
> auditioning two different examples of every component, as well as
> buying an ABX box. That is rather much to ask of me...

Not according to Arny Krueger in many many postings extolling the
virtues of ABX testing to make purchase decisions. And again, if
your _faith_ in this method of testing is so strong, why wouldn't
you want to take the effort to use it when your own money is at
stake?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

MINe 109

October 30th 05, 02:27 PM

In article . com>,
"John Atkinson" > wrote:

> No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
> It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
> given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
> answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
> purchase decisions.
>
> In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
> proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
> only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
> paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
> posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
> reason.

IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests. Sure,
the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy.

Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly
incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it
all sounds the same, one needn't test at all.

Stephen

George M. Middius

October 30th 05, 02:38 PM

MINe 109 said:

> Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly
> incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it
> all sounds the same, one needn't test at all.

Thanks Mr. MiNR for pointing out, the turth about the test's. LOL!

Steven Sullivan

October 30th 05, 04:22 PM

John Atkinson > wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > I have participated in five blind tests organized by officers
> > > of the AES and held at AES Conventions at meetings, of which
> > > three used the ABX protocol. Regarding other blind tests, as
> > > you are well aware because you heard me say so at the HE2005
> > > debate, Mr. Krueger, I have taken in a large number of blind
> > > tests, many of which used the ABX protocol or box, [some of
> > > which] were ABC/HR, and many of [which] involved monadic
> > > testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated
> > > in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. Hence my
> > > feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared with, say,
> > > Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by actual
> > > experience.
> >
> > Your premise here is that ABX of components is fundamentally
> > different from ABX of sound files. Problem is, it's not.

> In what way? In an ABX test of anything other than something
> that produces an an audio sound file as its output, a PCABX
> involves _recordings_ of the original components. You are thus
> _not_ comparing the original components.

But obviously this does not change the essense of ABX testing.
This only changes *what* is being ABX tested.

> > The essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations
> > to an 'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done
> > this at least three times...

> Using the PCABX program to compare sound files, you said in an
> earlier posting, Mr. Sullivan,

Actually, I tend to use whatever comes with the foobar2000
package, these days. In any case,m they're both software
implementations of an ABX box.

> >...therefore matching your experience with ABX tests.

> Excuse me. Since when does 3 PCABX tests equate to my "well over
> 100" tests "since my first in 1977"?

I thought you'd said you've taken part in 3 *ABX* tests.

> > To claim that component ABX is somehow essentially
> > different, amounts to special pleading.

> No, it's merely pointing out that a simulation of a test of
> something like a cable or an amplifier or a loudspeaker is
> still just a simulation, Mr. Sullivan.

But I am not talking about a 'simulation' of anything. I am
talking about a real ABX test. Ultimately one is comparing
sounds. I compared the 'sound' of different file compression
algorithms; you compared the 'sound' of different electronics,

> Just as 1000s of hours
> of experience with Microsoft Flight Simulator is still not
> the same as actually flying an airplane. To say that they are
> equivalent is "special pleading."

But I have not said I've done ABX of hardware. Nor is
ABX of potentially sound-altering hardware conceptually different from ABX
of potentially sound-altering software. Its still: here's A,
here's B, now determine which one X is.

> > If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components
> > for me, I would be happy to oblige you the next time I am in
> > NYC.

> And just why would I go to that expense for you personally, Mr. > Sullivan?

Because you seem a bit obsessed with my lack of experience with ABX testing
of hardware...and seem to be under the illogical impression that that makes
me a hypocrite. For me, it would be fun. For you, it might prove something,
I guess. Or maybe you'd prefer to just keep grinding this axe of yours down
to the nub.

>If I run such tests at an audio show in
the future, > you are perfectly welcome to take part. > Editor, Stereophile

I'd be very happy to. Do you plan to to this?
I'd be happy also to observe you take one... perhaps we can
get Tom Nousaine to proctor.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Clyde Slick

October 30th 05, 04:35 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "John Atkinson" > wrote:
>
>> No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
>> It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
>> given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
>> answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
>> purchase decisions.
>>
>> In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
>> proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
>> only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
>> paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
>> posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
>> reason.
>
> IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests. Sure,
> the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy.
>
> Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly
> incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it
> all sounds the same, one needn't test at all.
>
> Stephen

Sure, if one believes it all sounds the same,
the test will not remove that bias. I'm not sure
that there is any way to remove that bias.
Poor souls are completely stuck in a life
of imagining that everything sounds the same.
All that self deception, and no way to cure it.

Steven Sullivan

October 30th 05, 04:37 PM

John Atkinson > wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
> > > of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
> > > Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
> > > testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
> > > might be of practical help to them.
> >
> > Please cease and desist in this specious and disingenuous line of
> > reasoning , Mr. Atkinson.

> I raise this argument precisely because it is _not_ specious,
> Mr. Sullivan.

> > First, I am of the belief that electrical, acoustical and
> > physiological principles make it likely that components within
> > certain classes are more likely to sound the same than not, when
> > certain minimal levels of performance are met...

> "Believe" but not know, Mr. Sullivan.

<sigh> round and round we go...

> > I also recognize the fundamentally 'noisy' nature of perception.

