L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51

[Fella]

ScottW wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Paul B wrote:
>>

>>Paul B. again
>>
>>>The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly coarse when stepping
>>>through volume but I wouldn't care to state I could hear even that
little
>>>in
>>>a DB test!
>>
>>Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug.
>>1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found that most of his panel
>>were unable to distinguish 1,75db difference between the volumes
>>produced by a thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a signal*
>>Once again: to follow Sean Olive's investigation; "difference" appears
>>to be the wrong question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
>>people can distinguish components. "Which one do you like better?"
>>(blinded-why not?) is a much better bet. But of course that sounds too
>>human and not "scientific" enough
>>Ludovic Mirabel
>>If this message appears twice in some servers I apologise. Google
>>accepted it yesterday but failed to post it.
>
>
> It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a lie.
>
> ScottW

How do you know that what Ludovic says is a lie?

Ludovic, can you substantiate this? Can you, for instance, scan those
pages of strereo review and post them somewhere?

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> ScottW wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>> Paul B wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Paul B. again
>>>
>>>> The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly
>>>> coarse when stepping through volume but I wouldn't
>>>> care to state I could hear even that little in
>>>> a DB test!
>>>
>>> Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo
>>> Review, Aug. 1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found
>>> that most of his panel were unable to distinguish
>>> 1,75db difference between the volumes produced by a
>>> thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a
>>> signal* Once again: to follow Sean Olive's
>>> investigation; "difference" appears to be the wrong
>>> question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
>>> people can distinguish components. "Which one do you
>>> like better?" (blinded-why not?) is a much better bet.
>>> But of course that sounds too human and not
>>> "scientific" enough

>>> Ludovic Mirabel

>>> If this message appears twice in some servers I
>>> apologise. Google accepted it yesterday but failed to
>>> post it.

>> It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a
>> lie.

I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
account is factually correct.

If I were going to recreate Greenhill's cable tests today, I'd do things
differently. Heck, if Greenhill redid his tests today, he'd do things
differently.

> How do you know that what Ludovic says is a lie?

Well Scotty writes a lot of weird stuff. He's a bit of a loose cannon.
However, compared to Middius and Sackman, he's a perfect picture of
relevance and correctness.

> Ludovic, can you substantiate this? Can you, for
> instance, scan those pages of Stereo Review and post
> them somewhere?

Mirabel's error is that he lives in the past and he sets the bar for proof
related to DBTs far higher than he sets the bar for his golden-eared
beliefs.

[Steven Sullivan]

Fella > wrote:
> ScottW wrote:

> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >>Paul B wrote:
> >>

> >>Paul B. again
> >>
> >>>The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly coarse when stepping
> >>>through volume but I wouldn't care to state I could hear even that
> little
> >>>in
> >>>a DB test!
> >>
> >>Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug.
> >>1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found that most of his panel
> >>were unable to distinguish 1,75db difference between the volumes
> >>produced by a thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a signal*
> >>Once again: to follow Sean Olive's investigation; "difference" appears
> >>to be the wrong question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
> >>people can distinguish components. "Which one do you like better?"
> >>(blinded-why not?) is a much better bet. But of course that sounds too
> >>human and not "scientific" enough
> >>Ludovic Mirabel
> >>If this message appears twice in some servers I apologise. Google
> >>accepted it yesterday but failed to post it.
> >
> >
> > It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a lie.
> >
> > ScottW

> How do you know that what Ludovic says is a lie?

> Ludovic, can you substantiate this? Can you, for instance, scan those
> pages of strereo review and post them somewhere?



Below is a more accurate summary of the article, reprinted from
an old post I made on RAHE...a thread that Dr. Mirabilis
also posted to:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/1746a09e04e41b97?dmode=source&hl=en

Bottom line was that statistically significant positive cable difference
ABX results (at least 12/15, which corresponds to p<.019) were achieved by
various subjects using both pink noise *and* music as test signals,
but that in each case there was a reasonable explanation (e.g.,
grossly mismatched cable gauges, and/or use of pink noise).




//


30 foot lengths were used.

Greenhill found the following for the panel as a whole:

1) monster vs. 24 gauge w/pink noise, levels unmatched:
statistically significant difference

2) monster vs. 24 gauge w/pink noise, levels matched
statistically significant difference

3) monster vs. 16 gauge w/pink noise, levels unmatched
statistically significant difference

4) monster vs 16 gauge, w/choral music, levels unmatched
no stat. sig. difference

5) monster vs. 24 gauge w/choral music, levels unmatched
statistically significant difference

6) 16 gauge vs. 24 gauge , w/pink noise, levels unmatched
statistically significant difference

Greenhill also analyzed the results in terms of *psychoacoustical*
significance difference:

"We also used, however, a stronger criterion: psychoacoustical
significance. In psychoacoustical testing, it is generally accepted that
the threshold at which a phenomenon can be considered definitely audible
is when listeners are aware of it at least 75% of the time. This is the basis
for our definition of a 'hit' as at least 12/15 correct answers. Applied to
the whole panel, this meant that 124 answers out of 165 trials for each
comparison had to be correct before we concluded that the difference between
the cables were indeed audible" Greenhill (1983), Stereo Review p 50.

By this criterion, only the differences observed in 1 and 6 were
'psychoacoustically significant'. These both involve nonlevelmatched
comparisons using pink noise.

"Julian Hirsch's measurments of the 24-gauge wire showed it to be much
higher in resistance than Monster Cable or 16-gauge wire. Its 1.8 ohm
resistance resulting in a 1.76 dB insertion loss with an 8 ohm resistive load,
which means that fully one third of the amplifiers output was being
dissipated by the cable over the 30-foot runs we used. This accounts for
the unanimously audible decrease in level. Frequency response was also
affected because the 24 gauge cable's relatively high series resistance
interacted with the system impedence of the KEF 105.2 speakers used int
hese tests to produce 1.25 dB frequecy response depressions at 100, 1000
and 4000 Hz....the level matching procedure corrected only for an overal
level mismatch, not for frequency response changes caused by the 24 guage
wire." Greenhill (1983) Stereo Review p. 49.

A 0.16 dB insertion loss difference and a 0.04 dB frequency response
variation were also measured between the Monster and 16-gauge cables;
Greenhill proposes that the former explains the results of comparison 3.

Greenhill's main conclusion is that Monster Cable and 16 gauge are both
audibly different from 24 gauge wire, and that 16 gauge is good enough to
be indistinguishable from Monster Cable when playing music.

Greenhill also notes that 'One of the listeners on the panel ran a quick
but controlled listening test of Monster against high-capacitance Mogami
Cable (with its 'damper' removed) and 8 gauge Levinson HF-10C twin lead,
both more costly than MC. He did no better at distinguishing MC from the
other two than chance would allow."

Greenhill also notes that one listener did appear to be a bona fide
'golden ear', since he was the only one to distinguish MC from 24 gauge in
music and level-matched pink noise tests. He was unable to tell MC from
16 guage using music, however (nor was anyone else).

Greenhill finally speculates that had 6 ft runs been used instead of 30
foot runs, no audible differences would have been detected between any
of the cables.



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[George M. Middius]

Sillybot charges up his dime-store ray gun.

> ABX results

I put to you, Sillybot, a question that has been repeatedly posed by
Ludovic, and each time you've waffled or ducked or otherwise evaded
answering. It could be you're too dumb to understand the question, but I
think it's more likely you're terrified of actual science and are only
willing to endorse phoney 'borg science that you claim reinforces your
religious beliefs. Anyway, here's the question:

You keep referring to medical/pharmaceutical DBTs as the paradigm of all
DBTs' efficacy. However, Ludovic has repeatedly pointed out the biggest
difference between real DBTs used for drug trials and the half-assed
kind endorsed by the Hive. That difference being that with real DBTs,
the evidence of effectiveness is objectively measured with proven
diagnostic tools such as lab work or radiological exams, whereas in the
dogmatic preachings of the aBxism choir, the only "evidence" is entirely
subjective. In simple terms, the "evidence" yielded by aBxism rituals
has no objective basis whatsoever.

Why, then, do you keep repeating the same discredited position?


And a follow-up question from me: When are you finally, finally, FINALLY
going to undertake an audio DBT yourself? It's quite inane of you to
keep insisting on the effectiveness of aBxism rituals when you're
clearly scared of them yourself. Not that hypocrisy is an unknown
quality in the Hive. ;-) It's just that you seem like you should know
better. Maybe when you grow up, you'll see how asinine your prating is.
But in the meantime, you should take my word for it. I urge you to
breach the comfort of your church for the sake of learning something
about real life.

[Arny Krueger]

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

> That difference being that with
> real DBTs, the evidence of effectiveness is objectively
> measured with proven diagnostic tools such as lab work or
> radiological exams, whereas in the dogmatic preachings of
> the aBxism choir, the only "evidence" is entirely
> subjective.

Resolved then, that anything with a hint of subjectivsm be ignored.

So what have you got for us now, Middiot?

[Steven Sullivan]

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

> > That difference being that with
> > real DBTs, the evidence of effectiveness is objectively
> > measured with proven diagnostic tools such as lab work or
> > radiological exams, whereas in the dogmatic preachings of
> > the aBxism choir, the only "evidence" is entirely
> > subjective.

> Resolved then, that anything with a hint of subjectivsm be ignored.

> So what have you got for us now, Middiot?

Not quite sure what George is blathering about now, but from the
above you'd think he never heard of measurements, and the funny way
that things that yield positive DBT results always seem to yield
a mundane measurable difference. And of course ABX is
simply a subset of DBTs. George is free to run a 'calibrating'
DBT on his own hearing, to discover where his discriminative
thresholds lie for various audible parameters. He may then
compare them to average thresholds in the literature. He may
find he is (more/less) sensitive than average to that difference.
He will certainly find a point where he can no longer audibly
detect a difference that is still measurable. He will find that
the value of the parameter measures closer to known thresholds
at that point, than it did when he *could* hear a difference.
And then, his reinvention of the wheel will be complete.


Or maybe he's just *afraid* of measurements...they can
brutally reveal one's, er, *personal shortcomings', after all.



--
- S.

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
>> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
>> > That difference being that with
>> > real DBTs, the evidence of effectiveness is objectively
>> > measured with proven diagnostic tools such as lab work or
>> > radiological exams, whereas in the dogmatic preachings of
>> > the aBxism choir, the only "evidence" is entirely
>> > subjective.
>
>> Resolved then, that anything with a hint of subjectivsm be ignored.
>
>> So what have you got for us now, Middiot?
>
> Not quite sure what George is blathering about now, but from the
> above you'd think he never heard of measurements, and the funny way
> that things that yield positive DBT results always seem to yield
> a mundane measurable difference. And of course ABX is
> simply a subset of DBTs. George is free to run a 'calibrating'
> DBT on his own hearing, to discover where his discriminative
> thresholds lie for various audible parameters. He may then
> compare them to average thresholds in the literature. He may
> find he is (more/less) sensitive than average to that difference.
> He will certainly find a point where he can no longer audibly
> detect a difference that is still measurable. He will find that
> the value of the parameter measures closer to known thresholds
> at that point, than it did when he *could* hear a difference.
> And then, his reinvention of the wheel will be complete.
>
>
> Or maybe he's just *afraid* of measurements...they can
> brutally reveal one's, er, *personal shortcomings', after all.
>
>
>
>
David Niven's Academy Award refernence noted. :-)

[Powell]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote

>> >>Your suggestion was investigated by L.
>> >>Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51.
>> >>
> Below is a more accurate summary of the article,
> reprinted from an old post I made on RAHE...a
> thread that Dr. Mirabilis also posted to:
>
> 30 foot lengths were used.
>
> 1) monster vs. ....
>
That interesting but 1983 Monster cable is
not really relevant to consumers today.
More than 20 years later some still don't like
the implementation of their cable technology,
do you?

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Steven Sullivan" wrote
>
>>> >>Your suggestion was investigated by L.
>>> >>Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51.
>>> >>
>> Below is a more accurate summary of the article,
>> reprinted from an old post I made on RAHE...a
>> thread that Dr. Mirabilis also posted to:
>>
>> 30 foot lengths were used.
>>
>> 1) monster vs. ....
>>
> That interesting but 1983 Monster cable is
> not really relevant to consumers today.
> More than 20 years later some still don't like
> the implementation of their cable technology,
> do you?

At audio frequencies and with any kind of reasonble speaker load, wire of a
given gauge = wire of a given gauge. Since wire gauges haven't changed
since 1983...

[[email protected]]

Fella wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >>Paul B wrote:
> >>
>
> >>Paul B. again
> >>
> >>>The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly coarse when stepping
> >>>through volume but I wouldn't care to state I could hear even that
> little
> >>>in
> >>>a DB test!
> >>
> >>Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug.
> >>1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found that most of his panel
> >>were unable to distinguish 1,75db difference between the volumes
> >>produced by a thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a signal*
> >>Once again: to follow Sean Olive's investigation; "difference" appears
> >>to be the wrong question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
> >>people can distinguish components. "Which one do you like better?"
> >>(blinded-why not?) is a much better bet. But of course that sounds too
> >>human and not "scientific" enough
> >>Ludovic Mirabel
> >>If this message appears twice in some servers I apologise. Google
> >>accepted it yesterday but failed to post it.
> >
> >
> > It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a lie.
> >
> > ScottW
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fella says:
> How do you know that what Ludovic says is a lie?
>
> Ludovic, can you substantiate this? Can you, for instance, scan those
> pages of strereo review and post them somewhere?

Thank you. I believe that you are genuineinely concerned about truth.
Here is Greenhill's ABX cable test complete. If you want the
whole article go to your Public Library. I don't have the skills (or
patience) to scan a ten page article to google acceptable size, The
table was pain in the neck enough,
There were 15 repeat tests in each line. The numbers stand for the
correct responses (hits) of the panelist A,B, C...etc). "Levels
matched" means that Greenhill adjusted levels ie. volumes where
necessary to compensate for the loss through the thinner cable.
Monster and 16 ga cable were of equal diameter.
Here is Greenhill's table. If it is confusing blame Google. I tried
to arrange it cleanly but could not do any better than this.
SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise
15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
2. Same but levels matched
9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12
12
3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise
13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12
7
4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15

5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music
4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6
10 10
6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music
14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12
10
______________________________________________
% of "hits" in the total of 6 tests 90 tries:
> > 67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50? 83 50


Note the excellent results everybody had with pink noise and abysmal
result with music in test 6. The thicker, 16 gauge Monster conducted
music louder by 1,75 db to the speaker.
I with my old ears have no problem hearing i db difference between rt.
and lt, side. (I have a stepped volume knob on my preamp). The image
shifts immediately away from the centre. Note that Pinkerton in his
offer of a prize for distinguishing cables wants 0,05db match.
To forestall the inevitable silly comment I'll reprint my own old
text:" All the panelists did well comparing uneven diameter cables
when pink noise was played to them. The scores were much worse when
music was used as a signal and became awful when
similar diameters were used. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink
noise. "
I am not going to waste time arguing with Sullivan. His MO. is to say
that he puts you in his killfile when he has to clam up for lack of an
answer. I don't participate in discussions of that kind. And in this
particular case I honestly can not see through his verbiage what
exactly he's trying to say.
My answer to Arny is: if Greenhill is out-of-date where on earth are
the more up to date professional journal acceptable studies? You have
my word that I would read them as openmindedly as possible? In
particular the POSITIVE ones if they ever appear. You'll have a
convert.
But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and death
matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars". Why on earth in the
silly half-informed web debates would one lie to win an argument about
cables or something similar? The web seems to have become a refuge of
all the frustrated sociopaths. I met the kind in my stormy political
youth and they still scare me.
That's why I want to take this opportunity to thank Arny for his
honesty in his text in this thread and - can an immigrant use an
old-fashioned English word- gentlemanliness. I apologise for thinking
that he's become unable to rise above the feelings of irrational
hostility to anyone disagreeeing with him. It is a pleasant surprise-
if imitated it would make the web a much saner place.
I'll deal with Scottie when I can bring myself to it. Right now the
stomach is churning at the very thought,
Regards Ludovic Mirabel
..

[Fella]

wrote:

> But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
> furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and death
> matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
> occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars".


Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was
ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar,
not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record.

I am just trying to geniunely understand things. ScottW came across as a
geniunely OK sort of a person to me these latter days. Especially with
the stories about getting together with friends, listening vinyl, etc.
You have always been one of the better arguments of subjectivism here.
So when ScottW called you a liar I just wanted to get to the bottom of
things.

> I'll deal with Scottie when I can bring myself to it.

I don't think you need to anymore.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> My answer to Arny is: if Greenhill
> is out-of-date where on earth are the more up to date
> professional journal acceptable studies?

They are unpublishable because they are too unremarkable. There's no news
value in finding that measurable differences of the size that Mirabel as
seized on are audible.

Nobody seems to take the few problems that Greenhill's listeners had
detecting differences too seriously. Greenhill's few problematical tests
AFAIK involved suboptimal program material, questionable listeners, and
cable-swapping with long switching delays. These are strong, well-known
detriments to listener performance.

Anybody who thinks that ABX tests eliminate everybody's ability to hear
differences in the 1-2 dB range need only perform their own tests using
tools and audio files they can download freely from:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/levels/index.htm

I don't have Greenhill's article at my disposal, but here's an "off the top
of my head" comparison of Greenhill's cable tests and the "10 Requirements
For Sensitive and Reliable listening tests" posted at www.pcabx.com :

(1) Program material must include critical passages that enable audible
differences to be most easily heard.

Greenhill's test fail to meet this critreria because he had to pander to the
immature musical tastes of his listeners. They balked at listening to some
musical selections that they didn't like, even though those particular
musical selections might yield more sensitive results.

(2) Listeners must be sensitized to a audible differences, so that if an
audible difference is generated by the equipment, the listener will notice
it and have a useful reaction to it.

Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests included zero formal
listener training.

(3) Listeners must be trained to listen systematically so that audible
problems are heard.

Again, Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests included zero formal
listener training. I have some personal experience with them and they
basically wanted to do things their own way, and not take advantage of what
was known about getting the most sensitive and reliable test results.


(4) Procedures should be "open" to detecting problems that aren't
necessarily technically well-understood or even expected, at this time. A
classic problem with measurements and some listening tests is that each one
focuses on one or only a few problems, allowing others to escape notice.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 3 strikes against them.
(5) We must have confidence that the Unit Under Test (UUT) is
representative of the kind of equipment it represents. In other words the
UUT must not be broken, it must not be appreciably modified in some secret
way, and must not be the wrong make or model, among other things.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 3 strikes against them.

(6) A suitable listening environment must be provided. It can't be too dull,
too bright, too noisy, too reverberant, or too harsh. The speakers and
other components have to be sufficiently free from distortion, the room must
be noise-free, etc..

It is unknown how chaotic things actually were at the time that Greenhill's
Stereo Review cable listening tests were performed. My experience with his
group was that they tended to dissolve into chaos.


(7) Listeners need to be in a good mood for listening, in good physical
condition (no blocked-up ears!), and be well-trained for hearing
deficiencies in the reproduced sound.

It is unknown how motivated the listener's were at the time that Greenhill's
Stereo Review cable listening tests were performed. My experience with his
group was that they tended to have a defeatest attitude about blind tests.


(8) Sample volume levels need to be matched to each other or else the
listeners will perceive differences that are simply due to volume
differences.

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 4 or more strikes against
them.


(9) Non-audible influences need to be controlled so that the listener
reaches his conclusions due to "Just listening".

I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
these particular grounds. But there are already 4 or more strikes against
them.

(10) Listeners should control as many of the aspects of the listening test
as possible. Self-controlled tests usually facilitate this. Most
importantly, they should be able to switch among the alternatives at times
of their choosing. The switchover should be as instantaneous and
non-disruptive as possible.

AFAIK Greenhill's cable tests involved cable-swapping and therefore
prohibited fast switchovers. The listener's lacked fine control over the
listening test.

Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests were highly suboptimal
tests. The ready availability of online tests that meet all 10 requirements
show that the 10 requirements are not unrealistic goals.

Anybody who uses Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests as
examples of blind listening tests is at the best is either badly mislead or
simply is trying to find grounds to criticize blind listening tests at any
cost, not matter how unreasonable their critique is.



An exception or a small number of exceptions obtained under questinable
circumstances does not disprove a rule.



On balance, a lot has been learned about doing proper listening tests since
Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests. I have no doubt that if
Greenhill chose to waste his time by redoing these tests, he'd do things
differently. Remember, these tests happened something like 20 years ago.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:57:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
ups.com
>
>> My answer to Arny is: if Greenhill
>> is out-of-date where on earth are the more up to date
>> professional journal acceptable studies?
>
>They are unpublishable because they are too unremarkable. There's no news
>value in finding that measurable differences of the size that Mirabel as
>seized on are audible.
>
>Nobody seems to take the few problems that Greenhill's listeners had
>detecting differences too seriously. Greenhill's few problematical tests
>AFAIK involved suboptimal program material, questionable listeners, and
>cable-swapping with long switching delays. These are strong, well-known
>detriments to listener performance.

I find it funny that you dismiss this test but haven't done the same
for the Nousaine "Zip tests". Perhaps guys like Mr. Pinkerton should
look at this...

>Anybody who thinks that ABX tests eliminate everybody's ability to hear
>differences in the 1-2 dB range need only perform their own tests using
>tools and audio files they can download freely from:
>
>http://www.pcabx.com/technical/levels/index.htm
>
>I don't have Greenhill's article at my disposal, but here's an "off the top
>of my head" comparison of Greenhill's cable tests and the "10 Requirements
>For Sensitive and Reliable listening tests" posted at www.pcabx.com :
>
>(1) Program material must include critical passages that enable audible
>differences to be most easily heard.
>
>Greenhill's test fail to meet this critreria because he had to pander to the
>immature musical tastes of his listeners. They balked at listening to some
>musical selections that they didn't like, even though those particular
>musical selections might yield more sensitive results.

I'm not sure that the tests fulfilled this criteria. AFAIK, the
selections weren't chosen such "critical passages". However, I'll let
this go at this time.

>(2) Listeners must be sensitized to a audible differences, so that if an
>audible difference is generated by the equipment, the listener will notice
>it and have a useful reaction to it.
>
>Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests included zero formal
>listener training.

No "formal listening". All that was allowed to happen was that the
subjects were allowed to acclimate themselves to the program material.
This certainly isn't the same thing as you mean by "formal listener
training".

>(3) Listeners must be trained to listen systematically so that audible
>problems are heard.
>
>Again, Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests included zero formal
>listener training. I have some personal experience with them and they
>basically wanted to do things their own way, and not take advantage of what
>was known about getting the most sensitive and reliable test results.

No "systematic training".

>(4) Procedures should be "open" to detecting problems that aren't
>necessarily technically well-understood or even expected, at this time. A
>classic problem with measurements and some listening tests is that each one
>focuses on one or only a few problems, allowing others to escape notice.
>
>I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
>these particular grounds. But there are already 3 strikes against them.

Well, we already have two firm strikes and one iffy strike against the
test.

>(5) We must have confidence that the Unit Under Test (UUT) is
>representative of the kind of equipment it represents. In other words the
>UUT must not be broken, it must not be appreciably modified in some secret
>way, and must not be the wrong make or model, among other things.
>
>I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
>these particular grounds. But there are already 3 strikes against them.

No problem here.

>(6) A suitable listening environment must be provided. It can't be too dull,
>too bright, too noisy, too reverberant, or too harsh. The speakers and
>other components have to be sufficiently free from distortion, the room must
>be noise-free, etc..

>It is unknown how chaotic things actually were at the time that Greenhill's
>Stereo Review cable listening tests were performed. My experience with his
>group was that they tended to dissolve into chaos.

Obviously not the case, base on the description of the events.

>(7) Listeners need to be in a good mood for listening, in good physical
>condition (no blocked-up ears!), and be well-trained for hearing
>deficiencies in the reproduced sound.
>
>It is unknown how motivated the listener's were at the time that Greenhill's
>Stereo Review cable listening tests were performed. My experience with his
>group was that they tended to have a defeatest attitude about blind tests.

Obviously there were problems in this regard.

>(8) Sample volume levels need to be matched to each other or else the
>listeners will perceive differences that are simply due to volume
>differences.
>
>I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
>these particular grounds. But there are already 4 or more strikes against
>them.

No apparent problem here - but we have 4 1/2 strikes against the test
already.

>(9) Non-audible influences need to be controlled so that the listener
>reaches his conclusions due to "Just listening".
>
>I see no problems with Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests on
>these particular grounds. But there are already 4 or more strikes against
>them.

Here's the 5 1/2 strike. Obviously, this couldn't have been a "just
listening" environment because of the circumstances described.

>(10) Listeners should control as many of the aspects of the listening test
>as possible. Self-controlled tests usually facilitate this. Most
>importantly, they should be able to switch among the alternatives at times
>of their choosing. The switchover should be as instantaneous and
>non-disruptive as possible.
>
>AFAIK Greenhill's cable tests involved cable-swapping and therefore
>prohibited fast switchovers. The listener's lacked fine control over the
>listening test.

Same problem with the Zip test.

> Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests were highly suboptimal
>tests. The ready availability of online tests that meet all 10 requirements
>show that the 10 requirements are not unrealistic goals.

So now we have 6 1/2 strikes against the Zip test. Therefore, why
bother trotting it out?

>Anybody who uses Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests as
>examples of blind listening tests is at the best is either badly mislead or
>simply is trying to find grounds to criticize blind listening tests at any
>cost, not matter how unreasonable their critique is.

Same with the Zip test.
>
>An exception or a small number of exceptions obtained under questinable
>circumstances does not disprove a rule.

Same with the Zip test.

>On balance, a lot has been learned about doing proper listening tests since
>Greenhill's Stereo Review cable listening tests. I have no doubt that if
>Greenhill chose to waste his time by redoing these tests, he'd do things
>differently. Remember, these tests happened something like 20 years ago.

I guess we can also discount the results that Mr. Krueger trots out on
the ABX web site as well, based on the comments in the above
paragraph.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> Fella wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > >
> > >>Paul B wrote:
> > >>
> >
> > >>Paul B. again
> > >>
> > >>>The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly coarse when stepping
> > >>>through volume but I wouldn't care to state I could hear even that
> > little
> > >>>in
> > >>>a DB test!
> > >>
> > >>Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug.
> > >>1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found that most of his panel
> > >>were unable to distinguish 1,75db difference between the volumes
> > >>produced by a thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a signal*
> > >>Once again: to follow Sean Olive's investigation; "difference" appears
> > >>to be the wrong question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
> > >>people can distinguish components. "Which one do you like better?"
> > >>(blinded-why not?) is a much better bet. But of course that sounds too
> > >>human and not "scientific" enough
> > >>Ludovic Mirabel
> > >>If this message appears twice in some servers I apologise. Google
> > >>accepted it yesterday but failed to post it.
> > >
> > >
> > > It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a lie.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fella says:
> > How do you know that what Ludovic says is a lie?
> >
> > Ludovic, can you substantiate this? Can you, for instance, scan those
> > pages of strereo review and post them somewhere?

> Thank you. I believe that you are genuineinely concerned about truth.
> Here is Greenhill's ABX cable test complete. If you want the
> whole article go to your Public Library. I don't have the skills (or
> patience) to scan a ten page article to google acceptable size, The
> table was pain in the neck enough,
> There were 15 repeat tests in each line. The numbers stand for the
> correct responses (hits) of the panelist A,B, C...etc). "Levels
> matched" means that Greenhill adjusted levels ie. volumes where
> necessary to compensate for the loss through the thinner cable.
> Monster and 16 ga cable were of equal diameter.
> Here is Greenhill's table. If it is confusing blame Google. I tried
> to arrange it cleanly but could not do any better than this.


> SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
> Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
>
2. Same but levels matched> 9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12
> 3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise

> 13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7
> 4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
> 15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15

> 5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music 4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
> 6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music
> 14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10
> ______________________________________________
> % of "hits" in the total of 6 tests 90 tries:
> > > 67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50? 83 50


> Note the excellent results everybody had with pink noise and abysmal
> result with music in test 6.

So, two out of 11 listeners scoring better than chance is 'abysmal'.
"Spin" noted.

In fact, there's nothing particularly unusual about finding that pink noise
reveals system response differences more readily than choral music -- or pretty
much any other music. Even so,two of the listeners were statistically
able to detect the difference with choral music as well -- *if* the system response
was different enough. In the case of 16 vs Monster, it wasn't.

Note, too, that scores tended to be higher for the Monster vs 24g (choral)
than monster vs 16 (choral) even when they didn't individually reach the
p<0.05 level. With more trials some of these listeners may have been
able to score a statistically significant difference. One can confidently
predict that with some training, as per Arny's 10 recommendations,
more would have. That is *unlikely* to be the case with Monster vs. 16,
but of course it would be proper to re-conduct that test too after training.



> The thicker, 16 gauge Monster conducted music louder by 1,75 db to
> the speaker.

And that was more obvious with pink noise than with choral music,
to some but not all of the listeners.


> I with my old ears have no problem hearing i db difference between rt.
> and lt, side. (I have a stepped volume knob on my preamp). The image
> shifts immediately away from the centre. Note that Pinkerton in his
> offer of a prize for distinguishing cables wants 0,05db match.

Indeed, because of those two listeners who *were* more sensitive than the
others, to level differences. You don't know in advance who will and will not
'hear' that, so you set the bar reasonably high enough that it doesn't
matter.

It's obvious to any scientist Greenhill's results simply *confirm* the
need to level match.



> To forestall the inevitable silly comment I'll reprint my own old
> text:" All the panelists did well comparing uneven diameter cables
> when pink noise was played to them. The scores were much worse when
> music was used as a signal and became awful when
> similar diameters were used. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink
> noise. "


The scores were not *uniformly* worse. In fact the scores were
almost uniformly *better* whenever 24 guage was used --
and two listeners still scoring better than chance regardless of
sound samples used. That is sufficient evidence that the two
cables were *different* -- a result that you have claimed, btw,
never occurs in audio gear ABX tests.


> I am not going to waste time arguing with Sullivan. His MO. is to say
> that he puts you in his killfile when he has to clam up for lack of an
> answer. I don't participate in discussions of that kind. And in this
> particular case I honestly can not see through his verbiage what
> exactly he's trying to say.


Dr. Mirabilis, I have backtracked to this post because I see others
swallowing your codswallop whole on this thread, and I'm setting
the record straight.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >>
> >>> Paul B wrote:
> >>>
> >
> >>> Paul B. again
> >>>
> >>>> The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly
> >>>> coarse when stepping through volume but I wouldn't
> >>>> care to state I could hear even that little in
> >>>> a DB test!
> >>>
> >>> Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo
> >>> Review, Aug. 1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found
> >>> that most of his panel were unable to distinguish
> >>> 1,75db difference between the volumes produced by a
> >>> thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a
> >>> signal* Once again: to follow Sean Olive's
> >>> investigation; "difference" appears to be the wrong
> >>> question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
> >>> people can distinguish components. "Which one do you
> >>> like better?" (blinded-why not?) is a much better bet.
> >>> But of course that sounds too human and not
> >>> "scientific" enough

> >>> Ludovic Mirabel

> >>> If this message appears twice in some servers I
> >>> apologise. Google accepted it yesterday but failed to
> >>> post it.

> >> It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a
> >> lie.

> I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
> account is factually correct.


I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
floobylovers bull**** about it.


> Mirabel's error is that he lives in the past and he sets the bar for proof
> related to DBTs far higher than he sets the bar for his golden-eared
> beliefs.


Typical of his kind. For every article like Greenhill's, there are
dozens if not hundreds of claims of difference in audiophilia
that are based on far flimsier methodology. And his own 'comparisons'
are doubtless no better. So why can't he just admit that unless he's
controlled for standard biases, his own claims of difference are
potentially colored by the same frailties we all share? It's not
so hard to say, 'I might have been imagining what I heard, I can't
know for sure, based on how I did the comparison.'






--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[John Atkinson]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
> > I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
> > account is factually correct.
>
> I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
> floobylovers bull**** about it.

As I have pointed out before, you need to take care reading this
article,
as subsequent discussion with Dr. Greenhill revealed that much of the
published analysis of the data and the resultant editorializing that
appeared under his byline was not written by Greenhill. Instead,
it was written by some of the editors of Stereo Review, particularly,
I understand, by the magazine's long-time technical editor David
Ranada who, sadly, left SR's succesor, Sound & Vision, last week,
along with editor Bob Ankosko and other members of staff.

The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text were examined
at length in International Audio Review and Stereophile in the
mid-1980s,
whose editors were supplied copies of the original manuscript.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

Good god, man, you actually post in that cesspool?! I refuse to,
although I do flip to it occasionally just to see if there's anything
besides the usual filth. I'm amused to find my old friend Elmer there.
He used to take umbrage at even the slightest off-color remark. I guess
if you're desperate to be heard, you'll put up with anything.

To save wear and tear on your fax machine, you might refer people to
this page, from which they can download the article;

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/wisdom.html

bob

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>Note, too, that scores tended to be higher for the Monster vs 24g (choral)
>than monster vs 16 (choral) even when they didn't individually reach the
>p<0.05 level. With more trials some of these listeners may have been
>able to score a statistically significant difference.

So, did you offer the same sort of insight after the "Zip test", when
the test had to be terminated early, right in the middle of a trend
that Zip was displaying towords showing a positive difference between
amps? Seems like the box malfunctioned right at the point where he was
becoming a "trained listener"...

[Steven Sullivan]

John Atkinson > wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Arny Krueger > wrote:
> > > I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
> > > account is factually correct.
> >
> > I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
> > floobylovers bull**** about it.

> As I have pointed out before, you need to take care reading this
> article,
> as subsequent discussion with Dr. Greenhill revealed that much of the
> published analysis of the data and the resultant editorializing that
> appeared under his byline was not written by Greenhill. Instead,
> it was written by some of the editors of Stereo Review, particularly,
> I understand, by the magazine's long-time technical editor David
> Ranada who, sadly, left SR's succesor, Sound & Vision, last week,
> along with editor Bob Ankosko and other members of staff.

I'm not surprised at his departure; he was being preposterously
under-represented in the 'new' S&V. I hope he finds a journalistic
home where his work will be better appreciated.


> The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text were examined
> at length in International Audio Review and Stereophile in the
> mid-1980s,
> whose editors were supplied copies of the original manuscript.


Dr. Greenhill also wrote/writes for Stereophile, no? What's
his opinion today of the audibility of cable difference?
Specifically, does he believe that audible differences exist
where standard measurements do not support such likelihood?

Do *you* believe that, for that matter?




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:

> >Note, too, that scores tended to be higher for the Monster vs 24g (choral)
> >than monster vs 16 (choral) even when they didn't individually reach the
> >p<0.05 level. With more trials some of these listeners may have been
> >able to score a statistically significant difference.

> So, did you offer the same sort of insight after the "Zip test", when
> the test had to be terminated early, right in the middle of a trend
> that Zip was displaying towords showing a positive difference between
> amps? Seems like the box malfunctioned right at the point where he was
> becoming a "trained listener"...

'Zip' was free to retake the test if he wanted to. But 'Zip' also claimed
to have considerable experience with his 'reference' amp, and had
already claimed to be able to tell it from others by listening. IIRC 'Zip'
also agreed,*at first*, that he hadn't passed. A week or so later, he decided it
was *all wrong*.





--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >>
>> >>> Paul B wrote:
>> >>>
>> >
>> >>> Paul B. again
>> >>>
>> >>>> The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly
>> >>>> coarse when stepping through volume but I wouldn't
>> >>>> care to state I could hear even that little in
>> >>>> a DB test!
>> >>>
>> >>> Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo
>> >>> Review, Aug. 1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found
>> >>> that most of his panel were unable to distinguish
>> >>> 1,75db difference between the volumes produced by a
>> >>> thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a
>> >>> signal* Once again: to follow Sean Olive's
>> >>> investigation; "difference" appears to be the wrong
>> >>> question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
>> >>> people can distinguish components. "Which one do you
>> >>> like better?" (blinded-why not?) is a much better bet.
>> >>> But of course that sounds too human and not
>> >>> "scientific" enough
>
>> >>> Ludovic Mirabel
>
>> >>> If this message appears twice in some servers I
>> >>> apologise. Google accepted it yesterday but failed to
>> >>> post it.
>
>> >> It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a
>> >> lie.
>
>> I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
>> account is factually correct.
>
>
> I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
> floobylovers bull**** about it.
>

You might also want to alert people to the fact that this was a test between
24 gauge zip, 16 gauge zip, and early Monster Cable which professed nothing
more than to be a good quality 14 or16 gauge (depending on model) zip,
albeit at a high price (moderate by today's standards). Is it surprising
that the test between the "16's" didn't show a difference?
Does that have any direct applicability to more esoteric speaker cables of
the last ten years?

Not that the test is invalid, perhaps just your use of it. I think Lud's
point is
that with music, even the 24 vs 16 gauge test with a 1.75 db difference
didn't show a difference,
especially if you take the entire panel into account which you need to do if
you want to draw any "universal" conclusions.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:49:38 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>dave weil > wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> > wrote:
>
>> >Note, too, that scores tended to be higher for the Monster vs 24g (choral)
>> >than monster vs 16 (choral) even when they didn't individually reach the
>> >p<0.05 level. With more trials some of these listeners may have been
>> >able to score a statistically significant difference.
>
>> So, did you offer the same sort of insight after the "Zip test", when
>> the test had to be terminated early, right in the middle of a trend
>> that Zip was displaying towords showing a positive difference between
>> amps? Seems like the box malfunctioned right at the point where he was
>> becoming a "trained listener"...
>
>'Zip' was free to retake the test if he wanted to.

And the proctors were free to extend the testing to meet your new
criteria as well. So what's your point? Are you now claiming things
that aren'tin evidence, because that's what it seems here. "May have
been able..." falls under the umbrella of pure unfounded speculation.
Zip *may* have also been able to score a statistically significant
difference as well, and there's more support for that opinion when you
look at the trending of his scores. Still, I wouldn't claim it as
anything other than a partially founded speculation itself.

> But 'