The case for ABX

Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other
form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for Statistical
Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of Internal Medicine,
108:266-273, (1988).
Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
(1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36, p.
879 (1988)
Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p. 363
(1989)
Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some
Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also
reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United
Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas, October
17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada M5W 1E6
Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D.,
"Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September
1985)
Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32
Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30
No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal
Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide,
Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972)
Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition,
Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).
Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi News
and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June)
Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing
Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033
(1979 April)
Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound
Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979)
Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?"
Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April
1985)
Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies
for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems",
Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September
1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations Research Center,
3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7.
Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective Responses",
Stereo Review, April 1996
Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears:
Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8, Feb
1994.
ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small
Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems", Geneva,
Switzerland (1994).
Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29
No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion",
Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)",
Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound
and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term Testing",
Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp.
53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
(March 1997)
Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic
Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns, http://www.national.com/rap/
Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?",
Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?",
Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance
Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6,
November 1981
Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind
Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society
Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational
Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20
Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp.
431-445.
Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in
Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp.
539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5],
20 pages.
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).


Those who oppose ABX (not the only double blind protocol for testing audio
differences) say that it is not valid and they have lists of reasons for
their belief.

What they do not have, is any research that some other method is as
revealing or reliable.

Where is the research that clearly demonstrates some other method works as
well or even at all?

[Lionel]

a écrit :
> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other
> form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>
> Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for Statistical
> Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of Internal Medicine,
> 108:266-273, (1988).
> Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
> (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
> Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
> Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
> Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36, p.
> 879 (1988)
> Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
> Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p. 363
> (1989)
> Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some
> Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also
> reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United
> Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
> CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas, October
> 17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario,
> Canada M5W 1E6
> Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D.,
> "Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
> Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
> Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September
> 1985)
> Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32
> Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
> Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30
> No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
> Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
> Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal
> Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
> Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide,
> Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972)
> Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition,
> Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).
> Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi News
> and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June)
> Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing
> Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033
> (1979 April)
> Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound
> Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979)
> Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?"
> Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
> Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April
> 1985)
> Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies
> for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems",
> Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September
> 1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations Research Center,
> 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7.
> Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective Responses",
> Stereo Review, April 1996
> Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears:
> Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8, Feb
> 1994.
> ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small
> Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems", Geneva,
> Switzerland (1994).
> Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
> Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29
> No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
> Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?",
> Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
> Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion",
> Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
> Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)",
> Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
> Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound
> and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
> Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term Testing",
> Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
> Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp.
> 53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
> Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
> (Dec 1992)
> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
> (March 1997)
> Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic
> Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns, http://www.national.com/rap/
> Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?",
> Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
> Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?",
> Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
> Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance
> Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6,
> November 1981
> Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind
> Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
> Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
> Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
> Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society
> Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
> Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational
> Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20
> Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
> Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp.
> 431-445.
> Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
> Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
> Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in
> Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp.
> 539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
> Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
> Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5],
> 20 pages.
> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
> Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering
> Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
> Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
> Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
> Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).

Why are you quoting books that you haven't read ?

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> a écrit :
>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>
>> Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for
>> Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of
>> Internal Medicine, 108:266-273, (1988).
>> Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
>> (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
>> Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
>> Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
>> Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36,
>> p. 879 (1988)
>> Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
>> Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p.
>> 363 (1989)
>> Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some
>> Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also
>> reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United
>> Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
>> CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas,
>> October 17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto,
>> Ontario, Canada M5W 1E6
>> Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D.,
>> "Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
>> Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
>> Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1
>> (September 1985)
>> Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32
>> Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
>> Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.
>> 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
>> Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
>> Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal
>> Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
>> Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide,
>> Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972)
>> Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and
>> Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138,
>> (1995).
>> Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi
>> News and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June)
>> Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound
>> Reproducing Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol
>> 65, pp 1019-1033 (1979 April)
>> Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of
>> Sound Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169
>> (1979)
>> Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the
>> Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
>> Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio,
>> (April 1985)
>> Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive
>> Methodolgies for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding
>> Systems", Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15
>> September 1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations
>> Research Center, 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7.
>> Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective
>> Responses", Stereo Review, April 1996
>> Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears:
>> Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8,
>> Feb 1994.
>> ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small
>> Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems",
>> Geneva, Switzerland (1994).
>> Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
>> Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29
>> No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
>> Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the
>> Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
>> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the
>> Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
>> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion",
>> Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
>> Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)",
>> Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
>> Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper",
>> Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
>> Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term
>> Testing", Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
>> Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp.
>> 53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
>> Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
>> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
>> (Dec 1992)
>> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
>> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
>> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
>> 116-128, (March 1997)
>> Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic
>> Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns, http://www.national.com/rap/
>> Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?",
>> Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
>> Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the
>> Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
>> Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance
>> Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6,
>> November 1981
>> Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized,
>> Double-Blind Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
>> Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
>> Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
>> Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society
>> Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
>> Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational
>> Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20
>> Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
>> Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp.
>> 431-445.
>> Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
>> Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering
>> Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
>> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections
>> in Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp.
>> 539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
>> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
>> Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
>> Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893
>> (H-5], 20 pages.
>> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
>> Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering
>> Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
>> Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
>> Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
>> Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).
>
> Why are you quoting books that you haven't read ?

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> a écrit :
>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>
>> Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for
>> Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of
>> Internal Medicine, 108:266-273, (1988).
>> Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
>> (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
>> Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
>> Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
>> Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36,
>> p. 879 (1988)
>> Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
>> Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p.
>> 363 (1989)
>> Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some
>> Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also
>> reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United
>> Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
>> CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas,
>> October 17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto,
>> Ontario, Canada M5W 1E6
>> Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D.,
>> "Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
>> Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
>> Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1
>> (September 1985)
>> Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32
>> Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
>> Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.
>> 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
>> Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
>> Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal
>> Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
>> Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide,
>> Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972)
>> Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and
>> Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138,
>> (1995).
>> Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi
>> News and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June)
>> Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound
>> Reproducing Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol
>> 65, pp 1019-1033 (1979 April)
>> Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of
>> Sound Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169
>> (1979)
>> Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the
>> Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
>> Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio,
>> (April 1985)
>> Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive
>> Methodolgies for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding
>> Systems", Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15
>> September 1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations
>> Research Center, 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7.
>> Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective
>> Responses", Stereo Review, April 1996
>> Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears:
>> Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8,
>> Feb 1994.
>> ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small
>> Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems",
>> Geneva, Switzerland (1994).
>> Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
>> Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29
>> No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
>> Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the
>> Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
>> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the
>> Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
>> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion",
>> Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
>> Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)",
>> Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
>> Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper",
>> Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
>> Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term
>> Testing", Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
>> Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp.
>> 53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
>> Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
>> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
>> (Dec 1992)
>> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
>> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
>> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
>> 116-128, (March 1997)
>> Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic
>> Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns, http://www.national.com/rap/
>> Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?",
>> Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
>> Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the
>> Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
>> Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance
>> Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6,
>> November 1981
>> Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized,
>> Double-Blind Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
>> Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
>> Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
>> Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society
>> Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
>> Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational
>> Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20
>> Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
>> Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp.
>> 431-445.
>> Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
>> Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering
>> Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
>> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections
>> in Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp.
>> 539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
>> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
>> Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
>> Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893
>> (H-5], 20 pages.
>> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
>> Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering
>> Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
>> Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
>> Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
>> Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).
>
> Why are you quoting books that you haven't read ?

I'm not.

I'm saying these are refernce books on the subject of ABX and DBT.

There are no comprable published works on the subject of why some other form
of testing is better than or equal to the efficacy obtained from blnd audio
testing.

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> a écrit :
> > Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other
> > form of testing for audio differences have merit?
> >
[snip]
>
> Why are you quoting books that you haven't read ?

Mikey has no choice. He lacks the intelligence to actually function at the
level of analysis. Hence all he can do is "weigh" the material.

Mikey, you should be very thorough. Obtain all the books, weigh them on your
bathroom scale, and report the number to us.
Then you can use them for **** tickets.

[John Richards]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".

[Robert Morein]

"John Richards" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
> > other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>
> Define "scholarly".
>
Material of such an intellectual caliber that it cannot be understood by
Mikey.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> > Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>> > other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>
>> Define "scholarly".
>>
> Material of such an intellectual caliber that it cannot be understood by
> Mikey.
>
Or you, otherwise you wouldn't say the idiotic things you do.

"John Richards" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>
> Define "scholarly".
>
Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or
any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle
differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of
people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with
references, and that has been peer reviewed.

The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in
their fields.
Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate
that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't
hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only
anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is no
scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained
listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine
subtle differences in audio components.

If there is some research or published work contrary to the DBT protocols,
where is it?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>

>
> The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
trained
> listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine
> subtle differences in audio components.
>
False.
Pure lie.
A vile slander against audiophiles everywhere, perpetrated by the despicable
Mikey McKelvihpibian

[John Richards]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>
>> Define "scholarly".
>>
> Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or
> any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle
> differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of
> people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with
> references, and that has been peer reviewed.

Where did you come up with that definition?

>
> The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in
> their fields.

Known by you personally? How many of these references have you even read?

> Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate
> that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't
> hear things they would otherwise be able to.
>
> It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only
> anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is
> no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable
> sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment.

Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
them what they hear.

> The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
> trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
> determine subtle differences in audio components.

Then I guess you just answered your own question.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>
>>
>> The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
> trained
>> listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine
>> subtle differences in audio components.
>>
> False.
> Pure lie.
> A vile slander against audiophiles everywhere, perpetrated by the
> despicable
> Mikey McKelvihpibian
>
Typical of the responses that condemn ABX, no scientific validation, just
stamping your foot and deny the truth.

"John Richards" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>>>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>>
>>> Define "scholarly".
>>>
>> Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or
>> any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle
>> differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of
>> people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with
>> references, and that has been peer reviewed.
>
> Where did you come up with that definition?
>
>>
>> The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in
>> their fields.
>
> Known by you personally?

A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone and
others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.

How many of these references have you even read?

Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?

>> Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
>> demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so
>> that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.
>>
>> It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only
>> anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is
>> no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable
>> sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment.
>
> Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
> protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
> them what they hear.
>

Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
reliable.
If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some
evidence.

If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.

>> The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
>> trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
>> determine subtle differences in audio components.
>
> Then I guess you just answered your own question.
>
>
I didn't require an answer to that question, I want to know what if any
scientific validity the other side might claim to have. It seems reasonable
that if you are gong to deny the current scientific approach, there ought to
be something of equal or comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX.

The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other
side has.....?

"John Richards" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>
> Define "scholarly".
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the
body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about
the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to
the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to
include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that
governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in the narrower
sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet
to be treated by science. These include history as well as the creations of
the human mind in the form of art, music, literature, religion, philosophy,
and cultural beliefs.

[George Middius]

Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>The other side has.....?

<sneer>

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical
than that.



..
..
..

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
> grabbing
> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>
>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>>The other side has.....?
>
> <sneer>
>
> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more
> comical
> than that.
>
>
Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not
without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to
show you no stinking science."

You sneer, you call names, you deny, but you offer nothing that compares to
the work done to demonstrate the efficacy of DBT or how people hear.

[John Richards]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>>>>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>>>
>>>> Define "scholarly".
>>>>
>>> Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics,
>>> or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear
>>> subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the
>>> results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted,
>>> complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed.
>>
>> Where did you come up with that definition?
>>
>>>
>>> The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in
>>> their fields.
>>
>> Known by you personally?
>
> A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone
> and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.
>
> How many of these references have you even read?
>
> Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?
>
>>> Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
>>> demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so
>>> that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.
>>>
>>> It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have
>>> only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly.
>>> There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a
>>> reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio
>>> equipment.
>>
>> Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
>> protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
>> them what they hear.
>>
>
> Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
> reliable.
> If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some
> evidence.
>
> If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.
>
>>> The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
>>> trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
>>> determine subtle differences in audio components.
>>
>> Then I guess you just answered your own question.
>>
>>
> I didn't require an answer to that question,

I know, you're just stirring the pot.

> I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim
> to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current
> scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable
> scientific effort to put in place of ABX.
>
> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
> other side has.....?

Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!

[John Richards]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>
>> Define "scholarly".
> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method
>
> Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the
> body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
> about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
> known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be
> taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
> practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in
> the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too
> complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as
> the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature,
> religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.

I must be interpreting this definition incorrectly - "covering rational
inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet
to be treated by science". Is this definition suggesting that there might
be some areas, including music, that might be too complex to be understood
and explained by science? Heresy, I say!! Behead the infidel!!

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>
>> Define "scholarly".
> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method
>
> Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the
> body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
> about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
> known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be
> taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
> practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in
> the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too
> complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as
> the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature,
> religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.
But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether the
article is true?
All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces it
weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.

"John Richards" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
>>>>>> some other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "scholarly".
>>>>>
>>>> Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics,
>>>> or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear
>>>> subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the
>>>> results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted,
>>>> complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed.
>>>
>>> Where did you come up with that definition?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people
>>>> in their fields.
>>>
>>> Known by you personally?
>>
>> A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone
>> and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.
>>
>> How many of these references have you even read?
>>
>> Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?
>>
>>>> Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
>>>> demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so
>>>> that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.
>>>>
>>>> It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have
>>>> only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly.
>>>> There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a
>>>> reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio
>>>> equipment.
>>>
>>> Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
>>> protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
>>> them what they hear.
>>>
>>
>> Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
>> reliable.
>> If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some
>> evidence.
>>
>> If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.
>>
>>>> The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
>>>> trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
>>>> determine subtle differences in audio components.
>>>
>>> Then I guess you just answered your own question.
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't require an answer to that question,
>
> I know, you're just stirring the pot.
>
>> I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim
>> to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current
>> scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable
>> scientific effort to put in place of ABX.
>>
>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
>> other side has.....?
>
> Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!
>
>
As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is
invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted
listening is effective.

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
>>>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>>
>>> Define "scholarly".
>> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method
>>
>> Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the
>> body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
>> about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
>> known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be
>> taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
>> practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship
>> in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly
>> too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as
>> well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music,
>> literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.
> But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether the
> article is true?
> All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces
> it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.
As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is invalid,
nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern
subtle difference.

[John Richards]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
>>>>>>> some other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Define "scholarly".
>>>>>>
>>>>> Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics,
>>>>> or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear
>>>>> subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the
>>>>> results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted,
>>>>> complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed.
>>>>
>>>> Where did you come up with that definition?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people
>>>>> in their fields.
>>>>
>>>> Known by you personally?
>>>
>>> A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone
>>> and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.
>>>
>>> How many of these references have you even read?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?
>>>
>>>>> Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
>>>>> demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so
>>>>> that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have
>>>>> only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly.
>>>>> There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with
>>>>> a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in
>>>>> audio equipment.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
>>>> protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
>>>> them what they hear.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
>>> reliable.
>>> If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some
>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.
>>>
>>>>> The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
>>>>> trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
>>>>> determine subtle differences in audio components.
>>>>
>>>> Then I guess you just answered your own question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I didn't require an answer to that question,
>>
>> I know, you're just stirring the pot.
>>
>>> I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might
>>> claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the
>>> current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or
>>> comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX.
>>>
>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
>>> other side has.....?
>>
>> Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!
>>
>>
> As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is
> invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted
> listening is effective.

If you are looking for proof and can't find any, then I'd say there might
not be any. If there is proof but you just don't want to do the research,
then why should someone else do it for you? Personally, I don't give a
rat's ass if there is "proof" or not. Either way, the onus is on you to
satisfy your own doubts!

You're tripe is boring me - onto my "blocked sender" list you go. Adios.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> > wrote in message
> >>> ink.net...
> >>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
some
> >>>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
> >>>
> >>> Define "scholarly".
> >> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method
> >>
> >> Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is
the
> >> body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
> >> about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
> >> known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can
be
> >> taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
> >> practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship
> >> in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are
mostly
> >> too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as
> >> well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music,
> >> literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.
> > But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether
the
> > article is true?
> > All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces
> > it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.
> As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is invalid,
> nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern
> subtle difference.
>
As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi
comparisons.
Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX and
high fidelity, noted.
General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted.
Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted.
Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted.
Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and
pleasure of others.
Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted.
Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and
useful instruments.
General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted.
Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals.

"John Richards" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
>>>>>>>> some other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define "scholarly".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics,
>>>>>> electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to
>>>>>> reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work
>>>>>> that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle
>>>>>> differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been
>>>>>> peer reviewed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did you come up with that definition?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people
>>>>>> in their fields.
>>>>>
>>>>> Known by you personally?
>>>>
>>>> A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone
>>>> and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.
>>>>
>>>> How many of these references have you even read?
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?
>>>>
>>>>>> Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
>>>>>> demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener
>>>>>> so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have
>>>>>> only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly.
>>>>>> There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with
>>>>>> a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in
>>>>>> audio equipment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
>>>>> protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to
>>>>> tell them what they hear.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
>>>> reliable.
>>>> If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be
>>>> some evidence.
>>>>
>>>> If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.
>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
>>>>>> trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way
>>>>>> to determine subtle differences in audio components.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I guess you just answered your own question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I didn't require an answer to that question,
>>>
>>> I know, you're just stirring the pot.
>>>
>>>> I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might
>>>> claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the
>>>> current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or
>>>> comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX.
>>>>
>>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
>>>> other side has.....?
>>>
>>> Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!
>>>
>>>
>> As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is
>> invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted
>> listening is effective.
>
> If you are looking for proof and can't find any, then I'd say there might
> not be any.

Bingo.

If there is proof but you just don't want to do the research,
> then why should someone else do it for you?

I'm not asking for anybody to do research for me, I just thought rational
humans would want to have some basis for their beliefs in a procedure that
has been repeatedly cited as unreliable, as is the case for sighted
listening.

Personally, I don't give a
> rat's ass if there is "proof" or not. Either way, the onus is on you to
> satisfy your own doubts!
>
I don't have any doubts that sighted listening is flawed, but if there were
some valid research that showed there might be some reason to reconsider,
i'd certainly be willing to consider it.

Why can't the anti DBT side provide something better than anecdote?
Theobvious answer is because there is nothing.