> But as you have not taken part in any meaningful ABX tests of real
> components, Mr. Sullivan -- see my other response to you this
> morning for my reasoning behind this statement -- you have no
> personal knowledge of how this "perceptual noise" affects a test or
> how it can be accounted for.

I certainly have knowledge of how the noise affects 'casual' listening,
having had the embarrassing experience of 'phantom switching' .
Btw, that noise is certainly present when your reviewers make their
swooning evaluations of gear, too.

I of course also have personal knowledge of 'noise' during the
ABX tests I've done of software. What makes you think ABX testing of
hardware introduces perceptual 'noise' that isn't present when ABX testing
of software is done?

Finally, what makes you think personal knowledge of any DBT
is necessary to accept the validity of DBT methodology?

> > Second, when there is no DBT data available (my own or others'), I
> > therefore qualify claims I make about audible qualities of these
> > components, or even speakers (which are likely to sound diferent,
> > based on the priciples noted), noting that differences I hear could
> > be imaginary.

> But you have no knowledge that this might be the case, Mr. Sullivan.

I have no knowledge that differences COULD be imaginary? What
an extraordinary statement. It denies the findings of some
decades of work on audio perception.

> You are proceeding from faith rather than experience, which is the
> point I have been repeatedly been making. Those with no experience
> of something are more likely to have unquestioned faith in it than
> those who do have experience. Which is why you, Mr, McKelvy and Mr.
> Krueger become so abusive on this subject (you less than the others,
> I do note): I am questioning your _faith_.

I certainly have knowledge of components sounding different. I have
knowledge of that turning to to likely be true, and also likely to
be false.

Your line of reasoning is specious in that it would require ANYONE
who accepts the validity of a scientific method, to actually be
a scientist . This sort of *faith* is not equivalent to the
*faith* of the religious, for reasons that should be obvious to
someone with a physics background.

> > Third, if I wanted to do ABX of components I own, it would require
> > auditioning two different examples of every component, as well as
> > buying an ABX box. That is rather much to ask of me...

> Not according to Arny Krueger in many many postings extolling the
> virtues of ABX testing to make purchase decisions. And again, if
> your _faith_ in this method of testing is so strong, why wouldn't
> you want to take the effort to use it when your own money is at
> stake?

How many times do I have to repost these reasons for you to understand
them?

My faith in DBT of medicines is at least as strong, yet I do not
feel compelled to perform my own DBTs.

Now, let me ask, since you and your magazine claim to be interested in
how stuff really sounds, why do you adhere to a demonstrably flawed
method for determining that, and why don't you adopt an accepted
scientific method for verifying your sighted perceptions?

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

John Atkinson

October 30th 05, 06:42 PM

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> John Atkinson > wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > I have participated in five blind tests organized by officers
> > > > of the AES and held at AES Conventions at meetings, of which
> > > > three used the ABX protocol. Regarding other blind tests, as
> > > > you are well aware because you heard me say so at the HE2005
> > > > debate, Mr. Krueger, I have taken in a large number of blind
> > > > tests, many of which used the ABX protocol or box, [some of
> > > > which] were ABC/HR, and many of [which] involved monadic
> > > > testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated
> > > > in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. Hence my
> > > > feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared with, say,
> > > > Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by actual
> > > > experience.
> > >
> > > The essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations
> > > to an 'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done
> > > this at least three times therefore matching your experience
> > > with ABX tests.
> >
> > Excuse me. Since when does 3 PCABX tests equate to my "well over
> > 100" tests "since my first in 1977"?
>
> I thought you'd said you've taken part in 3 *ABX* tests.

Perhaps you didn't read the text of mine that you quoted above,
Mr. Sullivan. I wrote that of the five blind tests I took that were
organized by the AES, three used an ABX box. But as I also wrote
above, I have participated in over 100 of blind tests overall,
using all the common protocols, including ABX, ABC/HR, etc.

> > > If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components
> > > for me, I would be happy to oblige you the next time I am in
> > > NYC.
>
> > And just why would I go to that expense for you personally, Mr.
> > Sullivan?
>
> Because you seem a bit obsessed with my lack of experience with ABX
> testing of hardware...and seem to be under the illogical impression
> that that makes me a hypocrite.

That you have almost no experience of the test protocol you so strongly
advocate others use, would seem to be your problem, Mr. Sullivan, not
mine. Why I would be obliged to pay for your education in this area
escapes me.

> > If I run such tests at an audio show in the future,
> > you are perfectly welcome to take part.
>
> I'd be very happy to. Do you plan to to this?

Perhaps at the Los Angeles show in June 2006.

> I'd be happy also to observe you take one... perhaps we can
> get Tom Nousaine to proctor.

