ABX is not DBT's Siamese twin

[[email protected]]

Summary:
DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
all one has is the listener's impression.
ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
of sighted listening.
On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
about preference.
Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
interesting question to answer.)
It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
about
What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
------------------------------------

A persistent confusion between the two is propagated in the audio
forums. Sometimes from ignorance sometimes deliberately to attach the
questionable to the reputable. Whenever stumped for argument ABX
becomes just plain old "DBT" (Even slight forger NYOB has enough
low cunning to use this dodge).
DBTs were first developed in the forties of the last century by the
Medical Research Ccil of the U.K. by its statistics division headed by
statistician Bradford Hill and physician Richard Doll Dbts soon
became the gold standard of medical research in Great Britain and
spread worldwide from there.
The progress in medical therapeutics since those years is inconceivable
without DBT.
That it WORKS is confirmable by the objective data. Using DBT
researching physician does not know if he is giving an inert placebo or
the "real" drug-nor does the patient)
What decides if it is effective or not is not the patient or doctor's
impression but improved function and better survival statistics. If
before penicillin 100% died of bacterial endocarditis and since only
50% or less no room for controversy is left. Patients' opinion if
unsupported by objective data is only interesting as the evidence of
inevitable placebo effect/bias. (For obvious reasons treatment of
psyche is a special case but even there the evidence of reintegration
into society and adequate functioning counts more than bare opinion).
The place of DBT in research in other sciences is also ensured.
Two decades later Arny Krueger ( alone or with others? Some controversy
there of no interest here) proposed ABX as his modification of DBT
suitable for researching differences between audio components. The
method involves playing a snippet A, then a snippet B, then a snippet
X. The listeners are asked to decide if X is more like A or more like
B.
There is no possible objective confirmation- just slashes in the
appropriate square on the paper. The resemblance to research DBT is
only that in both blinding is used. Nothing else.
Everything about ABX was and remains undefined and controversial: How
do you select a representative listener sample?: sex, age, education,
exposure- to what kind of music (hip hop or chamber?), occupation
(salesmen, disk jockeys, audio engineers, musicians?), required number
of panelists for statistical significance. The basic research is
missing.

What about implementation? In four decades of its existence the very
vocal ABX supporters published not one single report of successful
differentiation between any audio components, when reproducing music.
By now there should be dozens of them acceptable to a professional or
at least popular Audio journal. There are none. Such as have been
published had "No difference" outcome
There is no evidence that ABX WORKS to differentiate audio
components' musical reproduction ability. Not even gross let alone
"subtle".
It may or may not have applications in psychometric research in things
such as phase differences, codecs and so on. I know nothing about that
DBT is another thing entirely. To be against DBTs in research is to be
against motherhood. In an audio DBT you can ask: "Which one do you
like better?" a simple question which is much more likely to give a
consistent answer than comparing A then B with X.
Ludovic Mirabel M.D.,M.R.C.P.(Ed),FRCP(C)
I apologise for listing degrees in an audio posting. It is only to
establish credibility. While preparing for my postgrad. specialty
degrees I worked full-time in the Med.Res.Ccil in London at the
exciting time when DBTs were being developed. That is perhaps why I
care about their good name.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Summary:
> DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
> Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
> all one has is the listener's impression.
> ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
> grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
> differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
> of sighted listening.
> On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
> listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
> about preference.
> Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
> better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
> interesting question to answer.)
> It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
> Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
> Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
> change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
> about
> What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
> ------------------------------------
>
I concur completely with Ludovic's post

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Summary:
> DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
> Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
> all one has is the listener's impression.
> ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
> grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
> differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
> of sighted listening.
> On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
> listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
> about preference.
> Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
> better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
> interesting question to answer.)
> It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
> Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
> Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
> change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
> about
> What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
> ------------------------------------

yes, and in the ABX test, there is not even the option to
respond that it sounds the same, if that is what one perceives.
It forces the respondent to lie, and then it adds the lies with
the responses based upon perceptions of differences.


>
> A persistent confusion between the two is propagated in the audio
> forums. Sometimes from ignorance sometimes deliberately to attach the
> questionable to the reputable. Whenever stumped for argument ABX
> becomes just plain old "DBT" (Even slight forger NYOB has enough
> low cunning to use this dodge).
> DBTs were first developed in the forties of the last century by the
> Medical Research Ccil of the U.K. by its statistics division headed by
> statistician Bradford Hill and physician Richard Doll Dbts soon
> became the gold standard of medical research in Great Britain and
> spread worldwide from there.
> The progress in medical therapeutics since those years is inconceivable
> without DBT.
> That it WORKS is confirmable by the objective data. Using DBT
> researching physician does not know if he is giving an inert placebo or
> the "real" drug-nor does the patient)
> What decides if it is effective or not is not the patient or doctor's
> impression but improved function and better survival statistics. If
> before penicillin 100% died of bacterial endocarditis and since only
> 50% or less no room for controversy is left. Patients' opinion if
> unsupported by objective data is only interesting as the evidence of
> inevitable placebo effect/bias.


Take antihystamines for example. Many are approved as safe and
effective, partly based upon DBT studies. Yet, one
particular formula might work better for one person, and another
formula better for another person.
I respond to Allegra, Claritin does absolutely
nothing for me. That is because I am unique, and not exacly like
any other individual.

[EddieM]

> wrote
>
>
>
> Summary:
> DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
> Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
> all one has is the listener's impression.
> ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
> grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
> differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
> of sighted listening.
> On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
> listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
> about preference.
> Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
> better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
> interesting question to answer.)
> It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
> Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
> Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
> change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
> about
> What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
> ------------------------------------


Audio ABX/DBT is a bundle of contradiction. Proponents of this
test use this experiment to antagonize discriminating audiophiles
because they have no money.

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> I am unique, and not exacly like
> any other individual.

We already knew that, Art. :-)

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. net...
> > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> Summary:
>> DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
>> Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
>> all one has is the listener's impression.
>> ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
>> grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
>> differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
>> of sighted listening.
>> On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
>> listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
>> about preference.
>> Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
>> better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
>> interesting question to answer.)
>> It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
>> Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
>> Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
>> change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
>> about
>> What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
>> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Audio ABX/DBT is a bundle of contradiction. Proponents of this
> test use this experiment to antagonize discriminating audiophiles
> because they have no money.
>
or brains.

[EddieM]

> > wrote
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> I am unique, and not exacly like
>> any other individual.
>
> We already knew that, Art. :-)



Arny Krueger's house!

http://media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter-SM


Putting his soundcards to good use !

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> I am unique, and not exacly like
>> any other individual.
>
> We already knew that, Art. :-)
>

.....not that there's anything wrong with that.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Summary:
> DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.

ABX is another approved and relaible protocol for double blind tests.

> Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
> all one has is the listener's impression.

That's all you have in any listening comparison.


> ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
> grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
> differences" it obliterates them.

You keep saying that and the researchers keep ignoring you and using ABX and
AC/HR.

It does not qualify as the opposite
> of sighted listening.

Let's see, we have sighted where one can see the DIT and we have blind,
where you can't. In an ABX test, one can't see the DUT, so yes it is the
opposite of sighted.

> On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
> listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
> about preference.

Use whatever you wish for preference, but if there's no difference where
does preference come from?

ABX is for determining difference, not preference. Why do you insist on
implying that ABX has anything to do with preference? Can't make your case
without lying?

> Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
> better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
> interesting question to answer.)

First it's important to determine if there are any real differences to
prefer.

> It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
> Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.

But when the results are the same for everybody taking the ABX test, one
begins to see a pattern.

> Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
> change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
> about
> What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.


And miss your next batch of misditrection and bull****? Never.
> ------------------------------------
>
> A persistent confusion between the two is propagated in the audio
> forums. Sometimes from ignorance sometimes deliberately to attach the
> questionable to the reputable.

Oh goodie, you're confessing.

Whenever stumped for argument ABX
> becomes just plain old "DBT" (Even slight forger NYOB has enough
> low cunning to use this dodge).

Lie number 1.

> DBTs were first developed in the forties of the last century by the
> Medical Research Ccil of the U.K. by its statistics division headed by
> statistician Bradford Hill and physician Richard Doll Dbts soon
> became the gold standard of medical research in Great Britain and
> spread worldwide from there.
> The progress in medical therapeutics since those years is inconceivable
> without DBT.
> That it WORKS is confirmable by the objective data.

As is ABX for audio as well as ABC/HR.

Using DBT
> researching physician does not know if he is giving an inert placebo or
> the "real" drug-nor does the patient)
> What decides if it is effective or not is not the patient or doctor's
> impression but improved function and better survival statistics. If
> before penicillin 100% died of bacterial endocarditis and since only
> 50% or less no room for controversy is left. Patients' opinion if
> unsupported by objective data is only interesting as the evidence of
> inevitable placebo effect/bias. (For obvious reasons treatment of
> psyche is a special case but even there the evidence of reintegration
> into society and adequate functioning counts more than bare opinion).
> The place of DBT in research in other sciences is also ensured.
> Two decades later Arny Krueger ( alone or with others? Some controversy
> there of no interest here) proposed ABX as his modification of DBT
> suitable for researching differences between audio components. The
> method involves playing a snippet A, then a snippet B, then a snippet
> X. The listeners are asked to decide if X is more like A or more like
> B.
> There is no possible objective confirmation- just slashes in the
> appropriate square on the paper. The resemblance to research DBT is
> only that in both blinding is used. Nothing else.

Enough to insure that bias is removed and only the listeners ears are relied
upon for data.

> Everything about ABX was and remains undefined and controversial:

Lie number 2.

How
> do you select a representative listener sample?: sex, age, education,
> exposure- to what kind of music (hip hop or chamber?), occupation
> (salesmen, disk jockeys, audio engineers, musicians?), required number
> of panelists for statistical significance. The basic research is
> missing.
>

Because you haven't looked.

Lie number 3.

> What about implementation? In four decades of its existence the very
> vocal ABX supporters published not one single report of successful
> differentiation between any audio components, when reproducing music.

Lie number 4.

> By now there should be dozens of them acceptable to a professional or
> at least popular Audio journal. There are none.

Lie number 5.

Such as have been
> published had "No difference" outcome
> There is no evidence that ABX WORKS to differentiate audio
> components' musical reproduction ability.

Lie number 6.

Not even gross let alone
> "subtle".

Lie number 7. Will he make it to an even dozen?

> It may or may not have applications in psychometric research in things
> such as phase differences, codecs and so on.

Since much of that research relies on ABX, it seems safe to say it does have
application there.

I know nothing about that
> DBT is another thing entirely. To be against DBTs in research is to be
> against motherhood. In an audio DBT you can ask: "Which one do you
> like better?" a simple question which is much more likely to give a
> consistent answer than comparing A then B with X.

Depends on whether or not levels were matched and there are actual
differences to prefer.


> Ludovic Mirabel M.D.,M.R.C.P.(Ed),FRCP(C)
> I apologise for listing degrees in an audio posting. It is only to
> establish credibility.

Yet, yo have none by virtue of the fact that you keep lying and clearly
don't intend to stop, even though you've been shown many times that you have
made errors. Now they are no longer considered errors, they are just lies
since you know that you are wrong.

While preparing for my postgrad. specialty
> degrees I worked full-time in the Med.Res.Ccil in London at the
> exciting time when DBTs were being developed. That is perhaps why I
> care about their good name.
>
But not your own.

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
et
>> > wrote
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am unique, and not exacly like
>>> any other individual.
>>
>> We already knew that, Art. :-)
>
>
>
> Arny Krueger's house!
>
> http://media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter-SM

Not at all. Is that ugly or what?

Since you seem to know about this odd UL Eddie, it must be
your house.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>> I am unique, and not exacly like
>>> any other individual.
>>
>> We already knew that, Art. :-)
>>
>
> ....not that there's anything wrong with that.

Except for the facts of the matter. :-(

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Summary:

> DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

[George Middius]

Who's been flushing Arnii's toilet?

>> ....not that there's anything wrong with that.

>Except for the feces on my plate. :-(

.... and the baby 'borg said, "This turd is ju-u-u-u-st right! Yum!"




..
..
..

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Summary:
>
> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
>
> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
>
> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
>
> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
> audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
reading comprehension problems.
If this sounds like a personal attack it is so intended. I can not
think of a serious answer to Mc Kelvy's semiliterate noises. Surely
you're not intending to confirm that "By his friends you'll know
him".
Ludovic Mirabel

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>> > Summary:
>>
>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
>>
>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
>>
>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
>>
>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
>
> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
> "defamatory") attack.
> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> components? Where? When?"
> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to cause
me to ose any sleep.


> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
> reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.


> If this sounds like a personal attack it is so intended. I can not
> think of a serious answer to Mc Kelvy's semiliterate noises. Surely
> you're not intending to confirm that "By his friends you'll know
> him".


That works both ways, you twit.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>

>
> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.
>
>

It had better be a better explanation than Creationsism

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Summary:
>> DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
>
> ABX is another approved and relaible protocol for double blind tests.
>
All experience with respect to high end hifi tests shows CONCLUSIVELY that
ABX reduces sensitivity to audible differences.
Therefore, ABX=NFG

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Who's been flushing Arnii's toilet?
>
>>> ....not that there's anything wrong with that.
>
>>Except for the feces on my plate. :-(
>
> ... and the baby 'borg said, "This turd is ju-u-u-u-st right! Yum!"
>
Fecal obsession of Middius noted again.

Never accept an invitation to George's house for a meal.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>

>
> Never accept an invitation to George's house for a meal.
>

George, don't you have any spare fireflies?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com
>>> > Summary:
>>>
>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
>>>
>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
>>>
>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
>>>
>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
>>
>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
>> "defamatory") attack.
>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> components? Where? When?"
>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
>
> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
> cause me to ose any sleep.
>
>
>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
>> reading comprehension problems.
>
> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.
>
Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:32:10 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.
>>
>Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.

It's just that She thinks it's just a "boy-toy" thing.

[ludovic mirabel]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>>> > Summary:
>>>>
>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
>>>>
>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
>>>>
>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
>>>>
>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
>>>
>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
>>> "defamatory") attack.
>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>>> components? Where? When?"
>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
>>
>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
>> cause me to ose any sleep.
>>
>>
>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
>>> reading comprehension problems.
>>
>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.
>>
> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first experimental
proof of ABX validity ever.
>

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> components? Where? When?"

No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is uncover
audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2 signals
can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will not
uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound the
same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is small
enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
with either component.

How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily proven
by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid I'll
have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than the
other, but it isn't because of sound.

Norm Strong

"ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com
>>>>> > Summary:
>>>>>
>>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
>>>>>
>>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
>>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
>>>>>
>>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
>>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
>>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
>>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
>>>>
>>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
>>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
>>>> "defamatory") attack.
>>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>>>> components? Where? When?"
>>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
>>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
>>>
>>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
>>> cause me to ose any sleep.
>>>
>>>
>>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
>>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
>>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
>>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
>>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
>>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
>>>> reading comprehension problems.
>>>
>>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
>>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.
>>>
>> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
> If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
> experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
>>
>
Except for all those JAES articles.

[George M. Middius]

The Bug Eater reminisces none too fondly.

> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.

> Except for all those JAES articles.

