More from Sean

Mike:

Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
tell the difference.

The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
reason I work here.

Proper valid listening tests cost lots of time and money, money that most
companies feel is better spent on marketing and advertising -- or profit
margin. To a large extent they can get away with it because there are few
checks and balances. For example:

1) 99% of audio equipment review magazines don't do valid controlled
listening tests and their objective measurements of the equipment is often
missing or is incomplete.

2) the consumer is increasingly less able to do a valid comparison of
products in the stores, as audio equipment has become a big-box store
commodity

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling the
dice in Las Vegas..


Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd.
Northridge, CA, 91329


If you want the attachments, email me for the .pdf files.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:

>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
>quality.
>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling the
>dice in Las Vegas..
>
>
>Cheers,
>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
>R&D Group, Harman International

Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
>>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
>>quality.
>>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
>>the
>>dice in Las Vegas..
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
>>R&D Group, Harman International
>
> Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?

Probably better than you are.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
. net...
> Mike:
>
> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
> tell the difference.
>
> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
> reason I work here.
>

Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting this.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:
> >
> >>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
> >>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound
> >>quality.
> >>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
> >>the
> >>dice in Las Vegas..
> >>
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
> >>R&D Group, Harman International
> >
> > Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?
>
> Probably better than you are.
>
But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of higher mental
processes.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>
>
> Mike:
>
> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
> tell the difference.
>
> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
> reason I work here.
>
> Proper valid listening tests cost lots of time and money, money that most
> companies feel is better spent on marketing and advertising -- or profit
> margin. To a large extent they can get away with it because there are few
> checks and balances. For example:
>
> 1) 99% of audio equipment review magazines don't do valid controlled
> listening tests and their objective measurements of the equipment is often
> missing or is incomplete.
>
> 2) the consumer is increasingly less able to do a valid comparison of
> products in the stores, as audio equipment has become a big-box store
> commodity
>
> 3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
> manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
> quality.
> Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling the
> dice in Las Vegas..


Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
audiophiles hear physically exist or not.



> Cheers,
> Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
> R&D Group, Harman International
> 8500 Balboa Blvd.
> Northridge, CA, 91329
>
>
> If you want the attachments, email me for the .pdf files.


Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or what ??

You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak for
himself.
This is an open forum.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
. net...
>> Mike:
>>
>> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
>> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
>> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
>> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
>> tell the difference.
>>
>> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
>> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
>> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
>> reason I work here.
>>
>
>Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
>Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting this.

3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
sound quality.
Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
rolling the dice in Las Vegas..

So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
same. Or am I mis-reading here?

[Steven Sullivan]

paul packer > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:

> >
> > wrote in message
> . net...
> >> Mike:
> >>
> >> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
> >> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
> >> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
> >> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
> >> tell the difference.
> >>
> >> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
> >> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
> >> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
> >> reason I work here.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
> >Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting this.

> 3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
> manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
> sound quality.
> Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
> rolling the dice in Las Vegas..

> So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
> same. Or am I mis-reading here?

Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:
>> >
>> >>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
>> >>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
> sound
>> >>quality.
>> >>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
>> >>rolling
>> >>the
>> >>dice in Las Vegas..
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Cheers,
>> >>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
>> >>R&D Group, Harman International
>> >
>> > Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?
>>
>> Probably better than you are.
>>
> But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of higher
> mental
> processes.
>
How big was that telescope?

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Mike:
>>
>> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
>> this
>> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
>> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
>> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
>> tell the difference.
>>
>> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
>> tests
>> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
>> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
>> reason I work here.
>>
>
> Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
> Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
> this.
>
>
No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
. net...
>>> Mike:
>>>
>>> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
>>> this
>>> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
>>> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
>>> filter
>>> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
>>> not
>>> tell the difference.
>>>
>>> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
>>> tests
>>> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
>>> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
>>> the
>>> reason I work here.
>>>
>>
>>Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
>>Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
>>this.
>
> 3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
> manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
> sound quality.
> Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
> rolling the dice in Las Vegas..
>
> So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.

Depends on which ones.

> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
> same. Or am I mis-reading here?

As usual.

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>
>> nyob123 wrote
>>
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
>> this test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used
>> this method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
>> filter removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners
>> could not tell the difference.
>>
>> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
>> tests period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one
>> of the very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which
>> is the reason I work here.
>>
>> Proper valid listening tests cost lots of time and money, money that most
>> companies feel is better spent on marketing and advertising -- or profit
>> margin. To a large extent they can get away with it because there are few
>> checks and balances. For example:
>>
>> 1) 99% of audio equipment review magazines don't do valid controlled
>> listening tests and their objective measurements of the equipment is
>> often missing or is incomplete.
>>
>> 2) the consumer is increasingly less able to do a valid comparison of
>> products in the stores, as audio equipment has become a big-box store
>> commodity
>>
>> 3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
>> manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
>> quality.
>> Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
>> the dice in Las Vegas..
>
>
> Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
> a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
> audiophiles hear physically exist or not.
>
Eddie, the man says it's one of a couple valid ways to test for difference.
Once again the world is amused at your incredible blindness.
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
>> R&D Group, Harman International
>> 8500 Balboa Blvd.
>> Northridge, CA, 91329
>>
>>
>> If you want the attachments, email me for the .pdf files.
>
>
> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or what
> ??
>
It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.

> You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak for
> himself.

He just did, you twit.

> This is an open forum.
>
>
Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >>
> >> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
> >> >>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
> > sound
> >> >>quality.
> >> >>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
> >> >>rolling
> >> >>the
> >> >>dice in Las Vegas..
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Cheers,
> >> >>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
> >> >>R&D Group, Harman International
> >> >
> >> > Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?
> >>
> >> Probably better than you are.
> >>
> > But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of higher
> > mental
> > processes.
> >
> How big was that telescope?
Obsessive interests in telescopes, noted.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:39 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> . net...
> >> Mike:
> >>
> >> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
this
> >> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
> >> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
> >> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
not
> >> tell the difference.
> >>
> >> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
tests
> >> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
the
> >> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
the
> >> reason I work here.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
> >Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
this.
>
> 3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
> manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
> sound quality.
> Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
> rolling the dice in Las Vegas..
>
> So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
> same. Or am I mis-reading here?

They don't, because the measurements used are antiquated, and not
insightfull designed. All the quoted measurements are things an E.E. could
do back in the 60's and 70's with a couple of test-tone oscillators, and
some filters. It reminds me of the story about the drunk who lost his
wallet, and spent the night circling a street lamp, staring at the ground.
When asked why he spent all night looking in one location, he replied,
"Because that's where the light is."

There is a tendency of the engineering contingent of this group to be
captured by what they consider "revealed truths"? It's as if they've grabbed
a live wire; the electricity caused their hand to contract, and they can't
let go. Of course, the cream of the profession evades this, but they are
seldom represented here. Some of these people are not engineers at all; some
are technical workers, and some are poseurs.

Yet there is truth to the notion of the "engineering mentality". Part of
this is due to self-selection; part is due to the way the curricula is
taught. In fact, one of the things engineering students are taught is that
it is simply impossible to think about every choice you have to make. It is
better to know, than to "reinvent the wheel." But this has a bad effect.
Minds that have a cosmic grasp can get beyond this, and become originators.
Those who cannot can still be very good engineers, but as with any
mechanistic frame of mind, sometimes end in ruts they cannot themselves
perceive.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > . net...
> >> Mike:
> >>
> >> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
> >> this
> >> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
> >> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
filter
> >> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
not
> >> tell the difference.
> >>
> >> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
> >> tests
> >> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
the
> >> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
the
> >> reason I work here.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
> > Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
> > this.
> >
> >
> No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.
>
Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
.net...
>
> "EddieM" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> >> nyob123 wrote
[snip]
>
> > You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak
for
> > himself.
>
> He just did, you twit.
>
> > This is an open forum.
> >
> >
> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.
>
>
It appears Mikey posted this communication from Mr. Olive without his
permission.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:27:10 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > . net...
>> >> Mike:
>> >>
>> >> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
>> >> this
>> >> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
>> >> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
>filter
>> >> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
>not
>> >> tell the difference.
>> >>
>> >> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
>> >> tests
>> >> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
>the
>> >> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
>the
>> >> reason I work here.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
>> > Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
>> > this.
>> >
>> >
>> No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.
>>
>Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?

A Mistress?

[paul packer]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:51:06 GMT, > wrote:


>> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
>> same. Or am I mis-reading here?
>
>As usual.

Glib non answer, Mike. Try again.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:


>> So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
>> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
>> same. Or am I mis-reading here?
>
>Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
a lot more time

[dave weil]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:49:29 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
>>>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
>>>quality.
>>>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
>>>the
>>>dice in Las Vegas..
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
>>>R&D Group, Harman International
>>
>> Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?
>
>Probably better than you are.

I don't think so.

Reference your thread about comparing Krell and QSC amps for instance.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> So it would appear that specs do not define the sound
>>> quality of amps. Thus all well-designed, similarly
>>> measuring amps do not sound the same. Or am I
>>> mis-reading here?
>>
>> Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

<below is a corrected version of Packer's *******ization of
what I said>

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/2644a6c3e558f35b

"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same."

They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

>Something for Arny to explain to me at
> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
>lost
>permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
>remains about the same."
>
>They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?

Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?

>>Something for Arny to explain to me at
>> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.
>
>The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
>and lying, Paul. You made you do it.

Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that
I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.

And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>Something for Arny to explain to me at
>> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.

Depends on how the Supreme Being feels about hypocrisy. It might be a
few hundred thousand years before Arnold makes it through the various
rings of purgatory.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:39:22 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>>Something for Arny to explain to me at
>>> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.
>
>Depends on how the Supreme Being feels about hypocrisy. It might be a
>few hundred thousand years before Arnold makes it through the various
>rings of purgatory.

I'll wait. What else have I got to do? :-)

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > k.net...
>> >>
>> >> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given
>> >> >>by
>> >> >>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
>> > sound
>> >> >>quality.
>> >> >>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
>> >> >>rolling
>> >> >>the
>> >> >>dice in Las Vegas..
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Cheers,
>> >> >>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
>> >> >>R&D Group, Harman International
>> >> >
>> >> > Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?
>> >>
>> >> Probably better than you are.
>> >>
>> > But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of higher
>> > mental
>> > processes.
>> >
>> How big was that telescope?
> Obsessive interests in telescopes, noted.
>
>
Yawn.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:49:29 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
>>>>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
>>>>sound
>>>>quality.
>>>>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
>>>>the
>>>>dice in Las Vegas..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
>>>>R&D Group, Harman International
>>>
>>> Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?
>>
>>Probably better than you are.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Reference your thread about comparing Krell and QSC amps for instance.

You're making assumptions that are not true.

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:51:06 GMT, > wrote:
>
>
>>> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
>>> same. Or am I mis-reading here?
>>
>>As usual.
>
> Glib non answer, Mike. Try again.

Why is it you don't get the difference between published specs and measured
performance?

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > . net...
>> >> Mike:
>> >>
>> >> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
>> >> this
>> >> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
>> >> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
> filter
>> >> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could
> not
>> >> tell the difference.
>> >>
>> >> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
>> >> tests
>> >> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
> the
>> >> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is
> the
>> >> reason I work here.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi design.
>> > Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for posting
>> > this.
>> >
>> >
>> No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.
>>
> Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?
>
Your goat.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> "EddieM" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> >
>> >> nyob123 wrote
> [snip]
>>
>> > You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak
> for
>> > himself.
>>
>> He just did, you twit.
>>
>> > This is an open forum.
>> >
>> >
>> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.
>>
>>
> It appears Mikey posted this communication from Mr. Olive without his
> permission.
>
>
Wanna bet?

[Steven Sullivan]

paul packer > wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:


> >> So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of amps.
> >> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
> >> same. Or am I mis-reading here?
> >
> >Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.

> Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
> signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
> for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
> a lot more time

Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
magazines bother with bench tests?



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

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > > wrote in message
> >> > k.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given
> >> >> >>by
> >> >> >>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance
and
> >> > sound
> >> >> >>quality.
> >> >> >>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
> >> >> >>rolling
> >> >> >>the
> >> >> >>dice in Las Vegas..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Cheers,
> >> >> >>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
> >> >> >>R&D Group, Harman International
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?
> >> >>
> >> >> Probably better than you are.
> >> >>
> >> > But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of higher
> >> > mental
> >> > processes.
> >> >
> >> How big was that telescope?
> > Obsessive interests in telescopes, noted.
> >
> >
> Yawn.
>
Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
> >lost
> >permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
> >remains about the same."
> >
> >They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?
>
> Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?
>
> >>Something for Arny to explain to me at
> >> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.
> >
> >The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
> >and lying, Paul. You made you do it.
>
> Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that
> I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.
>
> And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
> be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.
>
Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a nasty
person

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> paul packer > wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > > wrote:
>
>
> > >> So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of
amps.
> > >> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
> > >> same. Or am I mis-reading here?
> > >
> > >Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.
>
> > Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
> > signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
> > for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
> > a lot more time
>
> Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
> if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
> magazines bother with bench tests?
>
That is a really stupid question.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > > wrote in message
> >> > . net...
> >> >> Mike:
> >> >>
> >> >> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below.
In
> >> >> this
> >> >> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used
this
> >> >> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
> > filter
> >> >> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners
could
> > not
> >> >> tell the difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
> >> >> tests
> >> >> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
> > the
> >> >> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which
is
> > the
> >> >> reason I work here.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi
design.
> >> > Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for
posting
> >> > this.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.
> >>
> > Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?
> >
> Your goat.
>
Mikey, it's a sheep, not a goat. Can't you tell the difference?
I hope you're enjoying her.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >>
> >> "EddieM" > wrote in message
> >> m...
> >> >
> >> >> nyob123 wrote
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> > You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak
> > for
> >> > himself.
> >>
> >> He just did, you twit.
> >>
> >> > This is an open forum.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.
> >>
> >>
> > It appears Mikey posted this communication from Mr. Olive without his
> > permission.
> >
> >
> Wanna bet?
>
Prove it.