As Mr. Nousaine is employed by a magazine that competes with
Stereophile, I hardly think that would be approriate. But as I have
said in the past, Tom Nousaine is welcome to pay for a room at the
show to run his own listening tests. I suggest you run that by him,
Mr. Sullivan, see if Tom is willing to put his money where your
mouth is.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

October 30th 05, 07:46 PM

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> > John Atkinson > wrote:
>> > > I have participated in five blind tests organized by officers
>> > > of the AES and held at AES Conventions at meetings, of which
>> > > three used the ABX protocol. Regarding other blind tests, as
>> > > you are well aware because you heard me say so at the HE2005
>> > > debate, Mr. Krueger, I have taken in a large number of blind
>> > > tests, many of which used the ABX protocol or box, [some of
>> > > which] were ABC/HR, and many of [which] involved monadic
>> > > testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated
>> > > in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. Hence my
>> > > feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared with, say,
>> > > Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by actual
>> > > experience.
>> >
>> > Your premise here is that ABX of components is fundamentally
>> > different from ABX of sound files. Problem is, it's not.
>
>> In what way? In an ABX test of anything other than something
>> that produces an an audio sound file as its output, a PCABX
>> involves _recordings_ of the original components. You are thus
>> _not_ comparing the original components.
>
> But obviously this does not change the essense of ABX testing.
> This only changes *what* is being ABX tested.
>
>> > The essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations
>> > to an 'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done
>> > this at least three times...
>
>> Using the PCABX program to compare sound files, you said in an
>> earlier posting, Mr. Sullivan,
>
> Actually, I tend to use whatever comes with the foobar2000
> package, these days. In any case,m they're both software
> implementations of an ABX box.
>
>
>> >...therefore matching your experience with ABX tests.
>
>> Excuse me. Since when does 3 PCABX tests equate to my "well over
>> 100" tests "since my first in 1977"?
>
> I thought you'd said you've taken part in 3 *ABX* tests.
>
>
>> > To claim that component ABX is somehow essentially
>> > different, amounts to special pleading.
>
>> No, it's merely pointing out that a simulation of a test of
>> something like a cable or an amplifier or a loudspeaker is
>> still just a simulation, Mr. Sullivan.
>
> But I am not talking about a 'simulation' of anything. I am
> talking about a real ABX test. Ultimately one is comparing
> sounds. I compared the 'sound' of different file compression
> algorithms; you compared the 'sound' of different electronics,
>
>> Just as 1000s of hours
>> of experience with Microsoft Flight Simulator is still not
>> the same as actually flying an airplane. To say that they are
>> equivalent is "special pleading."
>
> But I have not said I've done ABX of hardware. Nor is
> ABX of potentially sound-altering hardware conceptually different from ABX
> of potentially sound-altering software. Its still: here's A,
> here's B, now determine which one X is.
>
>
>> > If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components
>> > for me, I would be happy to oblige you the next time I am in
>> > NYC.
>
>> And just why would I go to that expense for you personally, Mr. >
>> Sullivan?
>
> Because you seem a bit obsessed with my lack of experience with ABX
> testing
> of hardware...and seem to be under the illogical impression that that
> makes
> me a hypocrite. For me, it would be fun. For you, it might prove
> something,
> I guess. Or maybe you'd prefer to just keep grinding this axe of yours
> down
> to the nub.
>
> >If I run such tests at an audio show in
> the future, > you are perfectly welcome to take part. > Editor,
> Stereophile
>
> I'd be very happy to. Do you plan to to this?
> I'd be happy also to observe you take one... perhaps we can
> get Tom Nousaine to proctor.
>
>
>
>
I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new A500 Behringer amp
against another amp of similar wattage and current capabilities.

October 30th 05, 07:56 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> John Atkinson > wrote:
>> > While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
>> > of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
>> > Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
>> > testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
>> > might be of practical help to them.
>>
>> Please cease and desist in this specious and disingenuous line of
>> reasoning , Mr. Atkinson.
>
> I raise this argument precisely because it is _not_ specious,
> Mr. Sullivan.
>
>> First, I am of the belief that electrical, acoustical and
>> physiological principles make it likely that components within
>> certain classes are more likely to sound the same than not, when
>> certain minimal levels of performance are met...
>
> "Believe" but not know, Mr. Sullivan.
>

Just as none of your reviewers "know" if what they are hearing is real or
just wishful thinking.

>> I also recognize the fundamentally 'noisy' nature of perception.
>
> But as you have not taken part in any meaningful ABX tests of real
> components, Mr. Sullivan -- see my other response to you this
> morning for my reasoning behind this statement -- you have no
> personal knowledge of how this "perceptual noise" affects a test or
> how it can be accounted for.
>

You assume he is unaware of the voluminous reporting that has been done on
this subject.

>> Second, when there is no DBT data available (my own or others'), I
>> therefore qualify claims I make about audible qualities of these
>> components, or even speakers (which are likely to sound diferent,
>> based on the priciples noted), noting that differences I hear could
>> be imaginary.
>
> But you have no knowledge that this might be the case, Mr. Sullivan.
> You are proceeding from faith rather than experience, which is the
> point I have been repeatedly been making.

Is it faith to rely on the scientific work that has been done using the ABX
protocol, and knowing that it is a protocol used by some pretty well
respected organizations?

Then it would be faith to take any medication that used an ABX protocol.

Those with no experience
> of something are more likely to have unquestioned faith in it than
> those who do have experience. Which is why you, Mr, McKelvy and Mr.
> Krueger become so abusive on this subject (you less than the others,
> I do note): I am questioning your _faith_.

Because you are calling a reliance on previous scinetific study, faith.

George M. Middius

October 30th 05, 07:57 PM

The Bug Eater bangs on the clubhouse door.

> I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new A500 Behringer amp
> against another amp of similar wattage and current capabilities.

You want a test between one amp you'll never be able to buy and some other
amp you can afford? Geez, Mickey, just buy the cheap one and be happy with
your blind faith in sameness.