Is it true you canceled your subscription because you had to feed your
cricket habit?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> oups.com
>>>>>> > Summary:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
>>>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
>>>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
>>>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
>>>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
>>>>>
>>>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
>>>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
>>>>> "defamatory") attack.
>>>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>>>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I
>>>>> too
>>>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>>>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>>>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>>>>> components? Where? When?"
>>>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
>>>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
>>>>
>>>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
>>>> cause me to ose any sleep.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
>>>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
>>>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
>>>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
>>>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
>>>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
>>>>> reading comprehension problems.
>>>>
>>>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
>>>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.
>>>>
>>> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
>> If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
>> experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
>>>
>>
> Except for all those JAES articles.
Which have nothing to do with testing fine hifi equipment.
It's a bad sign for ABX that it's being flogged by rao's village idiot and
bug eater, Mikey McKelviphbian

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
. ..
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>>
>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> components? Where? When?"
>
> No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is
> uncover audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2
> signals can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT
> will not uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent
> amplifiers sound the same, what is meant is that the differences between
> audible outputs is small enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished
> by ear. What it does NOT mean is that the signals are identical, or that
> you will be equally happy with either component.
>
> How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
> differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
> after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily
> proven by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to
> show up. If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how
> familiar they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm
> afraid I'll have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with
> one than the other, but it isn't because of sound.
>
> Norm Strong
>
That's an interesting test that comes closer to the root of the matter.
However, there is one further test, the only one that would satisfy me. Put
the DUTs in equal size, equal weight black boxes. Leave them at the
subject's house, so that he can switch them at a whim. No fancy testing
gear, no switches. Just indistinguishable containers.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >>
> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> > components? Where? When?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You quote me:
> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> > components? Where? When?"
>
And answer as above
>
> No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is uncover
> audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2 signals
> can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will not
> uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound the
> same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is small
> enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
> mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
> with either component.
>
> How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
> differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
> after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily proven
> by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
> If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
> they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid I'll
> have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than the
> other, but it isn't because of sound.
>
> Norm Strong
----------------------------
You quote me and answer (see hidden text)
> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> > components? Where? When?"
>

Dear Norman,
I believe that before two can argue sensibly they have to agree on
definitions- otherwise they are talking past each other.
I am not arguing about DBTs. I shall not repeat what I said in the
original message but if you look at it once again you'll see that I
believe DBTs were and are indispensable in research. I dare say that I
was DOING DBTs before you ever heard the name.
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music. I am still waiting for experimental evidence that it is so but
so far I found nothing. And I researched it using the Public Library
and two excellent bibliographies that were published
two years ago in RAHE.
In addition I issued repeatedly asked for references (JOURNAL, volume,
year, authors, title, page) in the RAHE and RAO and got answers like
that:
1) "There are many. Why don't you look them up". But no address
and no quote.
2) "There are too many to list. Research it".
3) Misleading time-wasting references to sites that do not even mention
ABX (like BBC or B&O.
Enough of this fruitless topic

I do not understand what exactly is your point about doing DBTs
Yes, it is all about audible signals. I buy audio to listen to the
audible musical signals. If I ever listen blind is to find out which
one of the two or three components approaches most closely my
experience of live music as played by so -called acoustic instruments
and as sung by unamplified human voice.
In other words I listen to find out which one I like better.
Don't you? Are you in research? If so RAO or RAHE is not the right
forum for it and the way you describe your research would not qualify
anywhere outside your home.
Your results are YOUR results. They are of no significance whatsoever
to anyone else unless you prove to them that your taste your musical
preferences, your experience and your recommendations parallel theirs.
You're then a respected audio critic for those who are after the same
kind of musical reproduction as you.
Sean Olive in his web presentation showed that differences between
individual DBT performances are enormous. One of his panelists did so
poorly that was quietly dropped and did not appear in the next test
series.
Now a quote from Sean Olive. Note what he says about listening for
preference:
", I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?"
In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more
interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and
why?"
Exactly.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> nk.net...
> >>>
> >>> > wrote in message
> >>> ups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>> oups.com
> >>>>> > Summary:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
> >>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
> >>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
> >>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
> >>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
> >>>>
> >>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
> >>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
> >>>> "defamatory") attack.
> >>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> >>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
> >>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> >>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> >>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> >>>> components? Where? When?"
> >>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
> >>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
> >>>
> >>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
> >>> cause me to ose any sleep.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
> >>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
> >>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
> >>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
> >>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
> >>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
> >>>> reading comprehension problems.
> >>>
> >>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
> >>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.
> >>>
> >> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
> >>
> >
> Except for all those JAES articles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
I said:
> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
> >>
Now NYOB:
> Except for all those JAES articles

It is hard to keep one's resolve not to take any further notica
of McKelvy and his works. But his shamelessness is so staggering as to
almost evoke a perverted kind of admiration.
Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
about component comparison.
I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
..
2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
mentioned ABX-.
, Even if they said that they did not use it. .

..3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.
Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
Ludovic Mirabel

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> wrote:
>> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> nk.net...
>> >>>
>> >>> > wrote in message
>> >>> ups.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >>>>> > wrote in message
>> >>>>> oups.com
>> >>>>> > Summary:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
>> >>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
>> >>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
>> >>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
>> >>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
>> >>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
>> >>>> "defamatory") attack.
>> >>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> >>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I
>> >>>> too
>> >>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>> >>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> >>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> >>>> components? Where? When?"
>> >>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
>> >>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
>> >>>
>> >>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
>> >>> cause me to ose any sleep.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
>> >>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
>> >>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
>> >>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
>> >>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
>> >>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with
>> >>>> his
>> >>>> reading comprehension problems.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you
>> >>> with
>> >>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.
>> >>>
>> >> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
>> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
>> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
>> >>
>> >
>> Except for all those JAES articles.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
> I said:
>> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
>> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
>> >>
> Now NYOB:
>> Except for all those JAES articles
>
> It is hard to keep one's resolve not to take any further notica
> of McKelvy and his works. But his shamelessness is so staggering as to
> almost evoke a perverted kind of admiration.

Coming from a bonfide shameless liar and distorted like you, I'm all
a-flutter. :-)


> Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
> is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
> discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
> reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
> about component comparison.

> I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
> 1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
> .
Youmean you haven't read any of them?

> 2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
> audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
> mentioned ABX-.
> , Even if they said that they did not use it. .
>
There are plenty of refernces to ABX though, have you read any of them?


> .3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
> ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.

So you admit you've not read any of them.

> Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
> Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
> saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that you
refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show some
validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.

Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
(March 1997)

These are also included in the ABX bibliography.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >>
>> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> > components? Where? When?"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You quote me:
>> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> > components? Where? When?"
>>
> And answer as above
>>
>> No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is
>> uncover
>> audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2
>> signals
>> can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will
>> not
>> uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound
>> the
>> same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is
>> small
>> enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
>> mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
>> with either component.
>>
>> How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
>> differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
>> after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily
>> proven
>> by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
>> If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
>> they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid
>> I'll
>> have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than
>> the
>> other, but it isn't because of sound.
>>
>> Norm Strong
> ----------------------------
> You quote me and answer (see hidden text)
>> > Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> > Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
>> > can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
>> > don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> > validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> > components? Where? When?"
>>
>
> Dear Norman,
> I believe that before two can argue sensibly they have to agree on
> definitions- otherwise they are talking past each other.
> I am not arguing about DBTs. I shall not repeat what I said in the
> original message but if you look at it once again you'll see that I
> believe DBTs were and are indispensable in research. I dare say that I
> was DOING DBTs before you ever heard the name.
> The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
> appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
> music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

I am still waiting for experimental evidence that it is so but
> so far I found nothing. And I researched it using the Public Library
> and two excellent bibliographies that were published
> two years ago in RAHE.
> In addition I issued repeatedly asked for references (JOURNAL, volume,
> year, authors, title, page) in the RAHE and RAO and got answers like
> that:
> 1) "There are many. Why don't you look them up". But no address
> and no quote.
> 2) "There are too many to list. Research it".
> 3) Misleading time-wasting references to sites that do not even mention
> ABX (like BBC or B&O.
> Enough of this fruitless topic
>
> I do not understand what exactly is your point about doing DBTs
> Yes, it is all about audible signals. I buy audio to listen to the
> audible musical signals. If I ever listen blind is to find out which
> one of the two or three components approaches most closely my
> experience of live music as played by so -called acoustic instruments
> and as sung by unamplified human voice.
> In other words I listen to find out which one I like better.
> Don't you? Are you in research? If so RAO or RAHE is not the right
> forum for it and the way you describe your research would not qualify
> anywhere outside your home.
> Your results are YOUR results. They are of no significance whatsoever
> to anyone else unless you prove to them that your taste your musical
> preferences, your experience and your recommendations parallel theirs.
> You're then a respected audio critic for those who are after the same
> kind of musical reproduction as you.
> Sean Olive in his web presentation showed that differences between
> individual DBT performances are enormous. One of his panelists did so
> poorly that was quietly dropped and did not appear in the next test
> series.

Which is part of the reason for proper training of listeners.


> Now a quote from Sean Olive. Note what he says about listening for
> preference:
> ", I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?"
> In
> most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are
> measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more
> interesting
> question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and
> why?"
> Exactly.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Which is why ABX is not used for speaker comparisons other than for things
like xover changes within a given speaker system.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> That's an interesting test that comes closer to the root
> of the matter. However, there is one further test, the
> only one that would satisfy me. Put the DUTs in equal
> size, equal weight black boxes. Leave them at the
> subject's house, so that he can switch them at a whim. No
> fancy testing gear, no switches. Just indistinguishable
> containers.

This has been done. Tests done this way were not found to be
more sensitive than short-term tests.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> > wrote in message
>> Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
>> Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
>> saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>
> I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
> The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
> widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that you
> refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show some
> validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.
>
> Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
> how many articles from JAES you get.
>
> Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at
> Low
> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
> (Dec 1992)
> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
> 116-128,
> (March 1997)
>
> These are also included in the ABX bibliography.
>

Those people are not doing this to decide what component to purchase
for their hime (hive/home) system.

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
> > music.
>
> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message >) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I think the onus
> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>

He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>> > music.
>>
>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>
> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
> message >) that in cases
> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

[George M. Middius]

Mickey cries in the darkness.

> ABX

Nearer my god to thee....

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > wrote:
> >> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> nk.net...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > wrote in message
> >> >>> ups.com...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> >>>>> > wrote in message
> >> >>>>> oups.com
> >> >>>>> > Summary:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
> >> >>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
> >> >>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
> >> >>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
> >> >>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
> >> >>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
> >> >>>> "defamatory") attack.
> >> >>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> >> >>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I
> >> >>>> too
> >> >>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
> >> >>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> >> >>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> >> >>>> components? Where? When?"
> >> >>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
> >> >>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
> >> >>> cause me to ose any sleep.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
> >> >>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
> >> >>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
> >> >>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
> >> >>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
> >> >>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with
> >> >>>> his
> >> >>>> reading comprehension problems.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you
> >> >>> with
> >> >>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.
> >> >>>
> >> >> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
> >> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
> >> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> Except for all those JAES articles.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
> > I said:
> >> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
> >> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
> >> >>
> > Now NYOB:
> >> Except for all those JAES articles
> >
> > It is hard to keep one's resolve not to take any further notica
> > of McKelvy and his works. But his shamelessness is so staggering as to
> > almost evoke a perverted kind of admiration.
>
> Coming from a bonfide shameless liar and distorted like you, I'm all
> a-flutter. :-)
>
>
> > Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
> > is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
> > discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
> > reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
> > about component comparison.
>
> > I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
> > 1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
> > .
> Youmean you haven't read any of them?
>
> > 2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
> > audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
> > mentioned ABX-.
> > , Even if they said that they did not use it. .
> >
> There are plenty of refernces to ABX though, have you read any of them?
>
>
> > .3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
> > ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.
>
> So you admit you've not read any of them.
>
> > Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
> > Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
> > saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
> The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
> widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that you
> refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show some
> validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.
>
> Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
> how many articles from JAES you get.
>
> Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
> (Dec 1992)
> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
> (March 1997)
>
> These are also included in the ABX bibliography.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predictably "slight forger" plumps for the option b (see my text
predicting his choices)
"> Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine
and see
> how many articles from JAES you get.
>
> Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
> (Dec 1992)
> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
> (March 1997)
>
I should not and I will not. Contrariwise to you Prof.
McKelvy I'm not in esoteric research:on "resonances" or anything else.
I am interested in selecting audio components for their fidelity to my
image of the live musical performance. and the only question I have is:
is ABX any use in that task.
It is different for researchers like you Prof. No wonder you
publish your findings in this noted research journal RAO.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I've done enough wild goose chases on your web-sourced , unread by
you fool references. I wonder if these two as much as mention ABX as
Olive's research method for this task. Quote?

[dave weil]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>> > music.
>>>
>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>
>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>> message >) that in cases
>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>>
>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
>they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson > wrote:

> wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
> > > music.
> >
> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
> message >) that in cases
> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
> strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.



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

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion dave weil > wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:

> >
> >"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> > wrote in message
> >>> oups.com...
> >>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
> >>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
> >>> > music.
> >>>
> >>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
> >>
> >> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
> >> message >) that in cases
> >> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
> >> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
> >> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
> >> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
> >> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
> >> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
> >> strong as your faith would have you believe.
> >>
> >> John Atkinson
> >> Editor, Stereophile
> >>
> >And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
> >virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
> >they should not be using such methods.

> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.


Because 'Stereophile' is a consumer with limited access
to gear for comparison, nor the equipment for proper level matching
and ABX switching?

I seriously doubt *that's* the reason. Then again, *reason* doesn't
seem to be your strong suit, does it?




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

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson >
> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>> > > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>> > > music.
>> >
>> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>
>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>> message >) that in cases
>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>
>
> And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
> report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
> anything other than faith-based?
>
> You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
> ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
> but audiophile-land you can't.
>

It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > wrote:
>> >> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> nk.net...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > wrote in message
>> >> >>> ups.com...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> >>>>> > wrote in message
>> >> >>>>> oups.com
>> >> >>>>> > Summary:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
>> >> >>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
>> >> >>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
>> >> >>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
>> >> >>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once
>> >> >>>> again
>> >> >>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
>> >> >>>> "defamatory") attack.
>> >> >>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
>> >> >>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand
>> >> >>>> I
>> >> >>>> too
>> >> >>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question
>> >> >>>> you
>> >> >>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> >> >>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> >> >>>> components? Where? When?"
>> >> >>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous
>> >> >>>> "slight
>> >> >>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going
>> >> >>> to
>> >> >>> cause me to ose any sleep.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
>> >> >>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
>> >> >>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
>> >> >>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts
>> >> >>>> would
>> >> >>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
>> >> >>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping
>> >> >>>> with
>> >> >>>> his
>> >> >>>> reading comprehension problems.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you
>> >> >>> with
>> >> >>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny
>> >> >>> it.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
>> >> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
>> >> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> Except for all those JAES articles.
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
>> > is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
>> > discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
>> > reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
>> > about component comparison.
>>
>> > I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
>> > 1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
>> > .
>> You mean you haven't read any of them?
>>
>> > 2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
>> > audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
>> > mentioned ABX-.
>> > , Even if they said that they did not use it. .
>> >
>> There are plenty of refernces to ABX though, have you read any of them?
>>
>>
>> > .3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
>> > ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.
>>
>> So you admit you've not read any of them.
>>
>> > Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
>> > Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
>> > saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
>> The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
>> widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that
>> you
>> refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show
>> some
>> validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.
>>
>> Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
>> how many articles from JAES you get.
>>
>> Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at
>> Low
>> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
>> (Dec 1992)
>> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
>> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
>> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
>> 116-128,
>> (March 1997)
>>
>> These are also included in the ABX bibliography.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Predictably "slight forger" plumps for the option b (see my text
> predicting his choices)
> "> Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine
> and see
>> how many articles from JAES you get.
>>
>> Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at
>> Low
>> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
>> (Dec 1992)
>> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
>> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
>> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
>> 116-128,
>> (March 1997)
>>
> I should not and I will not. Contrariwise to you Prof.
> McKelvy I'm not in esoteric research:on "resonances" or anything else.

Thank you for that admission. You're also not interested in why ABX can and
does work for evaluating audio equipment.

> I am interested in selecting audio components for their fidelity to my
> image of the live musical performance. and the only question I have is:
> is ABX any use in that task.

And the answer is that it can be, but it may not always be the best choice.

> It is different for researchers like you Prof. No wonder you
> publish your findings in this noted research journal RAO.
> Ludovic Mirabel
> P.S. I've done enough wild goose chases on your web-sourced , unread by
> you fool references. I wonder if these two as much as mention ABX as
> Olive's research method for this task. Quote?
>
That you don't understand the relevance is not my problem.
That you don't seem to understand that there are thresholds of audibility is
your problem.
That you don't understand that it is pretty easy to build audio equipment
that has no audible signature of it's own is another of your problems.

That you don't seem to be able to understand much about what is audible is
another problem for you.

Why you can't grasp that ABX is what it is, a relaible way to check for
subtle differences, and that once those differences are above a certain
point, they will be heard in an ABX comparison, is another problem.

I asked you before "Is it possible that audio devices that measure within .1
db across the
audible bandwidth would sound alike?"

And you dodged with: "No personal experimental evidence but at a guess some
would , some
would not. Just like pianos, flutes, violins etc." Indicating you don't
understand that audio equipment is not a musical instrument and that any
piece of equipment that met the above criteria would sound like any other
piece of equipment that measured the same.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>> > music.
>>>>
>>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>
>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>> message >) that in cases
>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>
>>> John Atkinson
>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>
>>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
>>they should not be using such methods.
>
> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are, looney.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > wrote in message
>>> > oups.com...
>>> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>> > > music.
>>> >
>>> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>
>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>> message >) that in cases
>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>
>>
>> And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
>> report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
>> anything other than faith-based?
>>
>> You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
>> ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
>> but audiophile-land you can't.
>>
>
> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>
Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.

> However, one may feel free to point out errors
> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
> science is particularly relevant.
It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can hear
things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there when
listening in non-bias controlled situations.

Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> I think the onus
>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>
>
> He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".
>
Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction and
then ignore any evidence to the contrary.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>>> > music.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>>
>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>
>>>> John Atkinson
>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>>
>>>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>>>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
>>>they should not be using such methods.
>>
>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>
> Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
> crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
> looney.

Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.

[Clyde Slick]

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

>>
>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>
> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>

I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>> science is particularly relevant.

> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
> forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can
> hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there
> when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>

We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
> listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for pleasure.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> I think the onus
>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>
>>
>> He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".
>>
> Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction
> and then ignore any evidence to the contrary.
>

See what I mean, folks!!!!
If killers ironed.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> nk.net...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > wrote in message
> >> >> >>> ups.com...
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> > wrote in message
> >> >> >>>>> oups.com
> >> >> >>>>> > Summary:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
> >> >> >>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
> >> >> >>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
> >> >> >>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
> >> >> >>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once
> >> >> >>>> again
> >> >> >>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
> >> >> >>>> "defamatory") attack.
> >> >> >>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
> >> >> >>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand
> >> >> >>>> I
> >> >> >>>> too
> >> >> >>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question
> >> >> >>>> you
> >> >> >>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> >> >> >>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> >> >> >>>> components? Where? When?"
> >> >> >>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous
> >> >> >>>> "slight
> >> >> >>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going
> >> >> >>> to
> >> >> >>> cause me to ose any sleep.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
> >> >> >>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
> >> >> >>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
> >> >> >>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts
> >> >> >>>> would
> >> >> >>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
> >> >> >>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping
> >> >> >>>> with
> >> >> >>>> his
> >> >> >>>> reading comprehension problems.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you
> >> >> >>> with
> >> >> >>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny
> >> >> >>> it.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
> >> >> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
> >> >> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> Except for all those JAES articles.
> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> > Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
> >> > is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
> >> > discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
> >> > reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
> >> > about component comparison.
> >>
> >> > I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
> >> > 1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
> >> > .
> >> You mean you haven't read any of them?
> >>
> >> > 2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
> >> > audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
> >> > mentioned ABX-.
> >> > , Even if they said that they did not use it. .
> >> >
> >> There are plenty of refernces to ABX though, have you read any of them?
> >>
> >>
> >> > .3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
> >> > ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.
> >>
> >> So you admit you've not read any of them.
> >>
> >> > Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
> >> > Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
> >> > saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >
> >> I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
> >> The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
> >> widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that
> >> you
> >> refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show
> >> some
> >> validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
> >> how many articles from JAES you get.
> >>
> >> Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at
> >> Low
> >> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
> >> (Dec 1992)
> >> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
> >> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
> >> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
> >> 116-128,
> >> (March 1997)
> >>
> >> These are also included in the ABX bibliography.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Predictably "slight forger" plumps for the option b (see my text
> > predicting his choices)
> > "> Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine
> > and see
> >> how many articles from JAES you get.
> >>
> >> Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at
> >> Low
> >> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
> >> (Dec 1992)
> >> Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
> >> Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
> >> Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
> >> 116-128,
> >> (March 1997)
> >>
> > I should not and I will not. Contrariwise to you Prof.
> > McKelvy I'm not in esoteric research:on "resonances" or anything else.
>
> Thank you for that admission. You're also not interested in why ABX can and
> does work for evaluating audio equipment.
>
> > I am interested in selecting audio components for their fidelity to my
> > image of the live musical performance. and the only question I have is:
> > is ABX any use in that task.
>
> And the answer is that it can be, but it may not always be the best choice.
>
> > It is different for researchers like you Prof. No wonder you
> > publish your findings in this noted research journal RAO.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> > P.S. I've done enough wild goose chases on your web-sourced , unread by
> > you fool references. I wonder if these two as much as mention ABX as
> > Olive's research method for this task. Quote?
> >
> That you don't understand the relevance is not my problem.
> That you don't seem to understand that there are thresholds of audibility is
> your problem.
> That you don't understand that it is pretty easy to build audio equipment
> that has no audible signature of it's own is another of your problems.
>
> That you don't seem to be able to understand much about what is audible is
> another problem for you.
>
> Why you can't grasp that ABX is what it is, a relaible way to check for
> subtle differences, and that once those differences are above a certain
> point, they will be heard in an ABX comparison, is another problem.
>
> I asked you before "Is it possible that audio devices that measure within .1
> db across the
> audible bandwidth would sound alike?"
>
> And you dodged with: "No personal experimental evidence but at a guess some
> would , some
> would not. Just like pianos, flutes, violins etc." Indicating you don't
> understand that audio equipment is not a musical instrument and that any
> piece of equipment that met the above criteria would sound like any other
> piece of equipment that measured the same.

Dear slight forger Prof McKelvy. You convinced me. I know nothing
about "accuracy", "audibility" and other such topics that are life
blood to you. As long as the world of audio has scientists like you and
Sullivan we are all audio-safe.
Make your joint recommendations for the ideal system and we will all
be in audio heaven for good. Or is it enough to just look up "Consumer
Reports"?.
With impatient anticipation Ludovic Mirabel

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:

>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>
>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> nk.net...
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>> ups.com...
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>>> oups.com
>> >> >> >>>>> > Summary:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
>> >> >> >>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
>> >> >> >>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
>> >> >> >>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
>> >> >> >>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once
>> >> >> >>>> again
>> >> >> >>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own
>> >> >> >>>> terminology
>> >> >> >>>> "defamatory") attack.
>> >> >> >>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of
>> >> >> >>>> DBT.
>> >> >> >>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say.
>> >> >> >>>> Offhand
>> >> >> >>>> I
>> >> >> >>>> too
>> >> >> >>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question
>> >> >> >>>> you
>> >> >> >>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> >> >> >>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
>> >> >> >>>> components? Where? When?"
>> >> >> >>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous
>> >> >> >>>> "slight
>> >> >> >>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly
>> >> >> >>> going
>> >> >> >>> to
>> >> >> >>> cause me to ose any sleep.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
>> >> >> >>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain
>> >> >> >>>> 2)
>> >> >> >>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
>> >> >> >>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts
>> >> >> >>>> would
>> >> >> >>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
>> >> >> >>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping
>> >> >> >>>> with
>> >> >> >>>> his
>> >> >> >>>> reading comprehension problems.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented
>> >> >> >>> you
>> >> >> >>> with
>> >> >> >>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still
>> >> >> >>> deny
>> >> >> >>> it.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under
>> >> >> >> idolatry.
>> >> >> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
>> >> >> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Except for all those JAES articles.
>> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear slight forger Prof McKelvy. You convinced me. I know nothing
> about "accuracy", "audibility" and other such topics that are life
> blood to you. As long as the world of audio has scientists like you and
> Sullivan we are all audio-safe.

And as long as there are people like you trying to dumb down the science of
audio, the hobby will be populated with nutballs.

> Make your joint recommendations for the ideal system and we will all
> be in audio heaven for good. Or is it enough to just look up "Consumer
> Reports"?.
> With impatient anticipation Ludovic Mirabel
>
I don't read CR.

I'd probabably start by getting some bench test info on teh Behringer A500
amps to see if they actually cut the mustard in terms of advertised
performance vs. actual perofrmance.

Assuming they live up to their claims, I'd have at least 3 of them, one to
power a subwoofer, and 2 in bridged mode to power the Dynaudio speakers I'd
pick.

If this is to be an ideal sound system, it would have to include a top of
the line turntable which would require me to learn ore about them sinc I
haven't paid attention to them for about 20 years, but I understand VPI is
still considered good along with Koetsu and a few other phono cartridges.

Lexicon preamp, since they do tihngs that others don't.

Sony universal CD player, or some other well built brand.

The subwoofer would likley be a DIY project using Sonotube due to the
smaller footprint, and the fact that it's a tube.so no problem with cabinet
resonances. The driers would be from Adire Audio most likely but there are a
couple other lines that I would chenck out first.

Of course there is a possibility that I might wish to consider an Infinite
Baffle sub, but I'd probably consult with Tom Nousaine on that since he
seems to have a pretty good idea about how to get good bass.

Assuming the Behringers worked out, the most expensive parts wold be the
speakers and the turntable although once I had all the LP's transferred to
CD, there would be little use in having one, so it would no doubt be sold
off fairly soon.

Not outrageous but easily capable of delivering first rate sound with plenty
of clean power and lots of headroom to spare.

What's yours?

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> I think the onus
>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".
>>>
>> Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction
>> and then ignore any evidence to the contrary.
>>
>
> See what I mean, folks!!!!
> If killers ironed.
>
George would be well dressed.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>>>> > music.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Atkinson
>>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>>>
>>>>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>>>>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
>>>>they should not be using such methods.
>>>
>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>
>> Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
>> crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
>> looney.
>
> Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
horribly?

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>
>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>
>> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
>> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>>
>
> I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
> AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
> down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
> me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
> and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
> particular use in making my decision to purchase.
>
>
>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>> science is particularly relevant.
>
>> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
>> forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can
>> hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there
>> when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>>
>
> We deal with that every day in the real world.
> I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
> One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!
>
>
>> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
>> listen for pleasure.
>
> Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
> pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>
>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>crumbling down
>
> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
> terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most people
aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation from
flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>>>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>>>>> > music.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Atkinson
>>>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>>>>
>>>>>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>>>>>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show
>>>>>why
>>>>>they should not be using such methods.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>
>>> Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
>>> crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
>>> looney.
>>
>> Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
> Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
> horribly?
>

You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>>
>>> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
>>> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
>> AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
>> down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
>> me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
>> and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
>> particular use in making my decision to purchase.
>>
>>
>>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>>> science is particularly relevant.
>>
>>> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
>>> other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people
>>> can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are
>>> there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>>>
>>
>> We deal with that every day in the real world.
>> I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
>> One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!
>>
>>
>>> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
>>> listen for pleasure.
>>
>> Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
>> pleasure.
> Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>
>>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>>crumbling down
>>
>> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
>> terrering on the brink at the moment.
>
> I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
> choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
> I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
> people aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a
> device is going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any
> deviation from flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you,
> then so be it.
>

Your defense is "I know, because I read it somewhere that
simple FR amd distortion specs tell me exactly how a unit sounds, so I
don't have to do DBT and I don't have to even listen to the unit.'
Talk about religion!!!!

[George Middius]

The Bug Eater explains why he's terrified of submitting to aBxism torture
rituals.

>... I make my audio
>choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get.

By your own admission, that "information" includes neither aBxism "tests" nor an
actual audition.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you have no idea what a good stereo sounds
like.


..
..

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, > wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>
>>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>>crumbling down
>>
>> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
>> terrering on the brink at the moment.
>
>I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
>choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
>I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most people
>aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
>going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation from
>flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

[George Middius]

dave weil said:

>... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
>something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by not being
able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's why he
has to resort to specs.

This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is reinforced by
their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They react to
Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their level of
deafness. Sad, really.



..
..

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil wrote :


> I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
> something before I buy it.

Why do you waste your time, deaf-man ? ;-)



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>>
>>>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>>>crumbling down
>>>
>>> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
>>> terrering on the brink at the moment.
>>
>> I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
>> choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
>> I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
>> people aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a
>> device is going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any
>> deviation from flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you,
>> then so be it.
>>
>
> Your defense is "I know, because I read it somewhere that
> simple FR amd distortion specs tell me exactly how a unit sounds, so I
> don't have to do DBT and I don't have to even listen to the unit.'
> Talk about religion!!!!
>
>
You are also suffering from reading comprehension problems, since I said
nothing of the kind. My choices are based on being able to get information
from techs who work on audio equipment and test it to see if it performs up
to spec. Knowing what is audible is also a part of my choices. Since it is
a fact that differences that are small enough can't be reliably detected, I
also incorporate that into my decisions. I also listen and do some blind
comparisons although not as rigorous as a full blown DBT, since after a few
tries and not being able to hear a difference, I stop.

This is still a much more reliable way to choose equipment than simply
listening and letting any and all outside influences interfere with what I
hear.

Since you can't demonstrate that sighted listening is in any way reliable
for subtle differences, and that it can and does lead to hearing things that
aren't there, you have to dis any reliable method or else you are admitting
that every decision you made could have been completely and utterly without
merit.

Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the same.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>>
>>>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>>>crumbling down
>>>
>>> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
>>> terrering on the brink at the moment.
>>
>>I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
>>choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
>>I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
>>people
>>aren't. I get informationt hat is real world and tells me how a device is
>>going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation
>>from
>>flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.
>
> It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
> something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

So you DON'T understand that doouble digit distortion is a problem and that
it is gross enough that a DBT of any sort would be unneccessary.

BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except CD
players.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>>>
>>>> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
>>>> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
>>> AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
>>> down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
>>> me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
>>> and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
>>> particular use in making my decision to purchase.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>>>> science is particularly relevant.
>>>
>>>> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
>>>> other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
>>>> people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
>>>> that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We deal with that every day in the real world.
>>> I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
>>> One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!
>>>
>>>
>>>> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
>>>> listen for pleasure.
>>>
>>> Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
>>> pleasure.
>> Not according to the research. But you already knew that.
>
> The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.
>
How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?

What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
non-existent sounds.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>

>
> Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the same.
>

most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
basic faults
in some combination of amounts.

High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
disappointing
ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
different to me
than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.

I have never heard a SET ss amp.

I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.
High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
better than they used to.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>

>
> BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
> CD players.

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>>>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
>>>>> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
>>>> AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
>>>> down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
>>>> me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
>>>> and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
>>>> particular use in making my decision to purchase.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>>>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>>>>> science is particularly relevant.
>>>>
>>>>> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
>>>>> other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
>>>>> people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
>>>>> that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We deal with that every day in the real world.
>>>> I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
>>>> One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way,
>>>>> then listen for pleasure.
>>>>
>>>> Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
>>>> pleasure.
>>> Not according to the research. But you already knew that.
>>
>> The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.
>>
> How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
> How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
> How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?
>

Its not relevant to my selection of equipment.
Waht is relevant to my selection is if I like the music that comes out of
it.

> What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
> non-existent sounds.
>

Which I will invariably begin hearing again, once the DBT is over.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

> > BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
> > CD players.

> Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>>>
>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>>> > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>>>>>> > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>>>>>> > music.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Atkinson
>>>>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
>>>>>>virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show
>>>>>>why
>>>>>>they should not be using such methods.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>>
>>>> Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
>>>> crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
>>>> looney.
>>>
>>> Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
>> Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
>> horribly?
>>
>
> You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
> comparisons,
> at all.
>
And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and that
sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?

The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind comparisons
is because I know what I know about aduio equipment.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>
>>
>> Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the
>> same.
>>
>
> most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
> basic faults
> in some combination of amounts.
>
> High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
> disappointing
> ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
> different to me
> than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.
>
> I have never heard a SET ss amp.
>
I don't think there is such a thing as a Single Ended Triode Solid State
amp, but I could be wrong. I can't understand why anyone would want to make
such a thing, but then there are tubed Cd players.

> I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.

TAC online has a review of a DAC that is very complimentary and that says it
is an improvement over other DACs.

> High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
> better than they used to.
Even sighted, I can't tell one CD player from another, nor from a DVD player
playing a CD.
>
Those are your unsupported beliefs and you are welcome to them. Is there
any data that you can provide other than anecdotes to back them up.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>>
>> BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
>> CD players.
>
> Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?
I listen to them AFTER I buy them, nit picker.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > wrote in message
>>> > oups.com...
>>> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>> > > music.
>>> >
>>> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>
>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>> message >) that in cases
>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>
>>
>> And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
>> report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
>> anything other than faith-based?
>>
>> You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
>> ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
>> but audiophile-land you can't.
>>
>
> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.

How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different from
what you have?

> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>
But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind but
in a different way.

> However, one may feel free to point out errors
> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
> science is particularly relevant.
Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.
Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst place
and how wide the bandwidth should be.

Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no surprise
that science is applied to what influences how we hear.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>>>>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
>>>>>> Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
>>>>> AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
>>>>> down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
>>>>> me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
>>>>> and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
>>>>> particular use in making my decision to purchase.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>>>>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>>>>>> science is particularly relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
>>>>>> other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
>>>>>> people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
>>>>>> that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We deal with that every day in the real world.
>>>>> I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
>>>>> One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way,
>>>>>> then listen for pleasure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
>>>>> pleasure.
>>>> Not according to the research. But you already knew that.
>>>
>>> The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.
>>>
>> How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
>> How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
>> How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?
>>
>
> Its not relevant to my selection of equipment.
> Waht is relevant to my selection is if I like the music that comes out of
> it.
>
>> What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
>> non-existent sounds.
>>
>
> Which I will invariably begin hearing again, once the DBT is over.
Fine, let them, that's part of the fun of audio, but if yo don't know what
you have at the point of purchase, it just might show up in your daily
listening when it's too late.

I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get it
home.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:
>
>> > BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy,
>> > except
>> > CD players.
>
>> Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?
>
> Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.
>
>
>
Come closer, I see one on your forehead.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
>> comparisons,
>> at all.
>>
> And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
> that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?
>

For one thing, tests using other people's ears
does not tell you wht YOU will experience.


> The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
> comparisons is because I know what I know about aduio equipment.

Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the
>>> same.
>>>
>>
>> most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
>> basic faults
>> in some combination of amounts.
>>
>> High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
>> disappointing
>> ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
>> different to me
>> than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.
>>
>> I have never heard a SET ss amp.
>>
> I don't think there is such a thing as a Single Ended Triode Solid State
> amp, but I could be wrong. I can't understand why anyone would want to
> make such a thing, but then there are tubed Cd players.
>
>> I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.
>
> TAC online has a review of a DAC that is very complimentary and that says
> it is an improvement over other DACs.
>

What improvement? For them, price is all that matters.


>> High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
>> better than they used to.
> Even sighted, I can't tell one CD player from another, nor from a DVD
> player playing a CD.

That helps keep yourt costs down.
No sense paying for improvements you are unable to hear.

>>
> Those are your unsupported beliefs and you are welcome to them. Is there
> any data that you can provide other than anecdotes to back them up.
>

Its all I need, for my purposes.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > wrote in message
>>>> > oups.com...
>>>> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>> > > music.
>>>> >
>>>> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>
>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>
>>>
>>> And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
>>> report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
>>> anything other than faith-based?
>>>
>>> You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
>>> ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
>>> but audiophile-land you can't.
>>>
>>
>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>
> How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different
> from what you have?
>
>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>
> But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
> work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind
> but in a different way.
>
>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>> science is particularly relevant.
> Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.

