How to become life and soul at a party.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:53:28 GMT, > wrote:
>
>
> >We all know what you are Ludo.
> >
> >**** off.
>
> Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to gain by
> proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing hi-fi products? I mean,
> all these posts, thousands of words and so much passion--what's it all
> about? I don't think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
> of ABX. I'm mystified.

I don't think you'll get much light. Insight is not one of the virtues
that sectarians foster..
Most of the true believers don't listen to music (with capital M).
Even the arch-priest said that prolonged listening is a waste of time.
Most don't attend symphonic or chamber music concerts and shut it off
when it comes on their car radio. The music they know is the background
noise on their best buy "systems" and when shopping in the supermarket
and an occasional rock concert in their younger years. They don't want
to recreate the sound of unamplified orchestral instruments because
they don't listen to it, don't know it and don't miss it
The chapel makes them feel as good as "those snarky, superior types ".
As good? No, better- they have a set of dogmas with salvation in the
paradise of "science" (high school level). The unsaved just delude
themselves praying to their imaginary false Gods. Like all the true
believers they do not need to observe their dogmas- many of them,
probably most never participated in an ABX trial and don't use it to
shop- all they need is to believe.
The flattering belief that what they are familiar with is as good as it
gets explains the passion they put in defending their dogmas. That
explains why they'll list phony references to nonexistent arguments,
why they post 10 times a day and why they end discussions with
"****bags" and "****-offs" when really pressed into a corner.. The rage
chokes them. Someone dares to suggest that there may be a whole world
out there that they have not got an inkling of.
Now I'm going to say something that may make me unpopular even with an
egalitarian Aussie.
There are not "cultures". There is not a white culture and a black
culture and a pop culture. There is only one culture.. Hundred years
ago those aspiring to better themselves strove to acquire it-; with the
rise of universal literacy (at elementary level) pop became triumphant
and resents those who don't join. John Grisham is as good as John
Donne. Michael Crichton has better plotting than Marcel Proust and
those who listen to chamber music are just pretending to enjoy it to
humiliate the believers. The sectarians, will always resent those who
question their faith that they are as good as anyone else. Having a
little doubt lurking at the bottom of the psyche makes them even more
aggressive.
The above is a lesson on how to become popular and get votes,
Ludovic Mirabel

[paul packer]

On 17 Nov 2005 00:03:13 -0800, wrote:

wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:53:28 GMT, > wrote:

>> Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to gain by
>> proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing hi-fi products? I mean,
>> all these posts, thousands of words and so much passion--what's it all
>> about? I don't think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
>> of ABX. I'm mystified.
>
>I don't think you'll get much light. Insight is not one of the virtues
>that sectarians foster..
> Most of the true believers don't listen to music (with capital M).
>Even the arch-priest said that prolonged listening is a waste of time.

Yes, somehow I've never had the impression Arnie listens to much music
or indeed even likes music. For one thing he's too busy on Usenet. And
one feels when he's off Usenet he's tinkering with circuit boards or
whatever. Arnie lounging back in a recliner, eyes closed soaking up
the semiquavers and crochets....nope, don't get that image.

(snip description of spiritual ecstacy)

>The flattering belief that what they are familiar with is as good as it
>gets explains the passion they put in defending their dogmas. That
>explains why they'll list phony references to nonexistent arguments,
>why they post 10 times a day

Only 10? You haven't been paying attention, Ludovic. :-)

> and why they end discussions with
>"****bags" and "****-offs" when really pressed into a corner.

Well, Robert would suggest that's because they lack refinement,
education and intelligence. Whatever, it does seem to be an admission
that something of the opposition's argument is starting to seep
through.

> The rage
>chokes them. Someone dares to suggest that there may be a whole world
>out there that they have not got an inkling of.

Yes, a world that can't be measured. That does seem to distress them.

>Now I'm going to say something that may make me unpopular even with an
>egalitarian Aussie.

You mean me? No, I'm a snob--just ask George.

>There are not "cultures". There is not a white culture and a black
>culture and a pop culture. There is only one culture.. Hundred years
>ago those aspiring to better themselves strove to acquire it-; with the
>rise of universal literacy (at elementary level) pop became triumphant
>and resents those who don't join. John Grisham is as good as John
>Donne. Michael Crichton has better plotting than Marcel Proust and
>those who listen to chamber music are just pretending to enjoy it to
>humiliate the believers. The sectarians, will always resent those who
>question their faith that they are as good as anyone else. Having a
>little doubt lurking at the bottom of the psyche makes them even more
>aggressive.

You're also describing the campaign to eliminate standards, or at
least to pretend that everything is just a matter of opinion and
there's no better or worse, higher or lower. I'm relieved to find I'm
not the only one who still holds to the notion of absolutes.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote:

> Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to
> gain by proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing
> hi-fi products? I mean, all these posts, thousands of
> words and so much passion--what's it all about? I don't
> think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
> of ABX. I'm mystified.

There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX can be a
useful tool for comparing audio products because it is an
accepted fact.

There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX may not
be a useful tool for comparing audio products because that
is also an accepted fact.

If you got out more often Paul, you'd notice that the world
has shades of gray and isn't just black and white.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> wrote:
>
>> Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to
>> gain by proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing
>> hi-fi products? I mean, all these posts, thousands of
>> words and so much passion--what's it all about? I don't
>> think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
>> of ABX. I'm mystified.
>
> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX can be a useful tool
> for comparing audio products because it is an accepted fact.
>
Except by the hundreds of thousands of audiophiles, as well as designers of
high end equipment. Your statement is akin to proclaiming a state religion
when there is nono.


> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX may not be a useful
> tool for comparing audio products because that is also an accepted fact.

See above.
>
> If you got out more often Paul, you'd notice that the world has shades of
> gray and isn't just black and white.
>
Ad homineum attack noted. Typical of Krueger, known on this newsgroup for
being a genuinely nasty person. Arny, I don't know whether you "get out" or
not, but you betray the personality of coarse-grit sand paper.

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> wrote:
>
>> Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to
>> gain by proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing
>> hi-fi products? I mean, all these posts, thousands of
>> words and so much passion--what's it all about? I don't
>> think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
>> of ABX. I'm mystified.
>
> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX can be a useful tool
> for comparing audio products because it is an accepted fact.
>

It is also an accepted fact that god exists.

> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX may not be a useful
> tool for comparing audio products because that is also an accepted fact.
>

It is also an accepted fact that god does not exists.

> If you got out more often Paul, you'd notice that the world has shades of
> gray and isn't just black and white.
>

Got out? Heh, "Prime Time" Arnii is still gloating over the trip to NYC that
John Atkinson bought him.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Robert Morein]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to
>>> gain by proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing
>>> hi-fi products? I mean, all these posts, thousands of
>>> words and so much passion--what's it all about? I don't
>>> think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
>>> of ABX. I'm mystified.
>>
>> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX can be a useful tool
>> for comparing audio products because it is an accepted fact.
>>
>
> It is also an accepted fact that god exists.
>
>> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX may not be a useful
>> tool for comparing audio products because that is also an accepted fact.
>>
>
> It is also an accepted fact that god does not exists.
>
>> If you got out more often Paul, you'd notice that the world has shades of
>> gray and isn't just black and white.
>>
>
> Got out? Heh, "Prime Time" Arnii is still gloating over the trip to NYC
> that John Atkinson bought him.
>
The dark Minnesota winter turns a man's soul toward the dark side of
depression, despair, and suicide. We can always hope.

[George Middius]

Robert Morein said:

>The dark Minnesota winter turns a man's soul toward the dark side of
>depression, despair, and suicide. We can always hope.

Thanks Mr. Morien for admitting you, don't know how to find Goose Pointy Wood's
on a map, in the snow with frozen, radar's. LOt"S! ;-( LOL! ;-)




,
,
,

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> wrote:
>
>> Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to
>> gain by proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing
>> hi-fi products? I mean, all these posts, thousands of
>> words and so much passion--what's it all about? I don't
>> think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
>> of ABX. I'm mystified.
>
> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX can be a useful tool
> for comparing audio products because it is an accepted fact.
>
> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX may not be a useful
> tool for comparing audio products because that is also an accepted fact.

oh, you forgot something:
There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
for consumer choices

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to
>>>> gain by proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing
>>>> hi-fi products? I mean, all these posts, thousands of
>>>> words and so much passion--what's it all about? I don't
>>>> think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
>>>> of ABX. I'm mystified.
>>>
>>> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX can be a useful tool
>>> for comparing audio products because it is an accepted fact.
>>>
>>
>> It is also an accepted fact that god exists.
>>
>>> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX may not be a useful
>>> tool for comparing audio products because that is also an accepted fact.
>>>
>>
>> It is also an accepted fact that god does not exists.
>>
>>> If you got out more often Paul, you'd notice that the world has shades
>>> of gray and isn't just black and white.
>>>
>>
>> Got out? Heh, "Prime Time" Arnii is still gloating over the trip to NYC
>> that John Atkinson bought him.
>>
> The dark Minnesota winter turns a man's soul toward the dark side of
> depression, despair, and suicide. We can always hope.

Well, we can hope that Arny moves to minnesota.
he lives in Michigan, now.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to
>>>>> gain by proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing
>>>>> hi-fi products? I mean, all these posts, thousands of
>>>>> words and so much passion--what's it all about? I don't
>>>>> think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
>>>>> of ABX. I'm mystified.
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX can be a useful
>>>> tool for comparing audio products because it is an accepted fact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is also an accepted fact that god exists.
>>>
>>>> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX may not be a useful
>>>> tool for comparing audio products because that is also an accepted
>>>> fact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is also an accepted fact that god does not exists.
>>>
>>>> If you got out more often Paul, you'd notice that the world has shades
>>>> of gray and isn't just black and white.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Got out? Heh, "Prime Time" Arnii is still gloating over the trip to NYC
>>> that John Atkinson bought him.
>>>
>> The dark Minnesota winter turns a man's soul toward the dark side of
>> depression, despair, and suicide. We can always hope.
>
> Well, we can hope that Arny moves to minnesota.
> he lives in Michigan, now.
Michigan! I feel so sorry for those people. They have enough trouble as it
is.
Time for a doc, "Arny and Me" ?

[Nathan Stohler]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> oh, you forgot something:
> There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
> for consumer choices.

Who claimed otherwise?

[Steven Sullivan]

Nathan Stohler > wrote:


> Clyde Slick wrote:

> > oh, you forgot something:
> > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
> > for consumer choices.

> Who claimed otherwise?

Of course there could be something to be gained, if one
has the wherewithal to do ABX, or any other bias-controlled
listening test -- the distinct possibility of finding that
one needn't spend X number of dollars more, to get
the *same sound* as Y.

That knowledge -- that in this instance, sound and
price are not correlated -- could certainly be
a factor in a purchase. Features and appearance
are two others that commonly factor in.

And as for ABX tests done by someone else --
consumer choices are routinely affected by what they
read in sources they trust -- be it a general
consumer watchdog like Consumer Reports, or
a source that sets itself up as an authority
in a particular area, such as Stereophile. Or
even a Usenet poster. Consumers often
feel they have *gained* useful information
by reading reviews, test results,
and ratings from such sources, even though they
are 'second hand'. Why would ABX results be any
different?



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Nathan Stohler" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> oh, you forgot something:
>> There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
>> for consumer choices.
>
> Who claimed otherwise?
>

You ARE kidding.

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Nathan Stohler > wrote:
>
>
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> > oh, you forgot something:
>> > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
>> > for consumer choices.
>
>> Who claimed otherwise?
>
> Of course there could be something to be gained, if one
> has the wherewithal to do ABX, or any other bias-controlled
> listening test -- the distinct possibility of finding that
> one needn't spend X number of dollars more, to get
> the *same sound* as Y.
>
> That knowledge -- that in this instance, sound and
> price are not correlated -- could certainly be
> a factor in a purchase. Features and appearance
> are two others that commonly factor in.
>
> And as for ABX tests done by someone else --
> consumer choices are routinely affected by what they
> read in sources they trust -- be it a general
> consumer watchdog like Consumer Reports, or
> a source that sets itself up as an authority
> in a particular area, such as Stereophile. Or
> even a Usenet poster. Consumers often
> feel they have *gained* useful information
> by reading reviews, test results,
> and ratings from such sources, even though they
> are 'second hand'. Why would ABX results be any
> different?
>

So, how did your $25 surround sound
speaker system turn out?

[George M. Middius]

Nathan Stohlborg is on the case!

> > oh, you forgot something:
> > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
> > for consumer choices.

> Who claimed otherwise?

All of the hypocritical 'borgs did, that's "who". Why do you think somebody
even mentioned it?

[John Atkinson]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Nathan Stohlborg is on the case!
> > > oh, you forgot something:
> > > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
> > > for consumer choices.
> >
> > Who claimed otherwise?
>
> All of the hypocritical 'borgs did, that's "who". Why do you think somebody
> even mentioned it?

Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the 1999 exchanges
between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in which Krueger argued at great
length
that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.

Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven Sullivan has made
such use of the test they so strongly advocate to others.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to
> > gain by proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing
> > hi-fi products? I mean, all these posts, thousands of
> > words and so much passion--what's it all about? I don't
> > think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
> > of ABX. I'm mystified.
>
> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX can be a
> useful tool for comparing audio products because it is an
> accepted fact.
>
> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX may not
> be a useful tool for comparing audio products because that
> is also an accepted fact.
>
> If you got out more often Paul, you'd notice that the world
> has shades of gray and isn't just black and white.

A great inspirational speech to rally the troops Arny. You're talking
of course about your ABX- not just any old DBT.
As long as you can still use that megaphone screaming "Facts" you
don't need to bother with little things like experimental evidence
that it WORKS in the real world-- to show differences in the way
components reproduce music. Are you still looking for that reference
to one single, positive published ABX test showing that it WORKS to
show differences.
I wonder if you'll ever grasp that listening to A, then to B and
then to X and deciding if X is more like A or B is not the way human
brain cortex decides: "I like this one better"
Ludovic Mirabel
I hope you don't bother this time to bring Clarkson's website
again. It is such a chore calling the demolition squad all over again .

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>> Nathan Stohlborg is on the case!
>> > > oh, you forgot something:
>> > > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
>> > > for consumer choices.
>> >
>> > Who claimed otherwise?
>>
>> All of the hypocritical 'borgs did, that's "who". Why do you think
>> somebody
>> even mentioned it?
>
> Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the 1999 exchanges
> between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in which Krueger argued at great
> length
> that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.
>
> Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven Sullivan has made
> such use of the test they so strongly advocate to others.
>
As usual, you leave details.

We've only recomended that a DBTof any kind, be done when there is a
question about a difference in sound between the components being
considered. If there is no question, there is no need.

There is nothing odd about advocating something you know works for people
who have questions about alleged differences where there shouldn't be any.

Surely if anyone were foolish enough to rely on the impressions of SP's
reviewers they would think there are a great many things that sound
different, in spite of the fact that they have no reliable way of knowing if
such differences really exist anywhere but in the mind of the reviewer.

Better thsy should pay attention to the measurements in SP which you seem to
get right, and disregard the flowery prose which most often is faulty to
absurd.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to
>> > gain by proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing
>> > hi-fi products? I mean, all these posts, thousands of
>> > words and so much passion--what's it all about? I don't
>> > think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
>> > of ABX. I'm mystified.
>>
>> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX can be a
>> useful tool for comparing audio products because it is an
>> accepted fact.
>>
>> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX may not
>> be a useful tool for comparing audio products because that
>> is also an accepted fact.
>>
>> If you got out more often Paul, you'd notice that the world
>> has shades of gray and isn't just black and white.
>
> A great inspirational speech to rally the troops Arny. You're talking
> of course about your ABX- not just any old DBT.
> As long as you can still use that megaphone screaming "Facts" you
> don't need to bother with little things like experimental evidence
> that it WORKS in the real world-- to show differences in the way
> components reproduce music.