October 30th 05, 08:02 PM

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> > John Atkinson > wrote:
>> > > While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
>> > > of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
>> > > Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
>> > > testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
>> > > might be of practical help to them.
>> >
>> > Please cease and desist in this specious and disingenuous line of
>> > reasoning , Mr. Atkinson.
>
>> I raise this argument precisely because it is _not_ specious,
>> Mr. Sullivan.
>
>> > First, I am of the belief that electrical, acoustical and
>> > physiological principles make it likely that components within
>> > certain classes are more likely to sound the same than not, when
>> > certain minimal levels of performance are met...
>
>> "Believe" but not know, Mr. Sullivan.
>
> <sigh> round and round we go...
>
>> > I also recognize the fundamentally 'noisy' nature of perception.
>
>> But as you have not taken part in any meaningful ABX tests of real
>> components, Mr. Sullivan -- see my other response to you this
>> morning for my reasoning behind this statement -- you have no
>> personal knowledge of how this "perceptual noise" affects a test or
>> how it can be accounted for.
>
> I certainly have knowledge of how the noise affects 'casual' listening,
> having had the embarrassing experience of 'phantom switching' .
> Btw, that noise is certainly present when your reviewers make their
> swooning evaluations of gear, too.
>
> I of course also have personal knowledge of 'noise' during the
> ABX tests I've done of software. What makes you think ABX testing of
> hardware introduces perceptual 'noise' that isn't present when ABX testing
> of software is done?
>
> Finally, what makes you think personal knowledge of any DBT
> is necessary to accept the validity of DBT methodology?
>
>
>
>> > Second, when there is no DBT data available (my own or others'), I
>> > therefore qualify claims I make about audible qualities of these
>> > components, or even speakers (which are likely to sound diferent,
>> > based on the priciples noted), noting that differences I hear could
>> > be imaginary.
>
>> But you have no knowledge that this might be the case, Mr. Sullivan.
>
> I have no knowledge that differences COULD be imaginary? What
> an extraordinary statement. It denies the findings of some
> decades of work on audio perception.
>
>> You are proceeding from faith rather than experience, which is the
>> point I have been repeatedly been making. Those with no experience
>> of something are more likely to have unquestioned faith in it than
>> those who do have experience. Which is why you, Mr, McKelvy and Mr.
>> Krueger become so abusive on this subject (you less than the others,
>> I do note): I am questioning your _faith_.
>
> I certainly have knowledge of components sounding different. I have
> knowledge of that turning to to likely be true, and also likely to
> be false.
>
> Your line of reasoning is specious in that it would require ANYONE
> who accepts the validity of a scientific method, to actually be
> a scientist . This sort of *faith* is not equivalent to the
> *faith* of the religious, for reasons that should be obvious to
> someone with a physics background.
>
>
>> > Third, if I wanted to do ABX of components I own, it would require
>> > auditioning two different examples of every component, as well as
>> > buying an ABX box. That is rather much to ask of me...
>
>> Not according to Arny Krueger in many many postings extolling the
>> virtues of ABX testing to make purchase decisions. And again, if
>> your _faith_ in this method of testing is so strong, why wouldn't
>> you want to take the effort to use it when your own money is at
>> stake?
>
> How many times do I have to repost these reasons for you to understand
> them?
>
> My faith in DBT of medicines is at least as strong, yet I do not
> feel compelled to perform my own DBTs.
>
> Now, let me ask, since you and your magazine claim to be interested in
> how stuff really sounds, why do you adhere to a demonstrably flawed
> method for determining that, and why don't you adopt an accepted
> scientific method for verifying your sighted perceptions?
>
>
Begin the Atkinson dance here.

According to JA, the fact that there is previous work demonstrating
conclusively, that people's perceptions in sighted listening are at the very
best, dubious, and easily fooled, should just be ignored by anyone who also
understands that ABX is a valid test method used every day by people doing
serious work in various aspects of Audio.

IOW just because you have not been in an orbiting spacecraft around the
globe, you can not say with certainty, that the earth is indeed round.

Steven Sullivan

October 30th 05, 08:02 PM

John Atkinson > wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > > John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > > I have participated in five blind tests organized by officers
> > > > > of the AES and held at AES Conventions at meetings, of which
> > > > > three used the ABX protocol. Regarding other blind tests, as
> > > > > you are well aware because you heard me say so at the HE2005
> > > > > debate, Mr. Krueger, I have taken in a large number of blind
> > > > > tests, many of which used the ABX protocol or box, [some of
> > > > > which] were ABC/HR, and many of [which] involved monadic
> > > > > testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated
> > > > > in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. Hence my
> > > > > feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared with, say,
> > > > > Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by actual
> > > > > experience.
> > > >
> > > > The essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations
> > > > to an 'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done
> > > > this at least three times therefore matching your experience
> > > > with ABX tests.
> > >
> > > Excuse me. Since when does 3 PCABX tests equate to my "well over
> > > 100" tests "since my first in 1977"?
> >
> > I thought you'd said you've taken part in 3 *ABX* tests.

> Perhaps you didn't read the text of mine that you quoted above,
> Mr. Sullivan. I wrote that of the five blind tests I took that were
> organized by the AES, three used an ABX box. But as I also wrote
> above, I have participated in over 100 of blind tests overall,
> using all the common protocols, including ABX, ABC/HR, etc.