The discussion is regarding consumer choices.

> Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst place
> and how wide the bandwidth should be.
>
> Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
> technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no
> surprise that science is applied to what influences how we hear.
>

Not by the consumer, in making purchasing decisions.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>

>
> I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get
> it home.
>

I think its better to know if you like it, under the conditions you will be
using it.

[Clyde Slick]

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

>>> Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?
>>
>> Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.
>>
>>
>>
> Come closer, I see one on your forehead.
>

Is that a Rotel, or a Denon?

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote in message ...
>
>>>> Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?
>>>
>>> Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Come closer, I see one on your forehead.
>>
>
> Is that a Rotel, or a Denon?
Don't own a Denon, the Rotel case is nice and sturdy, George won't feel a
thing.
Wait, that's redundant.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>
>>
>> I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get
>> it home.
>>
>
> I think its better to know if you like it, under the conditions you will
> be using it.
>
That's the point, you won't know anything for sure.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > wrote in message
>>>>> > oups.com...
>>>>> > > The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
>>>>> > > appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
>>>>> > > music.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>>>>
>>>>> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
>>>>> message >) that in cases
>>>>> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
>>>>> listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
>>>>> theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
>>>>> tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
>>>>> number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
>>>>> is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
>>>>> strong as your faith would have you believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
>>>> report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
>>>> anything other than faith-based?
>>>>
>>>> You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
>>>> ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
>>>> but audiophile-land you can't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
>>
>> How can you prefer the sound of something that doesn't sound different
>> from what you have?
>>
>>> This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.
>>>
>> But it is, you just don't recognize it. The science of psychology is at
>> work during sighted comparisons. It's also at work when listening blind
>> but in a different way.
>>
>>> However, one may feel free to point out errors
>>> in the science of objectivisits, not that the
>>> science is particularly relevant.
>> Of course it's relevant, wthout the science there's no audio equipment.
>
> The discussion is regarding consumer choices.
>
>> Without scinece there's no knowledge of what is audible in the forst
>> place and how wide the bandwidth should be.
>>
>> Without science, there's no improvement in speaker technology, stylus
>> technology, tube technology or any other aspect of audio. It's no
>> surprise that science is applied to what influences how we hear.
>>
>
> Not by the consumer, in making purchasing decisions.
>
Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers knowing
what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus differences as
some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX test down your
throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or whatever.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX
>>> protocol is the appropriate tool for differentiating
>>> audio components reproducing music.
>>
>> And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
>
> John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another
> thread (see message >)
> that in cases
> where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even
> trained listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of
> the time, statistical theory indicates that at least 80
> trials are required.

IME Corbett offers a convincing example of how little he
actually understands about the practical aspects of
performing listening tests on audio equipment. His idea
which is obviously based only on theory, of what
constitutes an useful small difference corresponds to an
difference in actual perceived sound quality that nobody
with real-world experience with listening tests would take
seriously.

IME Corbett has a lengthy track record of trying to gain
attention for himself by attacking those who have far more
practical experience than he does. He distracts naive
readers from the obvious serious difficulties involved in
sighted testing. He functions as an apologist for promoters
of audio snake oil.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> I figure it's better to know if you got different or same before you get
>>> it home.
>>>
>>
>> I think its better to know if you like it, under the conditions you will
>> be using it.
>>
> That's the point, you won't know anything for sure.
>

I will surely know whether I like listening to it!!

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>


> Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
> knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
> differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
> test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
> whatever.

They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for cable

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> IME Corbett offers a convincing example of how little he actually
> understands about the practical aspects of performing listening tests on
> audio equipment. His idea which is obviously based only on theory, of
> what constitutes an useful small difference corresponds to an difference
> in actual perceived sound quality that nobody with real-world experience
> with listening tests would take seriously.
>
> IME Corbett has a lengthy track record of trying to gain attention for
> himself by attacking those who have far more practical experience than he
> does. He distracts naive readers from the obvious serious difficulties
> involved in sighted testing. He functions as an apologist for promoters of
> audio snake oil.


He is the enemy. SMITE HIM!
He makes Arny'd crotch itch.

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> His idea which is obviously based only on theory, of what constitutes an
> useful small difference corresponds to an difference in actual perceived
> sound quality that nobody with real-world experience with listening tests
> would take seriously.
>

Sounds like you are referring to yourself as the "nobody" with real-world
experience with listening tests. This of course is meaningless since you've
*never* been able to offer *any* proof that you've had access to any audio
equipment of sufficiently high quality. And from your own published
inventory of your equipment, one can conclude that it is at best mediocre
enough to mask almost anything. You might as well take your minivan to the
24 hours of Le Mans. :-)

All you have ever produced here, or elsewhere, are baseless claims and
unsupported factoids mixed with conspiracy theories and failed attempts to
mix in with a crowd that at least appears to be sane. Instead you continue
to dwell among a peer group that clearly consists of the mentally ill, the
perverse, the uneducable and the pitiful as evidenced by McCarty, McKelvy,
Ferstler and the used bicycle salesman. The problem is, Mr. Krueger, that
sensible people simply don't buy your act. That is why you have never
progressed out of your basement and you never will. The only exceptions have
been afforded to you by people with exceptionally big hearts, like John
Atkinson, who paid to fly you to NYC to give you an opportunity to state
your case and salvage something of your life's "work". John probably knew
that you would once again fail but at least he'd unburden your family for a
couple of days.

I hate to break the news to you, Mr. Krueger, but your statement of not
taking something seriously would be more consequential if it originated from
the star of The Tijuana Donkey Show. The donkey, that is.


Margaret

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
>>> comparisons,
>>> at all.
>>>
>> And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
>> that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?
>>
>
> For one thing, tests using other people's ears
> does not tell you what YOU will experience.

Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, a bias controlled
comparison would give me a much better idea about a piece of equipment than
a sighted non-bias controlled comprison.
>
>
>> The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
>> comparisons is because I know what I know about audio equipment.
>
> Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
> to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
> participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.
>
None needed since I don't worry about sameness. I'm looking for sameness
insofar as the sound of the equipment should not have any sonic signature.
I want it to be transparent and not add anything in the way of audible
distortion or noise. I want it to be able to drive a normal speaker load,
and do so at volume levels that I enjoy. If I don't like the sound of a
particular recording, then can feel free to use other means to distort it
into something I do like the sound of. I'm not looking to distort
everything, since my goal is accurate playback of the recordings so I can
tell what was intended by the artist and engineering people who hopefully
treated it as a labor of love. I have no problem with people fine tuning
things so they get what they consider to be a "musical" sound, I just want
to start from a point of as accurate as possible before I add or subtract
anything from what was recorded. To that end I learn as much about what is
audible and what is not so I don't end up with anything less than the best,
most accurate presentation possible.

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Bug Eater explains why he's terrified of submitting to aBxism torture
> rituals.
>
>>... I make my audio
>>choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get.
>
> By your own admission, that "information" includes neither aBxism "tests"
> nor an
> actual audition.
>
> Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you have no idea what a good stereo
> sounds
> like.
>
Thanks George for admitting you have no purpose on RAO other than to distort
the words of people with whom you don't agree.

Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively involved
in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of manufacturers,
probably several times more than most people, I have a very godd idea what
good stereo sounds like and how to get one.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.
>>>>
>>>>Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
>>>>crumbling down
>>>
>>> Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
>>> terrering on the brink at the moment.
>>
>>I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
>>choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
>>I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
>>people
>>aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
>>going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation
>>from
>>flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.
>
> It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
> something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

That's unfortunate, since you are saying you actually have to hear crap to
know it's crap, you must waste an awful lot of time.

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> dave weil said:
>
>>... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
>>something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.
>
> That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by not
> being
> able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's
> why he
> has to resort to specs.
>
More distortions George? Sheesh, I have never said I don't audition
equipment other than CD players. Everything else I hear before I buy.

I find a place that has stuff I'm interested in, I listen to it, sometimes
through my own speakers if it's a place where I've built up a good rapport
with management. Then I get the full set of real world performance facts
about whatever it is I'm considering and when I find something that can
perform to my standards, accuracy with no sonic signature of its own, then I
buy it.


> This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is reinforced
> by
> their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They
> react to
> Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their
> level of
> deafness. Sad, really.
>
>
>
The only pattern is that you and those like you who are afraid of people
finding out how much similarity there is in audio equipment, make a point ot
lie and distort the facts.

There is no class envy, there is only a desire for reasonableness. If
people want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get great sound,
I'm all for it, I just hope that they're spending the bulk of that money
where it actually will do the most good, on speakers.

An expensive hi-fi with **** speakers is a **** hi-fi. A moderately priced
system with great speakers being driven by equipment that provides accurate
playback is a great sounding system. Personally I won't settle for less
than the most accurate playback I can get.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>
>> Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
>> knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
>> differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
>> test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
>> whatever.
>
> They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for cable
>
Since there are no differnces in the sound of cables, they would be doing
the world a service in demonstrating that fact.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> nk.net...
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>> ups.com...
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>>>> oups.com
> >> >> >> >>>>> > Summary:
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
> >> >> >> >>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
> >> >> >> >>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
> >> >> >> >>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
> >> >> >> >>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once
> >> >> >> >>>> again
> >> >> >> >>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own
> >> >> >> >>>> terminology
> >> >> >> >>>> "defamatory") attack.
> >> >> >> >>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of
> >> >> >> >>>> DBT.
> >> >> >> >>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say.
> >> >> >> >>>> Offhand
> >> >> >> >>>> I
> >> >> >> >>>> too
> >> >> >> >>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question
> >> >> >> >>>> you
> >> >> >> >>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
> >> >> >> >>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
> >> >> >> >>>> components? Where? When?"
> >> >> >> >>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous
> >> >> >> >>>> "slight
> >> >> >> >>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly
> >> >> >> >>> going
> >> >> >> >>> to
> >> >> >> >>> cause me to ose any sleep.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
> >> >> >> >>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain
> >> >> >> >>>> 2)
> >> >> >> >>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
> >> >> >> >>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts
> >> >> >> >>>> would
> >> >> >> >>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
> >> >> >> >>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping
> >> >> >> >>>> with
> >> >> >> >>>> his
> >> >> >> >>>> reading comprehension problems.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented
> >> >> >> >>> you
> >> >> >> >>> with
> >> >> >> >>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still
> >> >> >> >>> deny
> >> >> >> >>> it.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under
> >> >> >> >> idolatry.
> >> >> >> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
> >> >> >> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Except for all those JAES articles.
> >> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dear slight forger Prof McKelvy. You convinced me. I know nothing
> > about "accuracy", "audibility" and other such topics that are life
> > blood to you. As long as the world of audio has scientists like you and
> > Sullivan we are all audio-safe.
>
> And as long as there are people like you trying to dumb down the science of
> audio, the hobby will be populated with nutballs.
>
> > Make your joint recommendations for the ideal system and we will all
> > be in audio heaven for good. Or is it enough to just look up "Consumer
> > Reports"?.
> > With impatient anticipation Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> I don't read CR.
>
> I'd probabably start by getting some bench test info on teh Behringer A500
> amps to see if they actually cut the mustard in terms of advertised
> performance vs. actual perofrmance.
>
> Assuming they live up to their claims, I'd have at least 3 of them, one to
> power a subwoofer, and 2 in bridged mode to power the Dynaudio speakers I'd
> pick.
>
> If this is to be an ideal sound system, it would have to include a top of
> the line turntable which would require me to learn ore about them sinc I
> haven't paid attention to them for about 20 years, but I understand VPI is
> still considered good along with Koetsu and a few other phono cartridges.
>
> Lexicon preamp, since they do tihngs that others don't.
>
> Sony universal CD player, or some other well built brand.
>
> The subwoofer would likley be a DIY project using Sonotube due to the
> smaller footprint, and the fact that it's a tube.so no problem with cabinet
> resonances. The driers would be from Adire Audio most likely but there are a
> couple other lines that I would chenck out first.
>
> Of course there is a possibility that I might wish to consider an Infinite
> Baffle sub, but I'd probably consult with Tom Nousaine on that since he
> seems to have a pretty good idea about how to get good bass.
>
> Assuming the Behringers worked out, the most expensive parts wold be the
> speakers and the turntable although once I had all the LP's transferred to
> CD, there would be little use in having one, so it would no doubt be sold
> off fairly soon.
>
> Not outrageous but easily capable of delivering first rate sound with plenty
> of clean power and lots of headroom to spare.
>
> What's yours?
---------------------------------------------------------------

Surprisingly your choices are quite sane. (They must be because I own
two of them.)
Not surprisingly you don't mention using ABX to select them. You don't
even claim that your "scientific" choice is superior to others who just
listen.
Since it is such a good tool for uncovering "subtle" differences (what
a cretinous term!- subtle to you , gross to someone else and of no
interest whatsoever to Joe the public) I guess that you're convinced
that your choices are the one and only, without any possible
competition; and no need to check by ABX. I envy you your
self-assurance Prof.- it should move mountains- or at least RAO.
But since you managed to arrive at your ideal system just by using
information available to everyone else why do you keep fighting the
good ABX cause for everyone else but you?
Would you like me to ask you to "prove" your choices by a "bias-free"
test like your chapel co-morons keep asking Atkinson or anyone else who
says that he likes this better than that. In fact why not - prove
them. Prove that Koetsu is superior to the top Grado and that a
Sonotube woofer is better than top Electrovoice. Prove it in "a
bias-free ABX test". With some bets on the side? Should be easy:
cartridges and speakers differ, don't they?. You have no excuse

Please don't even try to cover up by collapsing an unproven,
unvalidated, unresearched daydream like ABX with DBTs, which have been
researched, validated and proven up to the hilt. This seems to be your
latest ruse. ABX is not a subset of DBTs. ABX as a method for comparing
musical reproduction of audio components exists only as wishful
thinking. Did you notice that the last "listening test" using ABX was
published in 1989? And that everything that they tested before that
turned out to be "the same" as everything else in the given
category?
When I described my own blind method I called "left-right" ( see
details in my recent thread) I made it clear that I had no scientific
or universal pretensions. I find it easier to compare things
simultaneously than successively. Others may feel differently. How
would you like it if I said I have another "subset" of DBTs -
Mirabel's left-right.? I'd never as much as dream of claiming that
because it is blind it must work - quoting double-blind research as
evidence that my left-right works ---the way you do.
All this is quite apart from your being so fanatical that you forge
other people's (mine) text in order to blacken my reputation with
innocent bystanders (Sean Olive), copy titles of irrelevant articles as
"proof" of ABX, lie that ABX is used by practically everyone in
research without any evidence other than your say so.
I must ask like Paul Packer did. What's in it for you? Why do you keep
chanting the credo for others that you don't follow yourself in your
day-to-day practice?
But then one remembers that history is full of fanatical believers-
most of them going peacefully into the sunset thanks be mercy- but some
following their leader's power grab; assisting in "reeducation"
camps, in organization of famines and wars, in collectivizing
peasantry, purging the race and so on. What was there in it for them
other than jackboots and a truncheon?
Ludovic Mirabel

[Sander deWaal]

"Margaret von B." > said:

>You might as well take your minivan to the
>24 hours of Le Mans. :-)

He was there:
http://www.frontier-leisure.co.uk/marquees/Le%20Mans%202004%20009.jpg
We all know Arny's love for "camping", don't we? ;-)


But what were *you* doing there, Margaret?
http://www.cc-rider.net/photos/book/grandephoto/le%20mans%202005.jpg

--

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

[dave weil]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:22:21 GMT, > wrote:

>Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively involved
>in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of manufacturers,
>probably several times more than most people, I have a very _godd_ idea what
>good stereo sounds like and how to get one

Freudian Slip alert!