That's right, we don't that's already been done ad nauseum.

Are you still looking for that reference
> to one single, positive published ABX test showing that it WORKS to
> show differences.

Nope, we can take it that since so many people already have done so, despite
you being to lazy to find them, that it has already been establsihed by
people like the BBC and Harman that they work.

> I wonder if you'll ever grasp that listening to A, then to B and
> then to X and deciding if X is more like A or B is not the way human
> brain cortex decides: "I like this one better"


Nobody ever said it was, you ignorant putz. It's how they decided if
there's a difference. If there's no difference in sound, there's no sound
to prefer.

> Ludovic Mirabel
> I hope you don't bother this time to bring Clarkson's website
> again. It is such a chore calling the demolition squad all over again .
>
Right better not to pollute your tiny little mind with facts.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mike, may I ask a sensible question: what do you have to
> >> > gain by proving that ABX is a useful tool in comparing
> >> > hi-fi products? I mean, all these posts, thousands of
> >> > words and so much passion--what's it all about? I don't
> >> > think even Arnie has written as much as you in defence
> >> > of ABX. I'm mystified.
> >>
> >> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX can be a
> >> useful tool for comparing audio products because it is an
> >> accepted fact.
> >>
> >> There's nothing to gain by trying to prove that ABX may not
> >> be a useful tool for comparing audio products because that
> >> is also an accepted fact.
> >>
> >> If you got out more often Paul, you'd notice that the world
> >> has shades of gray and isn't just black and white.
> >
> > A great inspirational speech to rally the troops Arny. You're talking
> > of course about your ABX- not just any old DBT.
> > As long as you can still use that megaphone screaming "Facts" you
> > don't need to bother with little things like experimental evidence
> > that it WORKS in the real world-- to show differences in the way
> > components reproduce music.
>
> That's right, we don't that's already been done ad nauseum.
>
> Are you still looking for that reference
> > to one single, positive published ABX test showing that it WORKS to
> > show differences.
>
> Nope, we can take it that since so many people already have done so, despite
> you being to lazy to find them, that it has already been establsihed by
> people like the BBC and Harman that they work.
>
> > I wonder if you'll ever grasp that listening to A, then to B and
> > then to X and deciding if X is more like A or B is not the way human
> > brain cortex decides: "I like this one better"
>
>
> Nobody ever said it was, you ignorant putz. It's how they decided if
> there's a difference. If there's no difference in sound, there's no sound
> to prefer.
>
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> > I hope you don't bother this time to bring Clarkson's website
> > again. It is such a chore calling the demolition squad all over again .
> >
> Right better not to pollute your tiny little mind with facts.

What's the point? Better get some sleep.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ps.com
> George M. Middius wrote:
>> Nathan Stohlborg is on the case!
>>>> oh, you forgot something:
>>>> There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
>>>> for consumer choices.
>>>
>>> Who claimed otherwise?
>>
>> All of the hypocritical 'borgs did, that's "who". Why do
>> you think somebody even mentioned it?

> Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the
> 1999 exchanges between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in
> which Krueger argued at great length
> that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point
> of purchase.

> Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven
> Sullivan has made such use of the test they so strongly
> advocate to others.

Typical Atkinson scrambling of the facts. The man must be
having mini strokes often, because I just explained how this
works a few weeks ago, and now he's obviously forgotten what
I said.

I'd be happy to review PCABX files of equipment that I was
considering the purchase of, if they existed.

I just bought two pair of mics, and were there some
standarized recordings involving them available for
download, I'd have listened to them ASAP.

I still think most people would be very interested in doing
close standardized and relevant listening comparsons of
equipment they are thinking about buying.

Trouble is, the main means by which I obtain PCABX files of
equipment is to first buy the equipment, and then make the
files.

Good thing I have good luck choosing equipment based on
specs, tech analysis and other people's experience with it.
Because just like everybody else, that's about all that I
have to work with until I actually buy the stuff.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:20:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>Good thing I have good luck choosing equipment based on
>specs, tech analysis and other people's experience with it.
>Because just like everybody else, that's about all that I
>have to work with until I actually buy the stuff.

Er...what about ears, Arnie?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> We've only recomended that a DBTof any kind, be done when there is a
> question about a difference in sound between the components being
> considered. If there is no question, there is no need.
>

Thanks for admitting that DBT does nothing to remove
the listener bias that that the items sound the same.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ps.com
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>>> Nathan Stohlborg is on the case!
>>>>> oh, you forgot something:
>>>>> There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
>>>>> for consumer choices.
>>>>
>>>> Who claimed otherwise?
>>>
>>> All of the hypocritical 'borgs did, that's "who". Why do
>>> you think somebody even mentioned it?
>
>> Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the
>> 1999 exchanges between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in
>> which Krueger argued at great length
>> that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point
>> of purchase.
>
>> Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven
>> Sullivan has made such use of the test they so strongly
>> advocate to others.
>
> Typical Atkinson scrambling of the facts. The man must be having mini
> strokes often, because I just explained how this works a few weeks ago,
> and now he's obviously forgotten what I said.
>
> I'd be happy to review PCABX files of equipment that I was considering the
> purchase of, if they existed.
>
> I just bought two pair of mics, and were there some standarized recordings
> involving them available for download, I'd have listened to them ASAP.
>
> I still think most people would be very interested in doing close
> standardized and relevant listening comparsons of equipment they are
> thinking about buying.
>
> Trouble is, the main means by which I obtain PCABX files of equipment is
> to first buy the equipment, and then make the files.
>
> Good thing I have good luck choosing equipment based on specs, tech
> analysis and other people's experience with it. Because just like
> everybody else, that's about all that I have to work with until I actually
> buy the stuff.
>

Too bad you're too stupid or pretend to be too stupid to
understand the difference between ABX, DBT and PCABX.
Considering your claim to be the 'inventor'
of PCABX, I would bet on your dishonesty every time.

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Nathan Stohler > wrote:
>
>
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> > > oh, you forgot something:
> > > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
> > > for consumer choices.
>
> > Who claimed otherwise?
>
> Of course there could be something to be gained, if one
> has the wherewithal to do ABX, or any other bias-controlled
> listening test -- the distinct possibility of finding that
> one needn't spend X number of dollars more, to get
> the *same sound* as Y.
>
> That knowledge -- that in this instance, sound and
> price are not correlated -- could certainly be
> a factor in a purchase. Features and appearance
> are two others that commonly factor in.
>
> And as for ABX tests done by someone else --
> consumer choices are routinely affected by what they
> read in sources they trust -- be it a general
> consumer watchdog like Consumer Reports, or
> a source that sets itself up as an authority
> in a particular area, such as Stereophile. Or
> even a Usenet poster. Consumers often
> feel they have *gained* useful information
> by reading reviews, test results,
> and ratings from such sources, even though they
> are 'second hand'. Why would ABX results be any
> different?
>
>S. Sullivan
____________________________________
Sullivan asks:
Why would ABX results be any
different?
Because it has never been shown to be the right tool for use in
deciding what component to buy. No basic research in what it does or
does not do was ever done
On the contrary every published report of panels using ABX resulted in
"There is no difference between the components tested' All and
everyone:of them. I
n the absence of evidence to the contrary it appears that ABX prevents
people from differentiating. Better to get a partner to change
components while you're blinded and rely on your ears to decide which
is better.
Ludovic Mirabel


--


>
> --
>

[John Atkinson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in:
Message >
>"John Atkinson" > wrote
>in message ps.com
>> Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the
>> 1999 exchanges between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in
>> which Krueger argued at great length that ABX testing
>> should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.
>>
>> Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven
>> Sullivan has made such use of the test they so strongly
>> advocate to others.
>
> Typical Atkinson scrambling of the facts.

I do not "scramble the facts," Mr. Krueger. I merely state
truths that you and others find uncomfortable.

> I just explained how this works a few weeks ago, and now
> he's obviously forgotten what I said.

Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
audio components.

> I'd be happy to review PCABX files of equipment that I was
> considering the purchase of, if they existed.

Whatever reasons you feel appropriate for _not_ using ABX
tests when making your equipment purchase choices, Mr.
Krueger, this does not in any way contradict what I
pointed out: that neither neither you, nor Mike McKelvy,
nor Steven Sullivan make such use of the ABX test you
all so strongly advocate to others.

This, as George Middius has pointed out, is hypocrisy.

We thus have the odd situation that the three posters who
are most vocal promoting ABX testing on the newsgroups a)
do not use it themselves at the only time it matters to
them, and b) they complain when someone like myself behaves
in a similar manner.

Of course, Mr. Sullivan has distanced himself from your
position by stating that he feels that whereas review
magazines should be obliged to use ABX testing, consumers
don't have to. As I have pointed out in the past, I am
content to let the market decide this matter. Instead of
complaining that Stereophile and similar magazines fail
to do his bidding, he and others of similar mind should
not buy Stereophile, instead patronizing magazines whose
testing confirms to his demands.

Except, of course, there aren't any. Even the almost
defunct The Audio Critic performed sighted listening
much of the time, and Sound & Vision, whose technical
editor agrees with you on these matters, Mr. Krueger,
also performs sighted listening and has just announced
a 50% circulation reduction, from 400,000 to 200,00.
Hardly a sign of economic health, I would have thought.

I admit that Stereophile's circulation has also fallen. These
are difficult times for magazines in general. In the past 2 years
Stereophile's audited number has dropped from 80,000 to
76,200. However, to offset that slight decline, our website now
attracts almost 400,000 unique visitors each month. How
many unique visitors do your 2 websites attract, Mr. Krueger?
After all, a couple of years back you claimed that they were
effectively equivalent to www.stereophile.com.

It looks as if the market is indeed making up its mind on such
matters as the relevance of ABX to consumers. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

> It looks as if the market is indeed making up its mind on such
> matters as the relevance of ABX to consumers. :-)

Yes, it certainly does. Krooger's aBxism Home Torture Kit is on track to equal
the success of his previous venture, the Turd Of The Month Club. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> Of course there could be something to be gained, if one
>> has the wherewithal to do ABX, or any other bias-controlled
>> listening test -- the distinct possibility of finding that
>> one needn't spend X number of dollars more, to get
>> the *same sound* as Y.
>>
>> That knowledge -- that in this instance, sound and
>> price are not correlated -- could certainly be
>> a factor in a purchase. Features and appearance
>> are two others that commonly factor in.
>>
>> And as for ABX tests done by someone else --
>> consumer choices are routinely affected by what they
>> read in sources they trust -- be it a general
>> consumer watchdog like Consumer Reports, or
>> a source that sets itself up as an authority
>> in a particular area, such as Stereophile. Or
>> even a Usenet poster. Consumers often
>> feel they have *gained* useful information
>> by reading reviews, test results,
>> and ratings from such sources, even though they
>> are 'second hand'. Why would ABX results be any
>> different?
>>
>>S. Sullivan
> ____________________________________
> Sullivan asks:
> Why would ABX results be any
> different?
> Because it has never been shown to be the right tool for use in
> deciding what component to buy. No basic research in what it does or
> does not do was ever done
> On the contrary every published report of panels using ABX resulted in
> "There is no difference between the components tested' All and
> everyone:of them. I
> n the absence of evidence to the contrary it appears that ABX prevents
> people from differentiating. Better to get a partner to change
> components while you're blinded and rely on your ears to decide which
> is better.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>

Ask Sullivan how his new st of $25 surroiund sound
speakers sound. He bought them without ABX or DBT'ing them.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> Ask Sullivan how his new st of $25 surroiund sound
> speakers sound. He bought them without ABX or DBT'ing them.

That wasn't Sillybot, it was Normy the Weak.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> Ask Sullivan how his new st of $25 surroiund sound
>> speakers sound. He bought them without ABX or DBT'ing them.
>
> That wasn't Sillybot, it was Normy the Weak.
>
or Normy the Cheap

[Steven Sullivan]

John Atkinson > wrote:

> George M. Middius wrote:
> > Nathan Stohlborg is on the case!
> > > > oh, you forgot something:
> > > > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
> > > > for consumer choices.
> > >
> > > Who claimed otherwise?
> >
> > All of the hypocritical 'borgs did, that's "who". Why do you think somebody
> > even mentioned it?

> Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the 1999 exchanges
> between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in which Krueger argued at great
> length
> that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.

> Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven Sullivan has made
> such use of the test they so strongly advocate to others.

Steven Sullivan doesn't make strong claims about how his solid-state
gear sounds different from others, either. There is no disjunction
between what he claims, what he believes, and what he advocate for
*verifying* claims.

He doesn't do DBTs or bench tests of 99.9% of the products he buys,
but he certainly endorses accurate objective testing of products
by agencies that are able to do so, and the reporting of those
results, to consumers. He believes those data would be more
reliable than the current hodgepodge of sighted impressions,
and bench tests.

Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry in this matter
are sad to see...especially as his own journal seems to find
bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that its readers
endorse such testing, even though it is extremely unlikely
that they could perform them at home.




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

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Nathan Stohler > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >
> > > > oh, you forgot something:
> > > > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
> > > > for consumer choices.
> >
> > > Who claimed otherwise?
> >
> > Of course there could be something to be gained, if one
> > has the wherewithal to do ABX, or any other bias-controlled
> > listening test -- the distinct possibility of finding that
> > one needn't spend X number of dollars more, to get
> > the *same sound* as Y.
> >
> > That knowledge -- that in this instance, sound and
> > price are not correlated -- could certainly be
> > a factor in a purchase. Features and appearance
> > are two others that commonly factor in.
> >
> > And as for ABX tests done by someone else --
> > consumer choices are routinely affected by what they
> > read in sources they trust -- be it a general
> > consumer watchdog like Consumer Reports, or
> > a source that sets itself up as an authority
> > in a particular area, such as Stereophile. Or
> > even a Usenet poster. Consumers often
> > feel they have *gained* useful information
> > by reading reviews, test results,
> > and ratings from such sources, even though they
> > are 'second hand'. Why would ABX results be any
> > different?
> >
> >S. Sullivan
> ____________________________________
> Sullivan asks:
> Why would ABX results be any
> different?
> Because it has never been shown to be the right tool for use in
> deciding what component to buy. No basic research in what it does or
> does not do was ever done
> On the contrary every published report of panels using ABX resulted in
> "There is no difference between the components tested' All and
> everyone:of them.

This is simply a lie, one that you keep propounding. When called on
it (e.g., pointed to positive ABX results on the Carlstrom site),
you immediately begin cavilline what constitutes 'published'
ABX tests ,and then you begin cavilling that it's 'ABX' testing that's
wrong, all wrong, and then you begin cavilling about staw-man
definitions of what ABX testing is (e.g., that it does not allow for
long-term comparison). This is sheer sophistry.m And you've
engaged in it,a nd been called on it, repeatedly.

Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will
suffice to objectively establish that reported
differences or preferences are indeed due to the claimed differences
in the products under test. For taste tests, they demonstrate that
the preference or difference was really due to the flavor of
the foods, not due to beliefs about the foods; for audio tests, they
demonstrate that the preference or difference was really due to
sound of the components or recordings, not beliefs about the components
or recordings.

Negative results strictly interpreted, indicate that the
hypothesis of real difference has not been proven. However,
in science that does not mean that the hypothesis
remains just as likely as its negation. Science obviously doesn't
interpret negative results from good experiments
as meaning 'well, it's still probably true; I'll just
assume these negative results don't mean anything'.