Indeed I misread then. However, the idea that one has to take even
*one* ABX, to understand and accept the rationale for it, is still
a faulty one.

> > > > If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components > > > > for me, I would be
happy to oblige you the next time I am in > > > > NYC. > > > > > And just why would I go to
that expense for you personally, Mr. > > > Sullivan? > > > > Because you seem a bit obsessed
with my lack of experience with ABX > > testing of hardware...and seem to be under the
illogical impression > > that that makes me a hypocrite.

> That you have almost no experience of the test protocol you so strongly
> advocate others use, would seem to be your problem, Mr. Sullivan, not
> mine. Why I would be obliged to pay for your education in this area
> escapes me.

Good lord, Mr. Atkinson, since when is someone who *advocates* rigorous product
testing, required to *do* the product testing? No scientist 'requires'
this, nor do engineers, nor do consumer advocates. I have no experience with bench testing
either. Still, it would hardly be outre for me to advocate THAT as well, would it?

I've never said ANY consumer HAD to do blind testing to choose gear. My advocacy is for
*tempering claims of difference* with a recognition of the flaws of sighted comparison.
Indeed, my advice to consumers is to NOT WORRY so much about such differences, since they
stand a decent chance of being imaginary in the case of amps, cables, and CD players. 'Worry'
instead about the features offered by the gear that ARE likely to make a difference.
Further, my advocacy has been for audio journals, which DO have the means and opportunity to
do rigorous comparisons in a scientifically approved fashion -- i.e DOUBLE BLIND COMPARISONS,
of which ABX is one possible kind -- to step up to the plate and perform this service for
consumers. Apparently, though they lack the *motivation*. I'm guessing advertisers would be
really, really unhappy with negative DBT results, eh?

> > > If I run such tests at an audio show in the future, > > > you are perfectly welcome to
take part. > > > > I'd be very happy to. Do you plan to to this?

> Perhaps at the Los Angeles show in June 2006.

Please keep me posted as these plans progress.

> > I'd be happy also to observe you take one... perhaps we can > > get Tom Nousaine to
proctor.

> As Mr. Nousaine is employed by a magazine that competes with
> Stereophile, I hardly think that would be approriate. But as I have
> said in the past, Tom Nousaine is welcome to pay for a room at the
> show to run his own listening tests. I suggest you run that by him,
> Mr. Sullivan, see if Tom is willing to put his money where your
> mouth is.

Oh dear, I see the lack of smiley has done me in again.

But let's run with it anyway . Suppose Mr. Nousaine attends the LA show (however he pays for
that privelage). Would you be willing to take an ABX test he sets up (which you and yours
can vet, of course) , or would you be willing to have him vet a test *you* set up?
Either of those would be fine by me. In fact, if Stereophile and TN could agree that the
condiitions were correct , before the test actually begins, that would be peachy. I'd be happy
to participate in either test.

I'm curious to know, though, what *me* taking an ABX test would prove, to you, unless it came
out positive? Surely a negative result by me for level-matched amps, for example, would prove
*nothing* to you or those of your mindset. I already am 'biased' towards thinking amps and
cable and DACs sound largely the same. It would only be a test of my discriminative
abilities, after all, though I promise to give it my very best shot. The utility of such DBTs
is to test people who already claim things sound *different*. What new insight would I
supposedly gain *about ABX tests* from taking a hardware ABX? That they're hard?

No, the *real* value to audiophilia would be for Stereophile's editorial board and reviwers to
take such tests. *They*, after all, are the ones *making the claims of difference* , and
worse, making them based on an intrinsically flawed comparison method. Not me.

October 30th 05, 08:12 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:19:48 GMT, > wrote:
>
>
>>My selection process is based on the fact that I have friends who are
>>audio
>>technicians who can do actual bench tests and let me know from both the
>>actual performance and their first hand experience. I get to know if a
>>unit
>>under consideration is reliable based on how often they see them in for
>>repair and what sort of real world performance they are capable of.
>
> Again "performance" is ambiguous.

Not in the real world.

I assume you mean how they measure.

And what the audible consequences are when the FR is flat within a tenth of
a dB.

> So your criteria are measurement and reliability, though the latter
> can only be guessed at.
>

Based on the experience of myself and people who see the stuff that gets
repaired most often.

>>In other cases, such as CD players, the very first one I got as a present,
>>so I had no choice to make. The next one I got based on research of my
>>own
>
> And what research would this be?
>
>>that indicated to me that any differences between them was likely to be so
>>small
>
> I presume you mean sound quality differences. I'm reading between the
> lines here.
>
>> that there was nothing really to worry about other than build quality,
>>so I chose a Rotel, base on my own personal experience with them from my
>>days selling audio equipment. They were among the most reliable products
>>I
>>had seen. Rarely would one of their units not work out of the box and if
>>did work out of the box, it never came back except for damage caused by
>>misuse or abuse.
>
> Rotel are quite expensive compared to certain other brands. Are not
> JVC, Pioneer etc reliable? I've always found them so.
>
Probably, and perhaps the next one I get will be from one of their lines.
As it stands now I have 4 devices that can play CD's, so that may be a
while.