> You're tripe is boring me - onto my "blocked sender" list you go. Adios.
>

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>> > wrote in message
>> >>> ink.net...
>> >>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
> some
>> >>>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>> >>>
>> >>> Define "scholarly".
>> >> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method
>> >>
>> >> Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is
> the
>> >> body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
>> >> about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
>> >> known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can
> be
>> >> taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
>> >> practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on
>> >> scholarship
>> >> in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are
> mostly
>> >> too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as
>> >> well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music,
>> >> literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.
>> > But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether
> the
>> > article is true?
>> > All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many
>> > ounces
>> > it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.
>> As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is
>> invalid,
>> nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern
>> subtle difference.
>>
> As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi
> comparisons.

An obvious lie.

> Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX
> and
> high fidelity, noted.

Another obvious lie.

> General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted.

Another obvious lie.

> Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted.

Something that you want to believe, but which is not true. How many of them
have you read?

> Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted.

Denial of reality by yourself a matter of historical and legal record.

> Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and
> pleasure of others.

As if such a thing were possible, espcecially since you believe I have such
a weak mind.

> Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted.

There iare no discredited ABX ideas, only denials from fools.

> Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and
> useful instruments.

Another denail of reality.

> General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted.

If yours is supposed to be the adult standard, I'm very glad I don't
function that way.

> Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals.
>
Obligatory personal attacks in lieu of actual facts noted.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
> other side has.....?
>


..... a system they enjoy listening through.

[Clyde Slick]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
> grabbing
> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>
>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>>The other side has.....?
>
> <sneer>
>
> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more
> comical
> than that.
>

Tommie didn't make the cut?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
>> grabbing
>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>
>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>>>The other side has.....?
>>
>> <sneer>
>>
>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more
>> comical
>> than that.
>>
>>
> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but
> not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got
> to show you no stinking science."
>

you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>>
>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
>> other side has.....?
>>
>
>
> .... a system they enjoy listening through.
>
But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be
possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few
differnces, no change would occur.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
>>> grabbing
>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>
>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>
>>> <sneer>
>>>
>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more
>>> comical
>>> than that.
>>>
>>>
>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but
>> not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't
>> got to show you no stinking science."
>>
>
> you still haven't figure out that it's
> NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

> you still haven't figure out that it's
> NOT about science.

Nothing about duh-Mikey is remotely related to real science. He and Arnii
traffic in some kind of traveling-medicine-show version of sicciccneneece.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more
> > comical than that.

> Tommie didn't make the cut?

Well, in my view Tommi is saner than Kroo**** and smarter than duh-Mikey.
Not much of a compliment, I'll admit, but I'd say Nousiane is not the worst
of the worst.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
> > trained
> >> listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
determine
> >> subtle differences in audio components.
> >>
> > False.
> > Pure lie.
> > A vile slander against audiophiles everywhere, perpetrated by the
> > despicable
> > Mikey McKelvihpibian
> >
> Typical of the responses that condemn ABX, no scientific validation, just
> stamping your foot and deny the truth.
>
Mikey speak with forked tongue, as do all amphibians.

[Robert Morein]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:35:29 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > > wrote in message
>>> > ink.net...
>>> >>
>>> >> "John Richards" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > wrote in message
>>> >>> ink.net...
>>> >>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
>> some
>>> >>>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Define "scholarly".
>>> >> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method
>>> >>
>>> >> Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is
>> the
>>> >> body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
>>> >> about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
>>> >> known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can
>> be
>>> >> taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
>>> >> practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on
>>> >> scholarship
>>> >> in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are
>> mostly
>>> >> too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as
>>> >> well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music,
>>> >> literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.
>>> > But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether
>> the
>>> > article is true?
>>> > All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many
>>> > ounces
>>> > it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.
>>> As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is
>>> invalid,
>>> nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern
>>> subtle difference.
>>>
>> As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi
>> comparisons.
>
>An obvious lie.
>
>> Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX
>> and
>> high fidelity, noted.
>
>Another obvious lie.
>
>> General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted.
>
>Another obvious lie.
>
>> Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted.
>
>Something that you want to believe, but which is not true. How many of them
>have you read?
>
>> Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted.
>
>Denial of reality by yourself a matter of historical and legal record.
>
>> Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and
>> pleasure of others.
>
>As if such a thing were possible, espcecially since you believe I have such
>a weak mind.
>
>> Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted.
>
>There iare no discredited ABX ideas, only denials from fools.
>
>> Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and
>> useful instruments.
>
>Another denail of reality.
>
>> General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted.
>
>If yours is supposed to be the adult standard, I'm very glad I don't
>function that way.
>
>> Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals.
>>
>Obligatory personal attacks in lieu of actual facts noted.
>

JUST KILLFILE ME YOU IDIOT.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >>
> >> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> > wrote in message
> >>> ink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> >>>> .. .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>> nk.net...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>> ink.net...
> >>>>>>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
> >>>>>>>> some other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Define "scholarly".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics,
> >>>>>> electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to
> >>>>>> reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work
> >>>>>> that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle
> >>>>>> differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been
> >>>>>> peer reviewed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where did you come up with that definition?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known
people
> >>>>>> in their fields.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Known by you personally?
> >>>>
> >>>> A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the
phone
> >>>> and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.
> >>>>
> >>>> How many of these references have you even read?
> >>>>
> >>>> Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
> >>>>>> demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener
> >>>>>> so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX
have
> >>>>>> only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue
endlessly.
> >>>>>> There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up
with
> >>>>>> a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in
> >>>>>> audio equipment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable
sighted
> >>>>> protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to
> >>>>> tell them what they hear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
> >>>> reliable.
> >>>> If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be
> >>>> some evidence.
> >>>>
> >>>> If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening
of
> >>>>>> trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way
> >>>>>> to determine subtle differences in audio components.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then I guess you just answered your own question.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> I didn't require an answer to that question,
> >>>
> >>> I know, you're just stirring the pot.
> >>>
> >>>> I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might
> >>>> claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the
> >>>> current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or
> >>>> comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX.
> >>>>
> >>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
> >>>> other side has.....?
> >>>
> >>> Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!
> >>>
> >>>
> >> As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is
> >> invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of
sighted
> >> listening is effective.
> >
> > If you are looking for proof and can't find any, then I'd say there
might
> > not be any.
>
> Bingo.
>
> If there is proof but you just don't want to do the research,
> > then why should someone else do it for you?
>
> I'm not asking for anybody to do research for me, I just thought rational
> humans would want to have some basis for their beliefs in a procedure that
> has been repeatedly cited as unreliable, as is the case for sighted
> listening.
>
> Personally, I don't give a
> > rat's ass if there is "proof" or not. Either way, the onus is on you to
> > satisfy your own doubts!
> >
> I don't have any doubts that sighted listening is flawed, but if there
were
> some valid research that showed there might be some reason to reconsider,
> i'd certainly be willing to consider it.
>
> Why can't the anti DBT side provide something better than anecdote?
> Theobvious answer is because there is nothing.
>
But it's not correct.

[Robert Morein]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:25:01 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
>>> other side has.....?
>>>
>>
>>
>> .... a system they enjoy listening through.
>>
>But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be
>possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few
>differnces, no change would occur.
>

Yes That's CORRECT

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
>>>> grabbing
>>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>
>>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>
>>>> <sneer>
>>>>
>>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
>>>> more comical
>>>> than that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but
>>> not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't
>>> got to show you no stinking science."
>>>
>>
>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>> NOT about science.
> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
>>> other side has.....?
>>>
>>
>>
>> .... a system they enjoy listening through.
>>
> But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may
> be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so
> few differnces, no change would occur.

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
enjoyment,
not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > wrote in message
> >> >>> ink.net...
> >> >>>> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
> > some
> >> >>>> other form of testing for audio differences have merit?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Define "scholarly".
> >> >> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method
> >> >>
> >> >> Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship -
is
> > the
> >> >> body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their
claims
> >> >> about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make
them
> >> >> known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship
can
> > be
> >> >> taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of
scholarly
> >> >> practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on
> >> >> scholarship
> >> >> in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are
> > mostly
> >> >> too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history
as
> >> >> well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music,
> >> >> literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.
> >> > But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge
whether
> > the
> >> > article is true?
> >> > All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many
> >> > ounces
> >> > it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.
> >> As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is
> >> invalid,
> >> nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern
> >> subtle difference.
> >>
> > As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi
> > comparisons.
>
> An obvious lie.
>
> > Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX
> > and
> > high fidelity, noted.
>
> Another obvious lie.
>
> > General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted.
>
> Another obvious lie.
>
> > Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted.
>
> Something that you want to believe, but which is not true. How many of
them
> have you read?
>
> > Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted.
>
> Denial of reality by yourself a matter of historical and legal record.
>
> > Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and
> > pleasure of others.
>
> As if such a thing were possible, espcecially since you believe I have
such
> a weak mind.
>
> > Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted.
>
> There iare no discredited ABX ideas, only denials from fools.
>
> > Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and
> > useful instruments.
>
> Another denail of reality.
>
> > General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted.
>
> If yours is supposed to be the adult standard, I'm very glad I don't
> function that way.
>
> > Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals.
> >
> Obligatory personal attacks in lieu of actual facts noted.
>
Borg manner of speaking noted.

[Robert Morein]

"Brian L. McCarty" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:35:29 GMT, > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> nk.net...
> >>>
[snip]
>
> JUST KILLFILE ME YOU IDIOT.

Well, Brian, you got one part right. Mikey is an idiot.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
> >> other side has.....?
> >>
> >
> >
> > .... a system they enjoy listening through.
> >
> But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may
be
> possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few
> differnces, no change would occur.
>
Doubtful, and they'd have to endure your misspelling in the instructions on
the box.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
>>>> other side has.....?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .... a system they enjoy listening through.
>>>
>> But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may
>> be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so
>> few differnces, no change would occur.
>
> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
> sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
> enjoyment,
> not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.
>
How do you know if you've never bothered to try?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the
same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it
wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?

[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...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
>>>>> other side has.....?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .... a system they enjoy listening through.
>>>>
>>> But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may
>>> be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so
>>> few differnces, no change would occur.
>>
>> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
>> sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
>> enjoyment,
>> not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.
>>
> How do you know if you've never bothered to try?
>
> Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
> several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the
> same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it
> wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?
>
First of all, my time is valuable.
There goes the several hundred saved right there.
Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation
for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000.

Anyway, if I went back to sighted and the 'favored' component
still sounded better sighted (despite sounding the same blind)
I would select the favored component.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
> >>> grabbing
> >>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
> >>>
> >>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
> >>>>The other side has.....?
> >>>
> >>> <sneer>
> >>>
> >>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
more
> >>> comical
> >>> than that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but
> >> not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't
> >> got to show you no stinking science."
> >>
> >
> > you still haven't figure out that it's
> > NOT about science.
> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>
It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> > wrote in message
> >>> ink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
> >>>> other side has.....?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> .... a system they enjoy listening through.
> >>>
> >> But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it
may
> >> be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are
so
> >> few differnces, no change would occur.
> >
> > "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
> > sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
> > enjoyment,
> > not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.
> >
> How do you know if you've never bothered to try?
>
> Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
> several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the
> same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it
> wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?
>
With the fraudulent form of ABX currently being pushed by liars, poseurs,and
pseudoscientists, it would only cause the listener to miss the genuine
difference that mean all the difference in hifi.
We cannot accept your "sake of discussion" request, because you are a known
liar, arguing in bad faith on behalf of the notorious BAD SCIENTIST and
poseur, Arny Krueger. To accept your request would be a disservice to the
audio community.
Therefore, your request is DENIED.

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
>> >>> grabbing
>> >>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>> >>>
>> >>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>> >>>>The other side has.....?
>> >>>
>> >>> <sneer>
>> >>>
>> >>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
> more
>> >>> comical
>> >>> than that.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
>> >> but
>> >> not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't
>> >> got to show you no stinking science."
>> >>
>> >
>> > you still haven't figure out that it's
>> > NOT about science.
>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>
> It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
> Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
> We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.
>
>
Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious
rituals.

[George Middius]

Mikey, have you been eating from Arnii's dinner bowl instead of scouring the
garden for your food as you're accustomed to doing?

>Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
>several hundred dollars by doing DBT?

Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred dollars".
If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.

God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to alleviate
your crushing idiocy?



..
..
..
..

[Robert Morein]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mikey, have you been eating from Arnii's dinner bowl instead of scouring
the
> garden for your food as you're accustomed to doing?
>
> >Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
> >several hundred dollars by doing DBT?
>
> Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred
dollars".
> If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.
>
> God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to
alleviate
> your crushing idiocy?

Currently beyond the capabilities of medicine to increase his mental
capacity.
Perhaps Mikey might be interested in breast enlargement; it's doable.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
>>>>> grabbing
>>>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>>
>>>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>>>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>>
>>>>> <sneer>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
>>>>> more comical
>>>>> than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but
>>>> not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't
>>>> got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>
>>>
>>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>>> NOT about science.
>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>
> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
> its just not about science.
> its about enjoying the playback of music.
> Its about enjoyment.
>
>
The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > > wrote in message
>>> > ink.net...
>>> >>
>>> >> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
>>> >>> grabbing
>>> >>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>> >>>>efforts.
>>> >>>>The other side has.....?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> <sneer>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
>> more
>>> >>> comical
>>> >>> than that.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
>>> >> but
>>> >> not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
>>> >> don't
>>> >> got to show you no stinking science."
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > you still haven't figure out that it's
>>> > NOT about science.
>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>
>> It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
>> Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
>> We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.
>>
>>
> Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious
> rituals.
>
Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT.
I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I require.
I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't
exist.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other
> form of testing for audio differences have merit?
>
> Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for Statistical
> Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of Internal Medicine,
> 108:266-273, (1988).
> Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
> (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
> Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
> Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
> Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36, p.
> 879 (1988)
> Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
> Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p. 363
__________________________________________

NYOB rides again. This time he's trailing a string of "references
collected from the files of his Public Library.
His "Case for ABX" is made up of titles such as "The Ears
gears"- the mechano-electrical transduction by hair cells"
But there are a few references that I recognize:
Greenhill on cables. Most of his panel couldn't recognize 1,75 db
difference in volume when ABXing. My old ears tell me when I change
one side by one db.- the image shifts. Overall conclusion: "Cables
don't differ.
.. Masters/Clark on amplifiers. Overall conclusion: No difference
recognized by the ABXing panel between amplifiers
Pohlmann on cdplayers.. This time a triumph for ABX. The very first
cdplayer (Philips 14 bits, soon universally replaced by 16 bits etc.)
identified. No differences heard after that first year product.

He quotes papers by Sean Olive and F. Toole. I have reprints of a few
of them:
"Hearing is believing....". No mention of ABX anywhere in the text
"The modification of timbre..." ditto.
"Listening tests..." Discussion on how to get better listening
tests: several chapters: rooms , material and double blinding- nothing
about ABX.
Sean Olive presented also: " A method for training listeners...".
No mention of ABX.. Emphasis on how much the listeners differ in their
ability to get trained.
There is something disarming about the man. One wonders whether to
blame him or pity him.
Ludovic Mirabel
__________________________________



> (1989)
> Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some
> Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also
> reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United
> Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
> CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas, October
> 17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario,
> Canada M5W 1E6
> Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D.,
> "Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
> Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
> Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September
> 1985)
> Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32
> Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
> Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30
> No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
> Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
> Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal
> Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
> Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide,
> Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972)
> Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition,
> Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).
> Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi News
> and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June)
> Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing
> Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033
> (1979 April)
> Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound
> Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979)
> Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?"
> Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
> Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April
> 1985)
> Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies
> for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems",
> Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September
> 1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations Research Center,
> 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7.
> Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective Responses",
> Stereo Review, April 1996
> Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears:
> Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8, Feb
> 1994.
> ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small
> Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems", Geneva,
> Switzerland (1994).
> Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
> Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29
> No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
> Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?",
> Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
> Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion",
> Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
> Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)",
> Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
> Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound
> and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
> Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term Testing",
> Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
> Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp.
> 53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
> Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
> (Dec 1992)
> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
> (March 1997)
> Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic
> Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns, http://www.national.com/rap/
> Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?",
> Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
> Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?",
> Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
> Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance
> Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6,
> November 1981
> Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind
> Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
> Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
> Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
> Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society
> Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
> Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational
> Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20
> Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
> Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp.
> 431-445.
> Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
> Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
> Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in
> Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp.
> 539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
> Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
> Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5],
> 20 pages.
> Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
> Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering
> Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
> Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
> Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
> Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).
>
>
> Those who oppose ABX (not the only double blind protocol for testing audio
> differences) say that it is not valid and they have lists of reasons for
> their belief.
>
> What they do not have, is any research that some other method is as
> revealing or reliable.
>
> Where is the research that clearly demonstrates some other method works as
> well or even at all?

"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...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
>>>>>> other side has.....?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .... a system they enjoy listening through.
>>>>>
>>>> But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it
>>>> may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there
>>>> are so few differnces, no change would occur.
>>>
>>> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
>>> sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
>>> enjoyment,
>>> not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.
>>>
>> How do you know if you've never bothered to try?
>>
>> Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
>> several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the
>> same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it
>> wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?
>>
> First of all, my time is valuable.
> There goes the several hundred saved right there.
> Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation
> for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000.
>
What speakers do you own?
Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP?
At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although
there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K.


> Anyway, if I went back to sighted and the 'favored' component
> still sounded better sighted (despite sounding the same blind)
> I would select the favored component.
I'm not sure I believe you. I think that despite all your protestations,
you are in fact smart enough to know that the illusory sonic improvements
you might perceive from a sighted comparison, are just that.

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mikey, have you been eating from Arnii's dinner bowl instead of scouring
> the
> garden for your food as you're accustomed to doing?
>
>>Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
>>several hundred dollars by doing DBT?
>
> Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred
> dollars".

Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons involved
in high end audio.


> If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.


And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same sound as
from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong.

You don't have any frame of refernce for Normal.

> God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to
> alleviate
> your crushing idiocy?
>
>
Isn't it time you did the world a favor and dropped a piano on your head?

[George M. Middius]

duh! said Mikey, while noshing on a plateful of cockroaches.

> > Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred
> > dollars".

> Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons involved
> in high end audio.

Oh greatly stupid one, you're engaging in a fallacy that has been explained
to you many times before. Suffice it to say, for the sake of repetition,
that "several hundred dollars" is not a factor for people who buy
high-priced equipment. As a point of reference, they also buy $5000 skis,
$80,000 cars, and $200,000 pieces of jewelry, among other items.

> > If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.

> And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same sound as
> from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong.

How did you banish reality so thoroughly from that hermetic dimension you
inhabit? Inquiring minds want to know how you came to know what others are
"convinced" of without them telling you.

> > God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to
> > alleviate your crushing idiocy?

<no response from duh-Mikey>

How many times have you seen "Forrest Gump"? Do you still tear up when
Hanks drawls about the box of chocolates?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>>>>>>> The other side has.....?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .... a system they enjoy listening through.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it
>>>>> may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there
>>>>> are so few differnces, no change would occur.
>>>>
>>>> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
>>>> sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
>>>> enjoyment,
>>>> not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.
>>>>
>>> How do you know if you've never bothered to try?
>>>
>>> Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
>>> several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the
>>> same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put
>>> it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?
>>>
>> First of all, my time is valuable.
>> There goes the several hundred saved right there.
>> Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation
>> for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000.
>>
> What speakers do you own?
> Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP?
> At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although
> there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K.
>
>

Vandersteen 4's

I will have to replace them when I move. No room, and the overseas freight
charge will
be outrageous. And the original boxes were ruined in a flood.

[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...
>>>>>
>>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
>>>>>> grabbing
>>>>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>>>>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <sneer>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
>>>>>> more comical
>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
>>>>> but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
>>>>> don't got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>> NOT about science.
>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>
>> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
>> its just not about science.
>> its about enjoying the playback of music.
>> Its about enjoyment.
>>
>>
> The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
>
But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
to find a satisfying system.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >
>>>> > > wrote in message
>>>> > ink.net...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>> >> ...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
>>>> >>> easy
>>>> >>> grabbing
>>>> >>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>>> >>>>efforts.
>>>> >>>>The other side has.....?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> <sneer>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
>>> more
>>>> >>> comical
>>>> >>> than that.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
>>>> >> but
>>>> >> not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
>>>> >> don't
>>>> >> got to show you no stinking science."
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>> > NOT about science.
>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>>
>>> It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
>>> Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
>>> We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.
>>>
>>>
>> Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious
>> rituals.
>>
> Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT.
> I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I
> require.
> I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't
> exist.
>

Just listen sighted, if you don't hear any
differences, fine.

"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...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
>>>>>>> grabbing
>>>>>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>>>>>>>efforts.
>>>>>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <sneer>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
>>>>>>> more comical
>>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
>>>>>> but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
>>>>>> don't got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>>> NOT about science.
>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>
>>> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
>>> its just not about science.
>>> its about enjoying the playback of music.
>>> Its about enjoyment.
>>>
>>>
>> The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
>>
> But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
> to find a satisfying system.
>No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
>are hearing.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > wrote in message
>>>>> > ink.net...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>> >> ...
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
>>>>> >>> easy
>>>>> >>> grabbing
>>>>> >>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>>>> >>>>efforts.
>>>>> >>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> <sneer>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
>>>>> >>> any
>>>> more
>>>>> >>> comical
>>>>> >>> than that.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
>>>>> >> but
>>>>> >> not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
>>>>> >> don't
>>>>> >> got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>>> > NOT about science.
>>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>>>
>>>> It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
>>>> Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
>>>> We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious
>>> rituals.
>>>
>> Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT.
>> I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I
>> require.
>> I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't
>> exist.
>>
>
> Just listen sighted, if you don't hear any
> differences, fine.
That's the problem, sighted listening is least likely to keep me from being
swayed by bias.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>>>>>>>> The other side has.....?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .... a system they enjoy listening through.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it
>>>>>> may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there
>>>>>> are so few differnces, no change would occur.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
>>>>> sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
>>>>> enjoyment,
>>>>> not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.
>>>>>
>>>> How do you know if you've never bothered to try?
>>>>
>>>> Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
>>>> several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have
>>>> the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to
>>>> put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?
>>>>
>>> First of all, my time is valuable.
>>> There goes the several hundred saved right there.
>>> Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation
>>> for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000.
>>>
>> What speakers do you own?
>> Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP?
>> At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although
>> there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K.
>>
>>
>
> Vandersteen 4's
>
> I will have to replace them when I move. No room, and the overseas freight
> charge will
> be outrageous. And the original boxes were ruined in a flood.
I must have missed it, where are you moving to?

If you get a chance the NHT's look to be amazing.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> duh! said Mikey, while noshing on a plateful of cockroaches.
>
>> > Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred
>> > dollars".
>
>> Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons
>> involved
>> in high end audio.
>
> Oh greatly stupid one, you're engaging in a fallacy that has been
> explained
> to you many times before. Suffice it to say, for the sake of repetition,
> that "several hundred dollars" is not a factor for people who buy
> high-priced equipment. As a point of reference, they also buy $5000 skis,
> $80,000 cars, and $200,000 pieces of jewelry, among other items.
>
Those are not Normals.

>> > If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.
>
>> And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same sound
>> as
>> from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong.
>
> How did you banish reality so thoroughly from that hermetic dimension you
> inhabit? Inquiring minds want to know how you came to know what others are
> "convinced" of without them telling you.
>
Large healthy doses of fact. You should try it.

>> > God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to
>> > alleviate your crushing idiocy?
>
> <no response from duh-Mikey>
>

How should I respond to another in your endless supply of insults?
You won't stop and you'll still be an asshole and a pig, and I'll still have
a better idea on how to assembel an audio system than you do.

> How many times have you seen "Forrest Gump"? Do you still tear up when
> Hanks drawls about the box of chocolates?

Do you still get all misty when it's time to renew your NAMBLA membership?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
>>>>>>>>> The other side has.....?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .... a system they enjoy listening through.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it
>>>>>>> may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that
>>>>>>> there are so few differnces, no change would occur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
>>>>>> sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
>>>>>> enjoyment,
>>>>>> not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know if you've never bothered to try?
>>>>>
>>>>> Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
>>>>> several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have
>>>>> the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to
>>>>> put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?
>>>>>
>>>> First of all, my time is valuable.
>>>> There goes the several hundred saved right there.
>>>> Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation
>>>> for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000.
>>>>
>>> What speakers do you own?
>>> Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP?
>>> At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although
>>> there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Vandersteen 4's
>>
>> I will have to replace them when I move. No room, and the overseas
>> freight charge will
>> be outrageous. And the original boxes were ruined in a flood.
> I must have missed it, where are you moving to?
>

I would rather not say too much about my personal life.

> If you get a chance the NHT's look to be amazing.

I will check to see if they are available anywhere near my destination.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
>>>>>>>> easy grabbing
>>>>>>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>>>>>>>>efforts.
>>>>>>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <sneer>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
>>>>>>>> more comical
>>>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
>>>>>>> but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
>>>>>>> don't got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>>>> NOT about science.
>>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>>
>>>> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
>>>> its just not about science.
>>>> its about enjoying the playback of music.
>>>> Its about enjoyment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
>>>
>> But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
>> to find a satisfying system.
>>No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
>>are hearing.
>

So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
else being equal, or even if that
satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
I don't agree with that at all.

Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > wrote in message
>>>>>> > ink.net...
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>>> >> ...
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
>>>>>> >>> easy
>>>>>> >>> grabbing
>>>>>> >>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>>>>> >>>>efforts.
>>>>>> >>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> <sneer>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
>>>>>> >>> any
>>>>> more
>>>>>> >>> comical
>>>>>> >>> than that.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I
>>>>>> >> suppose, but
>>>>>> >> not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
>>>>>> >> don't
>>>>>> >> got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>>>> > NOT about science.
>>>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
>>>>> Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
>>>>> We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate
>>>> religious rituals.
>>>>
>>> Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT.
>>> I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I
>>> require.
>>> I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't
>>> exist.
>>>
>>
>> Just listen sighted, if you don't hear any
>> differences, fine.
> That's the problem, sighted listening is least likely to keep me from
> being swayed by bias.
>
You are certainly correct, that IS your problem.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
>>>>>>>>> easy grabbing
>>>>>>>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>>>>>>>>>efforts.
>>>>>>>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <sneer>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
>>>>>>>>> any more comical
>>>>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
>>>>>>>> but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially,
>>>>>>>> "we don't got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>>>>> NOT about science.
>>>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
>>>>> its just not about science.
>>>>> its about enjoying the playback of music.
>>>>> Its about enjoyment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
>>>>
>>> But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
>>> to find a satisfying system.
>>>No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
>>>are hearing.
>>
>
> So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
> DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
> else being equal, or even if that
> satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
> I don't agree with that at all.
>
> Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.
I have no need, I know what I'm getting.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
>>>>>>>>>> easy grabbing
>>>>>>>>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>>>>>>>>>>efforts.
>>>>>>>>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <sneer>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
>>>>>>>>>> any more comical
>>>>>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I
>>>>>>>>> suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is
>>>>>>>>> essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>>>>>> NOT about science.
>>>>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
>>>>>> its just not about science.
>>>>>> its about enjoying the playback of music.
>>>>>> Its about enjoyment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
>>>>>
>>>> But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
>>>> to find a satisfying system.
>>>>No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
>>>>are hearing.
>>>
>>
>> So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
>> DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
>> else being equal, or even if that
>> satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
>> I don't agree with that at all.
>>
>> Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.
> I have no need, I know what I'm getting.

You ASSUME you know what you are getting.

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
: ...
: <snipss> you still haven't figure out that it's
: >>>>>>> NOT about science.
: >>>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
: >>>>> its just not about science.
: >>>>> its about enjoying the playback of music.
: >>>>> Its about enjoyment.
: >>>>>
: >>>>>
: >>>> The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
: >>>>
: >>> But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
: >>> to find a satisfying system.
: >>>No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
: >>>are hearing.
: >>
: >
: > So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
: > DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
: > else being equal, or even if that
: > satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
: > I don't agree with that at all.
: >
: > Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.
: I have no need, I know what I'm getting.

When we want to study a system, we soon come to realize nearly every
system is an open system. Thus, if one wants to establish correlations,
hopefully causally linked, it is necessary to keep many circumstantial
parameters that may be deemed of influence controlled. Ideally, all of 'm,
but that presupposes we _do_ know all possible influences, which is not
usually the case.

This is essentially the divide and conquer strategy in scientific research.
It leads to specialization and a sizeable output of findings and models in
all fields of research. So much so, that even a specialist has a hard time
keeping up with the ongoings in his/her field. It is also why at any given time,
there is no homogenous, more or less complete model of the research
field. There are definitions, axioma's, basic 'undisputed models', then several
tentatively proposed new/extention models, finally a wealth of puzzling/
exiting/hard to belief research results that have yet to be encompassed in
the 'big picture'.

From this, it must be clear, there is no such thing as _science says_.
More accurate would be: _current findings seem to indicate_ , followed
by a selection of research results that the speaker happens to favour :-)

A controlled parameter setting, part of methodology and protocol of some
experiment, when dealing with humans, includes doubleblind administering/
setting as there is then no way, directly or indirectly, that the test
participants
can be influenced by knowing what is administered/set up at any moment.

Now we come to the all important part: getting the results in :) This is where
the 'hard science' has all the advantages, that is, measurements with ever
more precise/less invasive/process changing equipment can give a wealth of
results.
The number of -to be controlled- parameters is not too bad. And last but not
least, there is repeatability. Good fortune then for physics, chemistry,
electronics.
Less so for biology as the number of parameters is rather large, but the results
can at least be measured. As Ludovic has repeatedly pointed out, the dbt
test results in medicine are based on observed results, not _reported effects_.

Scientific research that deals with subjective evaluation is much worse off.
large quantity of parameters, many _inherently_ noncontrollable, not much to
measure, quantify, repeatability often problematic. Hence a large body of
different models, known to be 'ok' within some restrictions or with otherwise
limited scope, no unified theories by any stretch of the imagination.

What makes audio interesting in this respect is that it is at the crossroads of
different disciplines, using different modeling, different strategies.
It therefore makes sense to have a multidisciplinary approach in audio,
or results are bound to be erratic to some degree. And this starts with
proper protocol setup.

I hope it is now selfevident that it is rather a long stretch from
what science entails to say:

with the ABX protocol, no differences could be established ->
there are thus no differences, no possible preferences
between A and B. this is now an established fact.

RB.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
>>>>>>>>>>> easy grabbing
>>>>>>>>>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>efforts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <sneer>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
>>>>>>>>>>> any more comical
>>>>>>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I
>>>>>>>>>> suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is
>>>>>>>>>> essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>>>>>>> NOT about science.
>>>>>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
>>>>>>> its just not about science.
>>>>>>> its about enjoying the playback of music.
>>>>>>> Its about enjoyment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
>>>>> to find a satisfying system.
>>>>>No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think
>>>>>they are hearing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
>>> DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
>>> else being equal, or even if that
>>> satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
>>> I don't agree with that at all.
>>>
>>> Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.
>> I have no need, I know what I'm getting.
>
> You ASSUME you know what you are getting.
Oooooh so close, but no.
I get good information from which to make a good decision from.
Given that there are so few differences anyway, I'm looking for build
quality and features, since it's almost a given, that it will sound right.
I'm not getting tubes after all.

I'd already been introduced to the perils of sighted listening before I ever
heard of ABX for audio.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
>>>>>>>>>>>> easy grabbing
>>>>>>>>>>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>efforts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <sneer>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
>>>>>>>>>>>> any more comical
>>>>>>>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I
>>>>>>>>>>> suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is
>>>>>>>>>>> essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>>>>>>>> NOT about science.
>>>>>>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
>>>>>>>> its just not about science.
>>>>>>>> its about enjoying the playback of music.
>>>>>>>> Its about enjoyment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
>>>>>> to find a satisfying system.
>>>>>>No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think
>>>>>>they are hearing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
>>>> DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
>>>> else being equal, or even if that
>>>> satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
>>>> I don't agree with that at all.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals,
>>>> yourself.
>>> I have no need, I know what I'm getting.
>>
>> You ASSUME you know what you are getting.
> Oooooh so close, but no.
> I get good information from which to make a good decision from.
> Given that there are so few differences anyway, I'm looking for build
> quality and features, since it's almost a given, that it will sound right.
> I'm not getting tubes after all.
>
> I'd already been introduced to the perils of sighted listening before I
> ever heard of ABX for audio.

Why don't you go beyond just having heard of it?
Like use it for making decisions.
DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for
having done it yourself.

[[email protected]]

Ruud Broens wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> :
> : "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : <snipss> you still haven't figure out that it's
> : >>>>>>> NOT about science.
> : >>>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
> : >>>>>
> : >>>>> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
> : >>>>> its just not about science.
> : >>>>> its about enjoying the playback of music.
> : >>>>> Its about enjoyment.
> : >>>>>
> : >>>>>
> : >>>> The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
> : >>>>
> : >>> But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
> : >>> to find a satisfying system.
> : >>>No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
> : >>>are hearing.
> : >>
> : >
> : > So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
> : > DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
> : > else being equal, or even if that
> : > satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
> : > I don't agree with that at all.
> : >
> : > Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.
> : I have no need, I know what I'm getting.
>
> When we want to study a system, we soon come to realize nearly every
> system is an open system. Thus, if one wants to establish correlations,
> hopefully causally linked, it is necessary to keep many circumstantial
> parameters that may be deemed of influence controlled. Ideally, all of 'm,
> but that presupposes we _do_ know all possible influences, which is not
> usually the case.
>
> This is essentially the divide and conquer strategy in scientific research.
> It leads to specialization and a sizeable output of findings and models in
> all fields of research. So much so, that even a specialist has a hard time
> keeping up with the ongoings in his/her field. It is also why at any given time,
> there is no homogenous, more or less complete model of the research
> field. There are definitions, axioma's, basic 'undisputed models', then several
> tentatively proposed new/extention models, finally a wealth of puzzling/
> exiting/hard to belief research results that have yet to be encompassed in
> the 'big picture'.
>
> From this, it must be clear, there is no such thing as _science says_.
> More accurate would be: _current findings seem to indicate_ , followed
> by a selection of research results that the speaker happens to favour :-)
>
> A controlled parameter setting, part of methodology and protocol of some
> experiment, when dealing with humans, includes doubleblind administering/
> setting as there is then no way, directly or indirectly, that the test
> participants
> can be influenced by knowing what is administered/set up at any moment.
>
> Now we come to the all important part: getting the results in :) This is where
> the 'hard science' has all the advantages, that is, measurements with ever
> more precise/less invasive/process changing equipment can give a wealth of
> results.
> The number of -to be controlled- parameters is not too bad. And last but not
> least, there is repeatability. Good fortune then for physics, chemistry,
> electronics.
> Less so for biology as the number of parameters is rather large, but the results
> can at least be measured. As Ludovic has repeatedly pointed out, the dbt
> test results in medicine are based on observed results, not _reported effects_.
>
> Scientific research that deals with subjective evaluation is much worse off.
> large quantity of parameters, many _inherently_ noncontrollable, not much to
> measure, quantify, repeatability often problematic. Hence a large body of
> different models, known to be 'ok' within some restrictions or with otherwise
> limited scope, no unified theories by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> What makes audio interesting in this respect is that it is at the crossroads of
> different disciplines, using different modeling, different strategies.
> It therefore makes sense to have a multidisciplinary approach in audio,
> or results are bound to be erratic to some degree. And this starts with
> proper protocol setup.
>
> I hope it is now selfevident that it is rather a long stretch from
> what science entails to say:
>
> with the ABX protocol, no differences could be established ->
> there are thus no differences, no possible preferences
> between A and B. this is now an established fact.
>
> RB.
______________________________________

I read with interest your erudite and well- written message. I fear
that it will fall on deaf ears.
You're not in the sphere of rational argument.. You're dealing with
magical thinking. Like this: "I learnt at school that there is an
equation for auditory wave progression - so there must be a formula for
deciding which component will play my music best."
Hurrah I found it.. It is called ABX. It confirms that differences I
have never been able to hear do not exist. This makes me feel good. I
always knew those golden ears were just trying to put me down.
Now I can show them what science is. I'll go to my Public Library get a
string of references with "audio" or "listening" in the title and call
them "scholarly references to ABX" No mention of ABX in them? Who is
checking?"
Well I checked and found not a single published reference in any mag.
or journal where majority of an ABXing panel heard a difference
between ANY comparable components when music was played. This challenge
has been on the web for the last four years and still is. All we get is
ridiculous catalogues of irrelevancies like the one that opened this
thread.
Simple minds just will not face the simple truth. We're all different,
We all have different abilities and different training/experience and
we all have different expectations from music reproduction. If I heard
or did not hear something does not mean that someone else will hear or
not hear in unison with me..
Amplifiers are physical objects, Some of their properties can be
measured, So are violins. If a virtuoso tells me that he hears
differences between them I'll take his opinion. I wii not ask him to
compete with NYOB in a phony "test" that has never been properly
researched and validated to show that it does help to show differences
rather than obliterate them. To show that it WORKS..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > duh! said Mikey, while noshing on a plateful of cockroaches.
> >
> >> > Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred
> >> > dollars".
> >
> >> Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons
> >> involved
> >> in high end audio.
> >
> > Oh greatly stupid one, you're engaging in a fallacy that has been
> > explained
> > to you many times before. Suffice it to say, for the sake of repetition,
> > that "several hundred dollars" is not a factor for people who buy
> > high-priced equipment. As a point of reference, they also buy $5000
skis,
> > $80,000 cars, and $200,000 pieces of jewelry, among other items.
> >
> Those are not Normals.
>
> >> > If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.
> >
> >> And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same
sound
> >> as
> >> from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong.
> >
> > How did you banish reality so thoroughly from that hermetic dimension
you
> > inhabit? Inquiring minds want to know how you came to know what others
are
> > "convinced" of without them telling you.
> >
> Large healthy doses of fact. You should try it.
>
> >> > God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to
> >> > alleviate your crushing idiocy?
> >
> > <no response from duh-Mikey>
> >
>
> How should I respond to another in your endless supply of insults?
> You won't stop and you'll still be an asshole and a pig, and I'll still
have
> a better idea on how to assembel an audio system than you do.
>
Mikey, your Existence is an insult to the whole human race.
You are the Missing Link that connects us with the apes.
If it weren't for you, we could all imagine we were created in the image of
God.
But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who crawled out of the
mud on spiny fins, and belched rank air from a bladder.

> > How many times have you seen "Forrest Gump"? Do you still tear up when
> > Hanks drawls about the box of chocolates?
>
> Do you still get all misty when it's time to renew your NAMBLA membership?
>
What are you doing with my sheep?

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life
>>>>>>>>>>>>> within easy grabbing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>efforts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The other side has.....?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sneer>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get any more comical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I
>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is
>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>>>>>>>>>>> NOT about science.
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
>>>>>>>>> its just not about science.
>>>>>>>>> its about enjoying the playback of music.
>>>>>>>>> Its about enjoyment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
>>>>>>> to find a satisfying system.
>>>>>>>No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think
>>>>>>>they are hearing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
>>>>> DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
>>>>> else being equal, or even if that
>>>>> satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
>>>>> I don't agree with that at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals,
>>>>> yourself.
>>>> I have no need, I know what I'm getting.
>>>
>>> You ASSUME you know what you are getting.
>> Oooooh so close, but no.
>> I get good information from which to make a good decision from.
>> Given that there are so few differences anyway, I'm looking for build
>> quality and features, since it's almost a given, that it will sound
>> right. I'm not getting tubes after all.
>>
>> I'd already been introduced to the perils of sighted listening before I
>> ever heard of ABX for audio.
>
> Why don't you go beyond just having heard of it?

Been there done that.

> Like use it for making decisions.

What for? I know what I want and how to get it. I pay for the best
perfromance there is, not the what it looks like, but what it does.

> DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for
> having done it yourself.

I have done it myself. Now I know better.
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> Mikey, your Existence is an insult to the whole human
> race.
> You are the Missing Link that connects us with the apes.
> If it weren't for you, we could all imagine we were
> created in the image of God.
> But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who
> crawled out of the mud on spiny fins, and belched rank
> air from a bladder.

Isn't it good to see Morien doing what he can to reduce the
number of personal attacks around here?

;-)

[paul packer]

On 3 Nov 2005 21:42:40 -0800, wrote:


>I read with interest your erudite and well- written message. I fear
>that it will fall on deaf ears.
>You're not in the sphere of rational argument.. You're dealing with
>magical thinking. Like this: "I learnt at school that there is an
>equation for auditory wave progression - so there must be a formula for
>deciding which component will play my music best."
>Hurrah I found it.. It is called ABX. It confirms that differences I
>have never been able to hear do not exist. This makes me feel good. I
>always knew those golden ears were just trying to put me down.
>Now I can show them what science is. I'll go to my Public Library get a
>string of references with "audio" or "listening" in the title and call
>them "scholarly references to ABX" No mention of ABX in them? Who is
>checking?"
>Well I checked and found not a single published reference in any mag.
>or journal where majority of an ABXing panel heard a difference
>between ANY comparable components when music was played. This challenge
>has been on the web for the last four years and still is. All we get is
>ridiculous catalogues of irrelevancies like the one that opened this
>thread.
>Simple minds just will not face the simple truth. We're all different,
>We all have different abilities and different training/experience and
>we all have different expectations from music reproduction. If I heard
>or did not hear something does not mean that someone else will hear or
>not hear in unison with me..
>Amplifiers are physical objects, Some of their properties can be
>measured, So are violins. If a virtuoso tells me that he hears
>differences between them I'll take his opinion. I wii not ask him to
>compete with NYOB in a phony "test" that has never been properly
>researched and validated to show that it does help to show differences
>rather than obliterate them. To show that it WORKS..
>Ludovic Mirabel

Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting. Of course no-one in the ABX camp
will applaud it, or likely even read it through, but that's their
loss. Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day it will
be common.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 06:41:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>> But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who
>> crawled out of the mud on spiny fins, and belched rank
>> air from a bladder.
>
>Isn't it good to see Morien doing what he can to reduce the
>number of personal attacks around here?

You don't believe Mike can belch rank air from his bladder?
Ask him to show you. It's one of his best party tricks. :-)

[John Richards]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>

Snip...

>
> I read with interest your erudite and well- written message. I fear
> that it will fall on deaf ears.
> You're not in the sphere of rational argument.. You're dealing with
> magical thinking. Like this: "I learnt at school that there is an
> equation for auditory wave progression - so there must be a formula for
> deciding which component will play my music best."
> Hurrah I found it.. It is called ABX. It confirms that differences I
> have never been able to hear do not exist. This makes me feel good. I
> always knew those golden ears were just trying to put me down.
> Now I can show them what science is. I'll go to my Public Library get a
> string of references with "audio" or "listening" in the title and call
> them "scholarly references to ABX" No mention of ABX in them? Who is
> checking?"

Before I replied to the original post I did a Google search on the first
listed reference in that post and ended up on an ABX web page. Not only was
that reference there but the entire list - he obviously just copied and
pasted from the ABX page. Why trek all the way down to the Public Library
and actually do some independent research when the ABXers have already done
the research for him?

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message


> Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting.

Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws,
and you have no practical background in the topic so you
can't spot the factual errors.

>Of course no-one in
> the ABX camp will applaud it, or likely even read it
> through, but that's their loss.

It takes a lot of cups of coffee to retain consciousness
while reading Ludovic's highly repetitive and bogus posts.

> Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day
> it will be common.

Paul, you just flunked another IQ test.

Maybe there is some chemical that will energize your
synapses to the point where bilge like Ludovic's will start
wrinkling your nose.

Ask Paul Domer, in the past he's bragged about his
self-experimentation along these lines. Of course, we're
talking Paul Dormer, so many of us know that none of his
experiments ever bore what most would call fruit.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 06:41:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who
>>> crawled out of the mud on spiny fins, and belched rank
>>> air from a bladder.
>>
>> Isn't it good to see Morien doing what he can to reduce
>> the number of personal attacks around here?
>
> You don't believe Mike can belch rank air from his
> bladder?

Irreelvant. Paul, we're talking about Morien's obvious
hypocrisy here, as well as your's.

You've got your nose how far up Morien's and Middius'
schtick and you don't say *what* about all of their
name-calling?

> Ask him to show you. It's one of his best party tricks.
> :-)

Gosh this forum was a lot more fun before Middius chased
most of the adults off.

[George Middius]

Looks like the title I put in this sub-thread was prescient.

>> DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for
>> having done it yourself.

>I have done it myself. Now I know better.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting that "tests" are for losers. ;-)



..
..
..

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Nov 2005 21:42:40 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>I read with interest your erudite and well- written message. I fear
>>that it will fall on deaf ears.
>>You're not in the sphere of rational argument.. You're dealing with
>>magical thinking. Like this: "I learnt at school that there is an
>>equation for auditory wave progression - so there must be a formula for
>>deciding which component will play my music best."
>>Hurrah I found it.. It is called ABX. It confirms that differences I
>>have never been able to hear do not exist. This makes me feel good. I
>>always knew those golden ears were just trying to put me down.
>>Now I can show them what science is. I'll go to my Public Library get a
>>string of references with "audio" or "listening" in the title and call
>>them "scholarly references to ABX" No mention of ABX in them? Who is
>>checking?"
>>Well I checked and found not a single published reference in any mag.
>>or journal where majority of an ABXing panel heard a difference
>>between ANY comparable components when music was played. This challenge
>>has been on the web for the last four years and still is. All we get is
>>ridiculous catalogues of irrelevancies like the one that opened this
>>thread.
>>Simple minds just will not face the simple truth. We're all different,
>>We all have different abilities and different training/experience and
>>we all have different expectations from music reproduction. If I heard
>>or did not hear something does not mean that someone else will hear or
>>not hear in unison with me..
>>Amplifiers are physical objects, Some of their properties can be
>>measured, So are violins. If a virtuoso tells me that he hears
>>differences between them I'll take his opinion. I wii not ask him to
>>compete with NYOB in a phony "test" that has never been properly
>>researched and validated to show that it does help to show differences
>>rather than obliterate them. To show that it WORKS..
>>Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting. Of course no-one in the ABX camp
> will applaud it, or likely even read it through, but that's their
> loss. Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day it will
> be common.
>
Why would anyone applaud Ludo lies?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting.
>
> Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws,
> and you have no practical background in the topic so you
> can't spot the factual errors.
>
> >Of course no-one in
> > the ABX camp will applaud it, or likely even read it
> > through, but that's their loss.
>
> It takes a lot of cups of coffee to retain consciousness
> while reading Ludovic's highly repetitive and bogus posts.
>
> > Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day
> > it will be common.
>
> Paul, you just flunked another IQ test.
>
> Maybe there is some chemical that will energize your
> synapses to the point where bilge like Ludovic's will start
> wrinkling your nose.
>
> Ask Paul Domer, in the past he's bragged about his
> self-experimentation along these lines. Of course, we're
> talking Paul Dormer, so many of us know that none of his
> experiments ever bore what most would call fruit.
__________________________________________________ ______
Paul Packer said:

> > Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting.
Arny answered:
> Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws,
> and you have no practical background in the topic so you
> can't spot the factual errors.
>

Arny, how about a short list of these "logical flaws" and "factual
errors". Don't you at all care to educate your readers by lucid
examples rather than bare assertions? .
And while you're at it: when will you come up with that one reference
to an
ABX "test" published in any journal or mag. with a positive outcome:
"Yes , we heard the difference". You had 4 decades so far to do it,
Still counting.
Ludovic Mirabel
How did someone called Paul Dormer sin against you? Just curious.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Arny, how about a short list of these "logical flaws" and
> "factual errors".

Listing them for the zillionth time would be a cosmic waste
of my time, just like they were the last zillion times I did
it, and the last zillion times that people like Pinkerton
and Sullivan did it.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
nk.net


> Why would anyone applaud Ludo lies?

Good question for people like Morein and Packer who do
things like this all the time.

[paul packer]

On 4 Nov 2005 16:15:14 -0800, wrote:


>How did someone called Paul Dormer sin against you? Just curious.

He didn't. Arnie just doesn't like Pauls. :-)

[paul packer]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:54:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>You've got your nose how far up Morien's and Middius'
>schtick and you don't say *what* about all of their
>name-calling?

Arnie, remember when you were at school, and someone played a trick on
you, and you didn't think it was funny, ot just didn't get it, and
therefore didn't laugh but rather shouted and grizzled and stamped
your feet, and in the end went off to report everyone to the vice
principal? Remember that? And remember how the next day it was worse,
that the kids teased you twice as much, and there were twice as many
kids? Remember that? And you still didn't get why everyone was picking
on you and laughing, so you went off to tell the vice principal again?
Does that all ring a bell? Well, it's still happening, and for the
same reason.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:54:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> You've got your nose how far up Morien's and Middius'
>> schtick and you don't say *what* about all of their
>> name-calling?
>
> Arnie, remember when you were at school, and someone
> played a trick on you, and you didn't think it was funny,
> ot just didn't get it, and therefore didn't laugh but
> rather shouted and grizzled and stamped your feet, and in
> the end went off to report everyone to the vice
> principal? Remember that?

Never happened.

> And remember how the next day
> it was worse, that the kids teased you twice as much, and
> there were twice as many kids? Remember that? And you
> still didn't get why everyone was picking on you and
> laughing, so you went off to tell the vice principal
> again? Does that all ring a bell? Well, it's still
> happening, and for the same reason.

Not even a good fantasy, let alone the truth.

You're just a delusional, posturing, dissembling hypocrite,
Paul.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > Arny, how about a short list of these "logical flaws" and
> > "factual errors".
>
> Listing them for the zillionth time would be a cosmic waste
> of my time, just like they were the last zillion times I did
> it, and the last zillion times that people like Pinkerton
> and Sullivan did it.

__________________________________________________ __
I asked:
> > Arny, how about a short list of these "logical flaws" and
> > "factual errors".

Arny answered:
> Listing them for the zillionth time would be a cosmic waste
> of my time, just like they were the last zillion times I did
> it, and the last zillion times that people like Pinkerton
> and Sullivan did it.

Arny, Arny, do you really think that this kind of silliness works?
Or that it makes you look anything but what you are in this instance
(and not a few others)- a cheap card sharper?
Do you think that shouting "zillions" will befuddle everyone and let
you go scot free? Never mind "zillions". Just quote one or two . No
time Arny? Too busy to write message after message to several forums
till suddenly the clock rings and Arny has to run in case he gets late
for dinner.
As for your pals: Last contribution from Pinkerton was to cut my
posting into paragraphs and add "You're a lying ****bag" as his only
comment at the end of each one. By your friends you'll know them!
Remember:I did not hang Pinkerton around your neck. You're calling on
him to help.
Sullivan's final contribution to "zillions" was to say that he
killfiles me.. A great help to you in listing my "logical and factual
errors".
By the way: you omitted the final paragraph of my short message:
"And while you're at it: when will you come up with that one reference
to an ABX "test" published in any journal or mag. with a positive
outcome:
"Yes , we heard the difference". You had 4 decades so far to do it,
Still counting"
By a strange coincidence it is exactly the same point that sent
Pinkerton into one of his British soccer hooligan fits and started
Sullivan' kilfiling me.
Regards. Better luck next time..

Ludovic Mirabel

[paul packer]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 06:38:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>You're just a delusional, posturing, dissembling hypocrite,
>Paul.

So I'm not on your Christmas list again this year?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said to The Big ****:

> So I'm not on your Christmas list again this year?

You do not want to know what Arnii gives his "friends" for Xmas. Trust me.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:23:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
nk.net
>
>
>> Why would anyone applaud Ludo lies?
>
>Good question for people like Morein and Packer who do
>things like this all the time.

Does my ability to recognise a simple axiom bother you?

[Clyde Slick]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 06:38:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>You're just a delusional, posturing, dissembling hypocrite,
>>Paul.
>
> So I'm not on your Christmas list again this year?

No XMas turds for you, lucky guy, you
will have to do with a lump of coal.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:16:25 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said to The Big ****:
>
>> So I'm not on your Christmas list again this year?
>
>You do not want to know what Arnii gives his "friends" for Xmas. Trust me.

Apparently it's not something I have to worry about.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> nk.net
>
>
> > Why would anyone applaud Ludo lies?
>
> Good question for people like Morein and Packer who do
> things like this all the time.

I know you're desperate for an answer. But must you
follow the lead of the stupidest in your camp slandering and insulting
when at a loss? What a shameful way to run away from an argument.
Have you really no shame?
Ludovic Mirabel

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Arny Krueger wrote:
: > > wrote in message
: > nk.net
: >
: >
: > > Why would anyone applaud Ludo lies?
: >
: > Good question for people like Morein and Packer who do
: > things like this all the time.
:
: I know you're desperate for an answer. But must you
: follow the lead of the stupidest in your camp slandering and insulting
: when at a loss? What a shameful way to run away from an argument.
: Have you really no shame?
: Ludovic Mirabel
:
heh, exchange of arguments quickly eroding to s & i
can be seen on a day to day basis here on RAO ;-)

here's three things you should all have found out,
observing women,
stricktly scientificcally speaking

humour saves the day (what it does for nights - sorry, sss)

adapt

don't worry about winning or projected ego,
just enjoy the game

... this works in a surprising lot of scenarios, guys.

as i mentioned before, life's circumstances set you up
with several shaped perceptive paths, cognitive stances,
modes of thought. these can be likened to resonant circuits.
that is, when confronted with some situation, it 'rings a bell',
sets a 'response mode' or scenario into action.

"..must you follow the lead..?"

unless you place your actions and thoughts in the focus of
consciousness, yes ! sorta like Pavlov
old habits die hard, new habits soon became second nature.

'ask dr.' Rudy
:-)

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net
>>
>>
>> > Why would anyone applaud Ludo lies?
>>
>> Good question for people like Morein and Packer who do
>> things like this all the time.
>
> I know you're desperate for an answer. But must you
> follow the lead of the stupidest in your camp slandering and insulting
> when at a loss? What a shameful way to run away from an argument.
> Have you really no shame?
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
It's clear you don't have ny shame, or any long term memory.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:59:07 +0100, "Ruud Broens" >
wrote:


>heh, exchange of arguments quickly eroding to s & i
>can be seen on a day to day basis here on RAO ;-)
>
>here's three things you should all have found out,
> observing women,
> stricktly scientificcally speaking
>
>humour saves the day (what it does for nights - sorry, sss)
>
>adapt
>
>don't worry about winning or projected ego,
> just enjoy the game
>
>.. this works in a surprising lot of scenarios, guys.
>
>as i mentioned before, life's circumstances set you up
>with several shaped perceptive paths, cognitive stances,
>modes of thought. these can be likened to resonant circuits.
>that is, when confronted with some situation, it 'rings a bell',
>sets a 'response mode' or scenario into action.
>
>"..must you follow the lead..?"
>
>unless you place your actions and thoughts in the focus of
>consciousness, yes ! sorta like Pavlov
>old habits die hard, new habits soon became second nature.
>
>'ask dr.' Rudy
>:-)

This seems like a potentially interesting post which however means
nothing to me. Why don't you try rephrasing, Ruud?

[Lionel]

In >, paul packer wrote :

> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:59:07 +0100, "Ruud Broens" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>heh, exchange of arguments quickly eroding to s & i
>>can be seen on a day to day basis here on RAO ;-)
>>
>>here's three things you should all have found out,
>> observing women,
>> stricktly scientificcally speaking
>>
>>humour saves the day (what it does for nights - sorry, sss)
>>
>>adapt
>>
>>don't worry about winning or projected ego,
>> just enjoy the game
>>
>>.. this works in a surprising lot of scenarios, guys.
>>
>>as i mentioned before, life's circumstances set you up
>>with several shaped perceptive paths, cognitive stances,
>>modes of thought. these can be likened to resonant circuits.
>>that is, when confronted with some situation, it 'rings a bell',
>>sets a 'response mode' or scenario into action.
>>
>>"..must you follow the lead..?"
>>
>>unless you place your actions and thoughts in the focus of
>>consciousness, yes ! sorta like Pavlov
>>old habits die hard, new habits soon became second nature.
>>
>>'ask dr.' Rudy
>>:-)
>
> This seems like a potentially interesting post which however means
> nothing to me. Why don't you try rephrasing, Ruud?

:-(

[Ruud Broens]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
: In >, paul packer wrote :
:
: > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:59:07 +0100, "Ruud Broens" >
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: >>heh, exchange of arguments quickly eroding to s & i
: >>can be seen on a day to day basis here on RAO ;-)
: >>
: >>here's three things you should all have found out,
: >> observing women,
: >> stricktly scientificcally speaking
: >>
: >>humour saves the day (what it does for nights - sorry, sss)
: >>
: >>adapt
: >>
: >>don't worry about winning or projected ego,
: >> just enjoy the game
: >>
: >>.. this works in a surprising lot of scenarios, guys.
: >>
: >>as i mentioned before, life's circumstances set you up
: >>with several shaped perceptive paths, cognitive stances,
: >>modes of thought. these can be likened to resonant circuits.
: >>that is, when confronted with some situation, it 'rings a bell',
: >>sets a 'response mode' or scenario into action.
: >>
: >>"..must you follow the lead..?"
: >>
: >>unless you place your actions and thoughts in the focus of
: >>consciousness, yes ! sorta like Pavlov
: >>old habits die hard, new habits soon became second nature.
: >>
: >>'ask dr.' Rudy
: >>:-)
: >
: > This seems like a potentially interesting post which however means
: > nothing to me. Why don't you try rephrasing, Ruud?
:
: :-(
:
uh, Paul, have to agree with Lionel there :-)
we delegate plenty to routine, even in cases it's not necessary or
the best way to go .. all wrapped up in one sentence now.
Rudy

[Ruud Broens]

: we delegate plenty to routine, even in cases it's not necessary or
: the best way to go .. all wrapped up in one sentence now.
: Rudy

: -----------------the insult routine in action----
example (this week on abse):
Re: Diesel Boat Engine Sound

"NunYa Bidness" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:11:44 +1100, "Phil Allison"
> > Gave us:
>
> >
> >"Rich, Under the Affluence"
> > Phil Allison wrote:
> >>
> >>> ** Given that you are a tedious ****** ......
> >>
> >> And since all you do is bitch, gripe, complain, grouse, pule, whine,
> >> snivel, and cast aspersions, I'm going to go out of character here:
> >>
> >> *PLONK*
> >
> >
> >** Next time, dont be so long winded about it.
> >
> > A simple "bye" will do.
>
> You could be a bit more retarded, but not today.

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mungo"
> >
> > Thank you all for your helpful tips and advice, I was directed to this
> > news
> > group and told the people would be helpful and friendly???.
>
>
> ** Your ****wit query was very misguided.
>
> Try " alt.scale-model-boat.reptiles.******s "
>
> My 20 years plus personal experience with RC boats and RC boat clubs /
> associations has given me great insight into the prevailing mindset.
>
>
>
>
>
> ....... Phil

In what way was my query misguided you ****ing anal retarded cum gargling
cock jockey??????

Thanks again
.............................
Re: Out of control

Mungo had nothing wrong to say until you insulted hiim first. It was a rapid
downhill spiral after that.
To that end, welcome to the plonk file. Rant as much as you wish. I won't be
listening to your foul tirades anymore.
Nothing against your countrymen, but *you* are an Aushole.

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Oppie"
> >
> > Phil - and I will continue to top post (just as a matter of preference)
to
> > annyoy you <G>
>
--------:-) --------:-)

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> nk.net
> >>
> >>
> >> > Why would anyone applaud Ludo lies?
> >>
> >> Good question for people like Morein and Packer who do
> >> things like this all the time.
> >
> > I know you're desperate for an answer. But must you
> > follow the lead of the stupidest in your camp slandering and insulting
> > when at a loss? What a shameful way to run away from an argument.
> > Have you really no shame?
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> It's clear you don't have ny shame, or any long term memory.

It seems Arny refuses to answer or to give a reference to a
single published ABX audio component comparison which did not interfere
with the panelists hearing differences. ( and if it does not allow
recognition of difference what earthly use is it in judging audio
components?)
It seems that he appointed you as his mouthpiece. Poor Arny. He
must be truly desperate to dig for this at the bottom of his barrel.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> nk.net
> >>
> >>
> >> > Why would anyone applaud Ludo lies?
> >>
> >> Good question for people like Morein and Packer who do
> >> things like this all the time.
> >
> > I know you're desperate for an answer. But must you
> > follow the lead of the stupidest in your camp slandering and insulting
> > when at a loss? What a shameful way to run away from an argument.
> > Have you really no shame?
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> It's clear you don't have ny shame, or any long term memory.

It seems Arny refuses to answer or to give a reference to a
single published ABX audio component comparison which did not interfere
with the panelists hearing differences. ( and if it does not allow
recognition of difference what earthly use is it in judging audio
components?)
It seems that he appointed you as his mouthpiece. Poor Arny. He
must be truly desperate to dig for this at the bottom of his barrel.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Clyde Slick]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> " emitted :
>
>>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>> > Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting.
>>>
>>> Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws,
>>> and you have no practical background in the topic so you
>>> can't spot the factual errors.
>>>
>>> >Of course no-one in
>>> > the ABX camp will applaud it, or likely even read it
>>> > through, but that's their loss.
>>>
>>> It takes a lot of cups of coffee to retain consciousness
>>> while reading Ludovic's highly repetitive and bogus posts.
>>>
>>> > Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day
>>> > it will be common.
>>>
>>> Paul, you just flunked another IQ test.
>>>
>>> Maybe there is some chemical that will energize your
>>> synapses to the point where bilge like Ludovic's will start
>>> wrinkling your nose.
>>>
>>> Ask Paul Domer, in the past he's bragged about his
>>> self-experimentation along these lines. Of course, we're
>>> talking Paul Dormer, so many of us know that none of his
>>> experiments ever bore what most would call fruit.
>>__________________________________________________ ______
>>Paul Packer said:
>>
>>> > Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting.
>>Arny answered:
>>> Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws,
>>> and you have no practical background in the topic so you
>>> can't spot the factual errors.
>>>
>>
>>Arny, how about a short list of these "logical flaws" and "factual
>>errors". Don't you at all care to educate your readers by lucid
>>examples rather than bare assertions? .
>>And while you're at it: when will you come up with that one reference
>>to an
>> ABX "test" published in any journal or mag. with a positive outcome:
>>"Yes , we heard the difference". You had 4 decades so far to do it,
>>Still counting.
>>Ludovic Mirabel
>>How did someone called Paul Dormer sin against you? Just curious.
>
> You should know by now - it takes just one disagreement with Krueger
> for him to harbour a lifelong grudge you. If you disagree twice,
> that's grounds for a ceaseless vendetta... fa****a... whetever people
> of his religious order call it.

Too bad Arny isn't Amish. Then we would have the benefit of his shunning us.

[Clyde Slick]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" emitted :
>
>>> You should know by now - it takes just one disagreement with Krueger
>>> for him to harbour a lifelong grudge you. If you disagree twice,
>>> that's grounds for a ceaseless vendetta... fa****a... whetever people
>>> of his religious order call it.
>>
>>Too bad Arny isn't Amish. Then we would have the benefit of his shunning
>>us.
>
> I don't know hardly nothin' about the Amish. Can you explain this to
> me please? :-)

Similar to Mennonites, but stricter.
Ethnic German offshoot of Christians.
Fundamentalist, sort of, but not like Baptist type Fudamnetalists
Old fashioned
They reject using electricity and automobiles,
Simple and unadorned clothing.
The antithesis of a 'blig bling' society.

They practice shunning those of their own order who are considered heretics.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/amish1.htm

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/amish.htm

http://www.amish.net/default.asp

http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5251.html

[Clyde Slick]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" :
>
>>Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:
>>
>>> you still haven't figure out that it's
>>> NOT about science.
>>
>>Nothing about duh-Mikey is remotely related to real science. He and Arnii
>>traffic in some kind of traveling-medicine-show version of sicciccneneece.
>
> That's right. They've been peddling snake oil for years.
>
>

yeah, but is their snake oil better or worse or
no different forom anyone else's?
Have you blind tested it?
Prove it!

[paul packer]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:40:47 +0100, "Ruud Broens" >
wrote:

>
>
>: we delegate plenty to routine, even in cases it's not necessary or
>: the best way to go .. all wrapped up in one sentence now.
>: Rudy
>
>: -----------------the insult routine in action----
>example (this week on abse):
>Re: Diesel Boat Engine Sound
>
>"NunYa Bidness" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:11:44 +1100, "Phil Allison"
>> > Gave us:
>>
>> >
>> >"Rich, Under the Affluence"
>> > Phil Allison wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> ** Given that you are a tedious ****** ......
>> >>
>> >> And since all you do is bitch, gripe, complain, grouse, pule, whine,
>> >> snivel, and cast aspersions, I'm going to go out of character here:
>> >>
>> >> *PLONK*
>> >
>> >
>> >** Next time, dont be so long winded about it.
>> >
>> > A simple "bye" will do.
>>
>> You could be a bit more retarded, but not today.
>
>"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "mungo"
>> >
>> > Thank you all for your helpful tips and advice, I was directed to this
>> > news
>> > group and told the people would be helpful and friendly???.
>>
>>
>> ** Your ****wit query was very misguided.
>>
>> Try " alt.scale-model-boat.reptiles.******s "
>>
>> My 20 years plus personal experience with RC boats and RC boat clubs /
>> associations has given me great insight into the prevailing mindset.

>> ....... Phil
>
>In what way was my query misguided you ****ing anal retarded cum gargling
>cock jockey??????
>
>Thanks again
>............................
>Re: Out of control
>
>Mungo had nothing wrong to say until you insulted hiim first. It was a rapid
>downhill spiral after that.
>To that end, welcome to the plonk file. Rant as much as you wish. I won't be
>listening to your foul tirades anymore.
>Nothing against your countrymen, but *you* are an Aushole.
>
>"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...

Check aus.hi-fi for info on Phil Allison. A few message headers from
Phil should tell you all you need to know. But remember while reading
to hold a cross in front of you.

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Signal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > " emitted :
> >
> >>
> >>Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting.
> >>>
> >>> Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws,
> >>> and you have no practical background in the topic so you
> >>> can't spot the factual errors.
> >>>
> >>> >Of course no-one in
> >>> > the ABX camp will applaud it, or likely even read it
> >>> > through, but that's their loss.
> >>>
> >>> It takes a lot of cups of coffee to retain consciousness
> >>> while reading Ludovic's highly repetitive and bogus posts.
> >>>
> >>> > Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day
> >>> > it will be common.
> >>>
> >>> Paul, you just flunked another IQ test.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe there is some chemical that will energize your
> >>> synapses to the point where bilge like Ludovic's will start
> >>> wrinkling your nose.
> >>>
> >>> Ask Paul Domer, in the past he's bragged about his
> >>> self-experimentation along these lines. Of course, we're
> >>> talking Paul Dormer, so many of us know that none of his
> >>> experiments ever bore what most would call fruit.
> >>__________________________________________________ ______
> >>Paul Packer said:
> >>
> >>> > Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting.
> >>Arny answered:
> >>> Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws,
> >>> and you have no practical background in the topic so you
> >>> can't spot the factual errors.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Arny, how about a short list of these "logical flaws" and "factual
> >>errors". Don't you at all care to educate your readers by lucid
> >>examples rather than bare assertions? .
> >>And while you're at it: when will you come up with that one reference
> >>to an
> >> ABX "test" published in any journal or mag. with a positive outcome:
> >>"Yes , we heard the difference". You had 4 decades so far to do it,
> >>Still counting.
> >>Ludovic Mirabel
> >>How did someone called Paul Dormer sin against you? Just curious.
> >
> > You should know by now - it takes just one disagreement with Krueger
> > for him to harbour a lifelong grudge you. If you disagree twice,
> > that's grounds for a ceaseless vendetta... fa****a... whetever people
> > of his religious order call it.
>
__________________________________________________
Clyde Slick wrote:
> Too bad Arny isn't Amish. Then we would have the benefit of his shunning us.

But he is shunning... At least he is shunning any argument with me., He
no longer makes an effort to discuss or argue. He just condemns my
iniquity, the iniquity of the damned who dare to disagree with him..
He "needs coffee to stay awake reading my bilge". It seems the
bilge got in his eye and blinded him because he does not see fit to
flesh out his fatwa and pick a particularly bilgy sentence or two of
mine. Just to show the world the justice of his cause. He knows of
"zillions" of my logical and factual errors but he can not spare
the time to list one or two examples..Instead he defers to Pinkerton
and Sullivan who he says annihilated me (still no details) and finally
appoints his clown-prince as his intellectual mouthpiece-oracle..
And still not one reference to validation of ABX as a method to
distinguish between audio components playing music.
Just to fall in with his goading I republished two days ago my
left-right method of comparing components that he said made him
"laugh himself sick" once in the past. I hoped to hear the
brilliant expose and triumphant haha at the end - but no- Arny stays
silent as a tomb .
No laughs. Just bad temper.
Ludovic Mirabel

[George Middius]

PD said:

>>Ask Paul Domer, in the past he's bragged about his
>>self-experimentation along these lines. Of course, we're
>>talking Paul Dormer, so many of us know that none of his
>>experiments ever bore what most would call fruit.

>Anybody got a clue what the nonce is going on about here?

Arnii needs to be spanked again, and he's reaching out to you.


..
..
..

[George Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

>>>Nothing about duh-Mikey is remotely related to real science. He and Arnii
>>>traffic in some kind of traveling-medicine-show version of sicciccneneece.

>> That's right. They've been peddling snake oil for years.

>yeah, but is their snake oil better or worse or
>no different forom anyone else's?
>Have you blind tested it?
>Prove it!

Evidence suggests that Normals should avoid it at all costs. Look what it did to
duh-Mikey and Arnii Krooborg. One is a blithering idiot and the other is a
paranoid religious fanatic and pathological liar.





..
..
..

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:

>Check aus.hi-fi for info on Phil Allison. A few message headers from
>Phil should tell you all you need to know. But remember while reading
>to hold a cross in front of you.



Too bad, really.
Ill Phalluson actually knows a thing or two about audio electronics,
but he rarely shares his knowledge.

Just an endless stream of non-original, repetitive insults.

--

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

[George Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

>Ill Phalluson actually knows a thing or two about audio electronics,
>but he rarely shares his knowledge.

>Just an endless stream of non-original, repetitive insults.

That's typical of what you pinheads say when faced with real genius, Slick. It
amazes me that you tweakos are terrified of taking a blind test of your precious
tweako-freako gear. You know you'll fail, and Arnii Krooger is very smart. Get a
life.

Ignored post, note.


..
..
..

[Sander deWaal]

George "Micro" Middius a ecrit:


>Sander deWaal said:

>>Ill Phalluson actually knows a thing or two about audio electronics,
>>but he rarely shares his knowledge.

>>Just an endless stream of non-original, repetitive insults.

>That's typical of what you pinheads say when faced with real genius, Slick. It
>amazes me that you tweakos are terrified of taking a blind test of your precious
>tweako-freako gear. You know you'll fail, and Arnii Krooger is very smart. Get a
>life.


Ah, "George", it is hurt my eyeballs to much from laugh :-)
Does I reminded you off the "connoisseurs de vin" which you always
writes about, eh?


>Ignored post, note.


Love you two, sweetie :-)

--

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

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> nk.net
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Why would anyone applaud Ludo lies?
>> >>
>> >> Good question for people like Morein and Packer who do
>> >> things like this all the time.
>> >
>> > I know you're desperate for an answer. But must you
>> > follow the lead of the stupidest in your camp slandering and insulting
>> > when at a loss? What a shameful way to run away from an argument.
>> > Have you really no shame?
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> It's clear you don't have ny shame, or any long term memory.
>
> It seems Arny refuses to answer or to give a reference to a
> single published ABX audio component comparison which did not interfere
> with the panelists hearing differences. ( and if it does not allow
> recognition of difference what earthly use is it in judging audio
> components?)

It still hasn't occured to you that maybe the components did sound the same,
so that's the usefullness of it. Knowing that things tend to sound the smae
irrespective of the claims, is worth knowing.

> It seems that he appointed you as his mouthpiece.

We just happen to agree on this issue, we seldom comunicate on any issue.

Poor Arny. He
> must be truly desperate to dig for this at the bottom of his barrel.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
That's the way we feel about you.
You constantly post your screeds full of half truths and seem unable to get
it, you've lost. There's nothing to your rants except that they are rants.

There's nothing that's ever been demonstrated to be wrong with ABX as a
protocol which is why it is used so often by so many doing real audio
research.

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: George "Micro" Middius a ecrit:
:
:
: >Sander deWaal said:
:
: >>Ill Phalluson actually knows a thing or two about audio electronics,
: >>but he rarely shares his knowledge.
:
: >>Just an endless stream of non-original, repetitive insults.
:
: >That's typical of what you pinheads say when faced with real genius, Slick. It
: >amazes me that you tweakos are terrified of taking a blind test of your
precious
: >tweako-freako gear. You know you'll fail, and Arnii Krooger is very smart. Get
a
: >life.
:
:
: Ah, "George", it is hurt my eyeballs to much from laugh :-)
: Does I reminded you off the "connoisseurs de vin" which you always
: writes about, eh?
:
:
: >Ignored post, note.
:
:
: Love you two, sweetie :-)
:
: --

i found out hoe to Lionize a txt:-) Just take normal english TM,
do a babelfish en->russian->en folloed by ->korean->english.
this is Middius' text after that proces:


The pinhead which it spreads out typically after talking, you them see in
real natural disaster, you are smooth. In order to guess a distant examination
the eye of the system tweako-freako which you is valuable that you
surprise tweakos them, it will carry and all of a sudden it does to surprise.
It this you will fail, and the ArniiKrooger quite there is Iss who spreads out
the frantovsk thing. Will get the life which spreads out.

:-)))
Rudy

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

> If ABX hasn't been invalidated, let's just forget about the lack of
> published positive test results shall we? I mean.. you think it should
> work... so obviously it must.

Your flippant mockery would not go over well in church, young man!

aBxism does work, you know ... It's supposed to reinforce the blind faith
of its mindless adherents, and it accomplishes that task with
extraordinary efficacy.

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> " emitted :
>
>>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>> > Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting.
>>>
>>> Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws,
>>> and you have no practical background in the topic so you
>>> can't spot the factual errors.
>>>
>>> >Of course no-one in
>>> > the ABX camp will applaud it, or likely even read it
>>> > through, but that's their loss.
>>>
>>> It takes a lot of cups of coffee to retain consciousness
>>> while reading Ludovic's highly repetitive and bogus posts.
>>>
>>> > Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day
>>> > it will be common.
>>>
>>> Paul, you just flunked another IQ test.
>>>
>>> Maybe there is some chemical that will energize your
>>> synapses to the point where bilge like Ludovic's will start
>>> wrinkling your nose.
>>>
>>> Ask Paul Domer, in the past he's bragged about his
>>> self-experimentation along these lines. Of course, we're
>>> talking Paul Dormer, so many of us know that none of his
>>> experiments ever bore what most would call fruit.
>>__________________________________________________ ______
>>Paul Packer said:
>>
>>> > Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting.
>>Arny answered:
>>> Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws,
>>> and you have no practical background in the topic so you
>>> can't spot the factual errors.
>>>
>>
>>Arny, how about a short list of these "logical flaws" and "factual
>>errors". Don't you at all care to educate your readers by lucid
>>examples rather than bare assertions? .
>>And while you're at it: when will you come up with that one reference
>>to an
>> ABX "test" published in any journal or mag. with a positive outcome:
>>"Yes , we heard the difference". You had 4 decades so far to do it,
>>Still counting.
>>Ludovic Mirabel
>>How did someone called Paul Dormer sin against you? Just curious.
>
> You should know by now - it takes just one disagreement with Krueger
> for him to harbour a lifelong grudge you. If you disagree twice,
> that's grounds for a ceaseless vendetta... fa****a... whetever people
> of his religious order call it.

Knowldege.

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> >" emitted :
>
>>There's nothing that's ever been demonstrated to be wrong with ABX as a
>>protocol which is why it is used so often by so many doing real audio
>>research.
>
> If ABX hasn't been invalidated, let's just forget about the lack of
> published positive test results shall we? I mean.. you think it should
> work... so obviously it must.

There are plenty of published works on ABX and there are plenty of people
using it.
If there aren't enough positive tests for you, then maybe you expected
something that wasn't borne out by the evidence.

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: George "Micro" Middius a ecrit:
:
:
: >Sander deWaal said:
:
: >>Ill Phalluson actually knows a thing or two about audio electronics,
: >>but he rarely shares his knowledge.
:
: >>Just an endless stream of non-original, repetitive insults.
:
: >That's typical of what you pinheads say when faced with real genius, Slick. It
: >amazes me that you tweakos are terrified of taking a blind test of your
precious
: >tweako-freako gear. You know you'll fail, and Arnii Krooger is very smart. Get
a
: >life.
:
:
: Ah, "George", it is hurt my eyeballs to much from laugh :-)
: Does I reminded you off the "connoisseurs de vin" which you always
: writes about, eh?
:
:
: >Ignored post, note.
:
:
: Love you two, sweetie :-)
:
?? hm, lost a post, you will note.

how to Lionize a txt:-) Just take Normal english text, like
George's text above, as mangled by en->russian->en->korean->
en->french->english ~by babelfish~

out comes Lionised version with a distinctive religious 'tone' :
"
The pinhead which it typically extends after having spoken, you that they
see in the true normal disaster,
you are smooth.
In order to guess an examination distant the eye of the tweako-freako from
system which is to you
value that you astonish by the tweakos they,
it
will carry and all it suddenly it makes to astonish.
It this that you will fail, and ArniiKrooger completely there is the iss
which extends the thing of frantovsk. The life will obtain which extends. "
:-))
R.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> There's nothing that's ever been demonstrated to be wrong with ABX as a
> protocol which is why it is used so often by so many doing real audio
> research.
>

But NOT used by people buying audio equipment.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Signal said:
>
>> If ABX hasn't been invalidated, let's just forget about the lack of
>> published positive test results shall we? I mean.. you think it should
>> work... so obviously it must.
>
> Your flippant mockery would not go over well in church, young man!
>
> aBxism does work, you know ... It's supposed to reinforce the blind faith
> of its mindless adherents, and it accomplishes that task with
> extraordinary efficacy.
>

EXACTLY! It's part of its design.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>>
>> There's nothing that's ever been demonstrated to be wrong with ABX as a
>> protocol which is why it is used so often by so many doing real audio
>> research.
>>
>
> But NOT used by people buying audio equipment.
>
Where's the need? Most everything is of sufficently high enough quality
that there would be no difference most of the time.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> There's nothing that's ever been demonstrated to be wrong with ABX as a
>>> protocol which is why it is used so often by so many doing real audio
>>> research.
>>>
>>
>> But NOT used by people buying audio equipment.
>>
> Where's the need? Most everything is of sufficently high enough quality
> that there would be no difference most of the time.
>

you don't know that.
Most importantly, the actual purchasers don't know that.
Whatever ABX tests were done in research are completely irrelevant to
the purchaser's decision, first, because the test was not directly
between the items under his consideration, and secondly,
because the tests were not performed by the
purchaser's own ears. Not that ABX tests indicate anything
useful, anyway.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:45:24 GMT, > wrote:

>> You should know by now - it takes just one disagreement with Krueger
>> for him to harbour a lifelong grudge you. If you disagree twice,
>> that's grounds for a ceaseless vendetta... fa****a... whetever people
>> of his religious order call it.
>
>Knowldege.

Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)

[paul packer]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:24:43 GMT, > wrote:


>> It seems that he appointed you as his mouthpiece.
>
>We just happen to agree on this issue, we seldom comunicate on any issue.

But then of course Borgs don't actually communicate with words, do
they? :-)

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:45:24 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>> You should know by now - it takes just one disagreement with Krueger
>>> for him to harbour a lifelong grudge you. If you disagree twice,
>>> that's grounds for a ceaseless vendetta... fa****a... whetever people
>>> of his religious order call it.
>>
>>Knowldege.
>
> Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)

Wrong , not how to type and then spell check.
If this were in long hand the only problem would be legabil, um lega, oh
**** you know that word thast means neat writing.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing that's ever been demonstrated to be wrong with ABX as a
>>>> protocol which is why it is used so often by so many doing real audio
>>>> research.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But NOT used by people buying audio equipment.
>>>
>> Where's the need? Most everything is of sufficently high enough quality
>> that there would be no difference most of the time.
>>
>
> you don't know that.
Sure I do, you just refuse to beleive it's poissible.

> Most importantly, the actual purchasers don't know that.

A pity that.

> Whatever ABX tests were done in research are completely irrelevant to
> the purchaser's decision, first, because the test was not directly
> between the items under his consideration, and secondly,
> because the tests were not performed by the
> purchaser's own ears.

People's hearing is pretyy much the same.
The equipment is pretty much all flat and can drive normal speakers.
Unless you want to include tubes bs. SS then yes, I do know that for most
equipment, and certainly for anything that qualifies as hi-fi.

Speakers are another deal altogether and that's why they should be highest
on the priority list.

Not that ABX tests indicate anything
> useful, anyway.
>
>
Just keep telling yourself that.

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:24:43 GMT, > wrote:
>
>
>>> It seems that he appointed you as his mouthpiece.
>>
>>We just happen to agree on this issue, we seldom communicate on any issue.
>
> But then of course Borgs don't actually communicate with words, do
> they? :-)

Dunno, never spoke to any.

[Lionel]

Indiana Jones wrote :

> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> : George "Micro" Middius a ecrit:
> :
> :
> : >Sander deWaal said:
> :
> : >>Ill Phalluson actually knows a thing or two about audio electronics,
> : >>but he rarely shares his knowledge.
> :
> : >>Just an endless stream of non-original, repetitive insults.
> :
> : >That's typical of what you pinheads say when faced with real genius, Slick. It
> : >amazes me that you tweakos are terrified of taking a blind test of your
> precious
> : >tweako-freako gear. You know you'll fail, and Arnii Krooger is very smart. Get
> a
> : >life.
> :
> :
> : Ah, "George", it is hurt my eyeballs to much from laugh :-)
> : Does I reminded you off the "connoisseurs de vin" which you always
> : writes about, eh?
> :
> :
> : >Ignored post, note.
> :
> :
> : Love you two, sweetie :-)
> :
> ?? hm, lost a post, you will note.
>
> how to Lionize a txt:-) Just take Normal english text, like
> George's text above, as mangled by en->russian->en->korean->
> en->french->english ~by babelfish~
>
> out comes Lionised version with a distinctive religious 'tone' :
> "
> The pinhead which it typically extends after having spoken, you that they
> see in the true normal disaster,
> you are smooth.
> In order to guess an examination distant the eye of the tweako-freako from
> system which is to you
> value that you astonish by the tweakos they,
> it
> will carry and all it suddenly it makes to astonish.
> It this that you will fail, and ArniiKrooger completely there is the iss
> which extends the thing of frantovsk. The life will obtain which extends. "
> :-))
> R.

BTW do you know that I accidentaly compiled your last message with my
gcc 4.02 and I got...

RUDY_VIRUS079.exe

Is there a danger for my chicken breeding ?

[paul packer]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:05:38 GMT, > wrote:


>>>Knowldege.
>>
>> Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)
>
>Wrong , not how to type and then spell check.
>If this were in long hand the only problem would be legabil, um lega, oh
>**** you know that word thast means neat writing.

Well, I know that word that means having sex, yes.

Are you fair dinkum? (George wants me to put Australianisms into my
posts so this is my chance). You mean you don't misspell in longhand
and all these howlers are just typos?

Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling? Might
I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> Are you fair dinkum? (George wants me to put Australianisms into my
> posts so this is my chance).

No, paulie, that was Bobo's request, not mine.

[George Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

>But NOT used by people buying audio equipment.

Except involuntarily, in order to give some hifi snob a "lesson in class
values".


..
..
..

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:

>Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
>same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling? Might
>I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
>quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
>one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)


Humbly. In your sentence, it should be "Might I humbly suggest..."

Nit-picking tends to have that Astrayan funny-formed wood-thingy
effect, you will note.

--

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

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:05:38 GMT, > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Knowldege.
>>>
>>> Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)
>>
>>Wrong , not how to type and then spell check.
>>If this were in long hand the only problem would be legabil, um lega, oh
>>**** you know that word thast means neat writing.
>
> Well, I know that word that means having sex, yes.
>
> Are you fair dinkum? (George wants me to put Australianisms into my
> posts so this is my chance). You mean you don't misspell in longhand
> and all these howlers are just typos?
>

Pretty much. If I really don't kow how to spell something I look it up.
I'm not so vain or foolish enough on this group to try bluffing my way
through spelling. It's mostly forgetting to use the spell check to make
sure the letters I wanted my fingers to type actually made it.

> Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
> same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling?

The 's' is next to the 'a', I hit it by mistake. A lot.

Might
> I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
> quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
> one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)
>
Getting the message seems to be the last thing some people are getting,
otherwise there wouldn't be the furor nor the vitriol. You'd think I was
killing people's pets or something just because the I know the truth is the
truth and say so. Why the big deal about knowing that you can be fooled
into believing you heard something that was the result of your bias? Why
the resistance to simple facts? If it were some other way than it is, I'd be
just as honest about that. I don't care what the truth is, I just like
knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something different
than what's on the recording?

This one got spellchecked.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, > wrote:

>Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something different
>than what's on the recording?
>
>This one got spellchecked.

Perhaps you should remove the patch...

[George Middius]

The Bug Eater revels in his wall-to-wall delusional fantasy world.

>You'd think I was killing people's pets or something just
>because the I know the truth is the truth and say so.

What is the dumbest thing Mickey ever said, Alex?
<DING!>
I'll take Retarded Questions for $600.

>Why the big deal about knowing that you can be fooled
>into believing you heard something that was the result of your bias?

Hmmm.... What is the difference between dogmatism and fanaticism?
<BZZZT!>
Darn.
Truisms for $400, please.

>Why the resistance

Why are there 'borgs?
<DING!>
Delusions of Special Persons for $600, Alex.

>I don't care what the truth is, I just like knowing it.

What is the worst attempt at a lie ever told?
<DING!>
Retarded Questions for $800 please.

>Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something different
>than what's on the recording?

<nobody buzzes in>

Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would stump you. The correct
question is: "When did Mickey McMickey ever make less sense?"

Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff Mickey now?


..
..

[Ruud Broens]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
: Indiana Jones wrote :
:
: > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
: > ...
: > : George "Micro" Middius a ecrit:
: > :
: > :
: > : >Sander deWaal said:
: > :
: > : >>Ill Phalluson actually knows a thing or two about audio electronics,
: > : >>but he rarely shares his knowledge.
: > :
: > : >>Just an endless stream of non-original, repetitive insults.
: > :
: > : >That's typical of what you pinheads say when faced with real genius,
Slick. It
: > : >amazes me that you tweakos are terrified of taking a blind test of your
: > precious
: > : >tweako-freako gear. You know you'll fail, and Arnii Krooger is very smart.
Get
: > a
: > : >life.
: > :
: > :
: > : Ah, "George", it is hurt my eyeballs to much from laugh :-)
: > : Does I reminded you off the "connoisseurs de vin" which you always
: > : writes about, eh?
: > :
: > :
: > : >Ignored post, note.
: > :
: > :
: > : Love you two, sweetie :-)
: > :
: > ?? hm, lost a post, you will note.
: >
: > how to Lionize a txt:-) Just take Normal english text, like
: > George's text above, as mangled by en->russian->en->korean->
: > en->french->english ~by babelfish~
: >
: > out comes Lionised version with a distinctive religious 'tone' :
: > "
: > The pinhead which it typically extends after having spoken, you that
they
: > see in the true normal disaster,
: > you are smooth.
: > In order to guess an examination distant the eye of the tweako-freako
from
: > system which is to you
: > value that you astonish by the tweakos they,
: > it
: > will carry and all it suddenly it makes to astonish.
: > It this that you will fail, and ArniiKrooger completely there is the
iss
: > which extends the thing of frantovsk. The life will obtain which extends. "
: > :-))
: > R.
:
: BTW do you know that I accidentaly compiled your last message with my
: gcc 4.02 and I got...
:
: RUDY_VIRUS079.exe
:
: Is there a danger for my chicken breeding ?

sorry, Lionel, all chicks have to stay indoors in NL,
by gov'ments orders :-)
R_the bug

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:05:38 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Knowldege.
>>>>
>>>> Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)
>>>
>>>Wrong , not how to type and then spell check.
>>>If this were in long hand the only problem would be legabil, um lega, oh
>>>**** you know that word thast means neat writing.
>>
>> Well, I know that word that means having sex, yes.
>>
>> Are you fair dinkum? (George wants me to put Australianisms into my
>> posts so this is my chance). You mean you don't misspell in longhand
>> and all these howlers are just typos?
>>
>
> Pretty much. If I really don't kow how to spell something I look it up.
> I'm not so vain or foolish enough on this group to try bluffing my way
> through spelling. It's mostly forgetting to use the spell check to make
> sure the letters I wanted my fingers to type actually made it.
>
>> Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
>> same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling?
>
> The 's' is next to the 'a', I hit it by mistake. A lot.
>
> Might
>> I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
>> quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
>> one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)
>>
> Getting the message seems to be the last thing some people are getting,
> otherwise there wouldn't be the furor nor the vitriol. You'd think I was
> killing people's pets or something just because the I know the truth is
> the truth and say so. Why the big deal about knowing that you can be
> fooled into believing you heard something that was the result of your
> bias? Why the resistance to simple facts? If it were some other way than
> it is, I'd be just as honest about that. I don't care what the truth is,
> I just like knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment
> that can't deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or
> something different than what's on the recording?
>
> This one got spellchecked.
>

"kow" is not a recognized word on my spellchecker.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, > wrote:

> I don't care what the truth is, I just like
>knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something different
>than what's on the recording?
>
>This one got spellchecked.

Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped.


I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It
ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?"
Your post brought it back to mind. :-)

[paul packer]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:38:42 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

(paul packer) said:
>
>>Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
>>same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling? Might
>>I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
>>quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
>>one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)
>
>
>Humbly. In your sentence, it should be "Might I humbly suggest..."
>
>Nit-picking tends to have that Astrayan funny-formed wood-thingy
>effect, you will note.

Not sure what that is. In any case I've already indulged in the
appropriate amount of self-castigation for that unforgivable error. It
won't happen again.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> In any case I've already indulged in the
> appropriate amount of self-castigation for that unforgivable error. It
> won't happen again.

See that it doesn't, or off comes your nose.

[Ruud Broens]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:38:42 +0100, Sander deWaal >
: wrote:
:
: (paul packer) said:
: >
: >>Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
: >>same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling? Might
: >>I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
: >>quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
: >>one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)
: >
: >
: >Humbly. In your sentence, it should be "Might I humbly suggest..."
: >
: >Nit-picking tends to have that Astrayan funny-formed wood-thingy
: >effect, you will note.
:
: Not sure what that is. In any case I've already indulged in the
: appropriate amount of self-castigation for that unforgivable error. It
: won't happen again.

the boom , yu rang ? fx , Paul please pay attention, currency is
conscious thought
R.

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Looks like the title I put in this sub-thread was prescient.
>
>>> DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for
>>> having done it yourself.
>
>>I have done it myself. Now I know better.
>
> Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting that "tests" are for losers. ;-)
>
>
You read but you don't comprehend. Typical.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
>>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
>>different
>>than what's on the recording?
>>
>>This one got spellchecked.
>
> Perhaps you should remove the patch...

How empty your life must be.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:42:15 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
>>>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
>>>different
>>>than what's on the recording?
>>>
>>>This one got spellchecked.
>>
>> Perhaps you should remove the patch...
>
>How empty your life must be.

You're the one who can't even get a decent English sentence out, even
when using a spellchecker.

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> The Bug Eater revels in his wall-to-wall delusional fantasy world.
>
>>You'd think I was killing people's pets or something just
>>because the I know the truth is the truth and say so.
>
> What is the dumbest thing Mickey ever said, Alex?
> <DING!>
> I'll take Retarded Questions for $600.
>
>>Why the big deal about knowing that you can be fooled
>>into believing you heard something that was the result of your bias?
>
> Hmmm.... What is the difference between dogmatism and fanaticism?
> <BZZZT!>
> Darn.
> Truisms for $400, please.
>
>>Why the resistance
>
> Why are there 'borgs?
> <DING!>
> Delusions of Special Persons for $600, Alex.
>
>>I don't care what the truth is, I just like knowing it.
>
> What is the worst attempt at a lie ever told?
> <DING!>
> Retarded Questions for $800 please.
>
>>Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
>>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
>>different
>>than what's on the recording?
>
> <nobody buzzes in>
>
> Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would stump you. The correct
> question is: "When did Mickey McMickey ever make less sense?"
>
> Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff Mickey now?
>
>
Thanks for once again demonstrating that you can't refute with any evidence,
that it is easy to get electonics to reproduce audio signals that are
inaudibly different from the source.

Obviously if you could do so, you would have by now.
10 years of snide comments and no evidence.
Doesn't it get stuffy with your head constantly in the sand?

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:05:38 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Knowldege.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not of how to spell, obviously. :-)
>>>>
>>>>Wrong , not how to type and then spell check.
>>>>If this were in long hand the only problem would be legabil, um lega, oh
>>>>**** you know that word thast means neat writing.
>>>
>>> Well, I know that word that means having sex, yes.
>>>
>>> Are you fair dinkum? (George wants me to put Australianisms into my
>>> posts so this is my chance). You mean you don't misspell in longhand
>>> and all these howlers are just typos?
>>>
>>
>> Pretty much. If I really don't kow how to spell something I look it up.
>> I'm not so vain or foolish enough on this group to try bluffing my way
>> through spelling. It's mostly forgetting to use the spell check to make
>> sure the letters I wanted my fingers to type actually made it.
>>
>>> Question: why do you spell "that" correctly and then as "thast" in the
>>> same sentence--a sentence replying to a post about misspelling?
>>
>> The 's' is next to the 'a', I hit it by mistake. A lot.
>>
>> Might
>>> I humble suggest you prune the quantity of your posts in favour of
>>> quality. Since we've all got the message about the virtues of ABX now,
>>> one or two fewer posts about it won't make much difference. :-)
>>>
>> Getting the message seems to be the last thing some people are getting,
>> otherwise there wouldn't be the furor nor the vitriol. You'd think I was
>> killing people's pets or something just because the I know the truth is
>> the truth and say so. Why the big deal about knowing that you can be
>> fooled into believing you heard something that was the result of your
>> bias? Why the resistance to simple facts? If it were some other way than
>> it is, I'd be just as honest about that. I don't care what the truth is,
>> I just like knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment
>> that can't deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or
>> something different than what's on the recording?
>>
>> This one got spellchecked.
>>
>
> "kow" is not a recognized word on my spellchecker.
Mine either, I have no idea how that made it past.
Still, it's not that I don't know how to spell the word, just crappy typing.

[George Middius]

duh-Mikey can't even blow out a single flickering candle.

>> Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would stump you. The correct
>> question is: "When did Mickey McMickey ever make less sense?"

>> Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff Mickey now?

>Thanks for once again demonstrating

Hey, look -- a variation on Mickey's mindless aping of the Krooborg. I guess
this what passes for Special Person originality.

Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're not joining in. ;-)



..
..

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message
> duh-Mikey can't even blow out a single flickering candle.
>
>>> Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would
>>> stump you. The correct question is: "When did Mickey
>>> McMickey ever make less sense?"
>
>>> Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff
>>> Mickey now?
>
>> Thanks for once again demonstrating
>
> Hey, look -- a variation on Mickey's mindless aping of
> the Krooborg. I guess this what passes for Special Person
> originality.
>
> Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're
> not joining in. ;-)

Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
school bully?

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> I don't care what the truth is, I just like
>>knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buy equipment that can't
>>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
>>different
>>than what's on the recording?
>>
>>This one got spellchecked.
>
> Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped.
>
>
> I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It
> ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?"
> Your post brought it back to mind. :-)

Let me try and rephrase.

The truth about audio electronics is that except for speakers, it is a
simple matter to obtain equipment that reproduces exactly the source
material. This assumes CD playback and SS equipment.

That this is true, is verified by reams of reliable research.

I don't know why this fact confounds some people.
I don't understand why knowing the facts and repeating them should bother
people.
Something is either true or not.

I have no interest in buying equipment that does anything other than
reproduce what is on the source media, without any audible change.

Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They
can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There
are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and
very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless
you're sitting very close.

I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't
control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want
what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence
a purchase.

I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about it, partly because I have
the benefit of knowing how reliably accurate most gear is, and because I can
get reliable data on he build quality of anything I might be considering.

I'm also lucky enough to know that there is a lot of pro audio equipment
that meets and/or exceeds the quality of so-called high end equipment that
costs much less than the high end stuff.

I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial, let
alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here. I don't
understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening to
music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the
master.

I understand there are people who choose to go with what sounds good to them
and that's all well and good, so long as they don't make claims about
performance that are at odds with reality.

Clear enough?

[George Middius]

Arnii Kroo-koward whimpered:

>> Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're
>> not joining in. ;-)

>Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
>school bully?

Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass in middle
school.



..
..
..

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:42:15 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why delude myself into thinking I buys equipment that can't
>>>>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
>>>>different
>>>>than what's on the recording?
>>>>
>>>>This one got spellchecked.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should remove the patch...
>>
>>How empty your life must be.
>
> You're the one who can't even get a decent English sentence out, even
> when using a spellchecker.

I get plenty of decent English senstences out, lots of them with no errors
and no spellcheck.

We've establsihed I suck as a typist.

We've also established that you are overly concerned with scoring some kind
of points from other people's mistakes. IMO that makes you petty.

Either get over it or don't respond.

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> duh-Mikey can't even blow out a single flickering candle.
>
>>> Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would stump you. The
>>> correct
>>> question is: "When did Mickey McMickey ever make less sense?"
>
>>> Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff Mickey now?
>
>>Thanks for once again demonstrating
>
> Hey, look -- a variation on Mickey's mindless aping of the Krooborg. I
> guess
> this what passes for Special Person originality.
>
> Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're not joining in.
> ;-)
>
>
>
That's funny, the laughter I hear is all directed at the screaming queen who
doesn't know **** about audio, but haunts audio newsgroups like a ghoul.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George Middius" > wrote in
> message
>> duh-Mikey can't even blow out a single flickering candle.
>>
>>>> Alex: Sorry, contestants, but we thought that would
>>>> stump you. The correct question is: "When did Mickey
>>>> McMickey ever make less sense?"
>>
>>>> Yeah, that was a tough one, Alex. Can we please snuff
>>>> Mickey now?
>>
>>> Thanks for once again demonstrating
>>
>> Hey, look -- a variation on Mickey's mindless aping of
>> the Krooborg. I guess this what passes for Special Person
>> originality.
>>
>> Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're
>> not joining in. ;-)
>
> Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle school bully?
Because he acts like a middle school bully?

Never has one persona, contributed so little, with so much verbiage, over so
lengthy a time, and said absolutely nothing useful on the subject he knows
absolutely nothing about, yet pretends to be defending.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:22 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>> I don't care what the truth is, I just like
>>>knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buy equipment that can't
>>>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
>>>different
>>>than what's on the recording?
>>>
>>>This one got spellchecked.
>>
>> Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped.
>>
>>
>> I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It
>> ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?"
>> Your post brought it back to mind. :-)
>
>Let me try and rephrase.
>
>The truth about audio electronics is that except for speakers, it is a
>simple matter to obtain equipment that reproduces exactly the source
>material. This assumes CD playback and SS equipment.
>
>That this is true, is verified by reams of reliable research.
>
>I don't know why this fact confounds some people.
>I don't understand why knowing the facts and repeating them should bother
>people.
>Something is either true or not.

Things are not as "true" as you imagine. Everything cannot be reduced
to measurement. The brain is not well understood and auditory science
is by no means complete. People tend to believe what they actually
hear rather than what a machine tells them they should be hearing
according to "logic".

>I have no interest in buying equipment that does anything other than
>reproduce what is on the source media, without any audible change.

Yep, same here.

>Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They
>can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
>completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There
>are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and
>very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless
>you're sitting very close.

Speakers probably are the weakest link in the sense of most obviously
variable. There was a time back in the 70s when the "garbage in,
garbage out" doctrine ruled and people swore that a Linn turntable
could make even crap speakers sound sweet. That was rubbish as was
eventually recognised. Nevertheless a good source is vital, and I can
never agree that all CD players and well-measuring amps sound the same
because my ears tell me otherwise. Therefore I have to go on
listening.

>I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't
>control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want
>what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
>audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence
>a purchase.

"Fair" to what? We're talking listening for pleasure in the home here.
Therefore what sounds best to the purchaser in his listening
environment is the only "fair" that matters. As for salespeople, no
doubt they do play with purchaser's heads, and that's why it's
necessary to be as well-armed as possible when one goes into the shop.
This is were hi-fi mags came in, or used to before they went over to
HT. Only an idiot believed every word, but they were great for
compiling short lists. Beyond that it's a case of listening carefully
and ignoring most of the salesman's waffle. Live concerts are useful
too, to get the sound of live instruments. That after all is your
touchstone.

>I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about it, partly because I have
>the benefit of knowing how reliably accurate most gear is, and because I can
>get reliable data on he build quality of anything I might be considering.

Hmmm...

>I'm also lucky enough to know that there is a lot of pro audio equipment
>that meets and/or exceeds the quality of so-called high end equipment that
>costs much less than the high end stuff.

Hmmm...

>I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial, let
>alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here.

There's never any need for vitriol. The emotion is engendered by the
concept that audio as a hobby and a passion can be reduced to
measurerment. Our ears tell us it can't, sighted listening and
controlled SPLs notwithstanding.

> I don't
>understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening to
>music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the
>master.
>
>I understand there are people who choose to go with what sounds good to them
>and that's all well and good, so long as they don't make claims about
>performance that are at odds with reality.

Yes, but what is reality? What you've measured, or what you actually
hear? You talk about the bias of sighted listening, but measurement
can itself create bias. If you see that an amp has vanishingly low
distortion, and believe that such distortion cannot be audible, likely
you'll hear that amp as "perfect"--that's real bias.

>Clear enough?

Yes, very clear. Putting aside content, I have to admit that your post
is a model of literate clarity. Therefore I can't help wondering why
all your posts aren't like this, why you insist on giving Robert and
George so much ammunition for their "Special Person" campaign. Did all
your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply
himself" etc?
In any case if you can do it once you can do it always, and I expect
to see a similar standard in all future posts. Here's one star * to
start you off. You can wear it on your forehead. :-)

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arnii Kroo-koward whimpered:
>
>>> Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're
>>> not joining in. ;-)
>
>>Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
>>school bully?
>
> Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass in
> middle
> school.
>
>
>
Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy.

[George M. Middius]

duh-Mikey defends his alleged orthographical skill.

> senstences

duh?

> no spellcheck.

No! Really? Amazing!

> We've also established that you are overly concerned with scoring some kind
> of points from other people's mistakes.

Nobody tops you in cluelessness, Mickey. Except maybe Arnii, but I'm sure
you're not threatened by Mr. ****'s uber-dorkiness.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message
> Arnii Kroo-koward whimpered:
>
>>> Mickey, do you hear the laughter? We all know why you're
>>> not joining in. ;-)
>
>> Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
>> school bully?
>
> Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys
> kicked your ass in middle school.

Whoops! Typo in my last comment.

Corrected version:

Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
school bully girl?

[paul packer]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:49:29 +0100, "Ruud Broens" >
wrote:


>the boom , yu rang ? fx , Paul please pay attention, currency is
>conscious thought
>R.
>

Eh?

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> duh-Mikey defends his alleged orthographical skill.
>
>> senstences
>
> duh?
>
>> no spellcheck.
>
> No! Really? Amazing!
>
>> We've also established that you are overly concerned with scoring some
>> kind
>> of points from other people's mistakes.
>
> Nobody tops you in cluelessness, Mickey.

You're too modest.

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:22 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't care what the truth is, I just like
>>>>knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buy equipment that can't
>>>>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
>>>>different
>>>>than what's on the recording?
>>>>
>>>>This one got spellchecked.
>>>
>>> Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped.
>>>
>>>
>>> I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It
>>> ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?"
>>> Your post brought it back to mind. :-)
>>
>>Let me try and rephrase.
>>
>>The truth about audio electronics is that except for speakers, it is a
>>simple matter to obtain equipment that reproduces exactly the source
>>material. This assumes CD playback and SS equipment.
>>
>>That this is true, is verified by reams of reliable research.
>>
>>I don't know why this fact confounds some people.
>>I don't understand why knowing the facts and repeating them should bother
>>people.
>>Something is either true or not.
>
> Things are not as "true" as you imagine. Everything cannot be reduced
> to measurement. The brain is not well understood and auditory science
> is by no means complete. People tend to believe what they actually
> hear rather than what a machine tells them they should be hearing
> according to "logic".
>
>>I have no interest in buying equipment that does anything other than
>>reproduce what is on the source media, without any audible change.
>
> Yep, same here.
>
>>Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They
>>can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
>>completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There
>>are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and
>>very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless
>>you're sitting very close.
>
> Speakers probably are the weakest link in the sense of most obviously
> variable. There was a time back in the 70s when the "garbage in,
> garbage out" doctrine ruled and people swore that a Linn turntable
> could make even crap speakers sound sweet. That was rubbish as was
> eventually recognised.

Don't remember Linn ever being that well thought of compared to Thorens in
those days.
Perhaps it was different there.

Nevertheless a good source is vital, and I can
> never agree that all CD players and well-measuring amps sound the same
> because my ears tell me otherwise. Therefore I have to go on
> listening.
>
So listen in the way that is most revealing and most likely to reveal REAL
differences.
It's not a matter of agreeing, it's just the way it is.

>>I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't
>>control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want
>>what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
>>audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to
>>influence
>>a purchase.
>
> "Fair" to what? We're talking listening for pleasure in the home here.
> Therefore what sounds best to the purchaser in his listening
> environment is the only "fair" that matters.

Letting one's bias over ride your ears is still a worse idea than a bit of
effort that reveals the actual truth. By fair I mean a comparison that
doesn't allow any other factor other than what you can hear cloud the issue.
The studies on the psychology of this are unequivocal, your ears can be
fooled unless bias is controlled.

As for salespeople, no
> doubt they do play with purchaser's heads, and that's why it's
> necessary to be as well-armed as possible when one goes into the shop.
> This is were hi-fi mags came in, or used to before they went over to
> HT. Only an idiot believed every word, but they were great for
> compiling short lists. Beyond that it's a case of listening carefully
> and ignoring most of the salesman's waffle. Live concerts are useful
> too, to get the sound of live instruments. That after all is your
> touchstone.
>
Unfortuantely, human beings have a ****ty memnory for that sort of thing, if
that weren't the case there would be no need for test tones and an spl meter
to do a proper EQ.

>>I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about it, partly because I
>>have
>>the benefit of knowing how reliably accurate most gear is, and because I
>>can
>>get reliable data on he build quality of anything I might be considering.
>
> Hmmm...
>
>>I'm also lucky enough to know that there is a lot of pro audio equipment
>>that meets and/or exceeds the quality of so-called high end equipment that
>>costs much less than the high end stuff.
>
> Hmmm...
>
>>I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial,
>>let
>>alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here.
>
> There's never any need for vitriol. The emotion is engendered by the
> concept that audio as a hobby and a passion can be reduced to
> measurerment. Our ears tell us it can't, sighted listening and
> controlled SPLs notwithstanding.
>

That's why there's rational thought to deal with the errors our emotions and
slight spl differences can make us believe. Audio equipment is only
possible because of science and science has been applied to how we hear and
how our ears work. There is absoultely no doubt that unmatched spl can have
a very big impact on what we perceive.