DBT and level-matching are the the *generic* requirements
for this, and different species of DBT -- ABX, ABC/hr, etc --
are more or less appropriate for different situations and questions.

Agreed, or not?





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

[dave weil]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:20:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Trouble is, the main means by which I obtain PCABX files of
>equipment is to first buy the equipment, and then make the
>files.
>
>Good thing I have good luck choosing equipment based on
>specs, tech analysis and other people's experience with it.
>Because just like everybody else, that's about all that I
>have to work with until I actually buy the stuff.

So what good is ABX then?

[dave weil]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry in this matter
>are sad to see...especially as his own journal seems to find
>bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that its readers
>endorse such testing, even though it is extremely unlikely
>that they could perform them at home.

Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?

[Steven Sullivan]

John Atkinson > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in:
> Message >
> >"John Atkinson" > wrote
> >in message ps.com
> >> Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the
> >> 1999 exchanges between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in
> >> which Krueger argued at great length that ABX testing
> >> should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.
> >>
> >> Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven
> >> Sullivan has made such use of the test they so strongly
> >> advocate to others.
> >
> > Typical Atkinson scrambling of the facts.

> I do not "scramble the facts," Mr. Krueger. I merely state
> truths that you and others find uncomfortable.

> > I just explained how this works a few weeks ago, and now
> > he's obviously forgotten what I said.

> Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
> confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
> PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
> audio components.

> > I'd be happy to review PCABX files of equipment that I was
> > considering the purchase of, if they existed.

> Whatever reasons you feel appropriate for _not_ using ABX
> tests when making your equipment purchase choices, Mr.
> Krueger, this does not in any way contradict what I
> pointed out: that neither neither you, nor Mike McKelvy,
> nor Steven Sullivan make such use of the ABX test you
> all so strongly advocate to others.

I strongly 'advocate' that claims about reality
be appropriate to the evidence for them. This is true in
any field of knowledge. It's hardly a controversial
stance, nor is it 'hypocrisy' if one who holds it
isn't some sort of universal and tireless jack-of-all-trades,
able to cite personal experience with every permutation
of every claim. Biologists don't require physicists
to grow cell cultures before they can make any claims
about cells. They do require that physicists who make
claims about cells, evidence some *understanding* of cell
biology. It's OK if they've gotten that from book
larnin' -- by following the logic of the people who
HAVE done the experiments. Shoulders of giants
and all that, don't you know?


The experimental evidence that perceptual biases
introduce errors of reasoning as to *why* something
looks, sounds, tastes 'different' or 'better' or 'worse'
is, to put it modestly, pretty *solid*. It's
compelling enough that scientists, who take it as their
job to *accurately* model the material world --
routinely incorporate method controls and statistical
tests into their work.
You can dance around that fact all you want,
but there it is, the gorilla in the room, every time
your magazine publishes a claim about the 'sound' of
an amp, a CD player, a cable, a speaker, a recording.

[Lionel]

John Atkinson a écrit :

> I merely state
> truths that you and others find uncomfortable.

Be Careful, you start to sound like G.W Bush !!!!

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:20:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Good thing I have good luck choosing equipment based on
>> specs, tech analysis and other people's experience with
>> it. Because just like everybody else, that's about all
>> that I have to work with until I actually buy the stuff.
>
> Er...what about ears, Arnie?

O guess Paul that as usual you can't put two and two
together to get four.

I'll spell it out for you Paul: It's hard to use ears to
evaluate products that you don't have access to, until you
first buy them.

That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
audition equipment that you don't have direct access to. And
here's another news flash that you seem to need to pay
attention to Paul: PCABX only works if you use your ears
with it.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in:
> Message >
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> ps.com
>>> Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the
>>> 1999 exchanges between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in
>>> which Krueger argued at great length that ABX testing
>>> should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.
>>>
>>> Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven
>>> Sullivan has made such use of the test they so strongly
>>> advocate to others.
>>
>> Typical Atkinson scrambling of the facts.
>
> I do not "scramble the facts," Mr. Krueger. I merely state
> truths that you and others find uncomfortable.
>
>> I just explained how this works a few weeks ago, and now
>> he's obviously forgotten what I said.
>
> Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
> confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
> PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
> audio components.

Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
Doing either is equally impossible.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:29:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>O guess Paul that as usual you can't put two and two
>together to get four.

Condescension, Arnie? Shame.

>I'll spell it out for you Paul: It's hard to use ears to
>evaluate products that you don't have access to, until you
>first buy them.

I gain my access to products I'm considering in the dealer's listening
rooms. And then I listen to them. Eventually, after listening a good
while, I say, "I'll have that one please." Or more likely, "Is that
the best you can do on price for that?"

>That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
>audition equipment that you don't have direct access to.

Audition? Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the
word.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:29:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:20:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Good thing I have good luck choosing equipment based on
>>> specs, tech analysis and other people's experience with
>>> it. Because just like everybody else, that's about all
>>> that I have to work with until I actually buy the stuff.
>>
>> Er...what about ears, Arnie?
>
>O guess Paul that as usual you can't put two and two
>together to get four.
>
>I'll spell it out for you Paul: It's hard to use ears to
>evaluate products that you don't have access to, until you
>first buy them.
>
>That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
>audition equipment that you don't have direct access to.

Shame about the "direct access" thing. Even YOU don't seem to have
that...

[dave weil]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:37:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
>> confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
>> PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
>> audio components.
>
>Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
>point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
>Doing either is equally impossible.

It's impossible to fly to Europe? That's funny - I've done it multiple
times.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
> >audition equipment that you don't have direct access to.

> Audition? Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the
> word.

Arnii has a mind-meld with his DAW, an advantage not available to mere humans.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to audition equipment
> that you don't have direct access to.

The Big Lie.
You are not listeneing to that equipment.
you are using other equipment to
listen to a sound file made by, in part, using that equipment

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to audition equipment
> > that you don't have direct access to.

> The Big Lie.
> You are not listeneing to that equipment.
> you are using other equipment to
> listen to a sound file made by, in part, using that equipment

Arnii's catalog of sound snippets is hardly comprehensive. To claim that
you can get realistic information about the actual equipment used to
generate those sound files is as ridiculous as the notion that duh-Mikey's
IQ is over 130.

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:37:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
>>> confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
>>> PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
>>> audio components.
>>
>>Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
>>point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
>>Doing either is equally impossible.
>
> It's impossible to fly to Europe? That's funny - I've done it multiple
> times.

You forgot that Arny doesn't have $600 to spare.

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > Nathan Stohler > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Clyde Slick wrote:
> > >
> > > > > oh, you forgot something:
> > > > > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
> > > > > for consumer choices.
> > >
> > > > Who claimed otherwise?
> > >
> > > Of course there could be something to be gained, if one
> > > has the wherewithal to do ABX, or any other bias-controlled
> > > listening test -- the distinct possibility of finding that
> > > one needn't spend X number of dollars more, to get
> > > the *same sound* as Y.
> > >
> > > That knowledge -- that in this instance, sound and
> > > price are not correlated -- could certainly be
> > > a factor in a purchase. Features and appearance
> > > are two others that commonly factor in.
> > >
> > > And as for ABX tests done by someone else --
> > > consumer choices are routinely affected by what they
> > > read in sources they trust -- be it a general
> > > consumer watchdog like Consumer Reports, or
> > > a source that sets itself up as an authority
> > > in a particular area, such as Stereophile. Or
> > > even a Usenet poster. Consumers often
> > > feel they have *gained* useful information
> > > by reading reviews, test results,
> > > and ratings from such sources, even though they
> > > are 'second hand'. Why would ABX results be any
> > > different?
> > >
> > >S. Sullivan
> > ____________________________________
> > Sullivan asks:
> > Why would ABX results be any
> > different?
> > Because it has never been shown to be the right tool for use in
> > deciding what component to buy. No basic research in what it does or
> > does not do was ever done
> > On the contrary every published report of panels using ABX resulted in
> > "There is no difference between the components tested' All and
> > everyone:of them.
>
> This is simply a lie, one that you keep propounding. When called on
> it (e.g., pointed to positive ABX results on the Carlstrom site),
> you immediately begin cavilline what constitutes 'published'
> ABX tests ,and then you begin cavilling that it's 'ABX' testing that's
> wrong, all wrong, and then you begin cavilling about staw-man
> definitions of what ABX testing is (e.g., that it does not allow for
> long-term comparison). This is sheer sophistry.m And you've
> engaged in it,a nd been called on it, repeatedly.
>
> Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will
> suffice to objectively establish that reported
> differences or preferences are indeed due to the claimed differences
> in the products under test. For taste tests, they demonstrate that
> the preference or difference was really due to the flavor of
> the foods, not due to beliefs about the foods; for audio tests, they
> demonstrate that the preference or difference was really due to
> sound of the components or recordings, not beliefs about the components
> or recordings.
>
> Negative results strictly interpreted, indicate that the
> hypothesis of real difference has not been proven. However,
> in science that does not mean that the hypothesis
> remains just as likely as its negation. Science obviously doesn't
> interpret negative results from good experiments
> as meaning 'well, it's still probably true; I'll just
> assume these negative results don't mean anything'.
>
> DBT and level-matching are the the *generic* requirements
> for this, and different species of DBT -- ABX, ABC/hr, etc --
> are more or less appropriate for different situations and questions.
>
> Agreed, or not?
> ___________________________________________
You say:
>This is simply a lie, one that you keep propounding. When called on
>it (e.g., pointed to positive ABX results on the Carlstrom site),
>you immediately begin cavilline what constitutes 'published'
>ABX tests ,
So we're back to "lies" again. In my book what you're listing
is called disagreements but I can see why you would put the argument
on the usual "objectivist" level out of old habits.
I'll tell you what I'll do. Enough caviling ,though I rather like
this Fowler word- and so must you since you repeat it n times. (By the
way just in case you want to use it again; it is "caviling"- one
"l" only)
Enough as I said. - anything not to get "Carlstrom" hurled at me
for the fourteenth time by you and other members of your sect. .After
30 years this venerable private web site does deserve a rest. You must
have plenty of others. Why keep them a secret?
But what the hell- I'll give you Carlstrom. In that site they showed
that even when ABXing they can still hear the difference between a 400
watt transistor Dynaco and 7 watt DIY tube Heathkit. What, not
impressed ? They also heard the difference between another now defunct
amp and an ARC that they found out needed urgent repairs. Still not
impressed? This will clinch it; they heard the difference between the
very first 14-bit cdplayer ever made, a Philips 100, and 10 years
younger models. And that's about that.
Or am I concealing something?
Sorry to insist but I still miss any other links to the positive ABX
listening trials in distinguishing one component from another. You can
say "lie" a hundred times but...
You continue:
>and then you begin cavilling that it's 'ABX' testing that's
>wrong, all wrong,
No, no; wrong order. That comes under conclusions at the very end when
you still refuse to disclose your secret links to the positive ABX
testing.
> and then you begin cavilling about staw-man
>definitions of what ABX testing is (e.g., that it does not allow for
>long-term comparison).
Don',t recall complaining. Recall saying that listening to a snippet
A,
then snippet B, then snippet X and then trying to compare X with my
recollections of A and then B fries my brains It seems there are some
others with same problem. Or am I all alone?
>This is sheer sophistry.m And you've
>engaged in it,a nd been called on it, repeatedly.
Yes I'm a sophist as well as a liar. Virtue is your specialty,
>Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will
>suffice to objectively establish that reported
>differences or preferences are indeed due to the claimed differences
>in the products under test.
True. If you manage to get a positive one. Which seems to be a bit of a
problem. If you get a negative one you might feel uncertain if things
were really all the same or if the "test" had yet to establish
that it works: how, when, for whom? I must also interject that DBTs
are one thing , ABX another. DBT does not equal ABX. Medical research
would go 60 years back without DBTs. So far it managed without ABX
> For taste tests, they demonstrate that
>the preference or difference was really due to the flavor of
>the foods, not due to beliefs about the foods; for audio tests, they
>demonstrate that the preference or difference was really due to
>sound of the components or recordings, not beliefs about the components
>or recordings.
If positive etc, etc...
>Negative results strictly interpreted, indicate that the
>hypothesis of real difference has not been proven. However,
i>n science that does not mean that the hypothesis
>remains just as likely as its negation. Science obviously doesn't
interpret negative results from good experiments
as meaning 'well, it's still probably true; I'll just
>assume these negative results don't mean anything'.
!00% agreement. This is indeed progress. Please don't go back on
it..: "Negative results don't mean anything". Bravo.
>DBT and level-matching are the the *generic* requirements
>for this, and different species of DBT -- ABX, ABC/hr, etc --
>are more or less appropriate for different situations and questions.
>Agreed, or not?
Read what S. Olive has to say about it and forget "difference'
Looking for it seems to be a hurdle for most people.
Just aim to decide if you like one better than the other.
Preferably blind of course- especially if not absolutely certain. It is
just common sense not any great scientific discovery...
For the rest I wish I could agree, honest I do. DBT in medicine has
been researched, questioned and re-researched again . We know its
limitations, we know when to use it and how. And yet often there is
wide disagreement if the result was a false positive, or a false
negative. No such validation is available for ABX *as a tool for
comparing music reproduction* by audio components . In particular we
don't know when a negative outcome is a false negative and how to
avoid it. And since most people seem to be getting negatives only why
should they bother to get a meaningless or worse a misleading negative
result. At present ABX bears same relation to DBTs as Christian Science
to medicine.
Its use in research on narrowly defined tasks is another matter. I have
neither expertise nor interest in it.
Ludovic Mirabel
In your reply could we dispense with "lies" and other childish
personal attacks. As you know I can take it and give it but honestly
I'd rather not do either. I can think you're mistaken but I don't
even for a moment think you're lying

>
>
>
>
> --
> -

[Robert Morein]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:37:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"John Atkinson" > wrote
>in message
oups.com
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in:
>> Message >
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>>> in message
>>> ps.com
>>>> Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the
>>>> 1999 exchanges between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in
>>>> which Krueger argued at great length that ABX testing
>>>> should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.
>>>>
>>>> Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven
>>>> Sullivan has made such use of the test they so strongly
>>>> advocate to others.
>>>
>>> Typical Atkinson scrambling of the facts.
>>
>> I do not "scramble the facts," Mr. Krueger. I merely state
>> truths that you and others find uncomfortable.
>>
>>> I just explained how this works a few weeks ago, and now
>>> he's obviously forgotten what I said.
>>
>> Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
>> confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
>> PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
>> audio components.
>
>Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
>point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
>Doing either is equally impossible.
>

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

[Robert Morein]

On 19 Nov 2005 20:52:45 -0800, wrote:

>
>Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> > > Nathan Stohler > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > > oh, you forgot something:
>> > > > > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
>> > > > > for consumer choices.
>> > >
>> > > > Who claimed otherwise?
>> > >
>> > > Of course there could be something to be gained, if one
>> > > has the wherewithal to do ABX, or any other bias-controlled
>> > > listening test -- the distinct possibility of finding that
>> > > one needn't spend X number of dollars more, to get
>> > > the *same sound* as Y.
>> > >
>> > > That knowledge -- that in this instance, sound and
>> > > price are not correlated -- could certainly be
>> > > a factor in a purchase. Features and appearance
>> > > are two others that commonly factor in.
>> > >
>> > > And as for ABX tests done by someone else --
>> > > consumer choices are routinely affected by what they
>> > > read in sources they trust -- be it a general
>> > > consumer watchdog like Consumer Reports, or
>> > > a source that sets itself up as an authority
>> > > in a particular area, such as Stereophile. Or
>> > > even a Usenet poster. Consumers often
>> > > feel they have *gained* useful information
>> > > by reading reviews, test results,
>> > > and ratings from such sources, even though they
>> > > are 'second hand'. Why would ABX results be any
>> > > different?
>> > >
>> > >S. Sullivan
>> > ____________________________________
>> > Sullivan asks:
>> > Why would ABX results be any
>> > different?
>> > Because it has never been shown to be the right tool for use in
>> > deciding what component to buy. No basic research in what it does or
>> > does not do was ever done
>> > On the contrary every published report of panels using ABX resulted in
>> > "There is no difference between the components tested' All and
>> > everyone:of them.
>>
>> This is simply a lie, one that you keep propounding. When called on
>> it (e.g., pointed to positive ABX results on the Carlstrom site),
>> you immediately begin cavilline what constitutes 'published'
>> ABX tests ,and then you begin cavilling that it's 'ABX' testing that's
>> wrong, all wrong, and then you begin cavilling about staw-man
>> definitions of what ABX testing is (e.g., that it does not allow for
>> long-term comparison). This is sheer sophistry.m And you've
>> engaged in it,a nd been called on it, repeatedly.
>>
>> Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will
>> suffice to objectively establish that reported
>> differences or preferences are indeed due to the claimed differences
>> in the products under test. For taste tests, they demonstrate that
>> the preference or difference was really due to the flavor of
>> the foods, not due to beliefs about the foods; for audio tests, they
>> demonstrate that the preference or difference was really due to
>> sound of the components or recordings, not beliefs about the components
>> or recordings.
>>
>> Negative results strictly interpreted, indicate that the
>> hypothesis of real difference has not been proven. However,
>> in science that does not mean that the hypothesis
>> remains just as likely as its negation. Science obviously doesn't
>> interpret negative results from good experiments
>> as meaning 'well, it's still probably true; I'll just
>> assume these negative results don't mean anything'.
>>
>> DBT and level-matching are the the *generic* requirements
>> for this, and different species of DBT -- ABX, ABC/hr, etc --
>> are more or less appropriate for different situations and questions.
>>
>> Agreed, or not?
>> ___________________________________________
>You say:
>>This is simply a lie, one that you keep propounding. When called on
>>it (e.g., pointed to positive ABX results on the Carlstrom site),
>>you immediately begin cavilline what constitutes 'published'
>>ABX tests ,
>So we're back to "lies" again. In my book what you're listing
>is called disagreements but I can see why you would put the argument
>on the usual "objectivist" level out of old habits.
>I'll tell you what I'll do. Enough caviling ,though I rather like
>this Fowler word- and so must you since you repeat it n times. (By the
>way just in case you want to use it again; it is "caviling"- one
>"l" only)
>Enough as I said. - anything not to get "Carlstrom" hurled at me
>for the fourteenth time by you and other members of your sect. .After
>30 years this venerable private web site does deserve a rest. You must
>have plenty of others. Why keep them a secret?
>But what the hell- I'll give you Carlstrom. In that site they showed
>that even when ABXing they can still hear the difference between a 400
>watt transistor Dynaco and 7 watt DIY tube Heathkit. What, not
>impressed ? They also heard the difference between another now defunct
>amp and an ARC that they found out needed urgent repairs. Still not
>impressed? This will clinch it; they heard the difference between the
>very first 14-bit cdplayer ever made, a Philips 100, and 10 years
>younger models. And that's about that.
>Or am I concealing something?
>Sorry to insist but I still miss any other links to the positive ABX
>listening trials in distinguishing one component from another. You can
>say "lie" a hundred times but...
>You continue:
>>and then you begin cavilling that it's 'ABX' testing that's
>>wrong, all wrong,
>No, no; wrong order. That comes under conclusions at the very end when
>you still refuse to disclose your secret links to the positive ABX
>testing.
>> and then you begin cavilling about staw-man
>>definitions of what ABX testing is (e.g., that it does not allow for
>>long-term comparison).
>Don',t recall complaining. Recall saying that listening to a snippet
>A,
>then snippet B, then snippet X and then trying to compare X with my
>recollections of A and then B fries my brains It seems there are some
>others with same problem. Or am I all alone?
> >This is sheer sophistry.m And you've
>>engaged in it,a nd been called on it, repeatedly.
>Yes I'm a sophist as well as a liar. Virtue is your specialty,
>>Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will
>>suffice to objectively establish that reported
>>differences or preferences are indeed due to the claimed differences
>>in the products under test.
>True. If you manage to get a positive one. Which seems to be a bit of a
>problem. If you get a negative one you might feel uncertain if things
>were really all the same or if the "test" had yet to establish
>that it works: how, when, for whom? I must also interject that DBTs
>are one thing , ABX another. DBT does not equal ABX. Medical research
>would go 60 years back without DBTs. So far it managed without ABX
>> For taste tests, they demonstrate that
>>the preference or difference was really due to the flavor of
>>the foods, not due to beliefs about the foods; for audio tests, they
>>demonstrate that the preference or difference was really due to
>>sound of the components or recordings, not beliefs about the components
>>or recordings.
>If positive etc, etc...
>>Negative results strictly interpreted, indicate that the
>>hypothesis of real difference has not been proven. However,
>i>n science that does not mean that the hypothesis
>>remains just as likely as its negation. Science obviously doesn't
>interpret negative results from good experiments
>as meaning 'well, it's still probably true; I'll just
>>assume these negative results don't mean anything'.
>!00% agreement. This is indeed progress. Please don't go back on
>it..: "Negative results don't mean anything". Bravo.
>>DBT and level-matching are the the *generic* requirements
>>for this, and different species of DBT -- ABX, ABC/hr, etc --
>>are more or less appropriate for different situations and questions.
>>Agreed, or not?
>Read what S. Olive has to say about it and forget "difference'
> Looking for it seems to be a hurdle for most people.
>Just aim to decide if you like one better than the other.
>Preferably blind of course- especially if not absolutely certain. It is
>just common sense not any great scientific discovery...
>For the rest I wish I could agree, honest I do. DBT in medicine has
>been researched, questioned and re-researched again . We know its
>limitations, we know when to use it and how. And yet often there is
>wide disagreement if the result was a false positive, or a false
>negative. No such validation is available for ABX *as a tool for
>comparing music reproduction* by audio components . In particular we
>don't know when a negative outcome is a false negative and how to
>avoid it. And since most people seem to be getting negatives only why
>should they bother to get a meaningless or worse a misleading negative
>result. At present ABX bears same relation to DBTs as Christian Science
>to medicine.
>Its use in research on narrowly defined tasks is another matter. I have
>neither expertise nor interest in it.
>Ludovic Mirabel
>In your reply could we dispense with "lies" and other childish
>personal attacks. As you know I can take it and give it but honestly
>I'd rather not do either. I can think you're mistaken but I don't
>even for a moment think you're lying
>
>>
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

[Robert Morein]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:08:33 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
>> >audition equipment that you don't have direct access to.
>
>> Audition? Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the
>> word.
>
>Arnii has a mind-meld with his DAW, an advantage not available to mere humans.
>
>
>
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

[Robert Morein]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:30:47 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to audition equipment
>> > that you don't have direct access to.
>
>> The Big Lie.
>> You are not listeneing to that equipment.
>> you are using other equipment to
>> listen to a sound file made by, in part, using that equipment
>
>Arnii's catalog of sound snippets is hardly comprehensive. To claim that
>you can get realistic information about the actual equipment used to
>generate those sound files is as ridiculous as the notion that duh-Mikey's
>IQ is over 130.
>
>
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

[Robert Morein]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:32:06 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:37:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
>>>> confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
>>>> PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
>>>> audio components.
>>>
>>>Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
>>>point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
>>>Doing either is equally impossible.
>>
>> It's impossible to fly to Europe? That's funny - I've done it multiple
>> times.
>
>You forgot that Arny doesn't have $600 to spare.
>
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:

> >Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry in this matter
> >are sad to see...especially as his own journal seems to find
> >bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that its readers
> >endorse such testing, even though it is extremely unlikely
> >that they could perform them at home.

> Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?


If I propose that DBTs for exploring objective reality in
audio are a Good Thing for consumers, you say they aren't needed
because consumers don't do them.

If I note that bench tests for exploring objective reality
in audio are considered a Good Thing for consumers ,
but consumers don't do THEM either, you say they don't need to,
because they're already done.

Your clown training is proceeding nicely, I see. Get
to work on the 'who's on first' routine and try it out
here when you're ready.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:29:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> O guess Paul that as usual you can't put two and two
>> together to get four.
>
> Condescension, Arnie? Shame.
>
>> I'll spell it out for you Paul: It's hard to use ears to
>> evaluate products that you don't have access to, until
>> you first buy them.
>
> I gain my access to products I'm considering in the
> dealer's listening rooms.

As if that's a representative way to evaluate audio gear.
:-(

>And then I listen to them.
> Eventually, after listening a good while, I say, "I'll
> have that one please." Or more likely, "Is that the best
> you can do on price for that?"

There's really only one right way to evaluate speakers, and
that's in the room where they will serve you.

>> That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
>> audition equipment that you don't have direct access to.

> Audition? Perhaps you and I have a different
> understanding of the word.

No doubt, because I try to evaluate the equipment under
consideration and just the equpment under consideration.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> dave weil > wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> > wrote:
>
>>> Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry
>>> in this matter are sad to see...especially as his own
>>> journal seems to find
>>> bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that
>>> its readers endorse such testing, even though it is
>>> extremely unlikely
>>> that they could perform them at home.
>
>> Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?
>
>
> If I propose that DBTs for exploring objective reality in
> audio are a Good Thing for consumers, you say they aren't
> needed because consumers don't do them.
>
> If I note that bench tests for exploring objective reality
> in audio are considered a Good Thing for consumers ,
> but consumers don't do THEM either, you say they don't
> need to, because they're already done.
>
> Your clown training is proceeding nicely, I see. Get
> to work on the 'who's on first' routine and try it out
> here when you're ready.

And now you know why I read Weil's posts and pass them by.

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
> > I noted what you had said at that time, which confirmed my
> > statement that you do not use ABX or even PC-ABX tests when
> > it comes to spending your own money on audio components.
>
> Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
> point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
> Doing either is equally impossible.

So why, then, Mr. Krueger, have you posted literally 100s of
times that ABX testing is appropriate for consumer use? Why
have you so vehemently ridiculed those who have (correctly)
pointed out to you the impracticability of such testing under
such circumstances, if you now admit it is as "impossible"
as "sprouting wings and flying to Europe"?

Again, you make my point for me: that despite your powerful
public advocacy of ABX testing, you don't make practical
use of such testing. Neither does Mike McKelvy, neither
does Steven Sullivan. This is both peculiar and hypocritical.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[dave weil]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:47:33 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> I gain my access to products I'm considering in the
>> dealer's listening rooms.
>
>As if that's a representative way to evaluate audio gear.

Well, it's representative of how a vast majority of people evaluate
audio gear.

>>And then I listen to them.
>> Eventually, after listening a good while, I say, "I'll
>> have that one please." Or more likely, "Is that the best
>> you can do on price for that?"
>
>There's really only one right way to evaluate speakers, and
>that's in the room where they will serve you.

Fortunately, you still get the chance to do that. Odd that you don't
know how that works.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:48:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

>> dave weil > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry
>>>> in this matter are sad to see...especially as his own
>>>> journal seems to find
>>>> bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that
>>>> its readers endorse such testing, even though it is
>>>> extremely unlikely
>>>> that they could perform them at home.
>>
>>> Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?
>>
>>
>> If I propose that DBTs for exploring objective reality in
>> audio are a Good Thing for consumers, you say they aren't
>> needed because consumers don't do them.

Nice switch of topic. My comment wasn't about DBTs, which I happen to
think CAN be useful, just not exclusive for making a choice. No, my
comment, as I suspect you already know, is the foolishness of
wondering about consumers' nonability to perform bench tests in their
homes that have already been done by other competent testers.

>> If I note that bench tests for exploring objective reality
>> in audio are considered a Good Thing for consumers ,
>> but consumers don't do THEM either, you say they don't
>> need to, because they're already done.

Well yes. Why should they? Do you think that they're going to get
different results? And if so, do you think their results are going to
be a accurate? I happen to think that bench tests can be useful as
PART of an evaluation process. However, anyone who buys exclusively on
the basis of a bench test deserves what they get.

>> Your clown training is proceeding nicely, I see. Get
>> to work on the 'who's on first' routine and try it out
>> here when you're ready.

Give me a break. You are defending the undefendable. I"m sorry that
you've painted yourself into the McKelvy corener with your advocacy
and non-use of ABX, but that's *your* problem, not mine. Until you get
it through your head that sighted tests can be useful, even as you
presumably use them yourself, you'll just be another bellowing ****,
Mr. Sullivan.

>And now you know why I read Weil's posts

Maybe you shouldn't, Arnold

[dave weil]

On 20 Nov 2005 06:07:02 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:

>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> oups.com
>> > I noted what you had said at that time, which confirmed my
>> > statement that you do not use ABX or even PC-ABX tests when
>> > it comes to spending your own money on audio components.
>>
>> Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
>> point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
>> Doing either is equally impossible.
>
>So why, then, Mr. Krueger, have you posted literally 100s of
>times that ABX testing is appropriate for consumer use? Why
>have you so vehemently ridiculed those who have (correctly)
>pointed out to you the impracticability of such testing under
>such circumstances, if you now admit it is as "impossible"
>as "sprouting wings and flying to Europe"?

It's hard to tell, due to Arnold's butchering of the language, but I
think that "doing either" refers to "sprouting wings" and "flying to
Europe". I first took the interpretation that you made, but then I
realized that due to his inability to get even the simplest thing
correct in the English language, it was more likely that he was
referring to those two events, as he would be unlikely for him to say
that using ABX for the purposes of buying audio gear was impossible.

>Again, you make my point for me: that despite your powerful
>public advocacy of ABX testing, you don't make practical
>use of such testing. Neither does Mike McKelvy, neither
>does Steven Sullivan. This is both peculiar and hypocritical.

I'd have to agree. It's also ridiculous. I think that they've stuck
themselves into a box that they can't get out of and now they're just
mindlessly posturing.

[Lionel]

John Atkinson a écrit :

> Neither does Mike McKelvy, neither
> does Steven Sullivan. This is both peculiar and hypocritical.

Considering the scope of these specimens are you sure it is an argument
? ;-)

[Phil Allison]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:45:31 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:


>Sorry, Dave, didn't quite get that last bit.

What's new kiddieface

[paul packer]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:21:03 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:


>. I first took the interpretation that you made, but then I
>realized that due to his inability to get even the simplest thing
>correct in the English language, it was more likely that he was
>referring to those two events, as he would be unlikely for him to say

Sorry, Dave, didn't quite get that last bit. :-)

[paul packer]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:45:03 +1100, "Phil Allison"
> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:45:31 GMT, (paul packer)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry, Dave, didn't quite get that last bit.
>
>What's new kiddieface

Hello, Phil. What are you doing in this dark place where bears roam?
I'd have thought you'd have enough to do over at aus.hi-fi POSTING
THAT TAPE!

Off you go, Phil. Get that tape posted immediately .

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:48:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

> >"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
> >> dave weil > wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> >>> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry
> >>>> in this matter are sad to see...especially as his own
> >>>> journal seems to find
> >>>> bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that
> >>>> its readers endorse such testing, even though it is
> >>>> extremely unlikely
> >>>> that they could perform them at home.
> >>
> >>> Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?
> >>
> >>
> >> If I propose that DBTs for exploring objective reality in
> >> audio are a Good Thing for consumers, you say they aren't
> >> needed because consumers don't do them.