[Robert Morein]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >>Something for Arny to explain to me at
> >> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.
>
> Depends on how the Supreme Being feels about hypocrisy. It might be a
> few hundred thousand years before Arnold makes it through the various
> rings of purgatory.
>
He might not bother. Arny seems to like heat.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:27:10 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > > wrote in message
> >> > . net...
> >> >> Mike:
> >> >>
> >> >> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below.
In
> >> >> this
> >> >> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used
this
> >> >> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
> >filter
> >> >> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners
could
> >not
> >> >> tell the difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
> >> >> tests
> >> >> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of
> >the
> >> >> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which
is
> >the
> >> >> reason I work here.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi
design.
> >> > Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for
posting
> >> > this.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.
> >>
> >Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?
>
> A Mistress?
He says he has my goat. It's actually a sheep. I wonder what he's doing with
it.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> paul packer > wrote:
>> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> > > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > >> So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of
> amps.
>> > >> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
>> > >> same. Or am I mis-reading here?
>> > >
>> > >Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.
>>
>> > Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
>> > signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
>> > for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
>> > a lot more time
>>
>> Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
>> if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
>> magazines bother with bench tests?
>>
> That is a really stupid question.
>
>
And as usual, you don't have an answer.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > k.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > > wrote in message
>> >> > . net...
>> >> >> Mike:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below.
> In
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used
> this
>> >> >> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
>> > filter
>> >> >> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners
> could
>> > not
>> >> >> tell the difference.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled
>> >> >> double-blind
>> >> >> tests
>> >> >> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one
>> >> >> of
>> > the
>> >> >> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which
> is
>> > the
>> >> >> reason I work here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi
> design.
>> >> > Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for
> posting
>> >> > this.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.
>> >>
>> > Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?
>> >
>> Your goat.
>>
> Mikey, it's a sheep, not a goat. Can't you tell the difference?
> I hope you're enjoying her.
>
She does say she misses her Daaaaaaad, so I think I'll send her back.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > .net...
>> >>
>> >> "EddieM" > wrote in message
>> >> m...
>> >> >
>> >> >> nyob123 wrote
>> > [snip]
>> >>
>> >> > You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man
>> >> > speak
>> > for
>> >> > himself.
>> >>
>> >> He just did, you twit.
>> >>
>> >> > This is an open forum.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > It appears Mikey posted this communication from Mr. Olive without his
>> > permission.
>> >
>> >
>> Wanna bet?
>>
> Prove it.
>
Why don't you just e-mail him yourself and ask?

I would never post anything that anybody asked to keep private, with one
exception.

Sean is a very nice guy who is totally comitted to better audio and
information about the subject. He said in no uncertain terms that he
believes in listening tests and that it is because Harman uses them that he
chose to work for them.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
>> >lost
>> >permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
>> >remains about the same."
>> >
>> >They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?
>>
>> Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?
>>
>> >>Something for Arny to explain to me at
>> >> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.
>> >
>> >The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
>> >and lying, Paul. You made you do it.
>>
>> Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that
>> I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.
>>
>> And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
>> be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.
>>
> Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a
> nasty
> person
>
Someone should explain to you that I don't give a ****.
If I get the answers I want from him about the questions I ask, then he's
done all I need him to do. He's never been anything but cordial to me and
to those who have always been cordial to him.

If he gets treated less than cordially he tends to hold a grudge, sorta like
you against McCarty, or me.

If your ego is so fragile that it can't stand somebody's criticism of you,
especially when you're dead wrong, which happens a lot it seems, then ****
off. You're obviously too big a candy ass to be here.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is
> considered a nasty person

Someone should explain to Robert why he comes off as a
busybody and whiner, when he isn't taking some nasty licks
of his own.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > k.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > > wrote in message
>> >> > k.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers)
>> >> >> >>given
>> >> >> >>by
>> >> >> >>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance
> and
>> >> > sound
>> >> >> >>quality.
>> >> >> >>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
>> >> >> >>rolling
>> >> >> >>the
>> >> >> >>dice in Las Vegas..
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Cheers,
>> >> >> >>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
>> >> >> >>R&D Group, Harman International
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Probably better than you are.
>> >> >>
>> >> > But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of
>> >> > higher
>> >> > mental
>> >> > processes.
>> >> >
>> >> How big was that telescope?
>> > Obsessive interests in telescopes, noted.
>> >
>> >
>> Yawn.
>>
> Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say.
>
Snore.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is
>> considered a nasty person
>
> Someone should explain to Robert why he comes off as a busybody and
> whiner, when he isn't taking some nasty licks of his own.
I don't see the point, he seems to be a skeptic about that issue.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike:
>>>
>>> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
>>> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
>>> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
>>> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
>>> tell the difference.
>>>
>>> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
>>> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
>>> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
>>> reason I work here.
>>>
>>> Proper valid listening tests cost lots of time and money, money that most
>>> companies feel is better spent on marketing and advertising -- or profit
>>> margin. To a large extent they can get away with it because there are few
>>> checks and balances. For example:
>>>
>>> 1) 99% of audio equipment review magazines don't do valid controlled
>>> listening tests and their objective measurements of the equipment is
>>> often missing or is incomplete.
>>>
>>> 2) the consumer is increasingly less able to do a valid comparison of
>>> products in the stores, as audio equipment has become a big-box store
>>> commodity
>>>
>>> 3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
>>> manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
>>> quality.
>>> Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
>>> the dice in Las Vegas..
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
>> a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
>> audiophiles hear physically exist or not.
>>
> Eddie, the man says it's one of a couple valid ways to test for difference.
> Once again the world is amused at your incredible blindness.




What if the subject for the test is none other than Howard Ferstler who admits
to having deeply held personal vendetta towards high-end establishment
going back in the late '70s, how would your man above go about explaining
that a no-difference Ferstler test result is valid ?

Anyway, if your man says it's one of the two valid ways to test for
differences, what makes you think it is so ?


>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or what
>> ??
>
>
> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.


He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ?


What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and,
towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle
difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ?



>> You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak for
>> himself.
>
> He just did, you twit.


Then, thank you for tirelessly pasting his written words to the attention
of Rao.


>> This is an open forum.
>>
>>
> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.


Why?

[dizzy]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:50:47 GMT, > wrote:

>Sean is a very nice guy who is totally comitted to better audio and
>information about the subject. He said in no uncertain terms that he
>believes in listening tests and that it is because Harman uses them that he
>chose to work for them.

Well, that settles it. I'm buying that HK receiver I was
thinking-about for my basement stereo.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > > wrote in message
> >> > k.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > wrote in message
> >> >> > k.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:03:15 GMT, > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers)
> >> >> >> >>given
> >> >> >> >>by
> >> >> >> >>manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance
> > and
> >> >> > sound
> >> >> >> >>quality.
> >> >> >> >>Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is
like
> >> >> >> >>rolling
> >> >> >> >>the
> >> >> >> >>dice in Las Vegas..
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>Cheers,
> >> >> >> >>Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
> >> >> >> >>R&D Group, Harman International
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Mr. McKelvy, are you listening?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Probably better than you are.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > But not thinking. Mikey's mckelviphibian brain is incapable of
> >> >> > higher
> >> >> > mental
> >> >> > processes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> How big was that telescope?
> >> > Obsessive interests in telescopes, noted.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Yawn.
> >>
> > Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say.
> >
> Snore.
>
Mikey, you have an inferior mind. Sleep away.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike:
>>>
>>> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
>>> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
>>> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
>>> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
>>> tell the difference.
>>>
>>> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
>>> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
>>> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
>>> reason I work here.
>>>
>>> Proper valid listening tests cost lots of time and money, money that most
>>> companies feel is better spent on marketing and advertising -- or profit
>>> margin. To a large extent they can get away with it because there are few
>>> checks and balances. For example:
>>>
>>> 1) 99% of audio equipment review magazines don't do valid controlled
>>> listening tests and their objective measurements of the equipment is
>>> often missing or is incomplete.
>>>
>>> 2) the consumer is increasingly less able to do a valid comparison of
>>> products in the stores, as audio equipment has become a big-box store
>>> commodity
>>>
>>> 3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
>>> manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
>>> quality.
>>> Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
>>> the dice in Las Vegas..
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
>> a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
>> audiophiles hear physically exist or not.
>>
> Eddie, the man says it's one of a couple valid ways to test for difference.
> Once again the world is amused at your incredible blindness.




What if the subject for the test is none other than Howard Ferstler who admits
to having deeply held personal vendetta towards high-end establishment
going back in the late '70s, how would your man above go about explaining
that a no-difference Ferstler test result is valid ?

Anyway, if your man says it's one of the two valid ways to test for
differences, what makes you think it is so ?


>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or what
>> ??
>
>
> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.


He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ?


What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and,
towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle
difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ?



>> You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak for
>> himself.
>
> He just did, you twit.


Then, thank you for tirelessly pasting his written words to the attention
of Rao.


>> This is an open forum.
>>
>>
> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.


Why?

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike:
>>>
>>> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In this
>>> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used this
>>> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a filter
>>> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners could not
>>> tell the difference.
>>>
>>> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind tests
>>> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one of the
>>> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests, which is the
>>> reason I work here.
>>>
>>> Proper valid listening tests cost lots of time and money, money that most
>>> companies feel is better spent on marketing and advertising -- or profit
>>> margin. To a large extent they can get away with it because there are few
>>> checks and balances. For example:
>>>
>>> 1) 99% of audio equipment review magazines don't do valid controlled
>>> listening tests and their objective measurements of the equipment is
>>> often missing or is incomplete.
>>>
>>> 2) the consumer is increasingly less able to do a valid comparison of
>>> products in the stores, as audio equipment has become a big-box store
>>> commodity
>>>
>>> 3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
>>> manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and sound
>>> quality.
>>> Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like rolling
>>> the dice in Las Vegas..
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
>> a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
>> audiophiles hear physically exist or not.
>>
> Eddie, the man says it's one of a couple valid ways to test for difference.
> Once again the world is amused at your incredible blindness.




What if the subject for the test is none other than Howard Ferstler who admits
to having deeply held personal vendetta towards high-end establishment
going back in the late '70s, how would your man above go about explaining
that a no-difference Ferstler test result is valid ?

Anyway, if your man says it's one of the two valid ways to test for
differences, what makes you think it is so ?


>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or what
>> ??
>
>
> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.


He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ?


What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and,
towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle
difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ?



>> You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak for
>> himself.
>
> He just did, you twit.


Then, thank you for tirelessly pasting his written words to the attention
of Rao.


>> This is an open forum.
>>
>>
> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.


Why?

[EddieM]

>> McKelvy wrote: (.... nothing yet.)




Are you, perchance, waiting for Arny and Pinkerton
to come along (with crowbars in their hands) and help to
pry open your thighs and forcefully eke out the embedded
tail that is tuck deeply between your legs ?



C'mon now.

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>> nyob123 wrote
>>> EddieM wrote
>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike:
>>>>
>>>> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached below. In
>>>> this test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used
>>>> this method to determine whether there was an audible difference with a
>>>> filter removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners
>>>> could not tell the difference.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled double-blind
>>>> tests period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one
>>>> of the very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests,
>>>> which is the reason I work here.
>>>>
>>>> Proper valid listening tests cost lots of time and money, money that
>>>> most companies feel is better spent on marketing and advertising -- or
>>>> profit margin. To a large extent they can get away with it because
>>>> there are few checks and balances. For example:
>>>>
>>>> 1) 99% of audio equipment review magazines don't do valid controlled
>>>> listening tests and their objective measurements of the equipment is
>>>> often missing or is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>> 2) the consumer is increasingly less able to do a valid comparison of
>>>> products in the stores, as audio equipment has become a big-box store
>>>> commodity
>>>>
>>>> 3) The standard specifications (amplifiers and loudspeakers) given by
>>>> manufacturer's are largely misleading indicators of performance and
>>>> sound quality.
>>>> Making a purchase decision based on these specifications is like
>>>> rolling the dice in Las Vegas..
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
>>> a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
>>> audiophiles hear physically exist or not.
>>>
>> Eddie, the man says it's one of a couple valid ways to test for
>> difference.
>> Once again the world is amused at your incredible blindness.
>
>
>
>
> What if the subject for the test is none other than Howard Ferstler who
> admits
> to having deeply held personal vendetta towards high-end establishment
> going back in the late '70s, how would your man above go about explaining
> that a no-difference Ferstler test result is valid ?
>
I feel very confident that a whole line of audio equipment is not going to
based on his results in an ABX test, nor any single person's resu;ts.

> Anyway, if your man says it's one of the two valid ways to test for
> differences, what makes you think it is so ?
>
Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of audio
research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true. He and Floyd Toole, who also
works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.
>
>>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or
>>> what ??
>>
>>
>> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.
>
>
> He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
> at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
> things ?
>
A difference that is audible, is a difference that is measurable.
>
> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and,
> towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle
> difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ?
>
I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever. He
has far to much to lose.
>
>>> You tirelessly labor the religious gospel for him. Let the man speak
>>> for himself.
>>
>> He just did, you twit.
>
>
> Then, thank you for tirelessly pasting his written words to the attention
> of Rao.
>
>
>>> This is an open forum.
>>>
>>>
>> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.
>
>
> Why?
>
>
Becasue yo tend to be combative and impolite.

"EddieM" > wrote in message
t...
>
>
>>> McKelvy wrote: (.... nothing yet.)
>
>
>
>
> Are you, perchance, waiting for Arny and Pinkerton
> to come along (with crowbars in their hands) and help to
> pry open your thighs and forcefully eke out the embedded
> tail that is tuck deeply between your legs ?
>
>
>
> C'mon now.
>
>
That's the drawback of an open forum.

Sigh.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
> >> >lost
> >> >permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
> >> >remains about the same."
> >> >
> >> >They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?
> >>
> >> Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?
> >>
> >> >>Something for Arny to explain to me at
> >> >> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.
> >> >
> >> >The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
> >> >and lying, Paul. You made you do it.
> >>
> >> Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that
> >> I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.
> >>
> >> And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
> >> be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.
> >>
> > Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a
> > nasty
> > person
> >
> Someone should explain to you that I don't give a ****.
> If I get the answers I want from him about the questions I ask, then he's
> done all I need him to do. He's never been anything but cordial to me and
> to those who have always been cordial to him.
>
> If he gets treated less than cordially he tends to hold a grudge, sorta
like
> you against McCarty, or me.
>
> If your ego is so fragile that it can't stand somebody's criticism of you,
> especially when you're dead wrong, which happens a lot it seems, then ****
> off. You're obviously too big a candy ass to be here.
>
See Arny's recent reply to Paul, Mikey. If you continue to copy that kind of
bad character, you'll end up with as bad a character as a dumb person
possibly can.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >> Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is
> >> considered a nasty person
> >
> > Someone should explain to Robert why he comes off as a busybody and
> > whiner, when he isn't taking some nasty licks of his own.
> I don't see the point, he seems to be a skeptic about that issue.
>
Mikey, you are a dumb person, ie., a person of low intelligence.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> paul packer > wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> >> > > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > >> So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of
> > amps.
> >> > >> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
> >> > >> same. Or am I mis-reading here?
> >> > >
> >> > >Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.
> >>
> >> > Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of the
> >> > signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
> >> > for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have
> >> > a lot more time
> >>
> >> Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
> >> if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
> >> magazines bother with bench tests?
> >>
> > That is a really stupid question.
> >
> >
> And as usual, you don't have an answer.
It is a really stupid question, asked by a really dumb guy.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > > wrote in message
> >> > k.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > wrote in message
> >> >> > . net...
> >> >> >> Mike:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Another example of ABC (With hidden reference ) is attached
below.
> > In
> >> >> >> this
> >> >> >> test Bang & Olufsen's spin-off amplifier company "ICE Power" used
> > this
> >> >> >> method to determine whether there was an audible difference with
a
> >> > filter
> >> >> >> removed from their class D amplifier. They found that listeners
> > could
> >> > not
> >> >> >> tell the difference.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The fact is that very few audio companies do controlled
> >> >> >> double-blind
> >> >> >> tests
> >> >> >> period... ABX or any other method for that matter. Harman is one
> >> >> >> of
> >> > the
> >> >> >> very few companies that do valid controlled listening tests,
which
> > is
> >> > the
> >> >> >> reason I work here.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks to Sean for PROVING that ABX is not widely used in hifi
> > design.
> >> >> > Thanks to Mikey the mckelviphbian, WHO HAS NEVER USED ABX, for
> > posting
> >> >> > this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> No wonder they wouldn't give you a diploma.
> >> >>
> >> > Hey, Mikey, I have a Masters. What do you have?
> >> >
> >> Your goat.
> >>
> > Mikey, it's a sheep, not a goat. Can't you tell the difference?
> > I hope you're enjoying her.
> >
> She does say she misses her Daaaaaaad, so I think I'll send her back.
>
Nah, you broke her, you keep her.

[Robert Morein]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:50:47 GMT, > wrote:
>
> >Sean is a very nice guy who is totally comitted to better audio and
> >information about the subject. He said in no uncertain terms that he
> >believes in listening tests and that it is because Harman uses them that
he
> >chose to work for them.
>
> Well, that settles it. I'm buying that HK receiver I was
> thinking-about for my basement stereo.
>
Yes, isn't it remarkable how all those HK receivers over the past 20 years
have been head and shoulders over their K-Mart competition.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "EddieM" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> >
> >>> McKelvy wrote: (.... nothing yet.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you, perchance, waiting for Arny and Pinkerton
> > to come along (with crowbars in their hands) and help to
> > pry open your thighs and forcefully eke out the embedded
> > tail that is tuck deeply between your legs ?
> >
> >
> >
> > C'mon now.
> >
> >
> That's the drawback of an open forum.
>
You could have it done in Mexico for a fraction of the cost here.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> Mikey, you are a dumb person, ie., a person of low
> intelligence.

Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the
years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then
is the problem with you?

[George Middius]

The Krooborg is kornered and krazed with rage.

>Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the
>years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then
>is the problem with you?

On the contrary, Turdy -- Morein has only recently embraced the truth about you.
Namely, and to wit, that you are a very obnoxious individual who is afflicted
with mental problems that go begging for treatment.

Up until the recent past, Morein tried to reason with you on many occasions, and
also overlooked your snotty attacks in the hope of persuading you to behave like
a real person. He gave you far more latitude that most Normals do, and far more
than you deserve. You should be thanking him for his undue and unrewarded
kindnesses toward your ****ful self.



..
..
..

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
>> >> >lost
>> >> >permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
>> >> >remains about the same."
>> >> >
>> >> >They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?
>> >>
>> >> Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?
>> >>
>> >> >>Something for Arny to explain to me at
>> >> >> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.
>> >> >
>> >> >The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
>> >> >and lying, Paul. You made you do it.
>> >>
>> >> Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that
>> >> I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.
>> >>
>> >> And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
>> >> be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.
>> >>
>> > Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a
>> > nasty
>> > person
>> >
>> Someone should explain to you that I don't give a ****.
>> If I get the answers I want from him about the questions I ask, then he's
>> done all I need him to do. He's never been anything but cordial to me
>> and
>> to those who have always been cordial to him.
>>
>> If he gets treated less than cordially he tends to hold a grudge, sorta
> like
>> you against McCarty, or me.
>>
>> If your ego is so fragile that it can't stand somebody's criticism of
>> you,
>> especially when you're dead wrong, which happens a lot it seems, then
>> ****
>> off. You're obviously too big a candy ass to be here.
>>
> See Arny's recent reply to Paul, Mikey. If you continue to copy that kind
> of
> bad character, you'll end up with as bad a character as a dumb person
> possibly can.
>
More irony.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> paul packer > wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:29:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > >> So it would appear that specs do not define the sound quality of
>> > amps.
>> >> > >> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the
>> >> > >> same. Or am I mis-reading here?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Yes. *specs* are not the same as *measured performance*.
>> >>
>> >> > Well, I'll put that one in the basket with "stripping away 80% of
>> >> > the
>> >> > signal does not reduce the energy of that signal at all". Something
>> >> > for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all
>> >> > have
>> >> > a lot more time
>> >>
>> >> Put on your thinking cap and ponder this mystery --
>> >> if specs 'define the sound quality' why do audio
>> >> magazines bother with bench tests?
>> >>
>> > That is a really stupid question.
>> >
>> >
>> And as usual, you don't have an answer.
> It is a really stupid question, asked by a really dumb guy.
>
Not answered by the biggest dumb ass on RAO, you.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike:
>>>>>
>>>>>snip.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
>>>> a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
>>>> audiophiles hear physically exist or not.
>>>>
>>> Eddie, the man says it's one of a couple valid ways to test for
>>> difference. Once again the world is amused at your incredible blindness.
>>
>> What if the subject for the test is none other than Howard Ferstler who
>> admits to having deeply held personal vendetta towards high-end
>> establishment going back in the late '70s, how would your man above go
>> about explaining that a no-difference Ferstler test result is valid ?
>>
> I feel very confident that a whole line of audio equipment is not going to
> based on his results in an ABX test, nor any single person's resu;ts.


Thank you for saying that. We must all feel very confident that sound
quality of audio equipments should not be based on an individual
ABX test such as from you, Mr. Sean Olive, and most especially not
from that ridiculous Howard Ferstler.


>> Anyway, if your man says it's one of the two valid ways to test for
>> differences, what makes you think it is so ?
>>
> Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of audio
> research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true. He and Floyd Toole, who also
> works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.

Yes, but we must remain confident, as you said, that sound quality of
audio equipments should not be based solely on their individual ABX
test. Yes, I fully agree with what you just said above.


>>>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or
>>>> what ??
>>>
>>> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.
>>
>>
>> He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
>> at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>> things ?
>
>
> A difference that is audible, is a difference that is measurable.


I'm NOT asking about Mr. Sean Olive's excellent skills and ability in
determining whether the sound difference he heard was measurable
or not.

I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Mr. Sean Olive concluded
that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him, could this mean
that he's hearing things ? _________________


Could you at least give Mr. Sean Olive the personal respect of admitting
that he heard a positive subtle difference while making subjective audio
evaluation over at Harman ?



>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and,
>> towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle
>> difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ?
>
> I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever. He
> has far to much to lose.


I'm NOT asking whether Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a
DBT or not.

I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Michael Fremer concluded
that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him, could this mean
that he's hearing things ? _________________



>>>>snip
>
>>>>
>>> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.
>>
>> Why?
>>
> Becasue yo tend to be combative and impolite.


Yet, you became rude at the Rosa Parks thread unprovoke.

You said, " Um, because she's DEAD you idiot."

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>
>>
>>>> McKelvy wrote: (.... nothing yet.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you, perchance, waiting for Arny and Pinkerton
>> to come along (with crowbars in their hands) and help to
>> pry open your thighs and forcefully eke out the embedded
>> tail that is tuck deeply between your legs ?
>>
>>
>>
>> C'mon now.
>>
>>
> That's the drawback of an open forum.


For you, yes.


> Sigh.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> nyob123 wrote
>>> EddieM wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >>> McKelvy wrote: (.... nothing yet.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Are you, perchance, waiting for Arny and Pinkerton
>> > to come along (with crowbars in their hands) and help to
>> > pry open your thighs and forcefully eke out the embedded
>> > tail that is tuck deeply between your legs ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > C'mon now.
>> >
>> >
>> That's the drawback of an open forum.
>>
> You could have it done in Mexico for a fraction of the cost here.



I wonder what is going rate at the Hives.

[dizzy]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:26:18 -0400, Robert Morein wrote:

> "dizzy" > wrote:
>>
>> Well, that settles it. I'm buying that HK receiver I was
>> thinking-about for my basement stereo.
>
> Yes, isn't it remarkable how all those HK receivers over the past 20
> years have been head and shoulders over their K-Mart competition.

Well, there's not many choices in stereo recievers. I sure wish I could
buy one that was built like a late-70's Pioneer, but with a digital tuner
and remote...

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>> nyob123 wrote
>>> EddieM wrote
>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>snip.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
>>>>> a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
>>>>> audiophiles hear physically exist or not.
>>>>>
>>>> Eddie, the man says it's one of a couple valid ways to test for
>>>> difference. Once again the world is amused at your incredible
>>>> blindness.
>>>
>>> What if the subject for the test is none other than Howard Ferstler who
>>> admits to having deeply held personal vendetta towards high-end
>>> establishment going back in the late '70s, how would your man above go
>>> about explaining that a no-difference Ferstler test result is valid ?
>>>
>> I feel very confident that a whole line of audio equipment is not going
>> to based on his results in an ABX test, nor any single person's resu;ts.
>
>
> Thank you for saying that. We must all feel very confident that sound
> quality of audio equipments should not be based on an individual
> ABX test such as from you, Mr. Sean Olive, and most especially not
> from that ridiculous Howard Ferstler.
>
>
>>> Anyway, if your man says it's one of the two valid ways to test for
>>> differences, what makes you think it is so ?
>>>
>> Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of audio
>> research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true. He and Floyd Toole, who
>> also works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.
>
> Yes, but we must remain confident, as you said, that sound quality of
> audio equipments should not be based solely on their individual ABX
> test. Yes, I fully agree with what you just said above.
>
>

Why would they make decisions for their products based on person's ABX
results?

>>>>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or
>>>>> what ??
>>>>
>>>> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
>>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
>>> at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>> things ?
>>
>>
>> A difference that is audible, is a difference that is measurable.
>
>
> I'm NOT asking about Mr. Sean Olive's excellent skills and ability in
> determining whether the sound difference he heard was measurable
> or not.
>
> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Mr. Sean Olive concluded
> that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him, could this
> mean
> that he's hearing things ? _________________
>

Probably not, an ABX asks for the person to make a judgement on whcih DUT he
as listening to.
>
> Could you at least give Mr. Sean Olive the personal respect of admitting
> that he heard a positive subtle difference while making subjective audio
> evaluation over at Harman ?
>
Perhaps you need to do more research on what an ABX test actually is, then
you'd realize that your question is without meaning.
>
>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
>>> and,
>>> towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle
>>> difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ?
>>
>> I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever. He
>> has far to much to lose.
>
>
> I'm NOT asking whether Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a
> DBT or not.
>
> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Michael Fremer concluded
> that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him, could this
> mean
> that he's hearing things ? _________________
>
>
See above.

>
>>>>>snip
>>
>>>>>
>>>> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>> Becasue you tend to be combative and impolite.
>
>
> Yet, you became rude at the Rosa Parks thread unprovoke.
>
> You said, " Um, because she's DEAD you idiot."
>
It was a stupid question.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[paul packer]

On 28 Oct 2005 10:57:29 -0700, George Middius
> wrote:

> your ****ful self.

****ful self! Well, without ruminating too deeply on the accuracy of
this wildly colourful and just slightly nauseating designation, I must
say it has at least provided a generous portion of amusement for yours
truly this night. Looking forward to more of the same.

(Anyone seen the new Pride and Prejudice yet?) :-)

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>snip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX is
>>>>>> a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle differences
>>>>>> audiophiles hear physically exist or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Eddie, the man says it's one of a couple valid ways to test for
>>>>> difference. Once again the world is amused at your incredible blindness.
>>>>
>>>> What if the subject for the test is none other than Howard Ferstler who
>>>> admits to having deeply held personal vendetta towards high-end
>>>> establishment going back in the late '70s, how would your man above go
>>>> about explaining that a no-difference Ferstler test result is valid ?
>>>>
>>> I feel very confident that a whole line of audio equipment is not going to
>>> based on his results in an ABX test, nor any single person's resu;ts.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for saying that. We must all feel very confident that sound
>> quality of audio equipments should not be based on an individual
>> ABX test such as from you, Mr. Sean Olive, and most especially not
>> from that ridiculous Howard Ferstler.


I thank you for concurring with what I said above, e.i., we should not
based our decision on an individual ABX test such as from "you",
Mr. Sean Olive, and Ferstler.



>>>> Anyway, if your man says it's one of the two valid ways to test for
>>>> differences, what makes you think it is so ?
>>>>
>>> Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of audio
>>> research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true. He and Floyd Toole, who
>>> also works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.
>>
>> Yes, but we must remain confident, as you said, that sound quality of
>> audio equipments should not be based solely on their individual ABX
>> test. Yes, I fully agree with what you just said above.
>
>
> Why would they make decisions for their products based on person's ABX
> results?


That's right! Just like you said that we shouldn't based our decisions in
Mr. Sean Olive's personal ABX test alone. Am I still correct with this ?


>>>>>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or
>>>>>> what ??
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
>>>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
>>>> at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>> things ?
>>>
>>>
>>> A difference that is audible, is a difference that is measurable.
>>
>>
>> I'm NOT asking about Mr. Sean Olive's excellent skills and ability in
>> determining whether the sound difference he heard was measurable
>> or not.
>>
>> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Mr. Sean Olive concluded
>> that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him, could this mean
>> that he's hearing things ? _________________
>
>
> Probably not, an ABX asks for the person to make a judgement on whcih DUT he
> as listening to.



I wasn't talking about an ABX "testing." I was talking about
subjective evaluation. An instance where Mr. Sean Olives detect a
positive subtle difference that is audible to him, could this mean that he's
hearing things ?



>> Could you at least give Mr. Sean Olive the personal respect of admitting
>> that he heard a positive subtle difference while making subjective audio
>> evaluation over at Harman ?
>
> Perhaps you need to do more research on what an ABX test actually is, then
> you'd realize that your question is without meaning.


I wasn't talking about an objective testing.


>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>>>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and,
>>>> towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle
>>>> difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ?

>>> I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever. He
>>> has far to much to lose.
>>
>>
>> I'm NOT asking whether Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a
>> DBT or not.
>>
>> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Michael Fremer concluded
>> that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him, could this mean
>> that he's hearing things ? _________________
>>
>>
> See above.


I wasn't talking about an audio test. I was talking about subjective
evaluation. An instance where Micahel Fremer admits to detecting
positive subtle differences that is audible to him. Could this mean that
he's hearing things ?



>>>>>>snip
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>> Becasue you tend to be combative and impolite.
>>
>> Yet, you became rude at the Rosa Parks thread unprovoke.
>>
>> You said, " Um, because she's DEAD you idiot."
>
> It was a stupid question.


The question was meant while she was still alive.

So what do you think if someone whom you thought was dignified
as her says that she could easily tell the subtle sound differences
among her hi-end audio components in her house ?

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> "EddieM" > wrote in message
> m...
> > What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
> > two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there
> > in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was
> > a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that
> > he's hearing things ?
>
> I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever.
> He has far to much to lose.

More faith-based claims of omniscience, I note. Contrary to your
uninformed assertion, Mr. McKelvy (and those of Arny Krueger),
Michael Fremer has indeed taken part in double-blind tests. More,
I suspect, than you have :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>> nyob123 wrote
>>> EddieM wrote
>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>snip.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, none of the above 1,2,3, hocus-focus prove that ABX
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> a valid and effective means to confirm whether the subtle
>>>>>>> differences
>>>>>>> audiophiles hear physically exist or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eddie, the man says it's one of a couple valid ways to test for
>>>>>> difference. Once again the world is amused at your incredible
>>>>>> blindness.
>>>>>
>>>>> What if the subject for the test is none other than Howard Ferstler
>>>>> who admits to having deeply held personal vendetta towards high-end
>>>>> establishment going back in the late '70s, how would your man above
>>>>> go about explaining that a no-difference Ferstler test result is valid
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>> I feel very confident that a whole line of audio equipment is not going
>>>> to based on his results in an ABX test, nor any single person's
>>>> resu;ts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for saying that. We must all feel very confident that sound
>>> quality of audio equipments should not be based on an individual
>>> ABX test such as from you, Mr. Sean Olive, and most especially not
>>> from that ridiculous Howard Ferstler.
>
>
> I thank you for concurring with what I said above, e.i., we should not
> based our decision on an individual ABX test such as from "you",
> Mr. Sean Olive, and Ferstler.
>
>
>
>>>>> Anyway, if your man says it's one of the two valid ways to test for
>>>>> differences, what makes you think it is so ?
>>>>>
>>>> Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of audio
>>>> research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true. He and Floyd Toole, who
>>>> also works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.
>>>
>>> Yes, but we must remain confident, as you said, that sound quality of
>>> audio equipments should not be based solely on their individual ABX
>>> test. Yes, I fully agree with what you just said above.
>>
>>
>> Why would they make decisions for their products based on person's ABX
>> results?
>
>
> That's right! Just like you said that we shouldn't based our decisions in
> Mr. Sean Olive's personal ABX test alone. Am I still correct with this ?
>
>
>>>>>>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive
>>>>>>> or what ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
>>>>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
>>>>> at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>>> things ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A difference that is audible, is a difference that is measurable.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm NOT asking about Mr. Sean Olive's excellent skills and ability in
>>> determining whether the sound difference he heard was measurable
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Mr. Sean Olive
>>> concluded
>>> that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him, could this
>>> mean that he's hearing things ? _________________
>>
>>
>> Probably not, an ABX asks for the person to make a judgement on whcih DUT
>> he as listening to.
>
>
>
> I wasn't talking about an ABX "testing." I was talking about
> subjective evaluation. An instance where Mr. Sean Olives detect a
> positive subtle difference that is audible to him, could this mean that
> he's
> hearing things ?
>
>
>
>>> Could you at least give Mr. Sean Olive the personal respect of admitting
>>> that he heard a positive subtle difference while making subjective audio
>>> evaluation over at Harman ?
>>
>> Perhaps you need to do more research on what an ABX test actually is,
>> then you'd realize that your question is without meaning.
>
>
> I wasn't talking about an objective testing.
>
>
>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>>>>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
>>>>> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>>> things ?
>
>>>> I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever.
>>>> He has far to much to lose.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm NOT asking whether Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a
>>> DBT or not.
>>>
>>> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Michael Fremer
>>> concluded
>>> that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him, could this
>>> mean that he's hearing things ? _________________
>>>
>>>
>> See above.
>
>
> I wasn't talking about an audio test. I was talking about subjective
> evaluation. An instance where Micahel Fremer admits to detecting
> positive subtle differences that is audible to him. Could this mean that
> he's hearing things ?
>
>
>
>>>>>>>snip
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise you'd not be allowed in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>> Becasue you tend to be combative and impolite.
>>>
>>> Yet, you became rude at the Rosa Parks thread unprovoke.
>>>
>>> You said, " Um, because she's DEAD you idiot."
>>
>> It was a stupid question.
>
>
> The question was meant while she was still alive.
>
> So what do you think if someone whom you thought was dignified
> as her says that she could easily tell the subtle sound differences
> among her hi-end audio components in her house ?
>
What does dignity have to do with hearing?

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "EddieM" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> > What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
>> > two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there
>> > in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was
>> > a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that
>> > he's hearing things ?
>>
>> I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever.
>> He has far to much to lose.
>
> More faith-based claims of omniscience, I note. Contrary to your
> uninformed assertion, Mr. McKelvy (and those of Arny Krueger),
> Michael Fremer has indeed taken part in double-blind tests. More,
> I suspect, than you have :-)
>
Good for him. Now when will his hearing and sanity checks take place?

Does he still like to engage in scream fests when people disagree with him?

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com

> More faith-based claims of omniscience, I note. Contrary
> to your uninformed assertion, Mr. McKelvy (and those of
> Arny Krueger), Michael Fremer has indeed taken part in
> double-blind tests.

If my position is uninformed, then the fault lies with John
Atkinson, because I just asked him about what DBTs the
Stereophile staffers have taken part in. The Google record
shows that Atkinson sloughed the question.

Furthermore, I asked my question as I did, because I knew
that Fremer had participated in the AES demo some decades
ago. Based on Fremer's hysterical behavior at the HE2005
debate, his tiny partincipation in the AES demo DBT
permanently unhinged the poor boy.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
>
>> More faith-based claims of omniscience, I note. Contrary
>> to your uninformed assertion, Mr. McKelvy (and those of
>> Arny Krueger), Michael Fremer has indeed taken part in
>> double-blind tests.
>
> If my position is uninformed, then the fault lies with John Atkinson,
> because I just asked him about what DBTs the Stereophile staffers have
> taken part in. The Google record shows that Atkinson sloughed the
> question.
>
> Furthermore, I asked my question as I did, because I knew that Fremer had
> participated in the AES demo some decades ago. Based on Fremer's
> hysterical behavior at the HE2005 debate, his tiny partincipation in the
> AES demo DBT permanently unhinged the poor boy.
>
Was that demo before or after he had the screaming fit at Nousaine for
contradicting something Fremer had written?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>

>>
> What does dignity have to do with hearing?
>
>

They are both qualities that you lack.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>snip.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>> ............snip
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive or
>>>>>>>> what ??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
>>>>>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
>>>>>> at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>>>> things ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A difference that is audible, is a difference that is measurable.
>>>>
>>>> I'm NOT asking about Mr. Sean Olive's excellent skills and ability in
>>>> determining whether the sound difference he heard was measurable
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Mr. Sean Olive
>>>> concluded
>>>> that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him, could this
>>>> mean that he's hearing things ? ____________
>>>
>>> Probably not, an ABX asks for the person to make a judgement on whcih DUT
>>> he as listening to.
>>
>> I wasn't talking about an ABX "testing." I was talking about
>> subjective evaluation. An instance where Mr. Sean Olives detect a
>> positive subtle difference that is audible to him, could this mean that
>> he's hearing things ?
>>
>>>> Could you at least give Mr. Sean Olive the personal respect of admitting
>>>> that he heard a positive subtle difference while making subjective audio
>>>> evaluation over at Harman ?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you need to do more research on what an ABX test actually is, then
>>> you'd realize that your question is without meaning.
>>
>> I wasn't talking about an objective testing.
>>
>>
>>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>>>>>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
>>>>>> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>>>> things ?
>>
>>>>> I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever. He
>>>>> has far to much to lose.
>>>>
>>>> I'm NOT asking whether Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a
>>>> DBT or not.
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Michael Fremer
>>>> concluded that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him,
>>>> could this mean that he's hearing things ? ____________
>>>>


Why are you neglecting in your reply to give forth sincere answer to the
easy questions to you above ? This cannot be. This is akin to
resigning your position in absence of any foreseeable danger.

If you have decided to, yet again, neatly but deeply tuck the tail
(and this is just my assumption) between the legs, surely Arnii would
welcome this fine opportunity and render his services in forcibly yanking
the said tail out of its seclusion.. Most likely, this type of services
would qualify for some excellent discounted rate among his ilk.




>>>>
>>> See above.
>>
>>
>> I wasn't talking about an audio test. I was talking about subjective
>> evaluation. An instance where Michael Fremer admits to detecting
>> positive subtle differences that is audible to him. Could this mean that
>> he's hearing things ?



Before, when someone admit to detecting subtle differences, you do
not hesitate to give your answer promptly, decisively, and conclusively.

But not anymore.

So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
rather simple question is :


What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
things ?




>>>>>>>>snip
>>>>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>> So what do you think if someone whom you thought was dignified
>> as her says that she could easily tell the subtle sound differences
>> among her hi-end audio components in her house ?
>>
> What does dignity have to do with hearing?


There shouldn't be. And that is why I'm simply wondering why
you're not so forthright and tell what you think.

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. ..
>> nyob123 wrote
>>> EddieM wrote
>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>snip.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> ............snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive
>>>>>>>>> or what ??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
>>>>>>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
>>>>>>> at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's
>>>>>>> hearing things ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A difference that is audible, is a difference that is measurable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm NOT asking about Mr. Sean Olive's excellent skills and ability in
>>>>> determining whether the sound difference he heard was measurable
>>>>> or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Mr. Sean Olive
>>>>> concluded
>>>>> that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him, could this
>>>>> mean that he's hearing things ? ____________
>>>>
>>>> Probably not, an ABX asks for the person to make a judgement on whcih
>>>> DUT he as listening to.
>>>
>>> I wasn't talking about an ABX "testing." I was talking about
>>> subjective evaluation. An instance where Mr. Sean Olives detect a
>>> positive subtle difference that is audible to him, could this mean that
>>> he's hearing things ?
>>>
>>>>> Could you at least give Mr. Sean Olive the personal respect of
>>>>> admitting
>>>>> that he heard a positive subtle difference while making subjective
>>>>> audio
>>>>> evaluation over at Harman ?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you need to do more research on what an ABX test actually is,
>>>> then you'd realize that your question is without meaning.
>>>
>>> I wasn't talking about an objective testing.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
>>>>>>> two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in
>>>>>>> L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a
>>>>>>> positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that
>>>>>>> he's hearing things ?
>>>
>>>>>> I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever.
>>>>>> He has far to much to lose.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm NOT asking whether Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a
>>>>> DBT or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Michael Fremer
>>>>> concluded that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him,
>>>>> could this mean that he's hearing things ? ____________
>>>>>
>
>
> Why are you neglecting in your reply to give forth sincere answer to the
> easy questions to you above ?

Did you miss the part where I said it's a stupid question?



This cannot be. This is akin to
> resigning your position in absence of any foreseeable danger.
>
No, it's akin to not answering silly rhetorical questions.

> If you have decided to, yet again, neatly but deeply tuck the tail
> (and this is just my assumption) between the legs,

It's apharase you like to use when people don't behave the way you want them
too.

surely Arnii would
> welcome this fine opportunity and render his services in forcibly yanking
> the said tail out of its seclusion..

Why don't you forcibly yank your head from where ever it is and realize that
one person's score on an ABX test is relevant primarily for that one person.
If a person hears a difference, it can also be verified by measurements.

>>>> See above.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't talking about an audio test. I was talking about subjective
>>> evaluation.

An audio test is a subjective evaluations.

An instance where Michael Fremer admits to detecting
>>> positive subtle differences that is audible to him. Could this mean
>>> that
>>> he's hearing things ?
>
If it's a non-bias controlled, sighted, non-level matched one, almost
certainly yes. This would be true for anyone trying to determine anything
about subtle differences. If the differences are large enough and ABX test
is not really required. The problem is that many of the differences
reported tend to unexplainable when the equipment is measured.
Some people actually beleive that measurements, aren't revealing enough to
tell you what is true about a component.
>
> Before, when someone admit to detecting subtle differences, you do
> not hesitate to give your answer promptly, decisively, and conclusively.
>
> But not anymore.
>
I have maintained for a very long time, that subtle differences are not
likely to be discovered by sighted listening.

> So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
> rather simple question is :
>
>
> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
> things ?
>
In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be
true for anyone doing that kind of listening.
>
>
>>>
>>> So what do you think if someone whom you thought was dignified
>>> as her says that she could easily tell the subtle sound differences
>>> among her hi-end audio components in her house ?
>>>
>> What does dignity have to do with hearing?
>
>
> There shouldn't be. And that is why I'm simply wondering why
> you're not so forthright and tell what you think.
>
I did tell you what I think, several times.
You just don't like the answer.

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "EddieM" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> > What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
>> > two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there
>> > in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was
>> > a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that
>> > he's hearing things ?
>>
>> I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever.
>> He has far to much to lose.
>
> More faith-based claims of omniscience, I note. Contrary to your
> uninformed assertion, Mr. McKelvy (and those of Arny Krueger),
> Michael Fremer has indeed taken part in double-blind tests. More,
> I suspect, than you have :-)
>
Actually it wasn't faith based, it was just an assumption. Like many
people, yourself included, they can and are sometimes wrong.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>snip.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ............snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you in love with this gentleman calling himself Mr. Sean Olive
>>>>>>>>>> or what ??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a matter of respect, no surpise you're unfamiliar with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He appears to be a solid R&D person. What if during a Subjective
>>>>>>>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there
>>>>>>>> at Harman, Mr. Sean Olive came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>>>>>> things ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A difference that is audible, is a difference that is measurable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm NOT asking about Mr. Sean Olive's excellent skills and ability in
>>>>>> determining whether the sound difference he heard was measurable
>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Mr. Sean Olive
>>>>>> concluded that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him,
>>>>>> could this mean that he's hearing things ? ____________
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably not, an ABX asks for the person to make a judgement on whcih
>>>>> DUT he as listening to.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't talking about an ABX "testing." I was talking about
>>>> subjective evaluation. An instance where Mr. Sean Olives detect a
>>>> positive subtle difference that is audible to him, could this mean that
>>>> he's hearing things ?
>>>>
>>>>>> Could you at least give Mr. Sean Olive the personal respect of
>>>>>> admitting that he heard a positive subtle difference while making
>>>>>> subjective audio evaluation over at Harman ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you need to do more research on what an ABX test actually is,
>>>>> then you'd realize that your question is without meaning.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't talking about an objective testing.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
>>>>>>>> two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in
>>>>>>>> L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a
>>>>>>>> positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that
>>>>>>>> he's hearing things ?
>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever.
>>>>>>> He has far to much to lose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm NOT asking whether Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a
>>>>>> DBT or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm saying that, in the course of his evaluation, Michael Fremer
>>>>>> concluded that there was a positive subtle difference audible to him,
>>>>>> could this mean that he's hearing things ? ____________
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> Why are you neglecting in your reply to give forth sincere answer to the
>> easy questions to you above ?
>
> Did you miss the part where I said it's a stupid question?

??

>> This cannot be. This is akin to
>> resigning your position in absence of any foreseeable danger.
>
> No, it's akin to not answering silly rhetorical questions.

?


>> If you have decided to, yet again, neatly but deeply tuck the tail
>> (and this is just my assumption) between the legs,
>
> It's apharase you like to use when people don't behave the way you want them
> too.


Yes, I do not like the way you behave towards audiophiles. Particularly
to those that are newcomers to this hobby.


>> surely Arnii would
>> welcome this fine opportunity and render his services in forcibly yanking
>> the said tail out of its seclusion..
>
> Why don't you forcibly yank your head from where ever it is and realize that
> one person's score on an ABX test is relevant primarily for that one person.
> If a person hears a difference, it can also be verified by measurements.


Oh, ok.... ;-) ;-)


>>>>> See above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't talking about an audio test. I was talking about subjective
>>>> evaluation.
>
>
> An audio test is a subjective evaluations.



LoL !




>>>> An instance where Michael Fremer admits to detecting
>>>> positive subtle differences that is audible to him. Could this mean
>>>> that he's hearing things ?
>
>
> If it's a non-bias controlled, sighted, non-level matched one, almost
> certainly yes. This would be true for anyone trying to determine anything
> about subtle differences. If the differences are large enough and ABX test
> is not really required. The problem is that many of the differences
> reported tend to unexplainable when the equipment is measured.
> Some people actually beleive that measurements, aren't revealing enough to
> tell you what is true about a component.


You know, you are confusing and misdirecting no one else here
but yourself.


>> Before, when someone admit to detecting subtle differences, you do
>> not hesitate to give your answer promptly, decisively, and conclusively.
>>
>> But not anymore.
>>
> I have maintained for a very long time, that subtle differences are not
> likely to be discovered by sighted listening.


But before, when someone admit to detecting subtle differences, you do
not hesitate to give your answer promptly, decisively, and conclusively

But this is no more.


>> So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
>> rather simple question is :
>>
>>
>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
>> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>> things ?
>
>
> In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be
> true for anyone doing that kind of listening.



YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a positive
subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is very
likely hearing things ?



WHAT is the matter with you ?

WHAT is the matter with your head ?






>>>> So what do you think if someone whom you thought was dignified
>>>> as her says that she could easily tell the subtle sound differences
>>>> among her hi-end audio components in her house ?
>>>>
>>> What does dignity have to do with hearing?
>>
>> There shouldn't be. And that is why I'm simply wondering why
>> you're not so forthright and tell what you think.
>
> I did tell you what I think, several times.
> You just don't like the answer.


You mean that it is "stupid" for someone dignified as Rosa Parks
to tell that they can hear subtle sound differences among their
hi-end audio components ?

[EddieM]

Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd., PO Box 2200
Northridge, CA, 91329

"EddieM" > wrote in message
t...
>
>
>>> If you have decided to, yet again, neatly but deeply tuck the tail
>>> (and this is just my assumption) between the legs,
>>
>> It's a phrase you like to use when people don't behave the way you want
>> them too.
>
>
> Yes, I do not like the way you behave towards audiophiles.

Answering questions as accurately as I can?

Particularly
> to those that are newcomers to this hobby.
>
Giving them the best information I can?
Letting people know where I think the best values lie?
If you think I've treated some newcomer badly, please find a quote and post
it.


>
>>> surely Arnii would
>>> welcome this fine opportunity and render his services in forcibly
>>> yanking
>>> the said tail out of its seclusion..
>>
>> Why don't you forcibly yank your head from where ever it is and realize
>> that one person's score on an ABX test is relevant primarily for that one
>> person. If a person hears a difference, it can also be verified by
>> measurements.
>
>
> Oh, ok.... ;-) ;-)
>
>
>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't talking about an audio test. I was talking about subjective
>>>>> evaluation.
>>
>>
>> An audio test is a subjective evaluations.
>
>
>
> LoL !
>
Indicating you still haven't grasped the truth of listening tests.
>
>
>>>>> An instance where Michael Fremer admits to detecting
>>>>> positive subtle differences that is audible to him. Could this mean
>>>>> that he's hearing things ?
>>
>>
>> If it's a non-bias controlled, sighted, non-level matched one, almost
>> certainly yes. This would be true for anyone trying to determine
>> anything about subtle differences. If the differences are large enough
>> and ABX test is not really required. The problem is that many of the
>> differences reported tend to unexplainable when the equipment is
>> measured.
>> Some people actually beleive that measurements, aren't revealing enough
>> to tell you what is true about a component.
>
>
> You know, you are confusing and misdirecting no one else here
> but yourself.
>
I'm not misdirecting anything, you set up the premise.
You are the one who is so confused that you don't understand that listening
tests are ALL subjective.
>
>>> Before, when someone admit to detecting subtle differences, you do
>>> not hesitate to give your answer promptly, decisively, and conclusively.
>>>
>>> But not anymore.
>>>
>> I have maintained for a very long time, that subtle differences are not
>> likely to be discovered by sighted listening.
>
>
> But before, when someone admit to detecting subtle differences, you do
> not hesitate to give your answer promptly, decisively, and conclusively
>
> But this is no more.
>
Nothing has changed. Sighted listening for subtle difference is unreliable.
>
>>> So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
>>> rather simple question is :
>>>
>>>
>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
>>> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>> things ?
>>
>>
>> In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be
>> true for anyone doing that kind of listening.
>
>
>
> YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
> and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a
> positive
> subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is very
> likely hearing things ?
>
Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be
an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer.

If Sean Olive wantedf to know about differences of any kind in audio
equipment, he has more than enough resources to do so.

Try and understand, ALL evaluations of audio equipment carried out by
listening, ARE SUBJECTVE. That includes ABX and ABC/hr.

> WHAT is the matter with you ?
>
I don't like idiotic questions

> WHAT is the matter with your head ?
>
Why do ask idiotic questions?
>
>
>
>
>>>>> So what do you think if someone whom you thought was dignified
>>>>> as her says that she could easily tell the subtle sound differences
>>>>> among her hi-end audio components in her house ?
>>>>>
>>>> What does dignity have to do with hearing?
>>>
>>> There shouldn't be. And that is why I'm simply wondering why
>>> you're not so forthright and tell what you think.
>>
>> I did tell you what I think, several times.
>> You just don't like the answer.
>
>
> You mean that it is "stupid" for someone dignified as Rosa Parks
> to tell that they can hear subtle sound differences among their
> hi-end audio components ?
>
I mean it's a stupid question.

I mean her place in history has nothing to do with any ability to hear
subtle differences in either sighted or blind comparisons.

Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote
>>
>>
>
>
>

Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
Feel free to repaste though.

>>
>>
>>>> So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
>>>> rather simple question is :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>>>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
>>>> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>> things ?
>>>
>>> In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be
>>> true for anyone doing that kind of listening.
>>
>> YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
>> and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a
>> positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is
>> very likely hearing things ?
>>
>>
> Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be
> an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer.


Changing ? You wish.

I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle
difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself when
using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any
Subjective "listening" Evaluation.

So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio
"saloon" and detect positive subtle diff, he is very likely hearing things.

But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.


Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things?









> I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.
But feel free to re-paste.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>

> Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.
>
>

Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.

> Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.

Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening"
and "testing"? TIA.

"EddieM" > wrote in message
t...
>> nyob123 wrote
>>> EddieM wrote
>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
> Feel free to repaste though.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
>>>>> rather simple question is :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>>>>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
>>>>> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>>> things ?
>>>>
>>>> In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would
>>>> be true for anyone doing that kind of listening.
>>>
>>> YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
>>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
>>> and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a
>>> positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he
>>> is very likely hearing things ?
>>>
>>>
>> Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would
>> be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer.
>
>
> Changing ? You wish.

It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago: >>>>> What if
Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>>>>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
>>>>> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>>> things ?



>
> I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle
> difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself
> when
> using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any
> Subjective "listening" Evaluation.
>
It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing
a blind comparison, level matched, is best.

> So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio
> "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff, he is very likely hearing
> things.
>
> But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
> and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.
>
>
> Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
> leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things?
>
Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend
to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.

>
>
>
>
>> I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.
> But feel free to re-paste.
>
>
You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are.
I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue
being the moron I always knew you were.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>> Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.
>>
>>
>
> Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.
>
No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
pleasure any way you so desire.

Of course listen for pleasure blind is not a totally bad idea, but it does
make it harder to find the remote if it's not in your hand already.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.
>
>> Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.
>
> Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening"
> and "testing"? TIA.
>
>
>
You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to
listen.
If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind
is going to give reliable results, while sighted non-bias controlled
listening tests for subtle differences are a waste of time.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>
>>> Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.
>>
> No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
> pleasure any way you so desire.
>

Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
WHILE listening for pleasure.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
>> Feel free to repaste though.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that
>>>>>> rather simple question is :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>>>>>> two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in
>>>>>> L.A.
>>>>>> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>>>> things ?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be
>>>>> true for anyone doing that kind of listening.
>>>>
>>>> YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
>>>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
>>>> and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a
>>>> positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is
>>>> very likely hearing things ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would
>>> be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer.
>>
>>
>> Changing ? You wish.
>
> It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago:


>>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two
>>>>>> components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A.
>>>>>> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing
>>>>>> things ?