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> nk.net...
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >>> ups.com...
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >>>>> oups.com
>> >> >> >> >>>>> > Summary:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> > DBT and ABX have blinding in common.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
>> >> >> >> >>>>> and logically-challenged Mirabel is.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
>> >> >> >> >>>>> several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
>> >> >> >> >>>>> several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
>> >> >> >> >>>>> audio tests is ABC/hr.
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you
>> >> >> >> >>>> once
>> >> >> >> >>>> again
>> >> >> >> >>>> choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own
>> >> >> >> >>>> terminology
>> >> >> >> >>>> "defamatory") attack.
>> >> >> >> >>>> Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of
>> >> >> >> >>>> DBT.
>> >> >> >> >>>> Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say.
>> >> >> >> >>>> Offhand
>> >> >> >> >>>> I
>> >> >> >> >>>> too
>> >> >> >> >>>> can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The
>> >> >> >> >>>> question
>> >> >> >> >>>> you
>> >> >> >> >>>> don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
>> >> >> >> >>>> validate it as a test for uncovering differences between
>> >> >> >> >>>> audio
>> >> >> >> >>>> components? Where? When?"
>> >> >> >> >>>> You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous
>> >> >> >> >>>> "slight
>> >> >> >> >>>> forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly
>> >> >> >> >>> going
>> >> >> >> >>> to
>> >> >> >> >>> cause me to ose any sleep.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy
>> >> >> >> >>>> forgeries;eg.
>> >> >> >> >>>> attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple
>> >> >> >> >>>> brain
>> >> >> >> >>>> 2)
>> >> >> >> >>>> screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the
>> >> >> >> >>>> slightest
>> >> >> >> >>>> attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he
>> >> >> >> >>>> asserts
>> >> >> >> >>>> would
>> >> >> >> >>>> refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and
>> >> >> >> >>>> copying
>> >> >> >> >>>> the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in
>> >> >> >> >>>> keeping
>> >> >> >> >>>> with
>> >> >> >> >>>> his
>> >> >> >> >>>> reading comprehension problems.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and
>> >> >> >> >>> presented
>> >> >> >> >>> you
>> >> >> >> >>> with
>> >> >> >> >>> concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still
>> >> >> >> >>> deny
>> >> >> >> >>> it.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under
>> >> >> >> >> idolatry.
>> >> >> >> > If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the
>> >> >> >> > first
>> >> >> >> > experimental proof of ABX validity ever.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Except for all those JAES articles.
>> >> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Dear slight forger Prof McKelvy. You convinced me. I know nothing
>> > about "accuracy", "audibility" and other such topics that are life
>> > blood to you. As long as the world of audio has scientists like you and
>> > Sullivan we are all audio-safe.
>>
>> And as long as there are people like you trying to dumb down the science
>> of
>> audio, the hobby will be populated with nutballs.
>>
>> > Make your joint recommendations for the ideal system and we will all
>> > be in audio heaven for good. Or is it enough to just look up "Consumer
>> > Reports"?.
>> > With impatient anticipation Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> I don't read CR.
>>
>> I'd probabably start by getting some bench test info on the Behringer
>> A500
>> amps to see if they actually cut the mustard in terms of advertised
>> performance vs. actual perofrmance.
>>
>> Assuming they live up to their claims, I'd have at least 3 of them, one
>> to
>> power a subwoofer, and 2 in bridged mode to power the Dynaudio speakers
>> I'd
>> pick.
>>
>> If this is to be an ideal sound system, it would have to include a top
>> of
>> the line turntable which would require me to learn ore about them since I
>> haven't paid attention to them for about 20 years, but I understand VPI
>> is
>> still considered good along with Koetsu and a few other phono cartridges.
>>
>> Lexicon preamp, since they do tihngs that others don't.
>>
>> Sony universal CD player, or some other well built brand.
>>
>> The subwoofer would likley be a DIY project using Sonotube due to the
>> smaller footprint, and the fact that it's a tube.so no problem with
>> cabinet
>> resonances. The driers would be from Adire Audio most likely but there
>> are a
>> couple other lines that I would chenck out first.
>>
>> Of course there is a possibility that I might wish to consider an
>> Infinite
>> Baffle sub, but I'd probably consult with Tom Nousaine on that since he
>> seems to have a pretty good idea about how to get good bass.
>>
>> Assuming the Behringers worked out, the most expensive parts wold be the
>> speakers and the turntable although once I had all the LP's transferred
>> to
>> CD, there would be little use in having one, so it would no doubt be sold
>> off fairly soon.
>>
>> Not outrageous but easily capable of delivering first rate sound with
>> plenty
>> of clean power and lots of headroom to spare.
>>
>> What's yours?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Surprisingly your choices are quite sane. (They must be because I own
> two of them.)
> Not surprisingly you don't mention using ABX to select them.

Which ones do you think I would need to do that for?
Not the speakers obviously, especially since I've heard and used enough of
Dynaudio's products to know they are first rate.

The amps? I chose them for the fact that they are very inexpensive and when
bridged the odds of having any audible problems with distortion of any kind
are unlikely.

The preamp? As I said Lexicon can do thngs nobody else I know can do.

The turntable? Already recognized as one of, if not the best.

Koetsu also recognized as first rate, but all phono cartridges are a
crapshoot.

You don't
> even claim that your "scientific" choice is superior to others who just
> listen.
> Since it is such a good tool for uncovering "subtle" differences (what
> a cretinous term!- subtle to you , gross to someone else and of no
> interest whatsoever to Joe the public)

Subtle means not overtly obvious. If it's gross it would be to anyone with
reasonable hearing.

I guess that you're convinced
> that your choices are the one and only, without any possible
> competition; and no need to check by ABX.

As I said I don't know anything about the amps and possibly might not find
them good enough, but in bridged mode I figure that's unlikely. Dynaudio
make the best speakers I've ever heard, without question. Their drivers
show up in virtually every other speaker system I've ever liked, though Scan
Speak drivers are a close second. Listen to the VSM Merlins. They use
Dynaudio tweeters and SS midbass drivers and sound amazing for the size even
if they are IMO overpriced.

I envy you your
> self-assurance Prof.- it should move mountains- or at least RAO.

It's the confidence borne from knowing how stuff works.

> But since you managed to arrive at your ideal system just by using
> information available to everyone else why do you keep fighting the
> good ABX cause for everyone else but you?

I'm aware of the fact that ABX is one of the reasons these products sound
and perform as well as they do. I'm aware of the fact that amps like the
Behringer, if their specs are to be believed should produce sound that is
clean and clear and indistinguishable from any other SS amp that is designed
for accurate sound.

> Would you like me to ask you to "prove" your choices by a "bias-free"
> test like your chapel co-morons keep asking Atkinson or anyone else who
> says that he likes this better than that. In fact why not - prove
> them. Prove that Koetsu is superior to the top Grado and that a
> Sonotube woofer is better than top Electrovoice. Prove it in "a
> bias-free ABX test". With some bets on the side? Should be easy:
> cartridges and speakers differ, don't they?. You have no excuse
>
Why? I hate the sound of LP's with all that clicking and popping and the
inherent distortion. I've been listening to a lot of LP's over the last few
days. Playing stuff I don't already have on CD and there's no dubt I need
to get the CD versions of the stuff I've been listening to.

> Please don't even try to cover up by collapsing an unproven,
> unvalidated, unresearched daydream like ABX with DBTs, which have been
> researched, validated and proven up to the hilt.

Please stop trying to get people to believe that ABX is anything other than
another form of DBT, or that it is not a frequently used tool for audio
research.

This seems to be your
> latest ruse. ABX is not a subset of DBTs.

Yes it is. Audio ABX or any other form, is still a form of DBT.

ABX as a method for comparing
> musical reproduction of audio components exists only as wishful
> thinking.

You just can't stop lying, can you?

Did you notice that the last "listening test" using ABX was
> published in 1989?

What makes you believethat all ABX tests are published? Why not contact
Harman and ask when the last ABX test they did was done?

And that everything that they tested before that
> turned out to be "the same" as everything else in the given
> category?

And that has what to do with the tests that are done but not published?
Do you beleive that everybody who does an ABX test has an obligation to
publish them for your benefit?

> When I described my own blind method I called "left-right" ( see
> details in my recent thread) I made it clear that I had no scientific
> or universal pretensions.

Good, since the whole thing is laughable.

I find it easier to compare things
> simultaneously than successively. Others may feel differently. How
> would you like it if I said I have another "subset" of DBTs -
> Mirabel's left-right.?

Amused. But that's how I feel about mostof your screeds.

I'd never as much as dream of claiming that
> because it is blind it must work - quoting double-blind research as
> evidence that my left-right works ---the way you do.

Yet you still can't deny that ABX is used all the time by audio researchers
and comapnies like Harman.

> All this is quite apart from your being so fanatical that you forge
> other people's (mine)

I did not forge your name on anything. When I corresponded with Mr. Olive I
did not use any names to spare you the embarassment of looking like an ass.
I used your name on the thread, because it was your nonsense that I
descrived to him.

text in order to blacken my reputation with
> innocent bystanders (Sean Olive), copy titles of irrelevant articles as
> "proof" of ABX, lie that ABX is used by practically everyone in
> research without any evidence other than your say so.

They are not irrelevant and the fact that you think so shows how little you
know and how little you want to know. As to your reputation, you are
already considered a joke amongst everybody that actually knows anything
about the science of audio.

> I must ask like Paul Packer did. What's in it for you? Why do you keep
> chanting the credo for others that you don't follow yourself in your
> day-to-day practice?

I've already explained why I have not ever used ABX for any of my choices.
Should I not be able to avail myself of the kind of information I now have
access to, then I would use ABX without hesitation.

> But then one remembers that history is full of fanatical believers-

Like yourself. Ranting and raving against a research tool that has helped
in many audio fields, from hearing aids to telephones and yes, consumer
audio. You are fantatic in your denial.

> most of them going peacefully into the sunset thanks be mercy- but some
> following their leader's power grab; assisting in "reeducation"

I'm not forcing anyone to be re-educated, I am hopefully allowing people to
compare differnt approaches to decision making about their audio purchases
and allowing them to see how they can make better, more reliable ones,
either through ABX or another DBT, or in the same way I do it.

> camps, in organization of famines and wars, in collectivizing
> peasantry, purging the race and so on. What was there in it for them
> other than jackboots and a truncheon?
>
>
Thanks for once again revealing what a crackpot you are.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:22:21 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively
>>involved
>>in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of manufacturers,
>>probably several times more than most people, I have a very _godd_ idea
>>what
>>good stereo sounds like and how to get one
>
> Freudian Slip alert!

Grasping at straws alert.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
>>>> comparisons,
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>> And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
>>> that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?
>>>
>>
>> For one thing, tests using other people's ears
>> does not tell you what YOU will experience.
>
> Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, a bias controlled
> comparison would give me a much better idea about a piece of equipment
> than a sighted non-bias controlled comprison.


We are not talking sighted vs controlled, we are talking about you
taking the test vs relying upon the results of other people
taking the tests. What you are telling everybody here
is that the ears of a conglomoration of strangers
is more reliable than your own ears.


>>
>>
>>> The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
>>> comparisons is because I know what I know about audio equipment.
>>
>> Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
>> to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
>> participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.
>>
> None needed since I don't worry about sameness. I'm looking for sameness
> insofar as the sound of the equipment should not have any sonic signature.
> I want it to be transparent and not add anything in the way of audible
> distortion or noise. I want it to be able to drive a normal speaker load,
> and do so at volume levels that I enjoy. If I don't like the sound of a
> particular recording, then can feel free to use other means to distort it
> into something I do like the sound of. I'm not looking to distort
> everything, since my goal is accurate playback of the recordings so I can
> tell what was intended by the artist and engineering people who hopefully
> treated it as a labor of love. I have no problem with people fine tuning
> things so they get what they consider to be a "musical" sound, I just want
> to start from a point of as accurate as possible before I add or subtract
> anything from what was recorded. To that end I learn as much about what
> is audible and what is not so I don't end up with anything less than the
> best, most accurate presentation possible.
>

To me, the best is not necessarily the most 'signal' accurate.
And the measurements you use are too elementary to account
for a lot of differences one might here. For example, you don't even
acknowledge that the signal contains information
relevant to imaging, much less do you have
anything to measure that with.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>>
> Thanks George for admitting you have no purpose on RAO other than to
> distort the words of people with whom you don't agree.
>
> Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively
> involved in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of
> manufacturers, probably several times more than most people, I have a very
> godd idea what good stereo sounds like and how to get one.

you mean, you know what sounds good to you.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> dave weil said:
>>
>>>... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
>>>something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.
>>
>> That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by
>> not being
>> able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's
>> why he
>> has to resort to specs.
>>
> More distortions George? Sheesh, I have never said I don't audition
> equipment other than CD players. Everything else I hear before I buy.
>
> I find a place that has stuff I'm interested in, I listen to it, sometimes
> through my own speakers if it's a place where I've built up a good rapport
> with management. Then I get the full set of real world performance facts
> about whatever it is I'm considering and when I find something that can
> perform to my standards, accuracy with no sonic signature of its own, then
> I buy it.
>
>
>> This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is
>> reinforced by
>> their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They
>> react to
>> Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their
>> level of
>> deafness. Sad, really.
>>
>>
>>
> The only pattern is that you and those like you who are afraid of people
> finding out how much similarity there is in audio equipment, make a point
> ot lie and distort the facts.
>
> There is no class envy, there is only a desire for reasonableness. If
> people want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get great sound,
> I'm all for it, I just hope that they're spending the bulk of that money
> where it actually will do the most good, on speakers.
>
> An expensive hi-fi with **** speakers is a **** hi-fi. A moderately
> priced system with great speakers being driven by equipment that provides
> accurate playback is a great sounding system. Personally I won't settle
> for less than the most accurate playback I can get.

According to your tin can measurement tools.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
>>> knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
>>> differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
>>> test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
>>> whatever.
>>
>> They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for
>> cable
>>
> Since there are no differnces in the sound of cables, they would be doing
> the world a service in demonstrating that fact.

That is not a fact, its an opinion. My belief is that lots of cable sound
more or less the same, but some may not, and the differences are not
substantial enough to worry about them, especially considering the price,.
But it depends on your bank account, and how much your spending on the rest
of
your system. Cable upgrades are fine, but super expensive (+$1,000)
upgrades are a waste that
can be better spent on better sounding equipment.

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>To me, the best is not necessarily the most 'signal' accurate.
>And the measurements you use are too elementary to account
>for a lot of differences one might here. For example, you don't even
>acknowledge that the signal contains information
>relevant to imaging, much less do you have
>anything to measure that with.


Some of that can be traced back to the ability of an amplifier circuit
to handle small signals while at the same time processing huge
signals.
Also, the generation of some kinds of distortion may appear to create
a huge sound stage, one of the simplest forms of which is the second
harmonics distortion as can be found in some SET amplifiers.
I hasten to say that this is a highly simplified explanation, because
the way a signal is processed by an amplifier is dependent on many
variables, like the stiffness of the power supply, the PSRR (power
supply rejection ratio, a means of saying how much a given circuit is
affected by its power supply voltage, or changes thereof), feedback in
all its forms (local, loop around the amp, via the power supply, via
ground paths, etc).

Also, it is not widely known that (huge amounts of) loop feedback may
introduce certain kinds of distortion, depending on (the composition
and amplitude of) the drive signal, the load, and the power supply.
The generated distortions in turn are fed back to the amplifier's
inverting input, creating new forms of distortions that may or may not
have any correlation with the original signal.

Those things can be measured in some instances, in others it is kind
of hard to say what and how to measure, especially when a complex
signal like music is processed.
Also, we're talking about sometimes very small amplitudes that are
hardly measureable, and perhaps not even noticeable for our ears.

The consequences of said effects may be audible however, in the form
of internal blocking of an amplifier stage, at which moment the loop
feedback can;t correct for it anymore.
Such "spikes" can be observed with an oscilloscope of sufficient speed
and, preferably, with a memory.

In short, it is my opinion that an amplifier may well be responsible
for (subtle) changes in "imaging", "sound staging", and more of those
vague subjective terms, in spite of what most technicians want us to
believe.


Flame away guys, there's plenty of white space below :-)

--

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

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

> > I have a very godd[sic] idea what good stereo sounds like

> you mean, you know what sounds good to you.

I don't believe that's what poor Mickey meant. I believe he meant what he
said. As we all know, he gets his "ideas" from spec sheets, not from
listening. Furthermore, everything sounds the same to him. Also by his own
admission.

Mikey may get promoted to Major 'Borg if he keeps carrying on like this.

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
link.net...
..
:
: Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, ...:

excuse me ? for *that*, you may post some links, Michael !

Rudy

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Margaret von B." > said:
:
: >You might as well take your minivan to the
: >24 hours of Le Mans. :-)
:
: He was there:
: http://www.frontier-leisure.co.uk/marquees/Le%20Mans%202004%20009.jpg
: We all know Arny's love for "camping", don't we? ;-)
:
:
: But what were *you* doing there, Margaret?
: http://www.cc-rider.net/photos/book/grandephoto/le%20mans%202005.jpg
:
: --
:
: "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
: - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
find such facts
so fast,
Sander

<the other wanadoo s.puppet>

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
>>>>> comparisons,
>>>>> at all.
>>>>>
>>>> And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and
>>>> that sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For one thing, tests using other people's ears
>>> does not tell you what YOU will experience.
>>
>> Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, a bias controlled
>> comparison would give me a much better idea about a piece of equipment
>> than a sighted non-bias controlled comprison.
>
>
> We are not talking sighted vs controlled, we are talking about you
> taking the test vs relying upon the results of other people
> taking the tests. What you are telling everybody here
> is that the ears of a conglomoration of strangers
> is more reliable than your own ears.
>
No I'm not, why do say such a thing?
>>>
>>>
>>>> The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind
>>>> comparisons is because I know what I know about audio equipment.
>>>
>>> Like I said, DBT's don't do a thing
>>> to remove the bias of sameness, so you might as well not
>>> participate in such flawed medium. I can sympathize with your plight.
>>>
Yet I still manage to put together a system that never fails to get praise
from the people I know who appreciate such things.


>> None needed since I don't worry about sameness. I'm looking for sameness
>> insofar as the sound of the equipment should not have any sonic
>> signature. I want it to be transparent and not add anything in the way of
>> audible distortion or noise. I want it to be able to drive a normal
>> speaker load, and do so at volume levels that I enjoy. If I don't like
>> the sound of a particular recording, then can feel free to use other
>> means to distort it into something I do like the sound of. I'm not
>> looking to distort everything, since my goal is accurate playback of the
>> recordings so I can tell what was intended by the artist and engineering
>> people who hopefully treated it as a labor of love. I have no problem
>> with people fine tuning things so they get what they consider to be a
>> "musical" sound, I just want to start from a point of as accurate as
>> possible before I add or subtract anything from what was recorded. To
>> that end I learn as much about what is audible and what is not so I don't
>> end up with anything less than the best, most accurate presentation
>> possible.
>>
>
> To me, the best is not necessarily the most 'signal' accurate.
> And the measurements you use are too elementary to account
> for a lot of differences one might here. For example, you don't even
> acknowledge that the signal contains information
> relevant to imaging, much less do you have
> anything to measure that with.


Imaging comes from the recording and is produced by the speakers.
But then you knew that, since we've discussed it before.

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
> .
> :
> : Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, ...:
>
> excuse me ? for *that*, you may post some links, Michael !
>
I'd ahve to check for some, but my memory is that there are something like 6
pretty regular human hearing responses. Ears pretty much function the same
mechanically.

Even if there are many varieties of hearing they still react the same way
essentially. By that I mean that if 100 people hear a live concert and use
that as a reference, then when they hear it played back, they'd still react
to the most accurate one as such.

I don't think I'm explaining this very well so I'll get back to you on it.

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
>find such facts
>so fast,
>Sander


I have a world wide networl of correspondents.

Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)

--

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

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>
> Imaging comes from the recording and is produced by the speakers.
> But then you knew that, since we've discussed it before.
>

Same recording
Same speakers
But different cd player or different amps, and there are often changes in
imaging

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>> .
>> :
>> : Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, ...:
>>
>> excuse me ? for *that*, you may post some links, Michael !
>>
> I'd ahve to check for some, but my memory is that there are something like
> 6 pretty regular human hearing responses. Ears pretty much function the
> same mechanically.
>
> Even if there are many varieties of hearing they still react the same way
> essentially. By that I mean that if 100 people hear a live concert and
> use that as a reference, then when they hear it played back, they'd still
> react to the most accurate one as such.
>

Not necessarily, hardly at all.
Not even if the speakers and room acoustics were optimal.

> I don't think I'm explaining this very well so I'll get back to you on it.
>

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Ruud Broens" > said:
>
>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
>>find such facts
>>so fast,
>>Sander
>
>
> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.
>
> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)
>

What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
>>>find such facts
>>>so fast,
>>>Sander


>> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.

>> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)


>What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?


Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)

Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
Even when you're 20.000 kms away!

I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
them on E-bay.

--

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

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>>
>> Thanks George for admitting you have no purpose on RAO other than to
>> distort the words of people with whom you don't agree.
>>
>> Since I do know what a good stereo sounds like having been actively
>> involved in audio since 1972 and hearing systems from scores of
>> manufacturers, probably several times more than most people, I have a
>> very good idea what good stereo sounds like and how to get one.
>
> you mean, you know what sounds good to you.
Both. They're the same. :-)

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:
>
>> > I have a very godd[sic] idea what good stereo sounds like
>
>> you mean, you know what sounds good to you.
>
> I don't believe that's what poor Mickey meant. I believe he meant what he
> said. As we all know, he gets his "ideas" from spec sheets, not from
> listening.

At least I have ideas about audio, George.

Furthermore, everything sounds the same to him. Also by his own
> admission.
>
Not everything, just the stuff that is has the same sound.


> Mikey may get promoted to Major 'Borg if he keeps carrying on like this.
>
I'll get higher rank and you'll just be rank.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> dave weil said:
>>>
>>>>... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
>>>>something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.
>>>
>>> That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by
>>> not being
>>> able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's
>>> why he
>>> has to resort to specs.
>>>
>> More distortions George? Sheesh, I have never said I don't audition
>> equipment other than CD players. Everything else I hear before I buy.
>>
>> I find a place that has stuff I'm interested in, I listen to it,
>> sometimes through my own speakers if it's a place where I've built up a
>> good rapport with management. Then I get the full set of real world
>> performance facts about whatever it is I'm considering and when I find
>> something that can perform to my standards, accuracy with no sonic
>> signature of its own, then I buy it.
>>
>>
>>> This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is
>>> reinforced by
>>> their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They
>>> react to
>>> Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their
>>> level of
>>> deafness. Sad, really.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The only pattern is that you and those like you who are afraid of people
>> finding out how much similarity there is in audio equipment, make a point
>> ot lie and distort the facts.
>>
>> There is no class envy, there is only a desire for reasonableness. If
>> people want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get great sound,
>> I'm all for it, I just hope that they're spending the bulk of that money
>> where it actually will do the most good, on speakers.
>>
>> An expensive hi-fi with **** speakers is a **** hi-fi. A moderately
>> priced system with great speakers being driven by equipment that provides
>> accurate playback is a great sounding system. Personally I won't settle
>> for less than the most accurate playback I can get.
>
> According to your tin can measurement tools.
That would be Fremer's ears.

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Clyde Slick" > said:
:
: >>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
: >>>find such facts
: >>>so fast,
: >>>Sander
:
:
: >> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.
:
: >> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)
:
:
: >What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?
:
:
: Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)
:
: Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
: emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
: demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
: Even when you're 20.000 kms away!
:
: I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
: them on E-bay.

seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
Rudy

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
:
: > wrote in message
: oups.com...
: >
: > Would you like me to ask you to "prove" your choices by a "bias-free"
: > test like your chapel co-morons keep asking Atkinson or anyone else who
: > says that he likes this better than that. In fact why not - prove
: > them. Prove that Koetsu is superior to the top Grado and that a
: > Sonotube woofer is better than top Electrovoice. Prove it in "a
: > bias-free ABX test". With some bets on the side? Should be easy:
: > cartridges and speakers differ, don't they?. You have no excuse
: >
: Why? I hate the sound of LP's with all that clicking and popping and the
: inherent distortion. I've been listening to a lot of LP's over the last few
: days. Playing stuff I don't already have on CD and there's no dubt I need
: to get the CD versions of the stuff I've been listening to.
:
: > Please don't even try to cover up by collapsing an unproven,
: > unvalidated, unresearched daydream like ABX with DBTs, which have been
: > researched, validated and proven up to the hilt.
:
: Please stop trying to get people to believe that ABX is anything other than
: another form of DBT, or that it is not a frequently used tool for audio
: research.
:
: Did you notice that the last "listening test" using ABX was
: > published in 1989?
:
: What makes you believethat all ABX tests are published? Why not contact
: Harman and ask when the last ABX test they did was done?

Ok, let's assume we're at Harman eval HQ. 8 different tweeters have
been matched to the same lower_part_of_the_speaker_to_be
and are thus able to create the same FR, level matched output.
Will they be using a protocol where speakers are compared
one-against-one abX style, to see if there are any differences

or

will they ask the listeners to give the different speakers a rating
in various categories, using several different types of material,
with a double blinded protocol ;

what do _you_ think ? :-)

Rudy

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> :
> : > wrote in message
> : oups.com...
> : >
> : > Would you like me to ask you to "prove" your choices by a "bias-free"
> : > test like your chapel co-morons keep asking Atkinson or anyone else
> who
> : > says that he likes this better than that. In fact why not - prove
> : > them. Prove that Koetsu is superior to the top Grado and that a
> : > Sonotube woofer is better than top Electrovoice. Prove it in "a
> : > bias-free ABX test". With some bets on the side? Should be easy:
> : > cartridges and speakers differ, don't they?. You have no excuse
> : >
> : Why? I hate the sound of LP's with all that clicking and popping and the
> : inherent distortion. I've been listening to a lot of LP's over the last
> few
> : days. Playing stuff I don't already have on CD and there's no dubt I
> need
> : to get the CD versions of the stuff I've been listening to.
> :
> : > Please don't even try to cover up by collapsing an unproven,
> : > unvalidated, unresearched daydream like ABX with DBTs, which have been
> : > researched, validated and proven up to the hilt.
> :
> : Please stop trying to get people to believe that ABX is anything other
> than
> : another form of DBT, or that it is not a frequently used tool for audio
> : research.
> :
> : Did you notice that the last "listening test" using ABX was
> : > published in 1989?
> :
> : What makes you believethat all ABX tests are published? Why not contact
> : Harman and ask when the last ABX test they did was done?
>
> Ok, let's assume we're at Harman eval HQ. 8 different tweeters have
> been matched to the same lower_part_of_the_speaker_to_be
> and are thus able to create the same FR, level matched output.
> Will they be using a protocol where speakers are compared
> one-against-one abX style, to see if there are any differences
>
> or
>
> will they ask the listeners to give the different speakers a rating
> in various categories, using several different types of material,
> with a double blinded protocol ;
>
> what do _you_ think ? :-)
>
> Rudy
>
>
Depends on what they ar trying to learn.

If they want to no if there's any differnce in the sound as perceived by the
listeners, then probably ABX. If they want to know which one people think
sounds better thensomething else.

ABX is for determining differnce, when any difference is likely to be small.
Prefernce is still best done blind so that appearence and other factors
don't bias the results. IIRC they have a curtain the hides the speakers,
(this is dcescribed in detail at their website) they also have a knid of
turntable that sets up difffernt pairs of speakers behind the curtain so
they may be evaluated without any change in sound due to placement.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Only because of the terror on the part of dealers and manufacturers
>>>> knowing what the results would be. If there were such tremenodus
>>>> differences as some seem to claim, the dealers would be ramming an ABX
>>>> test down your throat in order to sell those overpriced cables or
>>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> They wouldn't be wasting their time setting up ABX's, especially for
>>> cable
>>>
>> Since there are no differnces in the sound of cables, they would be doing
>> the world a service in demonstrating that fact.
>
> That is not a fact, its an opinion.

Nope. The only differnces are well known and opredictable. 18 AWG wire at
20ft. length sounds like all wire of equal size and length.

My belief is that lots of cable sound
> more or less the same, but some may not, and the differences are not
> substantial enough to worry about them, especially considering the price,.
> But it depends on your bank account, and how much your spending on the
> rest of
> your system.

It depends on how much you are willing to believe.

Cable upgrades are fine, but super expensive (+$1,000)
> upgrades are a waste that
> can be better spent on better sounding equipment.
So is anything over 23 cents per foot.

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > said:
>
>>>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
>>>>find such facts
>>>>so fast,
>>>>Sander
>
>
>>> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.
>
>>> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)
>
>
>>What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?
>
>
> Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)
>
> Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
> emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
> demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
> Even when you're 20.000 kms away!
>
> I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
> them on E-bay.
>

I live in Maryland, about 8 kilometers from NSA.
Unfortunately I am not their purchasing agent!
I don't work for them.

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> : "Clyde Slick" > said:
> :
> : >>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
> : >>>find such facts
> : >>>so fast,
> : >>>Sander
> :
> :
> : >> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.
> :
> : >> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)
> :
> :
> : >What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?
> :
> :
> : Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)
> :
> : Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
> : emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
> : demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
> : Even when you're 20.000 kms away!
> :
> : I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
> : them on E-bay.
>
> seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
> actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
> Rudy
>
>

What are they going for?
I have about 100 NOS ones
ADCO made in USA
willing to sell!!

[paul packer]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:21:14 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>in message ...
>>
>>
>> Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:
>>
>>> > I have a very godd[sic] idea what good stereo sounds like
>>
>>> you mean, you know what sounds good to you.
>>
>> I don't believe that's what poor Mickey meant. I believe he meant what he
>> said. As we all know, he gets his "ideas" from spec sheets, not from
>> listening.
>
>At least I have ideas about audio, George.

Good point. George still hasn't told us about his path to hi-end
heaven and what it means to him. And we've held our collective breath
long enough.

>> Mikey may get promoted to Major 'Borg if he keeps carrying on like this.
>>
>I'll get higher rank and you'll just be rank.

Not bad, Mike--shows you're thinking. The thrust and parry has
sharpened your sword.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
k.net
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
> comcast [dot] net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:
>>
>>>> I have a very godd[sic] idea what good stereo sounds
>>>> like
>>
>>> you mean, you know what sounds good to you.

>> I don't believe that's what poor Mickey meant. I believe
>> he meant what he said. As we all know, he gets his
>> "ideas" from spec sheets, not from listening.

> At least I have ideas about audio, George.

Key point. The George persona here is not about audio. It's
about a bitter old man who hates his life and just about
everybody in it. His moma never really loved him and his dad
was distant and cold. He'd never do George under his own
name because George is repetitive, childish and boring.
Always has been, always will be.

>> Furthermore, everything sounds the same to him. Also by
>> his own admission.

> Not everything, just the stuff that is has the same sound.

Another key point. It's just as wrong to say that everything
sounds different as it is to say that everything sounds the
same.

On the one hand the so-called objectivist position is that
while lots of things sound different, some things (like good
power amps and digital players) tend to sound the same.

On the other hand, its easier to squeeze blood out of a rock
than it is to get a so-called subjectivist to admit that
anything sounds the same.

Meanwhile we've got idiots like Robert, David, Paul George
and Art who have almost no serious interest in audio
continuously screaming: "Sounds the same! Sounds the same!".

>> Mikey may get promoted to Major 'Borg if he keeps
>> carrying on like this.

> I'll get higher rank and you'll just be rank.

Nothing has changed around here in 5 years but the body
count. George was an idiot child 5 years ago and despite the
apparent impossibility of the task, he's managed to get
dumber. :-(

[Clyde Slick]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...

>
> Not bad, Mike--shows you're thinking. The thrust and parry has
> sharpened your sword.
>

Maybe now he'll be able to dip into the Parkay bowl.
I suggest he let it melt a little first.

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
: ...
: > "Clyde Slick" > said:
: >
: >>>>hehe, you must explain sometime how you do
: >>>>find such facts
: >>>>so fast,
: >>>>Sander
: >
: >
: >>> I have a world wide networl of correspondents.
: >
: >>> Be sure to look under your bed tonight :-)
: >
: >
: >>What will I find, a borg, eating bed bugs?
: >
: >
: > Do you live in New York, perchance? :-)
: >
: > Your input tubes function as microphones, and the output transformers
: > emit those modulated high frequencies, which can be detected and
: > demodulated by a sophisticated receiver circuit.
: > Even when you're 20.000 kms away!
: >
: > I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
: > them on E-bay.
: >
:
: I live in Maryland, about 8 kilometers from NSA.
: Unfortunately I am not their purchasing agent!
: I don't work for them.
:

NSA, 6SN7 ... Sander's contraption seems to work,
Art ;-)
R.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Key point. The George persona here is not about audio. It's
>about a bitter old man who hates his life and just about
>everybody in it. His moma never really loved him and his dad
>was distant and cold. He'd never do George under his own
>name because George is repetitive, childish and boring.
>Always has been, always will be.



At the Krueger household, the boogie man was called "George", right?
;-)


>Meanwhile we've got idiots like Robert, David, Paul George
>and Art who have almost no serious interest in audio
>continuously screaming: "Sounds the same! Sounds the same!".


You forgot Ringo.

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>What are they going for?
>I have about 100 NOS ones
>ADCO made in USA
>willing to sell!!


Please send me an e-mail, Art.

--

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

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > "Sander deWaal" emitted:
: > :
: > : I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
: > : them on E-bay.
: >
: > seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
: > actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
: > Rudy
: >
: >
:
: What are they going for?
: I have about 100 NOS ones
: ADCO made in USA
: willing to sell!!
:
a pair of Telefunkens did about 300 USD recently on eBay:
5830648091
:-)

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Imaging comes from the recording and is produced by the speakers.
>> But then you knew that, since we've discussed it before.
>>
>
> Same recording
> Same speakers
> But different cd player or different amps, and there are often changes in
> imaging
>
Based on unrelaible sighted evalutions, IOW meaningless.

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>Key point. The George persona here is not about audio. It's
>>about a bitter old man who hates his life and just about
>>everybody in it. His moma never really loved him and his dad
>>was distant and cold. He'd never do George under his own
>>name because George is repetitive, childish and boring.
>>Always has been, always will be.
>
>
>
> At the Krueger household, the boogie man was called "George", right?
> ;-)
>

It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for the vile disgusting
pig that he is.

I care nothing for his audio silliness, but his constant crap about family
members who don't post here are clearly beneath contempt.
>
>>Meanwhile we've got idiots like Robert, David, Paul George
>>and Art who have almost no serious interest in audio
>>continuously screaming: "Sounds the same! Sounds the same!".
>
>
> You forgot Ringo.
>

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >
> : > "Sander deWaal" emitted:
> : > :
> : > : I'm about to sell the plans of this circuit to the NSA, or else put
> : > : them on E-bay.
> : >
> : > seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
> : > actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
> : > Rudy
> : >
> : >
> :
> : What are they going for?
> : I have about 100 NOS ones
> : ADCO made in USA
> : willing to sell!!
> :
> a pair of Telefunkens did about 300 USD recently on eBay:
> 5830648091
> :-)
>
>

Oooh, NOS, no doubt. I think I saw that. I have about 50 smooth plate pulls
to get rid of, and some ribbed ones too.
But I figure $10 to $25 each

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Imaging comes from the recording and is produced by the speakers.
>>> But then you knew that, since we've discussed it before.
>>>
>>
>> Same recording
>> Same speakers
>> But different cd player or different amps, and there are often changes in
>> imaging
>>
> Based on unrelaible sighted evalutions, IOW meaningless.
to you, not to me.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Based on unrelaible sighted evalutions, IOW meaningless.

> to you, not to me.

"Don't talk about your mother that way."

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
nk.net
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>>
>>> Key point. The George persona here is not about audio.
>>> It's about a bitter old man who hates his life and just
>>> about everybody in it. His moma never really loved him
>>> and his dad was distant and cold. He'd never do George
>>> under his own name because George is repetitive,
>>> childish and boring. Always has been, always will be.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the Krueger household, the boogie man was called
>> "George", right? ;-)
>>
>
> It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for
> the vile disgusting pig that he is.

Two words: sock puppets.

> I care nothing for his audio silliness, but his constant
> crap about family members who don't post here are clearly
> beneath contempt.

Agreed.

[Sander deWaal]

> said:


>It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for the vile disgusting
>pig that he is.


If you know anything about me, you know that I take most of what's
going on here as fun.
That includes George's postings, and even my own.

I think I know what my problem is: I get along fairly well with about
anybody here on RAO.
Yes, I would even help Arny change tyres if he stood along the
roadside with a flat :-)

Arny's problem, IMHO of course, is that he takes himself way too
seriously.

On RAO, one can observe one of Newton's laws at work: action is
reaction.
For every Arny, there will be a George.
For every Weil, a Lionel.
For every McCarty, a Morein.

My role in this sitcom may be regarded as the joker (or at least I
aspire to be one).

And please don't ask me who started the mudslinging at some time, it's
better to ask who will stop it, and when.
In that regard, Arny is just as guilty as George.


>I care nothing for his audio silliness, but his constant crap about family
>members who don't post here are clearly beneath contempt.


That I agree about, and you'll probably remember that I objected to
postings like that, not only from George.
I see other posters doing so as well.

--

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

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >I care nothing for his audio silliness, but his constant crap about family
> >members who don't post here are clearly beneath contempt.

> That I agree about, and you'll probably remember that I objected to
> postings like that, not only from George.
> I see other posters doing so as well.

Mickey just admitted he lusts after my mother. Of course, I'm not having
her dug up just to satisfy the slobbering libido of some cranky, aging
glue-huffer. ;-)

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > : > seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
: > : > actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
: > : > Rudy
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > : What are they going for?
: > : I have about 100 NOS ones
: > : ADCO made in USA
: > : willing to sell!!
: > :
: > a pair of Telefunkens did about 300 USD recently on eBay:
: > 5830648091
: > :-)
: >
: >
:
: Oooh, NOS, no doubt. I think I saw that. I have about 50 smooth plate pulls
: to get rid of, and some ribbed ones too.
: But I figure $10 to $25 each
:
who'se leg are you trying to pull, clyde ?
it's like, anyone is going to part with a 1000 USD for a box of
untested glassware, Not !

seriously, Telefunken prices divided by 5 to 7 seems to be the
going rate for other brands, when NIB NOS (new in box, unused).
pulled tubes have to be accompanied by emission measurements
on a tube tester to be worth anything :-) - could be around half the
price of an unused when tested "as new". So that brings you in the
12 to 15 USD ballpark..

cheers,
Rudy

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> > said:
>
>
>> It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for
>> the vile disgusting pig that he is.
>
>
> If you know anything about me, you know that I take most
> of what's going on here as fun.

Easier to do given that you're yet another sockpuppet.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for
>>> the vile disgusting pig that he is.


>> If you know anything about me, you know that I take most
>> of what's going on here as fun.

>Easier to do given that you're yet another sockpuppet.


My dear Arny, if the thought of me being a sockpuppet is in any way
comforting to you, it'd be rude for me to destroy that illusion.

You're very welcome to visit my puppetmaster whenever you're in the
Netherlands.
Be sure to e-mail him/me beforehand, so I can try to get Sockpuppet
Rudy here as well :-)

--

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

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said to the Big ****:

> >> ... I take most of what's going on here as fun.

> >Easier to do given that you're yet another sockpuppet.

> My dear Arny, if the thought of me being a sockpuppet is in any way
> comforting to you, it'd be rude for me to destroy that illusion.

I just realized that Turdy is using the term "sockpuppet" in the Krooglish
sense, not the human sense. I've consulted the "Cyborg's Big Book of Audio
Definitions and Assimilation Tips", which as you know has provided many
useful Krooglish-to-human translations in the past. For example:

lie (n): a statement with which an Audio 'Borg disagrees

fool (n): A normal who does not take discussions of aBxism Totally
Seriously, like, you know, they're about life 'n' death, 'n' stuff

amplifier (n): 1. appliance for flattening sound in an audio system
2. paradigm of Sameness 3. object for keeping a boat from drifting


After Mr. ****'s revelation of today, I scanned the Big Book for the
Kroo-meaning of sockpuppet:

sockpuppet (also scokpuppet, sockpupett, and sockpuppite) (n): a
Normal who persists in posting under his own name on Usenet
(N.B.: The Krooborg tends to use the "sockpuppet" epithet only
against Normals who do not make direct derogatory comments about his
****fulness, instead using only a patronizing and/or mildly mocking
tone.)


In conclusion: Thanks Mr. Krooborg for, admitting you are terrified of
Sander, LOt"S.

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>He, maybe in preparation, we can send him:
>ALEXANDRA MARSH, W, Plays and patterns for glove puppets,
>LONDON 1955 176p, prod.
>Of plays, playlets, presentation, suitability, plans for theaters etc
>book slightly foxed, cloth, jacket good, poppen, poppenspel,
>puppets, glove puppetry

>:-)
>Rpp


In all fairness, a copy of Menno van der Veen's "High End Tube
Amplifiers" would be even better ;-)

I'm even prepared to throw in (figuratively speaking, of course) a
couple of 6L6 GCs.

What is it with second harmonics and weird humor?

--

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

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Arny Krueger" > said:
:
: >>> It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for
: >>> the vile disgusting pig that he is.
:
:
: >> If you know anything about me, you know that I take most
: >> of what's going on here as fun.
:
: >Easier to do given that you're yet another sockpuppet.
:
:
: My dear Arny, if the thought of me being a sockpuppet is in any way
: comforting to you, it'd be rude for me to destroy that illusion.
:
: You're very welcome to visit my puppetmaster whenever you're in the
: Netherlands.
: Be sure to e-mail him/me beforehand, so I can try to get Sockpuppet
: Rudy here as well :-)
:
: --
He, maybe in preparation, we can send him:
ALEXANDRA MARSH, W, Plays and patterns for glove puppets,
LONDON 1955 176p, prod.
Of plays, playlets, presentation, suitability, plans for theaters etc
book slightly foxed, cloth, jacket good, poppen, poppenspel,
puppets, glove puppetry

:-)
Rpp

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >He, maybe in preparation, we can send him:
: >ALEXANDRA MARSH, W, Plays and patterns for glove puppets,
: >LONDON 1955 176p, prod.
: >Of plays, playlets, presentation, suitability, plans for theaters etc
: >book slightly foxed, cloth, jacket good, poppen, poppenspel,
: >puppets, glove puppetry
:
: >:-)
: >Rpp
:
:
: In all fairness, a copy of Menno van der Veen's "High End Tube
: Amplifiers" would be even better ;-)
:
: I'm even prepared to throw in (figuratively speaking, of course) a
: couple of 6L6 GCs.
:
: What is it with second harmonics and weird humor?
:
: --
:
it's like, now you pretend you don't know 4 a fact
it's the 2H that shifts your perception into the 6th sense
the humour univrese
;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >
> : > : > seeing what 6SN7's are doing on eBay these days, eBuyers may
> : > : > actually outbid the NSA :-) :-)
> : > : > Rudy
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > : What are they going for?
> : > : I have about 100 NOS ones
> : > : ADCO made in USA
> : > : willing to sell!!
> : > :
> : > a pair of Telefunkens did about 300 USD recently on eBay:
> : > 5830648091
> : > :-)
> : >
> : >
> :
> : Oooh, NOS, no doubt. I think I saw that. I have about 50 smooth plate
> pulls
> : to get rid of, and some ribbed ones too.
> : But I figure $10 to $25 each
> :
> who'se leg are you trying to pull, clyde ?
> it's like, anyone is going to part with a 1000 USD for a box of
> untested glassware, Not !
>
> seriously, Telefunken prices divided by 5 to 7 seems to be the
> going rate for other brands, when NIB NOS (new in box, unused).
> pulled tubes have to be accompanied by emission measurements
> on a tube tester to be worth anything :-) - could be around half the
> price of an unused when tested "as new". So that brings you in the
> 12 to 15 USD ballpark..
>
> cheers,
> Rudy
>
>

That is a little low for what I saw on eBay, actually sold
in $12 to $30 for used tested tubes, like mine.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>> > said:
>>
>>
>>> It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for
>>> the vile disgusting pig that he is.
>>
>>
>> If you know anything about me, you know that I take most
>> of what's going on here as fun.
>
> Easier to do given that you're yet another sockpuppet.


Who is the master puppeteer this time?

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>>> It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for
>>>> the vile disgusting pig that he is.
>
>
>>> If you know anything about me, you know that I take most
>>> of what's going on here as fun.
>
>>Easier to do given that you're yet another sockpuppet.
>
>
> My dear Arny, if the thought of me being a sockpuppet is in any way
> comforting to you, it'd be rude for me to destroy that illusion.
>
> You're very welcome to visit my puppetmaster whenever you're in the
> Netherlands.
> Be sure to e-mail him/me beforehand, so I can try to get Sockpuppet
> Rudy here as well :-)
>

Yustabe I Yusta post as Sockpuppet Yustabe.

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > : Oooh, NOS, no doubt. I think I saw that. I have about 50 smooth plate
: > pulls
: > : to get rid of, and some ribbed ones too.
: > : But I figure $10 to $25 each
: > :
: > who'se leg are you trying to pull, clyde ?
: > it's like, anyone is going to part with a 1000 USD for a box of
: > untested glassware, Not !
: >
: > seriously, Telefunken prices divided by 5 to 7 seems to be the
: > going rate for other brands, when NIB NOS (new in box, unused).
: > pulled tubes have to be accompanied by emission measurements
: > on a tube tester to be worth anything :-) - could be around half the
: > price of an unused when tested "as new". So that brings you in the
: > 12 to 15 USD ballpark..
: >
: > cheers,
: > Rudy
: >
: >
:
: That is a little low for what I saw on eBay, actually sold
: in $12 to $30 for used tested tubes, like mine.
:
LOL, it's like you know how to test tubes, if,
you don't know an mho from a volta, lot'sZ !
for 30 bucks, a buyer would like to know grid
leak, as well,
you know
Rudy

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> That is a little low for what I saw on eBay, actually sold
> in $12 to $30 for used tested tubes, like mine.

Selling vacuum tubes on ebay: $30
Mailing them to the Krooborg and inducing a heart attack: Priceless!

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Easier to do given that you're yet another sockpuppet.

> Who is the master puppeteer this time?

I think we should encourage Turdy's paranoid ravings. If we feed his
paranoia, he may decide to end his suffering once and for all.

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >
> : > : Oooh, NOS, no doubt. I think I saw that. I have about 50 smooth
> plate
> : > pulls
> : > : to get rid of, and some ribbed ones too.
> : > : But I figure $10 to $25 each
> : > :
> : > who'se leg are you trying to pull, clyde ?
> : > it's like, anyone is going to part with a 1000 USD for a box of
> : > untested glassware, Not !
> : >
> : > seriously, Telefunken prices divided by 5 to 7 seems to be the
> : > going rate for other brands, when NIB NOS (new in box, unused).
> : > pulled tubes have to be accompanied by emission measurements
> : > on a tube tester to be worth anything :-) - could be around half the
> : > price of an unused when tested "as new". So that brings you in the
> : > 12 to 15 USD ballpark..
> : >
> : > cheers,
> : > Rudy
> : >
> : >
> :
> : That is a little low for what I saw on eBay, actually sold
> : in $12 to $30 for used tested tubes, like mine.
> :
> LOL, it's like you know how to test tubes, if,
> you don't know an mho from a volta, lot'sZ !
> for 30 bucks, a buyer would like to know grid
> leak, as well,
> you know
> Rudy
>
>

I expect to average about $16
plus, over 120 7591's, and lots of other good stuff.
more than I can use in a lifetime of glowing enjoyment.

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > : That is a little low for what I saw on eBay, actually sold
: > : in $12 to $30 for used tested tubes, like mine.
: > :
: > LOL, it's like you know how to test tubes, if,
: > you don't know an mho from a volta, lot'sZ !
: > for 30 bucks, a buyer would like to know grid
: > leak, as well,
: > you know
: > Rudy
: >
: >
:
: I expect to average about $16
: plus, over 120 7591's, and lots of other good stuff.
: more than I can use in a lifetime of glowing enjoyment.
:
cool : -)

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> > said:
>
>
>>It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for the vile
>>disgusting
>>pig that he is.
>
>
> If you know anything about me, you know that I take most of what's
> going on here as fun.

As do I, but there are limits and George frequently if not regularly crosses
them.


> That includes George's postings, and even my own.
>
Where's the fun in draggin in the family members of people you don't like?
Would it still be fun if he was saying things about someone you love?

> I think I know what my problem is: I get along fairly well with about
> anybody here on RAO.

It's easy when you don't really take a stand.

> Yes, I would even help Arny change tyres if he stood along the
> roadside with a flat :-)
>
> Arny's problem, IMHO of course, is that he takes himself way too
> seriously.
>

Same question as above, how would it be if George were attaking your family
members?
He like me thinks that truth has value, and there is truth and there is
fiction involved in audio, just look at the DD vs Belt Drive debate. Look
at how irate and hostile people get when confronted with simple truths, and
I don't mean Arny.

> On RAO, one can observe one of Newton's laws at work: action is
> reaction.
> For every Arny, there will be a George.
> For every Weil, a Lionel.
> For every McCarty, a Morein.
>
Only if people let them have their way.

> My role in this sitcom may be regarded as the joker (or at least I
> aspire to be one).
>
> And please don't ask me who started the mudslinging at some time, it's
> better to ask who will stop it, and when.
> In that regard, Arny is just as guilty as George.
>
Not in my reasing of things. It was very easy to see who was slinging it
more and first.
>
>>I care nothing for his audio silliness, but his constant crap about family
>>members who don't post here are clearly beneath contempt.
>
>
> That I agree about, and you'll probably remember that I objected to
> postings like that, not only from George.
> I see other posters doing so as well.
>
And you really can't think of who started it?

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Sander deWaal said:
>
>> >I care nothing for his audio silliness, but his constant crap about
>> >family
>> >members who don't post here are clearly beneath contempt.
>
>> That I agree about, and you'll probably remember that I objected to
>> postings like that, not only from George.
>> I see other posters doing so as well.
>
> Mickey just admitted he lusts after my mother. Of course, I'm not having
> her dug up just to satisfy the slobbering libido of some cranky, aging
> glue-huffer. ;-)
>
>
Plaese use the language of your native species, Oink.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 07:18:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Meanwhile we've got idiots like Robert, David, Paul George
>and Art who have almost no serious interest in audio
>continuously screaming: "Sounds the same! Sounds the same!".

Er...haven't you got that around the wrong way, Arnie?

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius :

> Sander deWaal said to the Big ****:

Don't your hear Mr Atkinson ?

*He said *ENOUGH* !!!

:-D

[paul packer]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:33:04 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

> said:
>
>
>>It truly sadens me Sander, that you can't see George for the vile disgusting
>>pig that he is.
>
>
>If you know anything about me, you know that I take most of what's
>going on here as fun.
>That includes George's postings, and even my own.
>
>I think I know what my problem is: I get along fairly well with about
>anybody here on RAO.
>Yes, I would even help Arny change tyres if he stood along the
>roadside with a flat :-)
>
>Arny's problem, IMHO of course, is that he takes himself way too
>seriously.
>
>On RAO, one can observe one of Newton's laws at work: action is
>reaction.
>For every Arny, there will be a George.
>For every Weil, a Lionel.
>For every McCarty, a Morein.
>
>My role in this sitcom may be regarded as the joker (or at least I
>aspire to be one).
>
>And please don't ask me who started the mudslinging at some time, it's
>better to ask who will stop it, and when.
>In that regard, Arny is just as guilty as George.
>
>
>>I care nothing for his audio silliness, but his constant crap about family
>>members who don't post here are clearly beneath contempt.
>
>
>That I agree about, and you'll probably remember that I objected to
>postings like that, not only from George.
>I see other posters doing so as well.

Agree with everything you've said, Sander, and I never thought that
would happen on RAO. :-)

To take any of this too seriously, other than what's genuinely
objectionable, would truly be unintelligent.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> To take any of this too seriously, other than what's genuinely
> objectionable, would truly be unintelligent.

Krooger and duh-Mikey are genuinely objectionable. Suggestions on
eradicating their presence are welcome.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> George Minus Middius :
>
>> Sander deWaal said to the Big ****:
>
> Don't your hear Mr Atkinson ?
>
> *He said *ENOUGH* !!!
>
> :-D

What's your excuse, he didn't say it in French?

[Lionel]

Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman - Sackman/Tsechmeister wrote :

















--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Sander deWaal]

> said:

>> I think I know what my problem is: I get along fairly well with about
>> anybody here on RAO.

>It's easy when you don't really take a stand.


You're right, I'm a spineless coward.

This hurts, Mike, especially coming from you.
Well, since I'm just a sockpuppet, I guess I'll let this one die.
I just about had it with this newsgroup, anyway.

--

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

[Robert Morein]

In article , "Sander deWaal"
> wrote:

> > said:
>
>>> I think I know what my problem is: I get along fairly well with about
>>> anybody here on RAO.
>
>> It's easy when you don't really take a stand.
>
>
> You're right, I'm a spineless coward.
>
> This hurts, Mike, especially coming from you.
> Well, since I'm just a sockpuppet, I guess I'll let this one die.
> I just about had it with this newsgroup, anyway.

Another weak human who can't stand the give and take of debating. Likely
because the positions you advocate are unsupportable Eurotrash gibberish.

No one will miss you.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >It's easy when you don't really take a stand.

> You're right, I'm a spineless coward.

Thank's Mr. Deewol for, admitting you have a life. LOt"S! ;-)

> This hurts, Mike, especially coming from you.
> Well, since I'm just a sockpuppet, I guess I'll let this one die.
> I just about had it with this newsgroup, anyway.

Too bad you can't buy, sell, or trade fourty-11 clue's Mr. Dewwal. Its like
a horse that, if you try to feed him water, he wont **** on the ground
where, the bone's are buryed. I would dane to teach you some air plane
trick's Mr. Deiwlel but, so far the IQ test's indicate that its like you
have a sponge where my brain should be, LOL! ;-)

;-(

Time to tidy up the shack, Slick.

;-)

[paul packer]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:37:33 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> To take any of this too seriously, other than what's genuinely
>> objectionable, would truly be unintelligent.
>
>Krooger and duh-Mikey are genuinely objectionable. Suggestions on
>eradicating their presence are welcome.

The trouble is, George, that they have a similar opinion of you, and
would wish for similar suggestions. How to please everybody? :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
.. .

> No one will miss you.
>
not even Bwian?

[Clyde Slick]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...


> The trouble is, George, that they have a similar opinion of you, and
> would wish for similar suggestions. How to please everybody? :-)

Let them have their own group
rec.audio.dbt
we will leave them alone as long as they leave us alone

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >Krooger and duh-Mikey are genuinely objectionable. Suggestions on
> >eradicating their presence are welcome.

> The trouble is, George, that they have a similar opinion of you, and
> would wish for similar suggestions. How to please everybody? :-)

Let's get this on the record, paulie. Are you affirmatively declaring that
you desire or intend to "please" Krooger and the Bug Eater?

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> > said:
>
>>> I think I know what my problem is: I get along fairly well with about
>>> anybody here on RAO.
>
>>It's easy when you don't really take a stand.
>
>
> You're right, I'm a spineless coward.
>
That's not what I said.

> This hurts, Mike, especially coming from you.
> Well, since I'm just a sockpuppet, I guess I'll let this one die.
> I just about had it with this newsgroup, anyway.
>
Considering the level of expertise you say you have ( being an EE ), it
seems reasonable to assume that more of the technical issues that come up
for discussion here should have some more definitive responses from you.


I don't think it's being unfair to point out that you don't do very much of
that.

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
hlink.net...
:
: "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
: ...
: > > said:
: >
: >>> I think I know what my problem is: I get along fairly well with about
: >>> anybody here on RAO.
: >
: >>It's easy when you don't really take a stand.
: >
: >
: > You're right, I'm a spineless coward.
: >
: That's not what I said.
:
: > This hurts, Mike, especially coming from you.
: > Well, since I'm just a sockpuppet, I guess I'll let this one die.
: > I just about had it with this newsgroup, anyway.
: >
: Considering the level of expertise you say you have ( being an EE ), it
: seems reasonable to assume that more of the technical issues that come up
: for discussion here should have some more definitive responses from you.
:
:
: I don't think it's being unfair to point out that you don't do very much of
: that.
:
............
->
McK : "Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, "

where are those links, mr. McKelvy ? it seems reasonable to assume that
when you make these claims, you've got something to back them up with..

several days have passed: it seems reasonable to assume that you
could not find any ... tsk tsk who'd have guessed ??

it seems only fair to point out to you that:

you don't know anything about perception
you know next to nothing about electronics
your logic is flawed beyond recognition
the only way you can be funny is by being ridiculous (regularly)
RAO has no need for a frustrated salesman gone 'teacher'

so why do you hang out here ?

oh, better get your answer thorougly checked before posting,
dude

Rude
ninja puppet

[paul packer]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:23:54 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >Krooger and duh-Mikey are genuinely objectionable. Suggestions on
>> >eradicating their presence are welcome.
>
>> The trouble is, George, that they have a similar opinion of you, and
>> would wish for similar suggestions. How to please everybody? :-)
>
>Let's get this on the record, paulie. Are you affirmatively declaring that
>you desire or intend to "please" Krooger and the Bug Eater?

No more than I desire or intend to "please" you, George.

Now I ask you, what am I to do? The other day I had an email from an
ex-poster seriously assuring me you were insane, and since I had no
evidence to the contrary I just let the matter rest. So clearly there
are lurkers and posters as doubtful of your sanity as you are of
Arny's. Maybe instead of IQ tests we should have reality checks here,
to sort out the near-insane from the totally-far-gone. Then, depending
on the results, I'll cast a vote for one side or the other. :-)

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> How to please everybody? :-)
> >
> >Let's get this on the record, paulie. Are you affirmatively declaring that
> >you desire or intend to "please" Krooger and the Bug Eater?

> No more than I desire or intend to "please" you, George.

Well, that's a relief. I'll make a note for future reference that when you
say "everybody," you actually mean "nobody".

> Now I ask you, what am I to do? The other day I had an email from an
> ex-poster seriously assuring me you were insane, and since I had no
> evidence to the contrary I just let the matter rest.

Was that ex-poster the fabulously nasty dickie malesweski, aka torrie****s,
aka toony lobro, aka dippyborg? Perhaps you should accord serious weight to
the accusations of an individual whose stable of sockpuppets eclipses even
Arnii Krooborg's.

> So clearly there
> are lurkers and posters as doubtful of your sanity as you are of
> Arny's. Maybe instead of IQ tests we should have reality checks here,
> to sort out the near-insane from the totally-far-gone. Then, depending
> on the results, I'll cast a vote for one side or the other. :-)

Good idea. BTW, congratulations on draping yourself in an "Accord" toga.
You seemed stately at the time. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
hlink.net

> Considering the level of expertise you say you have (
> being an EE ), it seems reasonable to assume that more of
> the technical issues that come up for discussion here
> should have some more definitive responses from you.

Like you said Mike, he says he is an EE.

Sander is as likely to be a degreed EE as Packer is of
having an IQ over 120.

> I don't think it's being unfair to point out that you
> don't do very much of that.

A sockpuppet can't be smarter than the one who animates it.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote in message
> hlink.net
>
>> Considering the level of expertise you say you have (
>> being an EE ), it seems reasonable to assume that more of
>> the technical issues that come up for discussion here
>> should have some more definitive responses from you.
>
> Like you said Mike, he says he is an EE.
>

Youare really suffereing froma major
dose of paranoia this evening.


> Sander is as likely to be a degreed EE as Packer is of having an IQ over
> 120.
>
>> I don't think it's being unfair to point out that you
>> don't do very much of that.
>
> A sockpuppet can't be smarter than the one who animates it.

Tell us about the Great Animator, who is he tonight?
JA, George, Dave?

[paul packer]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:10:12 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:


>> Now I ask you, what am I to do? The other day I had an email from an
>> ex-poster seriously assuring me you were insane, and since I had no
>> evidence to the contrary I just let the matter rest.
>
>Was that ex-poster the fabulously nasty dickie malesweski, aka torrie****s,
>aka toony lobro, aka dippyborg? Perhaps you should accord serious weight to
>the accusations of an individual whose stable of sockpuppets eclipses even
>Arnii Krooborg's.

It was somebody I couldn't place who claimed to have posted here many
years but jumped ship in disgust, as he claimed, at some of the things
you had to say to Arnie after the death of his son, which utterances
apparently convinced him of your insanity. I read only a little of
that, but from the little I read it seemed a not unreasonable
conclusion. Hopefully age (and that series of strokes Arnie
identified) has mellowed you since then.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> Hopefully age (and that series of strokes Arnie
> identified) has mellowed you since then.

Arnii had a series of strokes? I find that hard to believe. I'm sure he
would have trolled for sympathy on RAO after an event like that.

[Sander deWaal]

I decided to reply to this mess just once.

"Arny Krueger" > said:

> wrote in message
hlink.net

>> Considering the level of expertise you say you have (
>> being an EE ), it seems reasonable to assume that more of
>> the technical issues that come up for discussion here
>> should have some more definitive responses from you.


At some point in time, not too long ago, you called "virtually all
[my] contributions informative", or words like that.

However, you made me think about my position again, and the conclusion
is that my posts, as I expressed them here on RAO, are still
representative of my views on audio.


>Like you said Mike, he says he is an EE.


Indeed I did.


>Sander is as likely to be a degreed EE as Packer is of
>having an IQ over 120.


May God forgive me:
http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/1179/diploma8aw.jpg


>> I don't think it's being unfair to point out that you
>> don't do very much of that.

>A sockpuppet can't be smarter than the one who animates it.


May God forgive me once again:
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/5938/paspoort0oz.jpg

--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> I decided to reply to this mess just once.
>
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> hlink.net
>
>>> Considering the level of expertise you say you have (
>>> being an EE ), it seems reasonable to assume that more
>>> of the technical issues that come up for discussion here
>>> should have some more definitive responses from you.
>
>
> At some point in time, not too long ago, you called
> "virtually all [my] contributions informative", or words
> like that.
>
> However, you made me think about my position again, and
> the conclusion is that my posts, as I expressed them here
> on RAO, are still representative of my views on audio.
>
>
>> Like you said Mike, he says he is an EE.
>
>
> Indeed I did.
>
>
>> Sander is as likely to be a degreed EE as Packer is of
>> having an IQ over 120.
>
>
> May God forgive me:
> http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/1179/diploma8aw.jpg
>
>
>>> I don't think it's being unfair to point out that you
>>> don't do very much of that.
>
>> A sockpuppet can't be smarter than the one who animates
>> it.
>
>
> May God forgive me once again:
> http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/5938/paspoort0oz.jpg


Just images.

[Lionel]

In >, Sander deWaal wrote :

>
> I decided to reply to this mess just once.
>
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
> wrote in message
hlink.net
>
>>> Considering the level of expertise you say you have (
>>> being an EE ), it seems reasonable to assume that more of
>>> the technical issues that come up for discussion here
>>> should have some more definitive responses from you.
>
>
> At some point in time, not too long ago, you called "virtually all
> [my] contributions informative", or words like that.
>
> However, you made me think about my position again, and the conclusion
> is that my posts, as I expressed them here on RAO, are still
> representative of my views on audio.
>
>
>>Like you said Mike, he says he is an EE.
>
>
> Indeed I did.
>
>
>>Sander is as likely to be a degreed EE as Packer is of
>>having an IQ over 120.
>
>
> May God forgive me:
> http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/1179/diploma8aw.jpg

:-D


>>> I don't think it's being unfair to point out that you
>>> don't do very much of that.
>
>>A sockpuppet can't be smarter than the one who animates it.
>
>
> May God forgive me once again:
> http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/5938/paspoort0oz.jpg


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[paul packer]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:47:15 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:


>>Sander is as likely to be a degreed EE as Packer is of
>>having an IQ over 120.
>
>
>May God forgive me:
>http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/1179/diploma8aw.jpg

Yep, I knew my IQ was well over 120.

Very fetching photo, too. :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Just images.
>

Is that response delusional paranoia, or just your
usual debating trade?

[ScottW]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Just images.
> >
>
> Is that response delusional paranoia, or just your
> usual debating trade?

I'd call it delusional denial. I showed you those pots a kind image
once sent me, didn't I?

ScottW

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Just images.
>>
>
> Is that response delusional paranoia, or just your
> usual debating trade?


I note that you regularly use the same tactic... :-(


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[dave weil]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:48:54 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> Just images.
>>>
>>
>> Is that response delusional paranoia, or just your
>> usual debating trade?
>
>
>I note that you regularly use the same tactic... :-(

Why frown when YOU use those tactics as well?

Just curious.

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil wrote :


> Why frown

Why what ?

> Just curious.

Me too.

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> :
> : "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > > said:
> : >
> : >>> I think I know what my problem is: I get along fairly well with
> about
> : >>> anybody here on RAO.
> : >
> : >>It's easy when you don't really take a stand.
> : >
> : >
> : > You're right, I'm a spineless coward.
> : >
> : That's not what I said.
> :
> : > This hurts, Mike, especially coming from you.
> : > Well, since I'm just a sockpuppet, I guess I'll let this one die.
> : > I just about had it with this newsgroup, anyway.
> : >
> : Considering the level of expertise you say you have ( being an EE ), it
> : seems reasonable to assume that more of the technical issues that come
> up
> : for discussion here should have some more definitive responses from you.
> :
> :
> : I don't think it's being unfair to point out that you don't do very much
> of
> : that.
> :
> ...........
> ->
> McK : "Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, "
>
> where are those links, mr. McKelvy ? it seems reasonable to assume that
> when you make these claims, you've got something to back them up with..
>
> several days have passed: it seems reasonable to assume that you
> could not find any ... tsk tsk who'd have guessed ??
>
Most likely becuase what I said was true, certainly about the mechanics of
hearing.

> it seems only fair to point out to you that:
>
> you don't know anything about perception

Perception is in the eye of the beholder. Or ear. but it has little to with
accurate reproduction.

> you know next to nothing about electronics
OSAF.

> your logic is flawed beyond recognition
IN what respect?

> the only way you can be funny is by being ridiculous (regularly)
> RAO has no need for a frustrated salesman gone 'teacher'
>
It has no need for guys like Middius and Moron either but they seem to get a
pass.

> so why do you hang out here ?
>
More than you, at least as regards audio.

> oh, better get your answer thorougly checked before posting,
> dude
>
> Rude
> ninja puppet
>
What's your beef? I barely even talk to you.

Feel free to ignore me if you're so bothered by what I say.
I did that with Moreon and it works wonders.

[George M. Middius]

duh-Mikey owns up to his uselessness.

> > the only way you can be funny is by being ridiculous (regularly)
> > RAO has no need for a frustrated salesman gone 'teacher'

> It has no need for guys like Middius and Moron either

Thanks Mr. McHurtMe for, admitting you are useless.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> Just images.
>>>
>>
>> Is that response delusional paranoia, or just your
>> usual debating trade?
>
>
> I note that you regularly use the same tactic... :-(
>
no, when somebody shows a copy
of a photo id and a diploma or certificate,
I do not deny reality. Please, show
us your sewer inspectors license.
I will concede the fact when we see your
credentials.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>
>>
>>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>>>Just images.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Is that response delusional paranoia, or just your
>>>usual debating trade?
>>
>>
>>I note that you regularly use the same tactic... :-(
>>
>
> no, when somebody shows a copy
> of a photo id and a diploma or certificate,


I understand. and I fully agree.
I even didn't need to see a copy of his personal document to believe him.


> I do not deny reality.


So you are a pathologic liar. See you doctor.




--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
.net...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: > ->
: > McK : "Since human hearing doesn't really vary that much, "
: >
: > where are those links, mr. McKelvy ? it seems reasonable to assume that
: > when you make these claims, you've got something to back them up with..
: >
: > several days have passed: it seems reasonable to assume that you
: > could not find any ... tsk tsk who'd have guessed ??
: >
: Most likely becuase what I said was true, certainly about the mechanics of
: hearing.

yeah, right, that's the way you spell d e b a t i n g , Jim :-)
the trade, that is.
:
: > it seems only fair to point out to you that:
: >
: > you don't know anything about perception
:
: Perception is in the eye of the beholder. Or ear. but it has little to with
: accurate reproduction.

hmm, those in the know can voice a somewhat more appropriate
text on perception. you may have noted

:
: > you know next to nothing about electronics
: OSAF.

and this means ?, what, exactly ??
Krooproof ?

:
: > your logic is flawed beyond recognition
: IN what respect?

if you have to ask...

:
: > the only way you can be funny is by being ridiculous (regularly)
: > RAO has no need for a frustrated salesman gone 'teacher'
: >
: It has no need for guys like Middius and Moron either but they seem to get a
: pass.
:
: > so why do you hang out here ?
: >
: More than you, at least as regards audio.

that doesn't parse

:
: > oh, better get your answer thorougly checked before posting,
: > dude
: >
: > Rude
: > ninja puppet
: >
: What's your beef? I barely even talk to you.

a noisy bar .. no problem but constant drones & hiss nahh

:
: Feel free to ignore me if you're so bothered by what I say.
: I did that with Moreon and it works wonders.
:
feel free to moderate your posting to the point where they
can be construed as adding something meaningfull,
witty, interesting or good 'field reporting' :-)

Rudy