> Nice switch of topic. My comment wasn't about DBTs, which I happen to
> think CAN be useful, just not exclusive for making a choice. No, my
> comment, as I suspect you already know, is the foolishness of
> wondering about consumers' nonability to perform bench tests in their
> homes that have already been done by other competent testers.

> >> If I note that bench tests for exploring objective reality
> >> in audio are considered a Good Thing for consumers ,
> >> but consumers don't do THEM either, you say they don't
> >> need to, because they're already done.

> Well yes. Why should they? Do you think that they're going to get
> different results? And if so, do you think their results are going to
> be a accurate?


You're missing the point entirely.

I happen to think that bench tests can be useful as
> PART of an evaluation process. However, anyone who buys exclusively on
> the basis of a bench test deserves what they get.


The point is, if one wants to explore objective reality in audio
by means of measurements, then *someone* has to do good bench tests.
It can the be consumer, or another agency.

But indeed, bench tests alone don't *necessarily* tell the whole story
in all circumstances for all components --
depending on what is being measured and how the
measurements are done, they can show differences that
won't likely be audible, or miss differences that will be.
It has taken decades, for example, to develop good metrics for how a
loudspeaker will 'sound', and the work is still ongoing.

This is where good *listening* tests come in -- they provide
the second, independent line of evidence that good science
likes to see.

I'm hardly alone in advocating exploring objective reality
in audio by a *combination* of measurements and listening tests.
Citing loudspeakers again, it's what Floyd Toole's group
used while working for the Canadian government, and still
use at Harman. Psychoacousticians also routinely gather data
from measurement and from listening tests. We as audio consumers
have agencies such as Stereophile which do more or less
comprehensive bench tests. But where are the listening tests of
comparable quality?


> >> Your clown training is proceeding nicely, I see. Get
> >> to work on the 'who's on first' routine and try it out
> >> here when you're ready.

> Give me a break. You are defending the undefendable.

Just because you've failed to understand what the argument is,
doesn't mean the argument is undefendable.

> I"m sorry that
> you've painted yourself into the McKelvy corener with your advocacy
> and non-use of ABX, but that's *your* problem, not mine. Until you get
> it through your head that sighted tests can be useful, even as you
> presumably use them yourself, you'll just be another bellowing ****,
> Mr. Sullivan.

Be clearer about what sighted tests are useful *for*. They're too unreliable
for any critical work requiring discrimination by *sound*...
otherwise scientists would be happy to use them, since they're so much
easier to set up than blind tests.

For the same reason, they aren't *objectively* useful for the buyer wanting to know
'for sure' if two things *sound* different, or which one *sounds* better.
They may be subjectively useful, in that they make the buyer feel better
about the purchase, or validate a buyer's preconceived notions about the
component -- but so is a good sales pitch, regardless of its
truth-content. I've emphasized *sounds* because of course 'sighted'
evaluation also gives the buyer lots of information about how the thing looks, costs,
and what options it offers. And that sort of information can be both
objectively reliable and useful.


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

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil > wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:48:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>> >"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> dave weil > wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry
>> >>>> in this matter are sad to see...especially as his own
>> >>>> journal seems to find
>> >>>> bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that
>> >>>> its readers endorse such testing, even though it is
>> >>>> extremely unlikely
>> >>>> that they could perform them at home.
>> >>
>> >>> Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If I propose that DBTs for exploring objective reality in
>> >> audio are a Good Thing for consumers, you say they aren't
>> >> needed because consumers don't do them.
>
>> Nice switch of topic. My comment wasn't about DBTs, which I happen to
>> think CAN be useful, just not exclusive for making a choice. No, my
>> comment, as I suspect you already know, is the foolishness of
>> wondering about consumers' nonability to perform bench tests in their
>> homes that have already been done by other competent testers.
>
>> >> If I note that bench tests for exploring objective reality
>> >> in audio are considered a Good Thing for consumers ,
>> >> but consumers don't do THEM either, you say they don't
>> >> need to, because they're already done.
>
>> Well yes. Why should they? Do you think that they're going to get
>> different results? And if so, do you think their results are going to
>> be a accurate?
>
>
> You're missing the point entirely.
>
> I happen to think that bench tests can be useful as
>> PART of an evaluation process. However, anyone who buys exclusively on
>> the basis of a bench test deserves what they get.
>
>
> The point is, if one wants to explore objective reality in audio
> by means of measurements, then *someone* has to do good bench tests.
> It can the be consumer, or another agency.
>
> But indeed, bench tests alone don't *necessarily* tell the whole story
> in all circumstances for all components --
> depending on what is being measured and how the
> measurements are done, they can show differences that
> won't likely be audible, or miss differences that will be.
> It has taken decades, for example, to develop good metrics for how a
> loudspeaker will 'sound', and the work is still ongoing.
>
> This is where good *listening* tests come in -- they provide
> the second, independent line of evidence that good science
> likes to see.
>
> I'm hardly alone in advocating exploring objective reality
> in audio by a *combination* of measurements and listening tests.
> Citing loudspeakers again, it's what Floyd Toole's group
> used while working for the Canadian government, and still
> use at Harman. Psychoacousticians also routinely gather data
> from measurement and from listening tests. We as audio consumers
> have agencies such as Stereophile which do more or less
> comprehensive bench tests. But where are the listening tests of
> comparable quality?
>
>
>> >> Your clown training is proceeding nicely, I see. Get
>> >> to work on the 'who's on first' routine and try it out
>> >> here when you're ready.
>
>> Give me a break. You are defending the undefendable.
>
> Just because you've failed to understand what the argument is,
> doesn't mean the argument is undefendable.
>
>> I"m sorry that
>> you've painted yourself into the McKelvy corener with your advocacy
>> and non-use of ABX, but that's *your* problem, not mine. Until you get
>> it through your head that sighted tests can be useful, even as you
>> presumably use them yourself, you'll just be another bellowing ****,
>> Mr. Sullivan.
>
> Be clearer about what sighted tests are useful *for*. They're too
> unreliable
> for any critical work requiring discrimination by *sound*...
> otherwise scientists would be happy to use them, since they're so much
> easier to set up than blind tests.
>
> For the same reason, they aren't *objectively* useful for the buyer
> wanting to know
> 'for sure' if two things *sound* different, or which one *sounds* better.
> They may be subjectively useful, in that they make the buyer feel better
> about the purchase, or validate a buyer's preconceived notions about the
> component -- but so is a good sales pitch, regardless of its
> truth-content. I've emphasized *sounds* because of course 'sighted'
> evaluation also gives the buyer lots of information about how the thing
> looks, costs,
> and what options it offers. And that sort of information can be both
> objectively reliable and useful.
>
>
> --
> -S
> "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing
> stupidity of religious
> fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...

>
> For the same reason, they aren't *objectively* useful for the buyer
> wanting to know
> 'for sure' if two things *sound* different, or which one *sounds* better.
> They may be subjectively useful, in that they make the buyer feel better
> about the purchase, or validate a buyer's preconceived notions about the
> component -- but so is a good sales pitch, regardless of its
> truth-content. I've emphasized *sounds* because of course 'sighted'
> evaluation also gives the buyer lots of information about how the thing
> looks, costs,
> and what options it offers. And that sort of information can be both
> objectively reliable and useful.
>

sighted listening tells you what it sounds like
when you know what you are listening to.
Of course, that is the way we normally use our audio equipment.
DBT will do you fine, if you wish to perpetually
hide your gear under a blanket and never know what brand and model it is.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

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

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com

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

>>> I noted what you had said at that time, which confirmed
>>> my statement that you do not use ABX or even PC-ABX
>>> tests when it comes to spending your own money on audio
>>> components.

>> Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a
>> big point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to
>> Europe. Doing either is equally impossible.

> So why, then, Mr. Krueger, have you posted literally 100s
> of times that ABX testing is appropriate for consumer
> use?

The PCABX procedure is appropriate for consumer use, its
just that no commercial entity has picked it up as a means
of demonstrating products for sale.

>Why have you so vehemently ridiculed those who have
> (correctly) pointed out to you the impracticability of
> such testing under such circumstances, if you now admit
> it is as "impossible" as "sprouting wings and flying to
> Europe"?

The impossibility is based on a lack of availabity of test
files, not any problem with the procedure.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>>> in message
>>> oups.com
>
>>>> I noted what you had said at that time, which confirmed
>>>> my statement that you do not use ABX or even PC-ABX
>>>> tests when it comes to spending your own money on audio
>>>> components.
>
>>> Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a
>>> big point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to
>>> Europe. Doing either is equally impossible.
>
>> So why, then, Mr. Krueger, have you posted literally 100s
>> of times that ABX testing is appropriate for consumer
>> use?
>
> The PCABX procedure is appropriate for consumer use, its just that no
> commercial entity has picked it up as a means of demonstrating products
> for sale.
>
>>Why have you so vehemently ridiculed those who have
>> (correctly) pointed out to you the impracticability of
>> such testing under such circumstances, if you now admit
>> it is as "impossible" as "sprouting wings and flying to
>> Europe"?
>
> The impossibility is based on a lack of availabity of test files, not any
> problem with the procedure.
>
>
>

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>>> in message
>>> oups.com
>
>>>> I noted what you had said at that time, which confirmed
>>>> my statement that you do not use ABX or even PC-ABX
>>>> tests when it comes to spending your own money on audio
>>>> components.
>
>>> Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a
>>> big point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to
>>> Europe. Doing either is equally impossible.
>
>> So why, then, Mr. Krueger, have you posted literally 100s
>> of times that ABX testing is appropriate for consumer
>> use?
>
> The PCABX procedure is appropriate for consumer use, its just that no
> commercial entity has picked it up as a means of demonstrating products
> for sale.
>

The day that PCABX is appropriate for consumer
use is the day that people start
buying wav files
of 2 seond snippets of castanet sounds.
Then they can use PCABX to help them decide which
wav files to buy.

>>Why have you so vehemently ridiculed those who have
>> (correctly) pointed out to you the impracticability of
>> such testing under such circumstances, if you now admit
>> it is as "impossible" as "sprouting wings and flying to
>> Europe"?
>
> The impossibility is based on a lack of availabity of test files, not any
> problem with the procedure.


Not to mention a complete lack of consumer interest!

[Nathan Stohler]

John Atkinson wrote:

> George M. Middius wrote:
> > Nathan Stohlborg is on the case!
> > > > oh, you forgot something:
> > > > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
> > > > for consumer choices.
> > >
> > > Who claimed otherwise?
> >
> > All of the hypocritical 'borgs did, that's "who". Why do you think somebody
> > even mentioned it?
>
> Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the 1999 exchanges
> between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in which Krueger argued at great
> length
> that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.
>
> Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven Sullivan has made
> such use of the test they so strongly advocate to others.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

"Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that intended
to be humorous?

My point was that those who accept ABX as a valid test are probably also
aware that when competently made amplifiers/receivers are compared
under proper listening conditions, there is really no audible difference.

If one is already aware of this, then why would he need to ABX equipment
when making a purchase other than to prove what he already knows?

The ironic thing is the people who dismiss ABX testing as useless are the
ones who might benefit from it. For some reason though, they need to know
the brand name, price, reputation, etc. of the equipment they are listening to in
order to give it a proper evaluation.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:22:50 -0600, Nathan Stohler
> wrote:

>
>John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>> > Nathan Stohlborg is on the case!
>> > > > oh, you forgot something:
>> > > > There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
>> > > > for consumer choices.
>> > >
>> > > Who claimed otherwise?
>> >
>> > All of the hypocritical 'borgs did, that's "who". Why do you think somebody
>> > even mentioned it?
>>
>> Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the 1999 exchanges
>> between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in which Krueger argued at great
>> length
>> that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.
>>
>> Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven Sullivan has made
>> such use of the test they so strongly advocate to others.
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>
>"Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that intended
>to be humorous?

Probably not. For all of the above.

You were called a borg by Mr. Middius. JA probably just thought it was
your name and accidentally misspelled it in the haste of composing his
reply to George.

You, like me, have a nice strong Aryan name and I'm sure that you
can't be Jewish.

Oh wait, *I'm* Jewish. Sorry.

And I lied. My last name is actually a nice strong Aryan WORD. The
name is actually a nice Alsatian Jewish name, although there are some
German Weils floating around, and my great-grandfather was certainly
quite German, at least until he emigrated to Arkansas. The story
really became interesting when my dad married my Southern Baptist
Arkansas mom. So you see, even though I was raised a Jew,
*technically* I'm not even THAT. <chuckle>

Seriously though, I think you're being a bit overreactive here.

[Nathan Stohler]

dave weil wrote:

> >"Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that intended
> >to be humorous?
>
> Probably not. For all of the above.
>
> You were called a borg by Mr. Middius. JA probably just thought it was
> your name and accidentally misspelled it in the haste of composing his
> reply to George.
>
> You, like me, have a nice strong Aryan name and I'm sure that you
> can't be Jewish.
>
> Oh wait, *I'm* Jewish. Sorry.
>
> And I lied. My last name is actually a nice strong Aryan WORD. The
> name is actually a nice Alsatian Jewish name, although there are some
> German Weils floating around, and my great-grandfather was certainly
> quite German, at least until he emigrated to Arkansas. The story
> really became interesting when my dad married my Southern Baptist
> Arkansas mom. So you see, even though I was raised a Jew,
> *technically* I'm not even THAT. <chuckle>
>
> Seriously though, I think you're being a bit overreactive here.

Yes, Stohler is German.

I wasn't offended or anything. "berg" or "borg", it doesn't matter.
I just wish I had thought to do something so clever as intentionally
misspelling someone's name. Oh wait, I think I did do stuff like that...
in second grade.

The handful of posts I've made on this newsgroup have all been
responded to by Mr. Middius, calling me "Stohlborg," so I am
familiar with the clever insult.

[John Atkinson]

Nathan Stohler wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the 1999 exchanges
> > between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in which Krueger argued at great
> > length that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point of
> > purchase.
> >
> > Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven Sullivan has made
> > such use of the test they so strongly advocate to others.
>
> "Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that intended
> to be humorous?

My apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Stohler. My mistake.

> My point was that those who accept ABX as a valid test are probably also
> aware that when competently made amplifiers/receivers are compared
> under proper listening conditions, there is really no audible difference.

This is unproven. Remember, null results from blind testing cannot be
taken as having a generalized meaning. The only meaning that can be
taken from the null results of a specific test is that under the
specific
circumstances of that test, no difference could be identified to a
statistically significant level. There is no causal relationship
between
those results and the results of any other blind test. And as I have
pointed out before, those who claim that _all_ blind tests have
produced null results can only make that claim if they disqualify the
results of blind tests that _did_ produce statistically significant
identification.

> If one is already aware of this, then why would he need to ABX
> equipment when making a purchase other than to prove what he
> already knows?

The argument is circular. In effect, you are saying: "I believe that
because
an ABX test produces null results, _all_ ABX tests of _all_ products
will
produce null results. Ipso facto, no ABX tests are necessary."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[dave weil]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:00:05 -0600, Nathan Stohler
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>
>> >"Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that intended
>> >to be humorous?
>>
>> Probably not. For all of the above.
>>
>> You were called a borg by Mr. Middius. JA probably just thought it was
>> your name and accidentally misspelled it in the haste of composing his
>> reply to George.
>>
>> You, like me, have a nice strong Aryan name and I'm sure that you
>> can't be Jewish.
>>
>> Oh wait, *I'm* Jewish. Sorry.
>>
>> And I lied. My last name is actually a nice strong Aryan WORD. The
>> name is actually a nice Alsatian Jewish name, although there are some
>> German Weils floating around, and my great-grandfather was certainly
>> quite German, at least until he emigrated to Arkansas. The story
>> really became interesting when my dad married my Southern Baptist
>> Arkansas mom. So you see, even though I was raised a Jew,
>> *technically* I'm not even THAT. <chuckle>
>>
>> Seriously though, I think you're being a bit overreactive here.
>
>Yes, Stohler is German.

Yes, I know.

>I wasn't offended or anything. "berg" or "borg", it doesn't matter.
>I just wish I had thought to do something so clever as intentionally
>misspelling someone's name. Oh wait, I think I did do stuff like that...
>in second grade.
>
>The handful of posts I've made on this newsgroup have all been
>responded to by Mr. Middius, calling me "Stohlborg," so I am
>familiar with the clever insult.

Well then, I guess your attempt to paint Mr. Atkinson as a possible
anti-semite was just *your* "clever" insult. AND a bit disengenuous,
don't you think?

I couldn't tell about your motives though, since I'm not familiar with
your posting history. In fact, this is the first time I've actually
seen your name, in *any* form.

Tschuess!

[Nathan Stohler]

John Atkinson wrote:

> My apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Stohler. My mistake.

If it was an honest mistake, then no apology is necessary. I thought you were
perpetuating the whole "borg" thing, which I find annoying and childish.

> The argument is circular. In effect, you are saying: "I believe that
> because
> an ABX test produces null results, _all_ ABX tests of _all_ products
> will
> produce null results. Ipso facto, no ABX tests are necessary."

Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
from a properly executed ABX test on a receiver or amplifier?

Mr. Atkinson, although your magazine no doubt delivers useful
information to your readers, it also contains quite a bit of pseudoscience,
or, to be blunt, crap. It's hard to take you seriously when your magazine
peddles such things as:

- Cable cookers
- Shakti stones
- Quantum purifiers that strip quantum noise energy off the electrons?!
- Hallographs (thin pieces of wood that dramatically affect the sound by being in the room)

It's hard for me to tell whether you really believe in this stuff, or if the
advertising money is just too good.

[Nathan Stohler]

dave weil wrote:

> >I wasn't offended or anything. "berg" or "borg", it doesn't matter.
> >I just wish I had thought to do something so clever as intentionally
> >misspelling someone's name. Oh wait, I think I did do stuff like that...
> >in second grade.
> >
> >The handful of posts I've made on this newsgroup have all been
> >responded to by Mr. Middius, calling me "Stohlborg," so I am
> >familiar with the clever insult.
>
> Well then, I guess your attempt to paint Mr. Atkinson as a possible
> anti-semite was just *your* "clever" insult. AND a bit disengenuous,
> don't you think?
>

Easy, easy! I wasn't trying to paint Mr. Atkinson as an anti-Semite.
If I'd known that it was an honest mistake, I wouldn't have made a
comment at all. Yes, I was being disingenuous in that I assumed he
meant "borg", so I took a cheap jab at his spelling mistake.


>
> I couldn't tell about your motives though, since I'm not familiar with
> your posting history. In fact, this is the first time I've actually
> seen your name, in *any* form.

I haven't posted here very many times, so I would've been easy to miss.

[Nathan Stohler]

Nathan Stohler wrote:

> Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
> from a properly executed ABX test on a receiver or amplifier?

Should have read:

"Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
from a properly executed ABX test on a pair of receivers or amplifiers?"

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> Nathan Stohler wrote:


>> My point was that those who accept ABX as a valid test
>> are probably also aware that when competently made
>> amplifiers/receivers are compared
>> under proper listening conditions, there is really no
>> audible difference.

> This is unproven.

So is the opposite.


> Remember, null results from blind
> testing cannot be taken as having a generalized meaning.

Remember, so-called positive results from a highly-flawed
listening methodology such as sighted evaluation are even
worse-off.

Not only do the results of sighted evaluations totally fail
to have a generalized meaning, they have no relevant meaning
at all if sound quality is the most important thing.

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:

>Hello, Phil. What are you doing in this dark place where bears roam?
>I'd have thought you'd have enough to do over at aus.hi-fi POSTING
>THAT TAPE!


Is he still rambling and raving about that taped conversation with
Patrick Turner?

Sheesh Phil, get a life already.

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>The impossibility is based on a lack of availabity of test
>files, not any problem with the procedure.


Tell me how to make sound files available of my hybrid amps, and I'll
send you some.

--

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

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:

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

> Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.



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

[John Atkinson]

Nathan Stohler wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > My apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Stohler. My mistake.
>
> If it was an honest mistake, then no apology is necessary. I thought you
> were perpetuating the whole "borg" thing, which I find annoying and childish.

I saw that George Middius had parodied your name and corrected it.
Except that without access to your original posting, I _mis_corrected
it. Mea culpa.

> > The argument is circular. In effect, you are saying: "I believe that
> > because an ABX test produces null results, _all_ ABX tests of _all_
> > products will produce null results. Ipso facto, no ABX tests are
> > necessary."
>
> Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
> from a properly executed ABX test on a receiver or amplifier?

Try http://www.stereophile.com/features/587/. Some 2004 postings on
r.a.h-e listed other such tests.

> It's hard to take you seriously when your magazine peddles such things
>as:

Please note, Mr. Stohler, that Stereophile doen't "peddle" audio
products,
other than the CDs and magazine-branded schwag on our website

> - Cable cookers

Yup, some of my writers have written about products such as this.

> - Shakti stones

Yup, some of my writers have written about these.

> - Quantum purifiers that strip quantum noise energy off the electrons?!

Never been written about in Stereophile. Could you give a reference
please.

> - Hallographs (thin pieces of wood that dramatically affect the sound by
> being in the room)

Never been written about in Stereophile. Could you give a reference
please.

> It's hard for me to tell whether you really believe in this stuff, or if the
> advertising money is just too good.

As far as I know, none of the products you mention above has been
advertised in Stereophile, in which case your implication is not
only incorrect but not based on any evidence. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[dave weil]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:43:16 -0600, Nathan Stohler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> >I wasn't offended or anything. "berg" or "borg", it doesn't matter.
>> >I just wish I had thought to do something so clever as intentionally
>> >misspelling someone's name. Oh wait, I think I did do stuff like that...
>> >in second grade.
>> >
>> >The handful of posts I've made on this newsgroup have all been
>> >responded to by Mr. Middius, calling me "Stohlborg," so I am
>> >familiar with the clever insult.
>>
>> Well then, I guess your attempt to paint Mr. Atkinson as a possible
>> anti-semite was just *your* "clever" insult. AND a bit disengenuous,
>> don't you think?
>>
>
>Easy, easy! I wasn't trying to paint Mr. Atkinson as an anti-Semite.
>If I'd known that it was an honest mistake, I wouldn't have made a
>comment at all. Yes, I was being disingenuous in that I assumed he
>meant "borg", so I took a cheap jab at his spelling mistake.

At least you didn't take a jab at *mine*. I'm grateful.

I hope you can see how a casual observer might think that you HAD
indeed taken brush in hand though.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:14:50 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>dave weil > wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> > wrote:
>
>> >"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
>> >fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
>
>> Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.
>
>Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

Unaware audio fundamentalist then.

[Steven Sullivan]

John Atkinson > wrote:

> Nathan Stohler wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > My apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Stohler. My mistake.
> >
> > If it was an honest mistake, then no apology is necessary. I thought you
> > were perpetuating the whole "borg" thing, which I find annoying and childish.

> I saw that George Middius had parodied your name and corrected it.
> Except that without access to your original posting, I _mis_corrected
> it. Mea culpa.

> > > The argument is circular. In effect, you are saying: "I believe that
> > > because an ABX test produces null results, _all_ ABX tests of _all_
> > > products will produce null results. Ipso facto, no ABX tests are
> > > necessary."
> >
> > Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
> > from a properly executed ABX test on a receiver or amplifier?

> Try http://www.stereophile.com/features/587/.


...which ironically was a attempt to re-visit an earlier test conducted by
Stereophile, whose results did not strongly support a conclusion of
difference. Curiously that test seems to have been critiqued by two sets
of statisticians (Burstein on the one hand, and Banks/Krajicek on the
other) who object to its results on rather different grounds. And
Stereophile (Atkinson/Hammond ) object to Banks/Krajicek's statistical
assumptions. So it's something of a troika of *objection*.

But leave that aside. For me, the notable elephant in the room is that the
comparison was between a tube amp and a solid state amp. Now, if
I wanted to pick a pair of amps that would be more likely than
average to evince real audible difference, I'd do that: tube vs
ss.

But leave that aside. Listening and measurements are the two pillars of
objective explorations of audio reality. Logically, their results should
complement each other. The audible difference Banks/Krajicek reported seem
unlikely to NOT show up in measurements of the two systems -- eg
"Sometimes --especially with cymbals and brushes -- the Adcom's highs
sounded ragged compared to the VTLs, while on some material they simply
sounded a bit louder.". Yet I didn't see any such measurements, other
than the report that the amps were carefully level-matched at 1 kHz.

'Positive' listening tests results without an attempt to account for the
difference in terms of the technical performance of the gear, are only
half-informative.

By all means, the Banks/Krajicek results should have merited more
investigation. If borne out they might have provided a stellar example of
a condition under which two amps really sound different (these are not
unknown -- tubes vs ss were also different in one of the tests reported on
the ABX site). AFAIK , neither Banks/Krajicek nor Stereophile
pursued this investigation.

> Some 2004 postings on
> r.a.h-e listed other such tests.

Indeed. And no 'objectivist' claims that all amps sound the same, under
all conditions. I suspect Tom Nousaine for example has gotten quite weary
of laying out the conditions under which amps *will* likely sound
different. Mismatched levels is of course a trivial but common one.




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

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

..
>
> Indeed. And no 'objectivist' claims that all amps sound
> the same, under all conditions. I suspect Tom Nousaine
> for example has gotten quite weary of laying out the
> conditions under which amps *will* likely sound
> different. Mismatched levels is of course a trivial but
> common one.

Note that randomly mismatched levels is one the key factors
in Paul Paker's testing menthodology.

But Paul's listening evaulations are way ahead of Mirabel's
real-world listening tests, which long ago ceased to exist.

[Nathan Stohler]

John Atkinson wrote:

> As far as I know, none of the products you mention above has been
> advertised in Stereophile, in which case your implication is not
> only incorrect but not based on any evidence. :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming that they
actually work, is even worse than simply publishing an advertisement.

[George Middius]

Sillybot plays the fool.

>> Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

>Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

He was referring to your blind faith in a "testing" system you've never used,
never experienced, and never applied for anything other than your religious
mantras.


..
..
..

[Nathan Stohler]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> dave weil > wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > > wrote:
>
> > >"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
> > >fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
>
> > Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.
>
> Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion analogy to this discussion,
the ABX/DBT proponents would be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious fundamentalists.

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Nathan Stohler wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > My apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Stohler. My mistake.
> >
> > If it was an honest mistake, then no apology is necessary. I thought you
> > were perpetuating the whole "borg" thing, which I find annoying and childish.
>
> I saw that George Middius had parodied your name and corrected it.
> Except that without access to your original posting, I _mis_corrected
> it. Mea culpa.
>
> > > The argument is circular. In effect, you are saying: "I believe that
> > > because an ABX test produces null results, _all_ ABX tests of _all_
> > > products will produce null results. Ipso facto, no ABX tests are
> > > necessary."
> >
> > Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
> > from a properly executed ABX test on a receiver or amplifier?
>
> Try http://www.stereophile.com/features/587/. Some 2004 postings on
> r.a.h-e listed other such tests.
>
> > It's hard to take you seriously when your magazine peddles such things
> >as:
>
> Please note, Mr. Stohler, that Stereophile doen't "peddle" audio
> products,
> other than the CDs and magazine-branded schwag on our website
>
> > - Cable cookers
>
> Yup, some of my writers have written about products such as this.
>
> > - Shakti stones
>
> Yup, some of my writers have written about these.
>
> > - Quantum purifiers that strip quantum noise energy off the electrons?!
>
> Never been written about in Stereophile. Could you give a reference
> please.
>
> > - Hallographs (thin pieces of wood that dramatically affect the sound by
> > being in the room)
>
> Never been written about in Stereophile. Could you give a reference
> please.
>
> > It's hard for me to tell whether you really believe in this stuff, or if the
> > advertising money is just too good.
>
> As far as I know, none of the products you mention above has been
> advertised in Stereophile, in which case your implication is not
> only incorrect but not based on any evidence. :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

If your mag ever needed justification for its existence this clear and
concise lesson on statistics that you gave a link to and that I copied
would suffice.
However (I wouldn't be myself without a "however") it seems to me that
the common weakness of most of the listening "tests" is the panel
(testing population) selection. (This incidentally is the objection
most often raised in medical drug trials- "your sample was not wide
enough"). It seems next to impossible to collect a truly
representative sample of audio consumers. Yours in the article above
did not include the millions for whom audio is something that buzzes in
the background while you're washing the dishes and for whom VTL and
Adcom would sound very much the same- "not enough bass!".
Sean Olive came closest to having a wide enough sample in his
loudspeaker test. But I doubt that his results as to 'preference" would
be agreeable to a teenage rock devotee.
Perhaps we are all different after all and the audio component
comparisons encroach so much on individual likes and dislikes as to be
inherently impossible..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Steven Sullivan]

Nathan Stohler > wrote:


> Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > dave weil > wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > >"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
> > > >fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
> >
> > > Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.
> >
> > Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

> I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion analogy to this discussion,
> the ABX/DBT proponents would be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
> the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious fundamentalists.

The 'believers' are also akin to the creationist/ID crowd, who
offer only critiques of 'flaws' (real and imagined) in scientific methods
and results, rather than evidence *for* the superiority of
*their* methods and models. (I say models rather than results, because
the ID crowd so far doesn't *have* any results to show for its 'methods',
except political ones.)

Basically, what binds these two groups is that they neither put up NOR shut up.


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

[George M. Middius]

Stohlborg whined:

> perpetuating the whole "borg" thing, which I find annoying and childish.

Are your nanites up to date? Either way, you should pay a visit to Dr.
Kroomacher. He can probably adjust your Humanoid Response Simulation matrix
so those pesky human-style feelings are completely suppressed.

[George M. Middius]

Stohlborg shrieks in horror.

> The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming that they
> actually work, is even worse than simply publishing an advertisement.

Do modern Audio 'Borgs have a symbolic device to repel "snake oil" objects?
I know in the olde dayes, you folks used to hold up your calculators and
pocket protectors the way vampire-hunters held up crucifixes. So what's the
21st-century 'borg equivalent of those toys?

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius said:


>Do modern Audio 'Borgs have a symbolic device to repel "snake oil" objects?
>I know in the olde dayes, you folks used to hold up your calculators and
>pocket protectors the way vampire-hunters held up crucifixes. So what's the
>21st-century 'borg equivalent of those toys?



PC-ABX.

--

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

[Lionel]

George "WineBorg" wrote :

> Do modern Audio 'Borgs have a symbolic device to repel "snake oil"
> objects? I know in the olde dayes, you folks used to hold up your
> calculators and pocket protectors the way vampire-hunters held up
> crucifixes. So what's the 21st-century 'borg equivalent of those toys?

Yes, George easily !!! Just like for wine !!!
They try to keep updated their knowledge of the "overwhelming consensus of
the opinion of audio connoisseurs".
Even you can do that. :-)

[dave weil]

On 21 Nov 2005 10:25:19 -0800, George Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>
>Sillybot plays the fool.
>
>>> Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.
>
>>Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.
>
>He was referring to your blind faith in a "testing" system you've never used,
>never experienced, and never applied for anything other than your religious
>mantras.

And also excoriating anyone who doesn't "believe"..