>> I don't
>>understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening
>>to
>>music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the
>>master.
>>
>>I understand there are people who choose to go with what sounds good to
>>them
>>and that's all well and good, so long as they don't make claims about
>>performance that are at odds with reality.
>
> Yes, but what is reality? What you've measured, or what you actually
> hear?

We can measure far more accurately than we can hear.
In audio reality is what is on the source.

You talk about the bias of sighted listening, but measurement
> can itself create bias.

In what way pray tell?

If you see that an amp has vanishingly low
> distortion, and believe that such distortion cannot be audible, likely
> you'll hear that amp as "perfect"--that's real bias.
>
Which is one reason double blind protocols are used. Nobody knows for sure
what is being used as the DUT.


>>Clear enough?
>
> Yes, very clear. Putting aside content, I have to admit that your post
> is a model of literate clarity. Therefore I can't help wondering why
> all your posts aren't like this, why you insist on giving Robert and
> George so much ammunition for their "Special Person" campaign.

Some days are better than others. Perhaps I just felt like giving a bit
more for this one just to see how it would go.

George Robert and don't need anything more than an endorsement for ABX.
Morein is in his own special person category for the idiot statements he
makes himself.
He clearly can't actually have the training he claims and then honestly make
some of the claims he does.

Did all
> your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply
> himself" etc?

Not when it came to reading comprehension or writing.

> In any case if you can do it once you can do it always, and I expect
> to see a similar standard in all future posts. Here's one star * to
> start you off. You can wear it on your forehead. :-)
>
Don't get your hopes up. This is as much to take my mind off of other
things as it is anything else.

I shall endeavor to be more conscientious about the spell check, just for my
own satisfaction. I look at some of the things that my fingers typed and
wonder where the hell my brain went sometimes. Nobody that wants to has
ever not been able to tell what I was saying except for a couple times
when............ oh never mnd.

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:


> Did all
>your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply
>himself" etc?


Mine did, and look where it got me.
My old schoolteachers were absolutely right.

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

> said:

>>>Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
>>>school bully?

>> Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass in
>> middle
>> school.


>Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy.


I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-)

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:


>>the boom , yu rang ? fx , Paul please pay attention, currency is
>>conscious thought
>>R.

>Eh?


The Boomerang effect, Paul.
Please pay attention, currency (pocket money in case of some here) is
conscious thought.

Rudy and I are each other's sockpuppets, you will note.
However I am well versed, while Rudy is merely an illiterate country
boy.

His neck is still red from the boomerang he threw last week, note..

--

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

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >>>Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
> >>>school bully?

> >> Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass in
> >> middle school.

> >Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy.

> I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-)

That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also
thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-)

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> > said:
>
>>>>Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
>>>>school bully?
>
>>> Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass
>>> in
>>> middle
>>> school.
>
>
>>Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy.
>
>
> I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-)
>
When George leaves a hole that big, I'm going to drive a truck through it.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Sander deWaal said:
>
>> >>>Why is it that every Middius post reminds me of a middle
>> >>>school bully?
>
>> >> Thanks Mr. **** for admitting that even the sissy-boys kicked your ass
>> >> in
>> >> middle school.
>
>> >Thanks George for admitting you're a sissy boy.
>
>> I thought of posting the same words, but I refrained :-)
>
> That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also
> thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-)
>
No, screaming Queen.

Like the guy on Will and Grace, the one who's not Will.

[George M. Middius]

Miss Mickey needs some male lovin'.

> > That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also
> > thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-)

> No, screaming Queen.
> Like the guy on Will and Grace, the one who's not Will.

Thanks Ms. McMickey for, admitting you lust for sissy boys.

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

: However I am well versed, while Rudy is merely an illiterate country
: boy.
:
: His neck is still red from the boomerang he threw last week, note..
:
: --
illiterate ?
why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish,
it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel,
online _city_ cooking by moi
;-)

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Miss Mickey needs some male lovin'.
>
>> > That's what you get for reading Mickey's posts. Apparently he also
>> > thinks I'm a drag queen. ;-)
>
>> No, screaming Queen.
>> Like the guy on Will and Grace, the one who's not Will.
>
> Thanks Ms. McMickey for, admitting you lust for sissy boys.
>
>
>
Thanks for admitting your abuse is flirting.
You girls are all the same.

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>: However I am well versed, while Rudy is merely an illiterate country
>: boy.


>illiterate ?
>why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish,
>it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel,
> online _city_ cooking by moi
>;-)


I'll let this post speak for itself. QED.

--

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

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish,
> >it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel,
> > online _city_ cooking by moi
> >;-)

> I'll let this post speak for itself. QED.

Looks like you got your head handed to you again, debating trade wise,
Slick. LOL!

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>

>> >why, you just lack the soffixitation to distinguish,
>> >it's, aliitle bit of George, a little bit of Lionel,
>> > online _city_ cooking by moi
>> >;-)

>> I'll let this post speak for itself. QED.

>Looks like you got your head handed to you again, debating trade wise,
>Slick. LOL!



Thank's for, demonstrating "George" or whatever, your calling you're
self this week that you're necesay knowlege of Latin, expresions is
limited to "non-sequitur" only , Lot;S! ;-(

--

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

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:22 GMT, > wrote:
>
> >
> >"paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, > wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't care what the truth is, I just like
> >>>knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buy equipment that can't
> >>>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
> >>>different
> >>>than what's on the recording?
> >>>
> >>>This one got spellchecked.
> >>
> >> Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped.
> >>
> >>
> >> I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It
> >> ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?"
> >> Your post brought it back to mind. :-)
> >
> >Let me try and rephrase.
> >
> >The truth about audio electronics is that except for speakers, it is a
> >simple matter to obtain equipment that reproduces exactly the source
> >material. This assumes CD playback and SS equipment.
> >
> >That this is true, is verified by reams of reliable research.
> >
> >I don't know why this fact confounds some people.
> >I don't understand why knowing the facts and repeating them should bother
> >people.
> >Something is either true or not.
>
> Things are not as "true" as you imagine. Everything cannot be reduced
> to measurement. The brain is not well understood and auditory science
> is by no means complete. People tend to believe what they actually
> hear rather than what a machine tells them they should be hearing
> according to "logic".
>
> >I have no interest in buying equipment that does anything other than
> >reproduce what is on the source media, without any audible change.
>
> Yep, same here.
>
> >Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They
> >can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
> >completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There
> >are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and
> >very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless
> >you're sitting very close.
>
> Speakers probably are the weakest link in the sense of most obviously
> variable. There was a time back in the 70s when the "garbage in,
> garbage out" doctrine ruled and people swore that a Linn turntable
> could make even crap speakers sound sweet. That was rubbish as was
> eventually recognised. Nevertheless a good source is vital, and I can
> never agree that all CD players and well-measuring amps sound the same
> because my ears tell me otherwise. Therefore I have to go on
> listening.
>
> >I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't
> >control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want
> >what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
> >audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence
> >a purchase.
>
> "Fair" to what? We're talking listening for pleasure in the home here.
> Therefore what sounds best to the purchaser in his listening
> environment is the only "fair" that matters. As for salespeople, no
> doubt they do play with purchaser's heads, and that's why it's
> necessary to be as well-armed as possible when one goes into the shop.
> This is were hi-fi mags came in, or used to before they went over to
> HT. Only an idiot believed every word, but they were great for
> compiling short lists. Beyond that it's a case of listening carefully
> and ignoring most of the salesman's waffle. Live concerts are useful
> too, to get the sound of live instruments. That after all is your
> touchstone.
>
> >I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about it, partly because I have
> >the benefit of knowing how reliably accurate most gear is, and because I can
> >get reliable data on he build quality of anything I might be considering.
>
> Hmmm...
>
> >I'm also lucky enough to know that there is a lot of pro audio equipment
> >that meets and/or exceeds the quality of so-called high end equipment that
> >costs much less than the high end stuff.
>
> Hmmm...
>
> >I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial, let
> >alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here.
>
> There's never any need for vitriol. The emotion is engendered by the
> concept that audio as a hobby and a passion can be reduced to
> measurerment. Our ears tell us it can't, sighted listening and
> controlled SPLs notwithstanding.
>
> > I don't
> >understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening to
> >music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the
> >master.
> >
> >I understand there are people who choose to go with what sounds good to them
> >and that's all well and good, so long as they don't make claims about
> >performance that are at odds with reality.
>
> Yes, but what is reality? What you've measured, or what you actually
> hear? You talk about the bias of sighted listening, but measurement
> can itself create bias. If you see that an amp has vanishingly low
> distortion, and believe that such distortion cannot be audible, likely
> you'll hear that amp as "perfect"--that's real bias.
>
> >Clear enough?
>
> Yes, very clear. Putting aside content, I have to admit that your post
> is a model of literate clarity. Therefore I can't help wondering why
> all your posts aren't like this, why you insist on giving Robert and
> George so much ammunition for their "Special Person" campaign. Did all
> your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply
> himself" etc?
> In any case if you can do it once you can do it always, and I expect
> to see a similar standard in all future posts. Here's one star * to
> start you off. You can wear it on your forehead. :-)
__________________________________________________ _
Nyob concedes that loudspeakers sound different.
> >Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain. They
> >can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
> >completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of. There
> >are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large and
> >very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels, unless
> >you're sitting very close.
>
And he repeats the catechism:
>I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't

> >control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I want
> >what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
> >audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to influence
> >a purchase

What he should have said was that loudspeakers sound different *even to
me*
Bercause nothing else does. According to him manufacture of audio
reached such perfection that no matter what you put together it will
sound the same.
Again what he should have said was: "TO ME"
He knows he is right because indeed under "bias- controlled
conditions" (read: ABX) everything does sound the same..To him that
is.
But the loudspeakers should not, right? Even to him they sound
different.
Except... In Sean Olive's double-blind, "bias controlled" study most
panelists failed to distinguish four very different loudspeakers from
each other when comparing "different or not". And that was just
DBT- imagine what would happen if they were ABXed (which Sean Olive
rejected as "unsuitable" for his test..)
(JAES, vol.51.#9, p.806-825)
But the same panelists when asked a straightforward question: "Which
one do you like better?" plumped for the ones with the smoothest
frequency response.
I pointed this out to our local "scientists" ten times if I pointed
it once. The replies ranged from silence to inarticulate, gutter
profanity.
I doubt if our one and only NYOB will do any better.
So much for "bias- controlled" "tests" of human likes and
dislikes.
Next: bias-controlled DBT/ABX test of a Stradivarius against a
Guarnieri,
Ludovic Mirabel

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
>
> paul packer wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:23:22 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"paul packer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:10:46 GMT, > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I don't care what the truth is, I just like
>> >>>knowing it. Why delude myself into thinking I buy equipment that
>> >>>can't
>> >>>deliver into reality what my brain thought it heard, or something
>> >>>different
>> >>>than what's on the recording?
>> >>>
>> >>>This one got spellchecked.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but have you got a comprehension checker? I'm afraid I'm stumped.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I once saw a letter written by a brothel madam in Cairo in 1847. It
>> >> ended with the puzzling question: "Where are the feathersees sent?"
>> >> Your post brought it back to mind. :-)
>> >
>> >Let me try and rephrase.
>> >
>> >The truth about audio electronics is that except for speakers, it is a
>> >simple matter to obtain equipment that reproduces exactly the source
>> >material. This assumes CD playback and SS equipment.
>> >
>> >That this is true, is verified by reams of reliable research.
>> >
>> >I don't know why this fact confounds some people.
>> >I don't understand why knowing the facts and repeating them should
>> >bother
>> >people.
>> >Something is either true or not.
>>
>> Things are not as "true" as you imagine. Everything cannot be reduced
>> to measurement. The brain is not well understood and auditory science
>> is by no means complete. People tend to believe what they actually
>> hear rather than what a machine tells them they should be hearing
>> according to "logic".
>>
>> >I have no interest in buying equipment that does anything other than
>> >reproduce what is on the source media, without any audible change.
>>
>> Yep, same here.
>>
>> >Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain.
>> >They
>> >can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
>> >completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of.
>> >There
>> >are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large
>> >and
>> >very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels,
>> >unless
>> >you're sitting very close.
>>
>> Speakers probably are the weakest link in the sense of most obviously
>> variable. There was a time back in the 70s when the "garbage in,
>> garbage out" doctrine ruled and people swore that a Linn turntable
>> could make even crap speakers sound sweet. That was rubbish as was
>> eventually recognised. Nevertheless a good source is vital, and I can
>> never agree that all CD players and well-measuring amps sound the same
>> because my ears tell me otherwise. Therefore I have to go on
>> listening.
>>
>> >I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't
>> >control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I
>> >want
>> >what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
>> >audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to
>> >influence
>> >a purchase.
>>
>> "Fair" to what? We're talking listening for pleasure in the home here.
>> Therefore what sounds best to the purchaser in his listening
>> environment is the only "fair" that matters. As for salespeople, no
>> doubt they do play with purchaser's heads, and that's why it's
>> necessary to be as well-armed as possible when one goes into the shop.
>> This is were hi-fi mags came in, or used to before they went over to
>> HT. Only an idiot believed every word, but they were great for
>> compiling short lists. Beyond that it's a case of listening carefully
>> and ignoring most of the salesman's waffle. Live concerts are useful
>> too, to get the sound of live instruments. That after all is your
>> touchstone.
>>
>> >I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about it, partly because I
>> >have
>> >the benefit of knowing how reliably accurate most gear is, and because I
>> >can
>> >get reliable data on he build quality of anything I might be
>> >considering.
>>
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> >I'm also lucky enough to know that there is a lot of pro audio equipment
>> >that meets and/or exceeds the quality of so-called high end equipment
>> >that
>> >costs much less than the high end stuff.
>>
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> >I don't see that any of these views should be considered controversial,
>> >let
>> >alone met with the kind of vitriol that they seem to engender here.
>>
>> There's never any need for vitriol. The emotion is engendered by the
>> concept that audio as a hobby and a passion can be reduced to
>> measurerment. Our ears tell us it can't, sighted listening and
>> controlled SPLs notwithstanding.
>>
>> > I don't
>> >understand replacing fact with emotion. I save my emotions for listening
>> >to
>> >music that I know is as close as I can get to what was put down on the
>> >master.
>> >
>> >I understand there are people who choose to go with what sounds good to
>> >them
>> >and that's all well and good, so long as they don't make claims about
>> >performance that are at odds with reality.
>>
>> Yes, but what is reality? What you've measured, or what you actually
>> hear? You talk about the bias of sighted listening, but measurement
>> can itself create bias. If you see that an amp has vanishingly low
>> distortion, and believe that such distortion cannot be audible, likely
>> you'll hear that amp as "perfect"--that's real bias.
>>
>> >Clear enough?
>>
>> Yes, very clear. Putting aside content, I have to admit that your post
>> is a model of literate clarity. Therefore I can't help wondering why
>> all your posts aren't like this, why you insist on giving Robert and
>> George so much ammunition for their "Special Person" campaign. Did all
>> your report cards at school say, "Could do better," "Doesn't apply
>> himself" etc?
>> In any case if you can do it once you can do it always, and I expect
>> to see a similar standard in all future posts. Here's one star * to
>> start you off. You can wear it on your forehead. :-)
> __________________________________________________ _
> Nyob concedes that loudspeakers sound different.

Nothing new. I've always said that.

>> >Unfortunately, loudspeakers are the weakest link in the audio chain.
>> >They
>> >can't work properly if not set up correctly. There's no known way to
>> >completely eliminate distortion from loudspeakers, that I know of.
>> >There
>> >are some that come pretty close but they usually need to be very large
>> >and
>> >very expensive, or played at levels below live performance levels,
>> >unless
>> >you're sitting very close.
>>
> And he repeats the catechism:
> >I have no interest in doing comparisons of audio equipment that don't
>> >control for bias, and that doesn't include level matching, because I
>> >want
>> >what I'm hearing to be as fair a comparison as is possible. Having sold
>> >audio equipment, I know what sort of things salespeople can do to
>> >influence
>> >a purchase
>
> What he should have said was that loudspeakers sound different *even to
> me*
> Bercause nothing else does.

But that would have been untrue.

According to him manufacture of audio
> reached such perfection that no matter what you put together it will
> sound the same.

Not according to me, according to the technology. It's a very simple thing
to build components that are audibly transparent. That you don't seem to
recognize that fact is not my fault.

> Again what he should have said was: "TO ME"

Or anyone else when comparing similar equipment, and not diriven into
clipping. That's why there are so few positive results from ABX tests.

> He knows he is right because indeed under "bias- controlled
> conditions" (read: ABX) everything does sound the same..

Not everything, as you've been shown many times before. When the
differences are audible, people hear them in ABX tests.

To him that
> is.
> But the loudspeakers should not, right? Even to him they sound
> different.
> Except... In Sean Olive's double-blind, "bias controlled" study most
> panelists failed to distinguish four very different loudspeakers from
> each other when comparing "different or not".

Is that the end of all such testing on how loudspeakers sound, you
insufferable twit?
One research example and the whole thing is inavild in your mind?

And that was just
> DBT- imagine what would happen if they were ABXed (which Sean Olive
> rejected as "unsuitable" for his test..)

But not because there is a problem with ABX per se.

> (JAES, vol.51.#9, p.806-825)
> But the same panelists when asked a straightforward question: "Which
> one do you like better?" plumped for the ones with the smoothest
> frequency response.
> I pointed this out to our local "scientists" ten times if I pointed
> it once. The replies ranged from silence to inarticulate, gutter
> profanity.
> I doubt if our one and only NYOB will do any better.
> So much for "bias- controlled" "tests" of human likes and
> dislikes.
> Next: bias-controlled DBT/ABX test of a Stradivarius against a
> Guarnieri,
> Ludovic Mirabel

The fact that yo use only one expample of people not being able to
distinguish speakers that you believe they should have and trying to
globalize it for all DBT's everywhere is one of the signs that you are not
bright enough to discuss this with, since you are obviously not getting it.

Have you ever bothered to discuss this with Mr. Olive via e-mail?
Perhaps if you did you might be able to get past it and move into the real
world, assuming they will let you.