>>QSC amp are another case in point. They do what they are supposed to,
>>play
>>cleanly and for a very long time, although the same could be said about a
>>lot of pro gear that some people seem to think don't have a place in a
>>home
>>hi-fi. Crown, Mackie and several others are equally competent and Crown,
>>and now Behringer have units without fans for those who worry about such
>>things.
>
> I wonder what you mean by "play cleanly"?

If you don't understand what that means when talking about audio equipment,
then there's little point in talking to you at all.

Don't clip, I guess. But how
> loud do you like your music?

Typically, when I'm alone and not bothering my wife and kids, I like it at
as close to live levels as possible, except when that's not safe for my
ears.

One surely doesn't need to go to a Crown
> to avoid clipping.

You might want to research how much power an amp can be called on to produce
when playing at live levels, since you don't seem to take my word for
anything or don't understand typcal terms like "clean."

October 30th 05, 09:15 PM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> The Bug Eater bangs on the clubhouse door.
>
>> I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new A500 Behringer
>> amp
>> against another amp of similar wattage and current capabilities.
>
> You want a test between one amp you'll never be able to buy and some other
> amp you can afford? Geez, Mickey, just buy the cheap one and be happy with
> your blind faith in sameness.
>
>
Blind faith? Nonsense, that's for the people who believe that most
everything sounds different without any basis for the belief, in fact in
direct contradiction to the reliable studies that say otherwise.

Perhaps some people might find it usefull to know what if any difference
there is between a really expensive amp that puts out 160wpc @ 8 Ohms and
costs $179.00 vs. one that costs say $2000.00 for the same power.

Arny Krueger

October 30th 05, 10:05 PM

> wrote in message
ink.net

> I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new
> A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage
> and current capabilities.

I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass
test of the A500.

Arny Krueger

October 30th 05, 10:21 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com

> So let's be realistic here: Mike McKelvy and Steven
> Sullivan have already admitted that they did not use PCABX
> or even old-fashioned ABX to help them purchase their
> audio systems. However, as you have a claim to be the
> originator
> of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure
> whereby you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase
> situation, it is to be expected that you have indeed
> followed that
> procedure when choosing what components to buy.

This is an unreasonable expectation for many reasons.

First off, I buy mostly speakers, earphones and microphones,
and ABX tests of speakers and earphones and microphones
always have positive outcomes. Therefore there's really no
logical reason to do ABX tests on speakers, earphones and
microphones.

Secondly, ABX tests were originally developed to resolve
controversies about whether certain kinds of components
really sound different from each other. Att his time there
are few such controversies in my mind, based on about 30
years of experience with AB testing.

Thirdly, I am generally unsucessful in borrowing equipment
that interests me, prior to testing it. In general just
about every component that I have been interested in
testing, I had to buy first and test second. Since cycling
audio components between my listening room and various
dealers is not my idea of fun, I generally only buy
components that I can reasonably expect to perform as I
desire in ABX tests. I'm pretty good at doing this, based on
the components that I bought and did subsequently ABX test.

Fourthly, Whether a piece of equipment would pass a highly
sensitive ABX test is not always the determining factor in
my equipment choices. ABX tests are so sensitive that a
piece of equipment could be reliably detectable in an ABX
test, and still be the best possible overall choice, based
on non-sonic considerations.

> When, for example, you purchased a digital mixer for your
> live sound mixing at
> your church, it is reasonable to assume that you followed
> your own advice above.

See (3) and (4) above.

> Did you indeed do so? Did you do
> so for the microphones you purchased?

See (1) and (4) above.

>Did you do so for your amplifiers?

See (2) and (3) above.

> For your speakers?

See (1) and (4) above.

> If you didn't for even one of those purchases, then don't
> you feel that odd, just as I find odd the fact that the
> most vocal proponents for ABX testing have little or no
> experience of it, even when their own money is tied up in
> the decision?

Asked and answered.

October 30th 05, 10:22 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>> I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new
>> A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage
>> and current capabilities.
>
> I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass test of the
> A500.
>
But where would the embarassment factor come from? :-)

Sander deWaal

October 30th 05, 10:33 PM

> said:

>>> I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new
>>> A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage
>>> and current capabilities.

>> I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass test of the
>> A500.

>But where would the embarassment factor come from? :-)

Is that something like reverse bragging rights? ;-)

--

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

Arny Krueger

October 30th 05, 10:46 PM

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

>
> Now, let me ask, since you and your magazine claim to be
> interested in how stuff really sounds, why do you adhere
> to a demonstrably flawed method for determining that, and
> why don't you adopt an accepted scientific method for
> verifying your sighted perceptions?

Since John can be counted on to either slough or try to
double-talk his way out of this critical question...

It's all about power and control.

Stereophile's current listening test procedure is wide-open
to manipulation, whether conscious or unconscious.

Science is, by definition, out of anybody's control, least
of all Stereophile.

October 31st 05, 12:32 AM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> > said:
>
>>>> I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new
>>>> A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage
>>>> and current capabilities.
>
>
>>> I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass test of the
>>> A500.
>
>
>>But where would the embarassment factor come from? :-)
>
>
> Is that something like reverse bragging rights? ;-)
>
Same coin, different side.

The idea of some looney like Fremer not being able to differentiate between
a $179.00 amp and one that sells for several times that amount and having
had a glowing review, would be priceless.

October 31st 05, 12:35 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> oups.com
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> >>> please tell me how a consumer can make meaningful use of
>> >>> your PCABX computer program in making a buying decision?
>> >>
>> >> (1) Identify a sound quality issue relating to a buying
>> >> decision.
>> >>
>> >> (2) Encapsulate that issue in a set of files for a PCABX
>> >> test.
>> >>
>> >> (3) Distribute PCABX files to interested consumers for
>> >> their review, using a PCABX comparator running in their
>> >> PC.
>> >>
>> >> (4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality
>> >> issue on the outcome of his personal PCABX listening
>> >> test.
>> >>
>> >> (5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
>> >> quality issue into his buying decision.
>> >>
>> >> In the case at hand:
>> >>
>> >> (1) Consumer has a concern about the sound quality of the
>> >> Dolby decoder in one or more surround receivers.
>> >>
>> >> (2) PCABX files based on operation of the Dolby
>> >> decoder(s) are prepared in the lab.
>> >>
>> >> (3) Distribute PCABX files to consumers interested in
>> >> the surround receiver(s) for their review, using a PCABX
>> >> comparator running in their PC.
>> >>
>> >> (4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality of
>> >> the Dolby Digital decoders in the various receiver(s) on
>> >> the outcome of his personal PCABX listening test.
>> >>
>> >> (5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
>> >> quality issue into his buying decision related to the
>> >> surround receiver(s).
>>
>> > Thank you for finally addressing the issue rather than
>> > retreating into abusive langage, Mr. Krueger. I must
>> > admit that while the procedure you outline above is
>> > logically sound, it is also extraordinarily complex for
>> > someone wanting to use to choose what components to buy.
>>
>> The purchaser need only compete steps 4 and 5.
>
> But then he would have nothing to compare in his "personal
> PCABX listening test," Mr. Krueger.
>
>> I have to admit that I'm getting sick of being lied to, and
>> having lies told about what I wrote.
>
> No-one is doing so Mr. Krueger. I am merely contesting your
> assertions. You have said in the past that for me to do so
> shows a lack of respect, but that is disingenuous of you.
>
>>> So let's be realistic here: Mike McKelvy and Steven
>>> Sullivan have already admitted that they did not use PCABX
>>> or even old-fashioned ABX to help them purchase their audio
>>> systems. However, as you have a claim to be the originator
>>> of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure whereby
>>> you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase situation, it is
>>> to be expected that you have indeed followed that procedure
>>> when choosing what components to buy. When, for example,
>>> you purchased a digital mixer for your live sound mixing at
>>> your church, it is reasonable to assume that you followed
>>> your own advice above. Did you indeed do so? Did you do so for
>>> the microphones you purchased? Did you do so for your amplifiers?
>>> For your speakers?
>
> No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
> It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
> given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
> answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
> purchase decisions.
>
> In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
> proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
> only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
> paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
> posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
> reason.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
Do you always make your decisions based only on the sound of a peice of
equipment?
Are there never any other factors that might influence your purchase?

October 31st 05, 12:37 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article . com>,
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote:
>>
>>> No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
>>> It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
>>> given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
>>> answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
>>> purchase decisions.
>>>
>>> In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
>>> proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
>>> only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
>>> paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
>>> posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
>>> reason.
>>
>> IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests. Sure,
>> the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy.
>>
>> Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly
>> incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it
>> all sounds the same, one needn't test at all.
>>
>> Stephen
>
> Sure, if one believes it all sounds the same,
> the test will not remove that bias. I'm not sure
> that there is any way to remove that bias.
> Poor souls are completely stuck in a life
> of imagining that everything sounds the same.
> All that self deception, and no way to cure it.
I am absolutely convinced that SET amps sound different than any decent SS
amp.

Clyde Slick

October 31st 05, 03:16 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article . com>,
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
>>>> It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
>>>> given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
>>>> answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
>>>> purchase decisions.
>>>>
>>>> In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
>>>> proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
>>>> only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
>>>> paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
>>>> posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
>>>> reason.
>>>
>>> IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests. Sure,
>>> the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy.
>>>
>>> Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly
>>> incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it
>>> all sounds the same, one needn't test at all.
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>
>> Sure, if one believes it all sounds the same,
>> the test will not remove that bias. I'm not sure
>> that there is any way to remove that bias.
>> Poor souls are completely stuck in a life
>> of imagining that everything sounds the same.
>> All that self deception, and no way to cure it.
> I am absolutely convinced that SET amps sound different than any decent SS
> amp.
The usual qualifiers apply/ We don't need to keep repeating
the obvious and the given. Tube and SET are always excluded
from this discussion.

October 31st 05, 08:40 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article . com>,
>>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
>>>>> It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
>>>>> given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
>>>>> answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
>>>>> purchase decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
>>>>> proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
>>>>> only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
>>>>> paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
>>>>> posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
>>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests.
>>>> Sure,
>>>> the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy.
>>>>
>>>> Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly
>>>> incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it
>>>> all sounds the same, one needn't test at all.
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> Sure, if one believes it all sounds the same,
>>> the test will not remove that bias. I'm not sure
>>> that there is any way to remove that bias.
>>> Poor souls are completely stuck in a life
>>> of imagining that everything sounds the same.
>>> All that self deception, and no way to cure it.
>> I am absolutely convinced that SET amps sound different than any decent
>> SS amp.
> The usual qualifiers apply/ We don't need to keep repeating
> the obvious and the given. Tube and SET are always excluded
> from this discussion.
I don't believe everything sounds the same, I belive and there is evidence
to back me up, that equipmenmt that measures closely enough will sound the
same.

Arny Krueger

October 31st 05, 12:48 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com

>>> However, as you have a claim to be the
>>> originator
>>> of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure
>>> whereby you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase
>>> situation, it is
>>> to be expected that you have indeed followed that
>>> procedure
>>> when choosing what components to buy. When, for example,
>>> you purchased a digital mixer for your live sound
>>> mixing at
>>> your church, it is reasonable to assume that you
>>> followed
>>> your own advice above. Did you indeed do so? Did you do
>>> so for the microphones you purchased? Did you do so for
>>> your amplifiers? For your speakers?

> No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward
> question. It is reasonable to assume that in the absence
> of a reply and given that he deleted the question without
> asnwering it, his answer would have been "no," ie, he has
> not used PCABX to make purchase decisions.

This would be a false claim.

Howard Ferstler

November 1st 05, 05:59 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX tests
> > would the current Stereophile staff participated in?
>
> I have participated in five blind tests organized by officers of
> the AES and held at AES Conventions at meetings, of which three
> used the ABX protocol. Regarding other blind tests, as you are
> well aware because you heard me say so at the HE2005 debate, Mr.
> Krueger, I have taken in a large number of blind tests, many
> of which used the ABX protocol or box, sme hsich were ABC/HR, and
> many of involved monadic testing with a hidden reference. In all,
> I have participated in well over 100 such tests since my first in
> 1977.

I'll make this short, since I have a life to live. How'd you
do?

More to the point, did you think that any differences you
did hear (assuming you heard any with components that were
bench checked and found to be operationally up to mainstream
hi-fi standards) were a big enough deal to warrant the copy
space utilized hyping (either in ads or in reviews)
high-priced components in assorted high-end magazines?

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

November 1st 05, 06:03 PM

John Atkinson wrote:

> Perhaps you didn't read the text of mine that you quoted above,
> Mr. Sullivan. I wrote that of the five blind tests I took that were
> organized by the AES, three used an ABX box. But as I also wrote
> above, I have participated in over 100 of blind tests overall,
> using all the common protocols, including ABX, ABC/HR, etc.

Just in case you missed my questions in another part of the
thread, regarding all of these listening sessions, just how
did you do?

More to the point, did you think that any differences you
did hear (assuming you heard any with components that were
bench checked and found to be operationally up to mainstream
hi-fi standards) were a big enough deal to warrant the copy
space utilized hyping (either in ads or in reviews)
high-priced components in assorted high-end magazines?

Don't expect a long-winded debate, by the way, I have a life
to live, and it no longer includes debating true believers
at length on RAO.

Howard Ferstler

George Middius

November 1st 05, 07:15 PM

Brother Horace the Hideously Unethical Science-Trasher dorked:

>> I have participated in well over 100 such tests since my first in
>> 1977.

>I'll make this short, since I have a life to live. How'd you do?

At least(TM) Mr. Atkinson did not falsify his results, or lie about them, or
stop trying and simply take random guesses. Unlike you, Mr. Fraudster.

The larger picture here is that you, like the lesser 'borgs duh-Mikey and
Sillybot, are obsessed with "tests" because you are incapable of perceiving and
appreciating high-performance audio gear. We know all about what you like,
Clerkie -- bells and whistles for surround processing. You couldn't care less
about fidelity to the original sound. Your silence on the important (to Normals)
issues of tonality, timbre, and dynamics delineate your complacent adherence to
mediocrity. Like the maniacal Dr. Not, all you really care about is boosting
bass so much it drowns out mid- and high-frequency sounds.

Don't bother us with your nonsense about "tests", you simpering fool. You have
nothing to say about anything of interest to Normals. You're a closed-minded,
dogmatic old fart, and you're deaf and dumb to boot.

Beat it, Clerkie. You're dumber than the average clown and everybody here is
laughing at you.

..
..
..

Robert Morein

November 5th 05, 05:59 PM

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > > wrote in message
> >> > nk.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> > hlink.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > link.net...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "surf" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> . ..
> >> >> >> >> > " > wrote ...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote...
> >> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
> >> >> >> >> >> At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's
> >> >> >> >> >> invalid
> >> > and
> >> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference
> >> > testing.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
> >> >> >> >> No
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Nuf said.
> >> >> >> > Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble
telescope
> >> >> >> right,
> >> >> >> and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so
> >> >> >> badly.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
> >> >> > Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
> >> >> > Or are you just lying, Mikey?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting
> > your
> >> >> ass kicked in a moderated forum.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.
> >> >>
> >> >> And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about
> > damping
> >> >> factor, or amplifers in general.
> >> >>
> >> > Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the
> > definition
> >> > of
> >> > damping factor.
> >> >
> >> Yawn.
> >>
> > Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say.
> >
> I just get bored when you are so completely, utterly and consistently
wrong
> about damn near everything, Robert. Your predictability is nothing short
of
> stunning.
>
Here, we have a typical distortion.
What do you predict I'll say next?