[dave weil]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:52:33 -0600, Nathan Stohler
> wrote:

>
>
>Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> dave weil > wrote:
>> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > >"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
>> > >fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
>>
>> > Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.
>>
>> Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.
>
>I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion analogy to this discussion,
>the ABX/DBT proponents would be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
>the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious fundamentalists.

You would be wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"Nathan Stohler" > wrote in message


> Steven Sullivan wrote:

>> dave weil > wrote:

>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven
>>> Sullivan > wrote:

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

>>> Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Guilty as charged - I do believe in the literal
interpretation of the phrase "high fidelity".

>> Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

That, too.

> I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion
> analogy to this discussion, the ABX/DBT proponents would
> be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
> the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious
> fundamentalists.

Agreed.

[Clyde Slick]

"Nathan Stohler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that
> intended
> to be humorous?
>

There used to be a Steinburg posting here.
Maybe John was having a flashback.

[Clyde Slick]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Sillybot plays the fool.
>
>>> Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.
>
>>Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.
>
> He was referring to your blind faith in a "testing" system you've never
> used,
> never experienced, and never applied for anything other than your
> religious
> mantras.
>

if there is anything to be skeptical of, it is DBT being used by consumers.

[Clyde Slick]

"Nathan Stohler" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> dave weil > wrote:
>> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > >"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing
>> > >stupidity of religious
>> > >fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
>>
>> > Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.
>>
>> Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.
>
> I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion analogy to this
> discussion,
> the ABX/DBT proponents would be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
> the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious fundamentalists.
>

just as some leftisit athiests treat their athieism as a religion,
ABX/DBT proponents treat their dogma as a religion.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:49:24 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

(paul packer) said:
>
>>Hello, Phil. What are you doing in this dark place where bears roam?
>>I'd have thought you'd have enough to do over at aus.hi-fi POSTING
>>THAT TAPE!
>
>
>Is he still rambling and raving about that taped conversation with
>Patrick Turner?
>
>Sheesh Phil, get a life already.

He has one--rambling and raving about the tape.

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Nathan Stohler > wrote:
>
>
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> > > dave weil > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
> > > > >fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
> > >
> > > > Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.
> > >
> > > Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.
>
> > I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion analogy to this discussion,
> > the ABX/DBT proponents would be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
> > the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious fundamentalists.
>
> The 'believers' are also akin to the creationist/ID crowd, who
> offer only critiques of 'flaws' (real and imagined) in scientific methods
> and results, rather than evidence *for* the superiority of
> *their* methods and models. (I say models rather than results, because
> the ID crowd so far doesn't *have* any results to show for its 'methods',
> except political ones.)
>
> Basically, what binds these two groups is that they neither put up NOR shut up.
>
I wonder when you'll see that you're craving for a pipedream.. I
don't have a "method" nor have you. The difference is that you feel
lost at sea without one and I do not miss it at all. I get my laughs
watching you floundering trying to grab a buoy that keep slipping away
from you.
You're reaching for some ideal measurement or a consumer report type
scale of merit in a country of an infinite number of individual likes
and dislikes..
I can only talk from my personal corner and I don't think what I feel
has to make any sense for anyone else. Instances: Watt Puppies, Apogee
Divas, Mark-Levinson and Jadis amplifiers have or had been on all of
the four star listings. I did not care for any of them. No measurement
and no listening "test" will make the slightest difference - I
still won't like them.and in all likelihood when my brain is
homogenized by ABX I'll hear no differences between them. I like
Bryston and Acoustat dipoles for upper midrange reinforced by lower
midrange cones, transmission line woofers and Bohlender-Graebner
tweeters. They suit me , in my room for the kind of music I listen to.
They don't need to suit anyone else. When it comes to others'
opinions I'll listen more willingly to eg J.G. Holt because from
experience I know that his choice correspond to mine than to the votes
of 10.000 Abxers of the kind I'm thinking of.

I don't care for Caspian see caviar, or pate de foie gras. I had a
dozen bottles of Lafitte-Rotschild and did not care for it. All of
Larousse or Escoffier would not change my mind.
Give it up Sullivan . The "measurements" are still in their
infancy. If you trust them more than your ears and your brain that's
your loss.
Ludovic Mirabel

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

[paul packer]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:09:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>Note that randomly mismatched levels is one the key factors
>in Paul Paker's testing menthodology.

I have no idea who "Paul Paker" is. Nor what "menthodology" is, though
I bet it clears the sinuses.

>But Paul's listening evaulations are way ahead of Mirabel's
>real-world listening tests, which long ago ceased to exist.

Glib comments of no worth, Arnie. I thought that's what you accused me
of.

[Robert Morein]

I find a great way to be the life of the party, is to run around naked
offering free head to all the guests

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:09:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Note that randomly mismatched levels is one the key factors
> >in Paul Paker's testing menthodology.
>
> I have no idea who "Paul Paker" is. Nor what "menthodology" is, though
> I bet it clears the sinuses.
>
> >But Paul's listening evaulations are way ahead of Mirabel's
> >real-world listening tests, which long ago ceased to exist.
>
> Glib comments of no worth, Arnie. I thought that's what you accused me
> of.

It is infectious. Arnie who at least used to be articulate now too is
beginning to make no sense. It seems obvious that Mirabel is under his
skin to a point when he's beginning to voice gibberish.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Nathan Stohler]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> just as some leftisit athiests treat their athieism as a religion,
> ABX/DBT proponents treat their dogma as a religion.

Some people claim to be able to determine the color of fabrics
by touch or the color of crayons by taste. Their "trick" usually
involves being able to peek below their blindfold to see the
object. When they are tested under controlled conditions, they
are, for some reason, unable to make the same distinction.

Forgive me if I am unimpressed by your ability to distinguish
subtle differences in audio equipment when the two pieces of
gear are sitting right in front of you.

[Nathan Stohler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Stohlborg shrieks in horror.
>
> > The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming that they
> > actually work, is even worse than simply publishing an advertisement.
>
> Do modern Audio 'Borgs have a symbolic device to repel "snake oil" objects?
> I know in the olde dayes, you folks used to hold up your calculators and
> pocket protectors the way vampire-hunters held up crucifixes. So what's the
> 21st-century 'borg equivalent of those toys?

Oh, I get it now. Skeptic = Nerd.

Should I assume that you use a full array of gimmicks to improve the sound of
your system? Do you place those little supports on the ground to hold up your
esoteric speaker wire? Do you use Shakti stones and color the edges of your
CDs with a green Sharpie? Maybe try some red Kaballah string!

Afterall, none of these things has been proven not to improve audio, so only
a nerd would refuse to believe in them, right?

Wouldn't a "'borg" imply someone who hasn't got a mind of his own and does
not question things, someone like yourself? Skeptics ask questions and don't
automatically accept everything they are shown, but you are a true 'borg.

[Arny Krueger]

"Nathan Stohler" > wrote in message

> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> just as some leftisit athiests treat their athieism as a
>> religion, ABX/DBT proponents treat their dogma as a
>> religion.
>
> Some people claim to be able to determine the color of
> fabrics by touch or the color of crayons by taste. Their
> "trick" usually involves being able to peek below their
> blindfold to see the object. When they are tested under
> controlled conditions, they are, for some reason, unable
> to make the same distinction.
>
> Forgive me if I am unimpressed by your ability to
> distinguish subtle differences in audio equipment when
> the two pieces of gear are sitting right in front of you.

IME Art is the sort of brain trust that takes two
amplifiers, sets the volume control on each to a
significantly different level, and then makes a big point of
preferring the sound of one over the other.

It comes with being like Middius. Deep thinking like his
make the high end ragazines what they are today.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message

> Stohlborg shrieks in horror.
>
>> The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming
>> that they actually work, is even worse than simply
>> publishing an advertisement.
>
> Do modern Audio 'Borgs have a symbolic device to repel
> "snake oil" objects?

It's not symbolic, its real. It's called "having a brain".
George, you ought to try it some day.

[John Atkinson]

Nathan Stohler > wrote in
message >:
>John Atkinson wrote in message
om>:
>> As far as I know, none of the products you mention above has
>> been advertised in Stereophile, in which case your implication
>> is not only incorrect but not based on any evidence. :-)
>
> The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming that
> they actually work, is even worse than simply publishing an
> advertisement.

Wow, you sure moved those goalpasts with alacrity, Mr. Stohler.
I was responding to specific points you raised, only for you
to pretend you were writing about something else altogether!
I'll address your new point, then return to what you were
originally saying.

When it comes to reviews of audio products, we don't pretend to
any prior knowledge. This is as true for odd-sounding tweaks as
it is for conventional components, a Krell amplifier for example.
All I ask from my staff is that they honestly report what they
perceive when they try the product. If they start to second-guess
those perceptions, by changing their mind because they find the
products' rationales ridiculous, then they are no longer being
honest and their reviews lose worth.

I witnessed an example of this in 1984, BTW, when a Japanese
reviewer, Egawa-san, and I both gave presentations to the
Boston Audio Society. Egawa-san set up a single-blind comparison
between two digital sources. The audience found that they
could detect the difference. Yet after Egawa-san revealed that
what the listeners had been auditioning was the same Sony
portable CD player powered by either AC or by its internal
battery, they spent the rest of the evening arguing that they
_didn't_ hear what the test clearly showed they _had_, because
they _knew_ a CD player's power supply could not influence
sound quality.

If you already know what can and cannot have an audible
effect, Mr.Stohler, then why do you need even to perform any
tests? Life would be so much easier. :-)

If you read Stereophile, Mr. Stohler, you will find examples
both of tweaks that seem to provide some benefit and others
that do not. If you wish to condemn review conclusions that
conflict with the your beliefs, then I have no problem with
that but please don't pretend that your beliefs confer on
you any kind of moral superiority.

To return to your point, Mr. Stohler, you wrote in message
> that the outcome of reviews
in Stereophile was influenced by advertsiing revenue -- "It's
hard for me to tell whether you really believe in this stuff,
or if the advertising money is just too good."

This is both incorrect and professionally insulting.
Nevertheless, I paid you the courtesy of addressing the
specific examples of such supposed corruption that you had
raised, complete with bullet points:

>>>- Cable cookers
>>>- Shakti stones
>>>- Quantum purifiers that strip quantum noise energy off the
>>> electrons?!
>>>- Hallographs (thin pieces of wood that dramatically affect the
>>> sound by being in the room)

I pointed out that while Stereophile had reported on the first
two of these products, it had not on the second two. And if it
hadn't done so, it is hard to see why these two are such a
"gotcha." I asked you to provide references to the instances
where Stereophile had reported on the "Quantum purifiers"
and the "Hallographs"; you apparently refuse to do so,
presumably because your beliefs are not supported by reality.

Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising
money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best
of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs
are not supported by reality. Far from admitting your error,
you pretend you were talking about something else. Dirty pool,
Mr. Stohler, dirty pool.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com


> When it comes to reviews of audio products, we don't
> pretend to any prior knowledge.

In other words John, you are tremendously self-unaware
because of course you do have considerable prior knowlege.

[Powell]

"John Atkinson" wrote

> When it comes to reviews of audio products,
> we don't pretend to any prior knowledge.
>
If true, what value does a reviewer bring to
the table?


> This is as true for odd-sounding tweaks as
> it is for conventional components, a Krell
> amplifier for example.
>
One could also point out that statistically
price follows magazine rating.


> All I ask from my staff is that they honestly
> report what they perceive when they try the
> product. If they start to second-guess those
> perceptions, by changing their mind because
> they find the products' rationales ridiculous,
> then they are no longer being honest and their
> reviews lose worth.
>
Which is all that can be asked of an
*entertainment magazine*. But your business,
commercial and financial interests actively
promote *audio expertise*... which may
have no basis in reality.

You seem to contend that being perceived
as an *audio expert* is a public miss
perception (not your fault).


> If you wish to condemn review conclusions
> that conflict with the your beliefs, then I have
> no problem with that but please don't pretend
> that your beliefs confer on you any kind of
> moral superiority.
>
Hehehe... Oh-Brother.


> Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the
> "advertising money is so good" -- also doesn't
> bear scrutiny as, to the best of my knowledge,
> not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
> you instance advertises in Stereophile.
>
Is it the business of your advertising department
to screen_anyone_who places ad space for any
audio product? In other words, anyone can place
an ad, the audio claims of the product are
irrelevant, right? If not what is the audio specific
rejection criteria?


> Again, your beliefs are not supported by reality.
>
You mean "not supported by the
*documentation* (not"reality").


> Far from admitting your error, you pretend
> you were talking about something else. Dirty
> pool, Mr. Stohler, dirty pool.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
Is this your version of "trade debating," John :)?

[Powell]

"Nathan Stohler" wrote
>
> Oh, I get it now. Skeptic = Nerd.
>
Nathan Stohler = Nerd.


> Should I assume that you use a full array
> of gimmicks to improve the sound of your
> system?
>
A Nerd with little to no empirical experiences...
so how would you know?


> Do you place those little supports on the
> ground to hold up your esoteric speaker
> wire? Do you use Shakti stones and color
> the edges of your CDs with a green Sharpie?
> Maybe try some red Kaballah string!
>
If he had that would make him about a factor
of ten greater than your own audio
experiences.


> Afterall, none of these things has been proven
> not to improve audio, so only a nerd would
> refuse to believe in them, right?
>
You mean like ALL AMPS = All Amps and
ALL WIRE = All Wire. Your wallet sayz
'appliance-store-shopper' all over it :).


> Wouldn't a "'borg" imply someone who hasn't
> got a mind of his own and does not question
> things, someone like yourself?
>
Typo error, you mean myself, right?


> Skeptics ask questions and don't automatically
> accept everything they are shown,...
>
All in the search for Trvth®

[Nathan Stohler]

John Atkinson wrote:

>
> I witnessed an example of this in 1984, BTW, when a Japanese
> reviewer, Egawa-san, and I both gave presentations to the
> Boston Audio Society. Egawa-san set up a single-blind comparison
> between two digital sources. The audience found that they
> could detect the difference. Yet after Egawa-san revealed that
> what the listeners had been auditioning was the same Sony
> portable CD player powered by either AC or by its internal
> battery, they spent the rest of the evening arguing that they
> _didn't_ hear what the test clearly showed they _had_, because
> they _knew_ a CD player's power supply could not influence
> sound quality.

This is hardly surprising. The Japanese fellow conveniently left
out the important "X" part of ABX testing. It's well known that
if you present two choices to a subject in a blind test, the
implication is that the two are different, even if they are in fact
identical.


>
> If you already know what can and cannot have an audible
> effect, Mr.Stohler, then why do you need even to perform any
> tests? Life would be so much easier. :-)

I'm sorry, but I don't need to perform a test to determine whether
marking the edge of my CDs with a green pen will alter the sound
I hear. I'm sorry if such things are not intuitive to you.


>
> If you read Stereophile, Mr. Stohler, you will find examples
> both of tweaks that seem to provide some benefit and others
> that do not. If you wish to condemn review conclusions that
> conflict with the your beliefs, then I have no problem with
> that but please don't pretend that your beliefs confer on
> you any kind of moral superiority.

Mental superiority, maybe.
Your constant barrage of offers of "$12.97 for 12 issues" are tempting,
but no thanks.

>
> Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising
> money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best
> of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
> you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs
> are not supported by reality. Far from admitting your error,
> you pretend you were talking about something else. Dirty pool,
> Mr. Stohler, dirty pool.

"Stereophile Recommended Component for 3 Years Running":

http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/audiodharmacablecooker.htm

[George Middius]

PD said to TurdBorg:

>>no commercial entity has picked up [pcab****]

>Because it's crap.

You say that like it's a bad thing.


..
..