And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon."



>> I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle
>> difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself
>> when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any
>> Subjective "listening" Evaluation.
>
> It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing
> a blind comparison, level matched, is best.


I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
Evaluation.



>> So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio
>> "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing
>> things.
>>
>> But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
>> and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.
>>
>>
>> Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
>> leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things?
>
>
> Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend
> to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.


I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective
Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to
describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.

I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally precise:

What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the
"ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?



What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect"
has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?



>>> I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.
>> But feel free to re-paste.
>>
>>
> You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are.


I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip.




> I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue
> being the moron I always knew you were.


( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the
presence of imminent danger.)

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.
>>>
>> No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
>> pleasure any way you so desire.
>>
>
> Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
> I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
> WHILE listening for pleasure.
Go ahead.
Doesn't change the fact that it is aless relaible way to detect subtle
differnces.

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com...
>> nyob123 wrote
>>> EddieM wrote
>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
>>> Feel free to repaste though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> rather simple question is :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>> two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in
>>>>>>> L.A.
>>>>>>> and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive
>>>>>>> subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's
>>>>>>> hearing
>>>>>>> things ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would
>>>>>> be true for anyone doing that kind of listening.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective
>>>>> Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman
>>>>> and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a
>>>>> positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he
>>>>> is very likely hearing things ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation
>>>> would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for
>>>> Fremer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Changing ? You wish.
>>
>> It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago:
>
>
>>>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
>>>>>>> two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in
>>>>>>> L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a
>>>>>>> positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that
>>>>>>> he's hearing things ?
>
>
> And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon."
>
>
>
>>> I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle
>>> difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself
>>> when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for
>>> any Subjective "listening" Evaluation.
>>
The ability to hear doesn't change, that is ther is no difference in the
working of the ear, but there is a differnce in the mind. That's why using
only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus
on sound alone.

>> It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and
>> doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best.
>
>
> I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
> differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
> the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
> Evaluation.
>
It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion. The
consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that people can
be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2 different sources
when in fact they are only listening to one.
>
>>> So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at
>>> audio
>>> "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing
>>> things.

Same stupid question.
The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle
differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are
very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there.


>>> But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
>>> and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.
>>>
I have never said that.

>>>
>>> Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
>>> leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing
>>> things?
>>
It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them and
can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for determing
subtle differences, they control bias.
>>
>> Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They
>> tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.
>
>
> I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective
> Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to
> describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.
>
See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX.

> I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally
> precise:
>
God no, not that well known Eddie precision.

> What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the
> "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
> validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?
>
See the list of publications I mentioned.
>
> What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
> things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect"
> has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?
>
Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it
doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will very
likely lead to unreliable results.
>
>>>> I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.
>>> But feel free to re-paste.
>>>
>>>
>> You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are.
>
>
> I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip.
>
>
>
>
>> I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue
>> being the moron I always knew you were.
>
>
> ( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the
> presence of imminent danger.)
>
From what? Are you going to bore me to death?

[[email protected]]

Why oh why was I ever born sighted? Oh woe is me!

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.
>>>>
>>> No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
>>> pleasure any way you so desire.
>>>
>>
>> Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
>> I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
>> WHILE listening for pleasure.
> Go ahead.
> Doesn't change the fact that it is aless relaible way to detect subtle
> differnces.
>

Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based
upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode.

[George Middius]

All together now: "duh! duh! duh!" Mikey, go to the end of the line and start
again. Some people seem to need an infinite amount of practice for the simplest
exercises in rote recall.

>> Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening"
>> and "testing"? TIA.

>You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to listen.

Is that what you call an explanation? I ask because it's like saying you don't
need eyeballs to distinguish blue from red.

>If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind

You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about "tests"
and aBx this and DBT that?


..
..
..
..

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.
>>>>>
>>>> No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
>>>> pleasure any way you so desire.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
>>> I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
>>> WHILE listening for pleasure.
>> Go ahead.
>> Doesn't change the fact that it is a less relaible way to detect subtle
>> differnces.
>>
>
> Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based
> upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode.
I'm sure you believe that.

[Clyde Slick]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> All together now: "duh! duh! duh!" Mikey, go to the end of the line and
> start
> again. Some people seem to need an infinite amount of practice for the
> simplest
> exercises in rote recall.
>
>>> Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening"
>>> and "testing"? TIA.
>
>>You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to
>>listen.
>
> Is that what you call an explanation? I ask because it's like saying you
> don't
> need eyeballs to distinguish blue from red.
>
>>If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind
>
> You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about
> "tests"
> and aBx this and DBT that?
>

mikey, stop spinning.
just give a drect answer to the question.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted
>>>>>>> conditions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for
>>>>> pleasure any way you so desire.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
>>>> I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
>>>> WHILE listening for pleasure.
>>> Go ahead.
>>> Doesn't change the fact that it is a less relaible way to detect subtle
>>> differnces.
>>>
>>
>> Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based
>> upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode.
> I'm sure you believe that.

I am sure you believe otherwise. But its not for you
to care one iota about how I go about making my decisions.
"At least" I am consistent and not hypocritical, as you are.
you keep yammering on about the need for the rest of us to undergo the same
kind of tests you have not participated in yourself.
yourself do not participate in

[Howard Ferstler]

John Atkinson wrote:

> wrote:

> > I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever.
> > He has far to much to lose.

> More faith-based claims of omniscience, I note. Contrary to your
> uninformed assertion, Mr. McKelvy (and those of Arny Krueger),
> Michael Fremer has indeed taken part in double-blind tests. More,
> I suspect, than you have :-)

Just for the sake of curiosity, just how did he do?

More to the point, did you think that any differences he did
hear (assuming he 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

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> All together now: "duh! duh! duh!" Mikey, go to the end of the line and
> start
> again. Some people seem to need an infinite amount of practice for the
> simplest
> exercises in rote recall.
>
>>> Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening"
>>> and "testing"? TIA.
>
>>You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to
>>listen.
>
> Is that what you call an explanation? I ask because it's like saying you
> don't
> need eyeballs to distinguish blue from red.
>
>>If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind
>
> You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about
> "tests"
> and aBx this and DBT that?
>
Because other people are always yammering about how they believe they can
hear things for which there is no known reason to exist.
>
> .
Paul said: >> Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound
the
>> same. Or am I mis-reading here?
>
I said he was. I have and others have explained many times what the
criteria are for SS amps to sound the same

[George Middius]

Mickey's dander is up. Even the scorpions should be wary now.

>> You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about
>> "tests" and aBx this and DBT that?

>Because other people are always yammering about how they believe they can
>hear things for which there is no known reason to exist.

So what? How does that affect you? Why do you insist on an irrelevant
explanation for phenomena that you are unable to perceive or comprehend?

You 'borgs love to stutter about Occam's Razor. Here's a straightforward
application of that principle: The fact that you nitwits don't perceive what is
easily perceptible by Normals is because your auditory acuity is substandard.
This is a far more likely explanation than all of your ignorant babbling about
"science" and "tests".

If it weren't pointless, I'd advise you to "grow a brain", as your idol Arnii
Kroofeces loves to say. But it is pointless, so instead I'll just second the
motion that you have your head removed surgically.


..
..
..

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Krooborg is kornered and krazed with rage.
>
>>Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the
>>years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then
>>is the problem with you?
>
> On the contrary, Turdy -- Morein has only recently embraced the truth
> about you.
> Namely, and to wit, that you are a very obnoxious individual who is
> afflicted
> with mental problems that go begging for treatment.
>
Why do ascribe your characteristics to others George? Is it because you are
convinced that everyone esle is corrupt and dishonest as you are?

> Up until the recent past, Morein tried to reason with you on many
> occasions, and
> also overlooked your snotty attacks in the hope of persuading you to
> behave like
> a real person. He gave you far more latitude that most Normals do, and far
> more
> than you deserve. You should be thanking him for his undue and unrewarded
> kindnesses toward your ****ful self.
>
>
Thank him for his dishonesty?

You really are an idiot.

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>> nyob123 wrote
>>> EddieM wrote
>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
>>>>> Feel free to repaste though.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip....................
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation
>>>>>> would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for
>>>>>> Fremer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changing ? You wish.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation
>>>>>>>>> between two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over
>>>>>>>>> there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that
>>>>>>>>> there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could
>>>>>>>>> this mean that he's hearing things ?
>>>
>>>
>>> And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon."
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern
>>>>> subtle
>>>>> difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear
>>>>> itself when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not
>>>>> change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation.
>>>>
>>
>> The ability to hear doesn't change, that is ther is no difference in the
>> working of the ear, but there is a differnce in the mind. [...]
>
>
> Yes, the ability to hear doesn't change. Let me add additional explanation
> as to what I meant by that "level of ability to detect." Ex.: Our ability
> to
> detect the color red will not diminish even if, say, you add the color
> blue
> to the red and mix them completely together. You will have trouble
> distinguishing the color red in that mix BUT, your "level of ability to
> detect" the color red in that instance has not change.
>
>
> Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you
> that
> you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the
> stimulus
> (sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that.
>
> How many times this have to be explain to you.
>
Your "explanation" is in direct dontradiction with what is known about
hearing.
>
The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth.


>> [...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about,
>> allowing the listener to focus on sound alone.
>
>
>
> How about this:
>
> Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to
> focus their altered perception on sound alone.
>
> Yes?
>
Yes.
>
>>>> It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and
>>>> doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
>>> differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
>>> the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
>>> Evaluation.
>>
>>
>> It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion.
>> The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that
>> people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2
>> different sources when in fact they are only listening to one.
>
>
> Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for
> you above.
>
IOW you can't confirm with any research becausethere is none.
>
>>>>> So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at
>>>>> audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely
>>>>> hearing things.
>>
>> Same stupid question.
>> The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for
>> subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are,
>> they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there.
>
>
>
> What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying
> out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon
> and one is at Harman.
>

And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the
place.

> Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
> for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
> (See color Red example) has not change ?
>
Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson or
the place.
>
>
>>>>> But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at
>>>>> Harman
>>>>> and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear
>>>>> things.
>>
>> I have never said that.
>
> uh-oh
>

Uh-oh is right. I've never siad either person was more likely to hear
bettter or worse than other, it's how the listening is done, not who is
doing it, unless of course there is some reason to believe that one of them
has defective hearing. Judging by some of the things Fremer has said in
print a case could be made that his hearing is defective, but in actuality,
it's his methods that we know for sure are unrelaible. How else could he
praise the WAVAC amp with it's gross amounts of distortion?




>>>>> Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
>>>>> leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing
>>>>> things?
>>
>>
>> It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them
>> and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for
>> determing subtle differences, they control bias.
>
>
> That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the discussion
> of
> bias.
>

It has everything to do with it, yo just won't admit it.
>
> This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect
> sound differences.

And is affected by bias.

What are the specific differences with regard to their
> ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio
> saloon
> and when one does it at Harman?
>

See above.

> Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
> for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
> (See color Red example) has not change ?
>
Who said it was? Not me.
>
>
>>>> Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They
>>>> tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective
>>> Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you
>>> to
>>> describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.
>>
>> See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX.
>
> You refuse to answer ? LoL!
>
>
I have answered. You just ignore it.

>>> I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally
>>> precise:
>>>
>> God no, not that well known Eddie precision.
>>
>>> What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the
>>> "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
>>> validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?
>>>
I was speaking of his apparent lack of sanity based on his writing and the
fact that based on those writings he can't seem to hear very well. What is
certain is that he and the other reviewers at SP do not use reliable methods
to determine if the things they review are indeed any different from other
things they've reviewed in the past or things they currently own.


>> See the list of publications I mentioned.
>
> You refuse answer ? LoL!
>
>
>>> What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
>>> things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect"
>>> has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?
>>
>>
>> Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it
>> doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will
>> very likely lead to unreliable results.
>
>
> I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to
> NOT hear things ?
>
And my response is that I hasve no idea what he hears or doesn't hear, since
I don't think he personally participates in any of thte listening tests.
>
> <I think you already got this one>
>
> LoL!
>
>
>>>>>> I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.
>>>>> But feel free to re-paste.
>>>>>
>>>> You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are.
>>>
>>> I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip.
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to
>>>> continue being the moron I always knew you were.
>>>
>>> ( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the
>>> presence of imminent danger.)
>>
>> From what? Are you going to bore me to death?
>
>
> I'm footless.
>
Whatever that means.
>
I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
>>>> Feel free to repaste though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> snip....................
>>>>>>
>>>>> Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation
>>>>> would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for
>>>>> Fremer.
>>>>
>>>> Changing ? You wish.
>>>
>>> It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between
>>>>>>>> two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in
>>>>>>>> L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a
>>>>>>>> positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that
>>>>>>>> he's hearing things ?
>>
>>
>> And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon."
>>
>>
>>>> I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle
>>>> difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself
>>>> when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any
>>>> Subjective "listening" Evaluation.
>>>
>
> The ability to hear doesn't change, that is ther is no difference in the
> working of the ear, but there is a differnce in the mind. [...]


Yes, the ability to hear doesn't change. Let me add additional explanation
as to what I meant by that "level of ability to detect." Ex.: Our ability to
detect the color red will not diminish even if, say, you add the color blue
to the red and mix them completely together. You will have trouble
distinguishing the color red in that mix BUT, your "level of ability to
detect" the color red in that instance has not change.


Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you that
you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the stimulus
(sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that.

How many times this have to be explain to you.


> [...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing
> the listener to focus on sound alone.



How about this:

Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to
focus their altered perception on sound alone.

Yes?



>>> It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and
>>> doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best.
>>
>>
>> I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
>> differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
>> the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
>> Evaluation.
>
>
> It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion. The
> consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that people can
> be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2 different sources
> when in fact they are only listening to one.


Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for
you above.



>>>> So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio
>>>> "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing
>>>> things.
>
> Same stupid question.
> The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle
> differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are
> very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there.



What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying
out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon
and one is at Harman.

Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?




>>>> But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
>>>> and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.
>
> I have never said that.

uh-oh

>>>> Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
>>>> leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing
>>>> things?
>
>
> It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them and
> can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for determing
> subtle differences, they control bias.


That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the discussion of
bias.


This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect
sound differences. What are the specific differences with regard to their
ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio saloon
and when one does it at Harman?

Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
(See color Red example) has not change ?




>>> Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They
>>> tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.
>>
>>
>> I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective
>> Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to
>> describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.
>
> See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX.

You refuse to answer ? LoL!


>> I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally
>> precise:
>>
> God no, not that well known Eddie precision.
>
>> What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the
>> "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
>> validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?
>>
> See the list of publications I mentioned.

You refuse answer ? LoL!


>> What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
>> things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect"
>> has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?
>
>
> Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it
> doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will very
> likely lead to unreliable results.


I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to
NOT hear things ?


<I think you already got this one>

LoL!


>>>>> I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter.
>>>> But feel free to re-paste.
>>>>
>>> You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are.
>>
>> I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip.
>>
>>> I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue
>>> being the moron I always knew you were.
>>
>> ( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the
>> presence of imminent danger.)
>
> From what? Are you going to bore me to death?


I'm footless.

[EddieM]

Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd., PO Box 2200
Northridge, CA, 91329



McKelvy, I think you're being misdirected and should
ask Mr. Olive to refrain from using the word "Subjective"
on his title description above.

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mickey's dander is up. Even the scorpions should be wary now.
>
>>> You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about
>>> "tests" and aBx this and DBT that?
>
>>Because other people are always yammering about how they believe they can
>>hear things for which there is no known reason to exist.
>
> So what? How does that affect you? Why do you insist on an irrelevant
> explanation for phenomena that you are unable to perceive or comprehend?
>

Why do people refuse to admit that it's unlikely that their flawed methods
aren't deceiving them?

> You 'borgs love to stutter about Occam's Razor. Here's a straightforward
> application of that principle: The fact that you nitwits don't perceive
> what is
> easily perceptible by Normals is because your auditory acuity is
> substandard.

The obligatory attack on the hearing of people you don't know and denial of
the fact that fllawed comparisons lead to flawed results.

> This is a far more likely explanation than all of your ignorant babbling
> about
> "science" and "tests".
>
No, it's just another denial of reality by you.

> If it weren't pointless, I'd advise you to "grow a brain", as your idol
> Arnii
> Kroofeces loves to say. But it is pointless, so instead I'll just second
> the
> motion that you have your head removed surgically.
>
As usual, nothing of substance, just the usual personal attacks.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted
>>>>>>>> conditions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen
>>>>>> for pleasure any way you so desire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times
>>>>> I compare equipment. I make my comparisons
>>>>> WHILE listening for pleasure.
>>>> Go ahead.
>>>> Doesn't change the fact that it is a less relaible way to detect subtle
>>>> differnces.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based
>>> upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode.
>> I'm sure you believe that.
>
> I am sure you believe otherwise. But its not for you
> to care one iota about how I go about making my decisions.
> "At least" I am consistent and not hypocritical, as you are.
> you keep yammering on about the need for the rest of us to undergo the
> same
> kind of tests you have not participated in yourself.
> yourself do not participate in
So, by that logic if I haven't been up in space and seen the earth from
there, there is no way to know if the earth is flat or round.

If I haven't actually burned myself, I can't possibly know that fire could
do me harm.

If I haven't actually done something, I can't possibly know anything about
it.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
>>>>>> Feel free to repaste though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip....................
>>>>>>>>

snip

>>
>>
>> Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you
>> that
>> you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the
>> stimulus
>> (sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that.
>>
>> How many times this have to be explain to you.
>>
> Your "explanation" is in direct dontradiction with what is known about
> hearing.
>
>
> The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth.



Hahahahaha ! I like that!





>>> [...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about,
>>> allowing the listener to focus on sound alone.
>>
>>
>> How about this:
>>
>> Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to
>> focus their altered perception on sound alone.
>>
>> Yes?
>
> Yes.


LoL!


Yessss oh yesss.



>>>>> It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and
>>>>> doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
>>>> differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
>>>> the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
>>>> Evaluation.
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion.
>>> The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that
>>> people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2
>>> different sources when in fact they are only listening to one.
>>
>>
>> Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for
>> you above.
>
> IOW you can't confirm with any research because there is none.


So, you have to have your confirmation. Hmmmm.



>>>>>> So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at
>>>>>> audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely
>>>>>> hearing things.
>>>
>>> Same stupid question.
>>> The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle
>>> differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are
>>> very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there.
>>
>>
>>
>> What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying
>> out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon
>> and one is at Harman.
>>
>
> And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the
> place.


Oh my Goodness.



>> Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
>> for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
>> (See color Red example) has not change ?
>>
> Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson or
> the place


Oh good gracious. Now it's the method.



>>>>>> But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman
>>>>>> and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things.
>>>
>>> I have never said that.
>>
>> uh-oh
>>
>
> Uh-oh is right. I've never siad either person was more likely to hear
> bettter or worse than other, it's how the listening is done, not who is
> doing it, unless of course there is some reason to believe that one of them
> has defective hearing. Judging by some of the things Fremer has said in
> print a case could be made that his hearing is defective, but in actuality,
> it's his methods that we know for sure are unrelaible. How else could he
> praise the WAVAC amp with it's gross amounts of distortion?


Your agenda is showing.... yooohooo.


>>>>>> Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
>>>>>> leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing
>>>>>> things?
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them
>>> and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for
>>> determing subtle differences, they control bias.
>>
>>
>> That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the discussion
>> of bias.
>
> It has everything to do with it, yo just won't admit it


Holy mollusk !


>> This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect
>> sound differences.
>
> And is affected by bias.

Hmmm, now it's about biasss...


>> What are the specific differences with regard to their
>> ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio saloon
>> and when one does it at Harman?
>>
>
> See above.


You're way up in the ozone man. .......way up


>> Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
>> for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
>> (See color Red example) has not change ?
>>
> Who said it was? Not me.


Before, you said it does, now you say it doesn't.



>>>>> Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They
>>>>> tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective
>>>> Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to
>>>> describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.
>>>
>>> See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX.
>>
>> You refuse to answer ? LoL!
>>
>>
> I have answered. You just ignore it.


Your terrible.


>>>> I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally
>>>> precise:
>>>>
>>> God no, not that well known Eddie precision.
>>>
>>>> What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the
>>>> "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
>>>> validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?
>>>>
> I was speaking of his apparent lack of sanity based on his writing and the
> fact that based on those writings he can't seem to hear very well. What is
> certain is that he and the other reviewers at SP do not use reliable methods
> to determine if the things they review are indeed any different from other
> things they've reviewed in the past or things they currently own.


Your agenda is showing again.



>>> See the list of publications I mentioned.
>>
>> You refuse answer ? LoL!
>>
>>
>>>> What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
>>>> things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect"
>>>> has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it
>>> doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will
>>> very likely lead to unreliable results.
>>
>>
>> I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to
>> NOT hear things ?
>>
> And my response is that I hasve no idea what he hears or doesn't hear, since
> I don't think he personally participates in any of thte listening tests.


Oh no! he doesn't participate !

>> <I think you already got this one>
>>
>> LoL!
>>
>>snip
>>
>> I'm footless.
>
> Whatever that means.
>
> I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing.



No, just my foot. Give it back to me.

[Clyde Slick]

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

>> I am sure you believe otherwise. But its not for you
>> to care one iota about how I go about making my decisions.
>> "At least" I am consistent and not hypocritical, as you are.
>> you keep yammering on about the need for the rest of us to undergo the
>> same
>> kind of tests you have not participated in yourself.
>> yourself do not participate in
> So, by that logic if I haven't been up in space and seen the earth from
> there, there is no way to know if the earth is flat or round.
>
> If I haven't actually burned myself, I can't possibly know that fire could
> do me harm.
>
> If I haven't actually done something, I can't possibly know anything about
> it.
>

Apply that to the dieeferences the rest of us know about!

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > The Krooborg is kornered and krazed with rage.
> >
> >>Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the
> >>years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then
> >>is the problem with you?
> >
> > On the contrary, Turdy -- Morein has only recently embraced the truth
> > about you.
> > Namely, and to wit, that you are a very obnoxious individual who is
> > afflicted
> > with mental problems that go begging for treatment.
> >
> Why do ascribe your characteristics to others George? Is it because you
are
> convinced that everyone esle is corrupt and dishonest as you are?
>
> > Up until the recent past, Morein tried to reason with you on many
> > occasions, and
> > also overlooked your snotty attacks in the hope of persuading you to
> > behave like
> > a real person. He gave you far more latitude that most Normals do, and
far
> > more
> > than you deserve. You should be thanking him for his undue and
unrewarded
> > kindnesses toward your ****ful self.
> >
> >
> Thank him for his dishonesty?
>
> You really are an idiot.
>
Arny, do you have a choke collar for Mikey?
He can't be allowed to run loose.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
> >> >> >lost
> >> >> >permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
> >> >> >remains about the same."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?
> >> >>
> >> >> >>Something for Arny to explain to me at
> >> >> >> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
> >> >> >and lying, Paul. You made you do it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said
that
> >> >> I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.
> >> >>
> >> >> And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
> >> >> be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.
> >> >>
> >> > Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a
> >> > nasty
> >> > person
> >> >
> >> Someone should explain to you that I don't give a ****.
> >> If I get the answers I want from him about the questions I ask, then
he's
> >> done all I need him to do. He's never been anything but cordial to me
> >> and
> >> to those who have always been cordial to him.
> >>
> >> If he gets treated less than cordially he tends to hold a grudge, sorta
> > like
> >> you against McCarty, or me.
> >>
> >> If your ego is so fragile that it can't stand somebody's criticism of
> >> you,
> >> especially when you're dead wrong, which happens a lot it seems, then
> >> ****
> >> off. You're obviously too big a candy ass to be here.
> >>
> > See Arny's recent reply to Paul, Mikey. If you continue to copy that
kind
> > of
> > bad character, you'll end up with as bad a character as a dumb person
> > possibly can.
> >
> More irony.
>
Mikey, the only thing which limits how bad you can be is how dumb you are.
Your life could be the theme for "Disorganized Crime."

[Robert Morein]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:36:35 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > The Krooborg is kornered and krazed with rage.
>> >
>> >>Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the
>> >>years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then
>> >>is the problem with you?
>> >
>> > On the contrary, Turdy -- Morein has only recently embraced the truth
>> > about you.
>> > Namely, and to wit, that you are a very obnoxious individual who is
>> > afflicted
>> > with mental problems that go begging for treatment.
>> >
>> Why do ascribe your characteristics to others George? Is it because you
>are
>> convinced that everyone esle is corrupt and dishonest as you are?
>>
>> > Up until the recent past, Morein tried to reason with you on many
>> > occasions, and
>> > also overlooked your snotty attacks in the hope of persuading you to
>> > behave like
>> > a real person. He gave you far more latitude that most Normals do, and
>far
>> > more
>> > than you deserve. You should be thanking him for his undue and
>unrewarded
>> > kindnesses toward your ****ful self.
>> >
>> >
>> Thank him for his dishonesty?
>>
>> You really are an idiot.
>>
>Arny, do you have a choke collar for Mikey?
>He can't be allowed to run loose.
>
AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT JUST KILLFILE ME
YOU DUMB TWIT

[Robert Morein]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:37:27 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > k.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
>> >> >> >lost
>> >> >> >permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
>> >> >> >remains about the same."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >They are both true statements. Got a problem with that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mmmm....very butch, aren't we?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Something for Arny to explain to me at
>> >> >> >> length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors
>> >> >> >and lying, Paul. You made you do it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said
>that
>> >> >> I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would
>> >> >> be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a
>> >> > nasty
>> >> > person
>> >> >
>> >> Someone should explain to you that I don't give a ****.
>> >> If I get the answers I want from him about the questions I ask, then
>he's
>> >> done all I need him to do. He's never been anything but cordial to me
>> >> and
>> >> to those who have always been cordial to him.
>> >>
>> >> If he gets treated less than cordially he tends to hold a grudge, sorta
>> > like
>> >> you against McCarty, or me.
>> >>
>> >> If your ego is so fragile that it can't stand somebody's criticism of
>> >> you,
>> >> especially when you're dead wrong, which happens a lot it seems, then
>> >> ****
>> >> off. You're obviously too big a candy ass to be here.
>> >>
>> > See Arny's recent reply to Paul, Mikey. If you continue to copy that
>kind
>> > of
>> > bad character, you'll end up with as bad a character as a dumb person
>> > possibly can.
>> >
>> More irony.
>>
>Mikey, the only thing which limits how bad you can be is how dumb you are.
>Your life could be the theme for "Disorganized Crime."

But then again the future will be better tomorrow

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
>> nyob123 wrote
>>> EddieM wrote
>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
>>>>>>> Feel free to repaste though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> snip....................
>>>>>>>>>
>
> snip
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you
>>> that
>>> you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the
>>> stimulus
>>> (sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that.
>>>
>>> How many times this have to be explain to you.
>>>
>> Your "explanation" is in direct dontradiction with what is known about
>> hearing.
>>
>>
>> The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth.
>
>
>
> Hahahahaha ! I like that!
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> [...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about,
>>>> allowing the listener to focus on sound alone.
>>>
>>>
>>> How about this:
>>>
>>> Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener
>>> to
>>> focus their altered perception on sound alone.
>>>
>>> Yes?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> LoL!
>
>
> Yessss oh yesss.
>
>
Let's change that to "unalterd perception."
>
>>>>>> It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them
>>>>>> and doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle
>>>>> differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is,
>>>>> the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening"
>>>>> Evaluation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion.
>>>> The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that
>>>> people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2
>>>> different sources when in fact they are only listening to one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for
>>> you above.
>>
>> IOW you can't confirm with any research because there is none.
>
>
> So, you have to have your confirmation. Hmmmm.
>
>
>
>>>>>>> So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at
>>>>>>> audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely
>>>>>>> hearing things.
>>>>
>>>> Same stupid question.
>>>> The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for
>>>> subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they
>>>> are, they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not
>>>> there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying
>>> out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon
>>> and one is at Harman.
>>>
>>
>> And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the
>> place.
>
>
> Oh my Goodness.
>
>
>
>>> Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
>>> for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
>>> (See color Red example) has not change ?
>>>
>> Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson
>> or the place
>
>
> Oh good gracious. Now it's the method.
>
Always was.
>
>>>>>>> But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at
>>>>>>> Harman
>>>>>>> and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> I have never said that.
>>>
>>> uh-oh
>>>
>>
>> Uh-oh is right. I've never siad either person was more likely to hear
>> bettter or worse than other, it's how the listening is done, not who is
>> doing it, unless of course there is some reason to believe that one of
>> them has defective hearing. Judging by some of the things Fremer has
>> said in print a case could be made that his hearing is defective, but in
>> actuality, it's his methods that we know for sure are unrelaible. How
>> else could he praise the WAVAC amp with it's gross amounts of distortion?
>
>
> Your agenda is showing.... yooohooo.
>
You mean telling the truth is an agenda?
>
>>>>>>> Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses
>>>>>>> leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing
>>>>>>> things?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have
>>>> them and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method
>>>> for determing subtle differences, they control bias.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the
>>> discussion of bias.
>>
>> It has everything to do with it, you just won't admit it
>
>
> Holy mollusk !
>
>
>>> This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect
>>> sound differences.
>>
>> And is affected by bias.
>
> Hmmm, now it's about biasss...
>
Goes along with method.
>
>>> What are the specific differences with regard to their
>>> ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio
>>> saloon and when one does it at Harman?
>>>
>>
>> See above.
>
>
> You're way up in the ozone man. .......way up
>
>
>>> Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
>>> for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
>>> (See color Red example) has not change ?
>>>
>> Who said it was? Not me.
>
>
> Before, you said it does, now you say it doesn't.
>
Provide a quote.
>
>>>>>> Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself.
>>>>>> They tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing
>>>>> Subjective
>>>>> Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you
>>>>> to
>>>>> describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect.
>>>>
>>>> See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX.
>>>
>>> You refuse to answer ? LoL!
>>>
>>>
>> I have answered. You just ignore it.
>
>
> Your terrible.
>
>
>>>>> I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally
>>>>> precise:
>>>>>
>>>> God no, not that well known Eddie precision.
>>>>
>>>>> What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to
>>>>> the
>>>>> "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to
>>>>> validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ?
>>>>>
>> I was speaking of his apparent lack of sanity based on his writing and
>> the fact that based on those writings he can't seem to hear very well.
>> What is certain is that he and the other reviewers at SP do not use
>> reliable methods to determine if the things they review are indeed any
>> different from other things they've reviewed in the past or things they
>> currently own.
>
>
> Your agenda is showing again.
>
>
>
>>>> See the list of publications I mentioned.
>>>
>>> You refuse answer ? LoL!
>>>
>>>
>>>>> What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear
>>>>> things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to
>>>>> detect"
>>>>> has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that
>>>> it doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it
>>>> will very likely lead to unreliable results.
>>>
>>>
>>> I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to
>>> NOT hear things ?
>>>
>> And my response is that I hasve no idea what he hears or doesn't hear,
>> since I don't think he personally participates in any of thte listening
>> tests.
>
>
> Oh no! he doesn't participate !
>
>>> <I think you already got this one>
>>>
>>> LoL!
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>> I'm footless.
>>
>> Whatever that means.
>>
>> I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing.
>
>
>
> No, just my foot. Give it back to me.
>
>
>
I think it's stuck in your ear.

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
> R&D Group, Harman International
> 8500 Balboa Blvd., PO Box 2200
> Northridge, CA, 91329
>
>
>
> McKelvy, I think you're being misdirected and should
> ask Mr. Olive to refrain from using the word "Subjective"
> on his title description above.
>
Why?

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote .............



Look McKelvy, your skull is as thick as the one
that Ferstler has, but I can only come in and out
of this computer for so much especially lately.

..........I'll be back tommorow though, sometime
before PM.......

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>> EddieM wrote
>>>>>>>>> nyob123 wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said.
>>>>>>>> Feel free to repaste though.
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>> snip
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>> The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth.
>>
>> Hahahahaha ! I like that!
>>
>>>>> [...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about,
>>>>> allowing the listener to focus on sound alone.
>>>>
>>>> How about this:
>>>>
>>>> Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener
>>>> to focus their altered perception on sound alone.
>>>>
>>>> Yes?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> LoL!
>>
>> Yessss oh yesss.
>
> Let's change that to "unalterd perception."


Ok.

If it's unaltered, then, what does the word "blind" in the context of DBT
cognitively and visually requires to ensure that perception remain
unchanged ?


What does "using only the ears" in the context of ABX and/or DBT
cognitively requires, if, when guessing is not allowed, yet, ensure that
perception remain unchanged ?





>>........ snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at
>>>>>>>> audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely
>>>>>>>> hearing things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same stupid question.
>>>>> The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for
>>>>> subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are,
>>>>> they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not
>>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying
>>>> out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon
>>>> and one is at Harman.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the
>>> place.
>>
>>
>> Oh my Goodness.
>>
>>
>>>> Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
>>>> for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
>>>> (See color Red example) has not change ?
>>>>
>>> Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson
>>> or the place
>>
>>
>> Oh good gracious. Now it's the method.
>>
> Always was.


Okey then, let's do the method. The method for both are the "same"
ie, they're both Subjective "listening" Evaluation.

What else is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that lead you to believe
that he isn't hearing things ?



>>>>>>>> But if Mr. Olive ...
>>
>>> snip .......
>>
>>
>> Holy mollusk !
>>
>>
>>>> This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect
>>>> sound differences.
>>>
>>> And is affected by bias.
>>
>> Hmmm, now it's about biasss...
>>
> Goes along with method.
>>
>>>> What are the specific differences with regard to their
>>>> ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio
>>>> saloon and when one does it at Harman?
>>>>
>>>
>>> See above.
>>
>>
>> You're way up in the ozone man. .......way up
>>
>>
>>>> Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not
>>>> for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect
>>>> (See color Red example) has not change ?
>>>>
>>> Who said it was? Not me.
>>
>> Before, you said it does, now you say it doesn't.
>
>
> Provide a quote.


I object to this tactical manuever of having me do the footwork
to explain each time you smack yourself on the head.


>>>>>>> Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself.

.........snip

>>
>> Oh no! he doesn't participate !
>>
>>>> <I think you already got this one>
>>>>
>>>> LoL!
>>>>
>>>>snip
>>>>
>>>> I'm footless.
>>>
>>> Whatever that means.
>>>
>>> I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing.
>>
>> No, just my foot. Give it back to me.
>
> I think it's stuck in your ear.


I'm footless again.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
>> R&D Group, Harman International
>> 8500 Balboa Blvd., PO Box 2200
>> Northridge, CA, 91329
>>
>>
>>
>> McKelvy, I think you're being misdirected and should
>> ask Mr. Olive to refrain from using the word "Subjective"
>> on his title description above.
>
>
> Why?




For one, because according to you, if Mr. Olive carrys out
Subjective listening Evaluation over there at Harman and discern
subtle differences, he is NOT "hearing things."

Yet, if Michael Fremer carrys out Subjective listening Evaluation
at audio saloons and discern subtle differences, he is.


What the F*** !

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote ......."I'm choking my chicken and it won't get up !"


Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !

Anybody home ??


Well, when your done busy choking that chicken, maybe you can
have Arny lend a hand and start working on the tail neatly cleaved
in those thigh. And how strong they are!

Arny says, " Poor boy! That's some heavy-duty, sturdy legs you
got there, Mike. I might have to charge you extra
this time around. Thing is, for this job, I'll need
Ferstler services to ... like perhaps, tickle you a bit
up and down the thighs so I can work on the back and
ever so slowly eke the said bewitching tail out of
confinement..... you see, that cost me extra!
Won't you turn around here now poor boy and see
if plucking them cheeks help loosens things a bit..."


Mikey says, " Why don't you stop and help me choke the chicken
instead!"


Arny says, "....

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote ......."I'm choking! I'm choking! and it won't get up !"


Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !

Yoooohoooo





Mikey says, " Why don't you stop and help me choke the chicken
instead!"


Arny says, ".... Easy now old boy! I'm standing here lookin at that
limpid, scintillating hole and making me forget 'bout
myself..... uhhmm."


Mikey said, "......... Moo moo moo... I like that! I Iike that ! "

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote ...."I'm panting! I'm panting! and it still won't go !"


Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !

Knock.........knock .........







Arny says, ".... Easy now old boy! I'm standing here lookin at that
limpid, scintillating hole and making me forget 'bout
myself..... uhhmm."


Mikey said, "......... Moo moo moo... I like that! I Iike that ! "



Arny says, " There you go Ol' Boy..! You got me distracted!
Let me blow! Let me blow! ........
Sweet nothing in the air, and pucker things up!
You know what it's like when in the mood
........... for some Love! "

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote ...." I'm Gasping! And Gulping! But my chicken won't go !"


Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !


Domino Pizza !!! Knock! knock!






Arny says, " There you go Ol' Boy..! You got me distracted!
Let me blow! Let me blow! ........
Sweet nothing in the air, and pucker things up!
You know what it's like when in the mood
........... for some Love! "


Mikey says, " ... You do that so well! 'cause you are a good man.
You pucker me up, my knees become weak.
If you are in the mood, it is time to make Love.
........... moo moo moo. "


Arny says, "....

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote ...." I'm Huffing! And Puffing! But my chicken says No!"


Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !



Tic-tok.. tic-tok.. tik-tok...





Mikey says, " ... You do that so well! 'cause you are a good man.
You pucker me up, my knees become weak.
If you are in the mood, it is time to make Love.
........... moo moo moo. "



Arny says, ".... Nut so! Nut so! 'cause your chicken says No!
If Love is in the air, your tail is in the way.
You're a good ol' boy, my Hive belongs to you.
But if Ferstler wants to play, let his chicken
............ lead the way.



Ferstler says, " ....

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote ...." I'm Whiffing! And Heaving! And it still says No!"


Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !



Ding- dong... ding-dong.. Pizza again ! Knock...knock





Arny says, ".... Nut so! Nut so! 'cause your chicken says No!
If Love is in the air, your tail is in the way.
You're a good ol' boy, my Hive belongs to you.
But if Ferstler wants to play, let his chicken
............ lead the way.





Ferstler says, "... I'M CHOKING MY CHICKEN BUT IT WON'T GET UP !! "




Arny says, "... What !"



Mikey says, "... What !"

[Robert Morein]

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:33:51 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>> nyob123 wrote ...." I'm Whiffing! And Heaving! And it still says No!"
>
>
>Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !
>
>
>
>Ding- dong... ding-dong.. Pizza again ! Knock...knock
>
>
>
>
>
>Arny says, ".... Nut so! Nut so! 'cause your chicken says No!
> If Love is in the air, your tail is in the way.
> You're a good ol' boy, my Hive belongs to you.
> But if Ferstler wants to play, let his chicken
> ............ lead the way.
>
>
>
>
>
>Ferstler says, "... I'M CHOKING MY CHICKEN BUT IT WON'T GET UP !! "
>
>
>
>
>Arny says, "... What !"
>
>
>
>Mikey says, "... What !"
>

I say Brian

[paul packer]

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:33:51 GMT, "EddieM" >
wrote:

>> nyob123 wrote ...." I'm Whiffing! And Heaving! And it still says No!"
>
>
>Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo !
>
>
>
>Ding- dong... ding-dong.. Pizza again ! Knock...knock
>
>
>
>
>
>Arny says, ".... Nut so! Nut so! 'cause your chicken says No!
> If Love is in the air, your tail is in the way.
> You're a good ol' boy, my Hive belongs to you.
> But if Ferstler wants to play, let his chicken
> ............ lead the way.
>
>
>
>
>
>Ferstler says, "... I'M CHOKING MY CHICKEN BUT IT WON'T GET UP !! "
>
>
>
>
>Arny says, "... What !"
>
>
>
>Mikey says, "... What !"


Has this been sold to Hollywood yet?

[EddieM]

> paul packer wrote
>
>
>
>>
>>Arny says, "... What !"
>
>>Mikey says, "... What !"
>
>
>
>
>
> Has this been sold to Hollywood yet?


Hmm, this would be a good opportunity for the
three of them to be a star in a Hollywood movie.