[Nathan Stohler]

Powell wrote:

> Nathan Stohler = Nerd.

Is that supposed to be an insult?


>
> > Should I assume that you use a full array
> > of gimmicks to improve the sound of your
> > system?
> >
> A Nerd with little to no empirical experiences...
> so how would you know?

How would you know?

>
> If he had that would make him about a factor
> of ten greater than your own audio
> experiences.

That depends on what passes for "experience".

>
> You mean like ALL AMPS = All Amps and
> ALL WIRE = All Wire. Your wallet sayz
> 'appliance-store-shopper' all over it :).

Is that supposed to be an insult?


>
> > Wouldn't a "'borg" imply someone who hasn't
> > got a mind of his own and does not question
> > things, someone like yourself?
> >
> Typo error, you mean myself, right?

At the time, I wasn't referring to you, but you have a point,
or did you mean to put "myself" in quotes?


>
> > Skeptics ask questions and don't automatically
> > accept everything they are shown,...
> >
> All in the search for Trvth®

I'm having trouble understanding your position.

[John Atkinson]

Powell wrote:
> "John Atkinson" wrote
> > When it comes to reviews of audio products,
> > we don't pretend to any prior knowledge.
>
> If true, what value does a reviewer bring to
> the table?

Agnosticism.

> > This is as true for odd-sounding tweaks as
> > it is for conventional components, a Krell
> > amplifier for example.
>
> One could also point out that statistically
> price follows magazine rating.

One would be wrong to do so. A reader recently performed
such an analysis and was surprised to find only a weak
correlation. I will be publishing this analysis in a future issue.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

Nathan Stohler wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > If you read Stereophile, Mr. Stohler, you will find examples
> > both of tweaks that seem to provide some benefit and others
> > that do not. If you wish to condemn review conclusions that
> > conflict with the your beliefs, then I have no problem with
> > that but please don't pretend that your beliefs confer on
> > you any kind of moral superiority.
>
> Mental superiority, maybe.

At least you have a sense of humor, Mr. Stohler.

> > Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising
> > money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best
> > of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
> > you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs
> > are not supported by reality...
>
> "Stereophile Recommended Component for 3 Years Running":
> http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/audiodharmacablecooker.htm

Forgive me for not being your mental equal, Mr. Stohler, but how does
giving a link to a retailer's website that quotes Stereophile have any
connection with your thesis that ads in the _magazine_ influence
review findings?

And again: you mentioned Stereophile reviews of the "Quantum cleaner"
and the "Hallograph." I have now twice corrected your assertion but you
have to admit error. More of your "mental superiority"?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[dave weil]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:37:13 -0600, Nathan Stohler
> wrote:

>> Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising
>> money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best
>> of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
>> you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs
>> are not supported by reality. Far from admitting your error,
>> you pretend you were talking about something else. Dirty pool,
>> Mr. Stohler, dirty pool.
>
>"Stereophile Recommended Component for 3 Years Running":
>
>http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/audiodharmacablecooker.htm

What does this dealer using Stereophile's name in promoting a product
have to do with the product advertising in Stereophile? Or are you
claiming that the RCL is "advertising" in Stereophile?

Just curious.

[Nathan Stohler]

John Atkinson wrote:

>
> > > Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising
> > > money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best
> > > of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
> > > you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs
> > > are not supported by reality...
> >
> > "Stereophile Recommended Component for 3 Years Running":
> > http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/audiodharmacablecooker.htm
>
> Forgive me for not being your mental equal, Mr. Stohler, but how does
> giving a link to a retailer's website that quotes Stereophile have any
> connection with your thesis that ads in the _magazine_ influence
> review findings?
>
> And again: you mentioned Stereophile reviews of the "Quantum cleaner"
> and the "Hallograph." I have now twice corrected your assertion but you
> have to admit error. More of your "mental superiority"?
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

John,

I cannot find links to those reviews, so I will admit to error here, so we can
end that branch of discussion if you like.

My "thesis", as you put it, is this. If an audio magazine reviews high-end
audio equipment favorably, advertising revenue for high-end products is
positively affected, and I believe the converse is true.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that's so bad, as I'm sure most readers are
aware of the situation. But cable cookers? Shakti stones? Suggesting that
such things actually have an effect seems irresponsible to me.

You seem very sincere and passionate about your work. I resent the
adversarial tones that have crept into this discussion, and I take the blame
for my share of it.

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:29:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>O guess Paul that as usual you can't put two and two
>>together to get four.
>
> Condescension, Arnie? Shame.
>
>>I'll spell it out for you Paul: It's hard to use ears to
>>evaluate products that you don't have access to, until you
>>first buy them.
>
> I gain my access to products I'm considering in the dealer's listening
> rooms. And then I listen to them. Eventually, after listening a good
> while, I say, "I'll have that one please." Or more likely, "Is that
> the best you can do on price for that?"
>
And if you're happy with using the least relaible, most prone to mistakes
way of buying audio equipment, then that's fine for you. Some people know
better than to use such methods, especially when things tend to not have any
differences in the first place.


>>That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
>>audition equipment that you don't have direct access to.
>
> Audition? Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the
> word.
>
Absolutely, yours needs updating.

[Powell]

"Nathan Stohler" wrote

> > Nathan Stohler = Nerd.
>
> Is that supposed to be an insult?
>
Only if you don't like being compared/reduced
to a cliche, do you?


> > > Should I assume that you use a full array
> > > of gimmicks to improve the sound of your
> > > system?
> > >
> > A Nerd with little to no empirical experiences...
> > so how would you know?
>
> How would you know?
>
You need a bigger shovel.


> > If he had that would make him about a factor
> > of ten greater than your own audio
> > experiences.
>
> That depends on what passes for "experience".
>
What is you litmus test for "passes."


> > You mean like ALL AMPS = All Amps and
> > ALL WIRE = All Wire. Your wallet sayz
> > 'appliance-store-shopper' all over it :).
>
> Is that supposed to be an insult?
>
Arn't you of the *reductionist* mindset?


> > > Wouldn't a "'borg" imply someone who hasn't
> > > got a mind of his own and does not question
> > > things, someone like yourself?
> > >
> > Typo error, you mean myself, right?
>
> At the time, I wasn't referring to you,
>
Clue phone, you were talking to George.


> > > Skeptics ask questions and don't automatically
> > > accept everything they are shown,...
> > >
> > All in the search for Trvth®
>
> I'm having trouble understanding your position.
>
What is causative relationship between Skepticism
and reality/truth/accuracy or what Arny calls "more
correct and less correct?"

[Powell]

"John Atkinson" wrote

> > > When it comes to reviews of audio products,
> > > we don't pretend to any prior knowledge.
> >
> > If true, what value does a reviewer bring to
> > the table?
>
> Agnosticism.
>
More like Nihilism, John :).

ni-hil-ism (nie'uh liz uhm, nee'-) n.

3. a. the belief that all existence is
senseless and that there is no
possibility of an objective basis
for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.


> > > This is as true for odd-sounding tweaks as
> > > it is for conventional components, a Krell
> > > amplifier for example.
> >
> > One could also point out that statistically
> > price follows magazine rating.
>
> One would be wrong to do so.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
Quack, quack, quack...

[George Middius]

Powell quacked:

>Quack, quack, quack...

Speaking for myself, I won't be convinced until I've seen you walk. Got a video
uploaded somewhere? ;-)


..
..
..

[Robert Morein]

On 22 Nov 2005 07:10:10 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:

>Nathan Stohler > wrote in
>message >:
>>John Atkinson wrote in message
om>:
>>> As far as I know, none of the products you mention above has
>>> been advertised in Stereophile, in which case your implication
>>> is not only incorrect but not based on any evidence. :-)
>>
>> The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming that
>> they actually work, is even worse than simply publishing an
>> advertisement.
>
>Wow, you sure moved those goalpasts with alacrity, Mr. Stohler.
>I was responding to specific points you raised, only for you
>to pretend you were writing about something else altogether!
>I'll address your new point, then return to what you were
>originally saying.
>
>When it comes to reviews of audio products, we don't pretend to
>any prior knowledge. This is as true for odd-sounding tweaks as
>it is for conventional components, a Krell amplifier for example.
>All I ask from my staff is that they honestly report what they
>perceive when they try the product. If they start to second-guess
>those perceptions, by changing their mind because they find the
>products' rationales ridiculous, then they are no longer being
>honest and their reviews lose worth.
>
>I witnessed an example of this in 1984, BTW, when a Japanese
>reviewer, Egawa-san, and I both gave presentations to the
>Boston Audio Society. Egawa-san set up a single-blind comparison
>between two digital sources. The audience found that they
>could detect the difference. Yet after Egawa-san revealed that
>what the listeners had been auditioning was the same Sony
>portable CD player powered by either AC or by its internal
>battery, they spent the rest of the evening arguing that they
>_didn't_ hear what the test clearly showed they _had_, because
>they _knew_ a CD player's power supply could not influence
>sound quality.
>
>If you already know what can and cannot have an audible
>effect, Mr.Stohler, then why do you need even to perform any
>tests? Life would be so much easier. :-)
>
>If you read Stereophile, Mr. Stohler, you will find examples
>both of tweaks that seem to provide some benefit and others
>that do not. If you wish to condemn review conclusions that
>conflict with the your beliefs, then I have no problem with
>that but please don't pretend that your beliefs confer on
>you any kind of moral superiority.
>
>To return to your point, Mr. Stohler, you wrote in message
> that the outcome of reviews
>in Stereophile was influenced by advertsiing revenue -- "It's
>hard for me to tell whether you really believe in this stuff,
>or if the advertising money is just too good."
>
>This is both incorrect and professionally insulting.
>Nevertheless, I paid you the courtesy of addressing the
>specific examples of such supposed corruption that you had
>raised, complete with bullet points:
>
>>>>- Cable cookers
>>>>- Shakti stones
>>>>- Quantum purifiers that strip quantum noise energy off the
>>>> electrons?!
>>>>- Hallographs (thin pieces of wood that dramatically affect the
>>>> sound by being in the room)
>
>I pointed out that while Stereophile had reported on the first
>two of these products, it had not on the second two. And if it
>hadn't done so, it is hard to see why these two are such a
>"gotcha." I asked you to provide references to the instances
>where Stereophile had reported on the "Quantum purifiers"
>and the "Hallographs"; you apparently refuse to do so,
>presumably because your beliefs are not supported by reality.
>
>Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising
>money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best
>of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
>you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs
>are not supported by reality. Far from admitting your error,
>you pretend you were talking about something else. Dirty pool,
>Mr. Stohler, dirty pool.
>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile


ohhh you're so sexy
I love you

[Clyde Slick]

"Nathan Stohler" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> just as some leftisit athiests treat their athieism as a religion,
>> ABX/DBT proponents treat their dogma as a religion.
>
> Some people claim to be able to determine the color of fabrics
> by touch or the color of crayons by taste. Their "trick" usually
> involves being able to peek below their blindfold to see the
> object. When they are tested under controlled conditions, they
> are, for some reason, unable to make the same distinction.
>
> Forgive me if I am unimpressed by your ability to distinguish
> subtle differences in audio equipment when the two pieces of
> gear are sitting right in front of you.
>

I never said they were subtle.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Nathan Stohler" > wrote in message
>
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>> just as some leftisit athiests treat their athieism as a
>>> religion, ABX/DBT proponents treat their dogma as a
>>> religion.
>>
>> Some people claim to be able to determine the color of
>> fabrics by touch or the color of crayons by taste. Their
>> "trick" usually involves being able to peek below their
>> blindfold to see the object. When they are tested under
>> controlled conditions, they are, for some reason, unable
>> to make the same distinction.
>>
>> Forgive me if I am unimpressed by your ability to
>> distinguish subtle differences in audio equipment when
>> the two pieces of gear are sitting right in front of you.
>
> IME Art is the sort of brain trust that takes two amplifiers, sets the
> volume control on each to a significantly different level, and then makes
> a big point of preferring the sound of one over the other.
>
> It comes with being like Middius. Deep thinking like his make the high end
> ragazines what they are today.
>

To me, some amps are so obviously better sounding
than others, that anything but egregious differences in volume
don't change the result of the comparison.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>>
> And if you're happy with using the least relaible, most prone to mistakes
> way of buying audio equipment, then that's fine for you. Some people know
> better than to use such methods, especially when things tend to not have
> any differences in the first place.
>

So, you ARE saying that PCABX/DBT/ABX torture rituals are required
for legitimate consumer purchases.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> So, you ARE saying that PCABX/DBT/ABX torture rituals are required
> for legitimate consumer purchases.

Mickey is also on record as supporting eyeball-gouging, either voluntary or
involuntary.

[John Atkinson]

Nathan Stohler wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > And again: you mentioned Stereophile reviews of the "Quantum cleaner"
> > and the "Hallograph." I have now twice corrected your assertion but you
> > have [yet] to admit error. More of your "mental superiority"?
>
> I cannot find links to those reviews, so I will admit to error here, so we can
> end that branch of discussion if you like.

That's fair enough. I am willing to discuss criticims of what my
magazine
has done but not critisicms based on reviews published in other
publications.

> My "thesis", as you put it, is this. If an audio magazine reviews high-end
> audio equipment favorably, advertising revenue for high-end products is
> positively affected, and I believe the converse is true.

Not in my experience. Advertising revenue is generated by providing
readers with a magazine that they want to read. Advertisers who wish
their message to reach those readers will spend money on ads to do so.
Negative reviews can also stimulate advertising as the manufacturer
tries to present a different view. Consider the Audio Physic Caldera 3
review in the November issue, which could be considered a train
wreck for the manufacturer. Yet they continue to advertise.

I am now in the 24th year of professional magazine editing, and have
not inconsiderable experience of this subject. I have written many
times
on this subject and a number of essays are available in Stereophile's
on-line archives. I will post some URLs later today.

> Now, I'm not necessarily saying that's so bad, as I'm sure most
> readers are aware of the situation. But cable cookers? Shakti
> stones? Suggesting that such things actually have an effect seems
> irresponsible to me.

Only if you already _know_ what these devices can and can't do. We
have already discussed this subject and our opposing positions are
clear, I feel. I continue to be surprised that things I "know" should
be
audible turn out not to be to an any great extent, while things I might
regard as trivial do turn out to be significant.

> You seem very sincere and passionate about your work. I resent the
> adversarial tones that have crept into this discussion, and I take the
> blame for my share of it.

Thank you. I try hard to address issues rather than people, but it is
inevitable that a degree of impatience appears.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

John Atkinson wrote:
> I have written many times on this subject and a number of essays are
> available in Stereophile's on-line archives. I will post some URLs later
> today.

For example, see http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/366 , and
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/502 .

I also wrote about the relationship or lack thereof between advertising
and a magazine's editorial content in the chapter I contributed to the
new book "Sound Bites," available from Hi-Fi news in the UK.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Nathan Stohler]

Powell wrote:

> "Nathan Stohler" wrote
> > > > Should I assume that you use a full array
> > > > of gimmicks to improve the sound of your
> > > > system?
> > > >
> > > A Nerd with little to no empirical experiences...
> > > so how would you know?
> >
> > How would you know?
> >
> You need a bigger shovel.

"How would you know what empirical experiences I've had?"
is what I meant.

>
> > > If he had that would make him about a factor
> > > of ten greater than your own audio
> > > experiences.
> >
> > That depends on what passes for "experience".
> >
> What is you litmus test for "passes."

Someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens
can also say they've had more "experience" than me.

>
> What is causative relationship between Skepticism
> and reality/truth/accuracy or what Arny calls "more
> correct and less correct?"

I'd say that healthy skepticism leads to truth/reality more
often than fantasy.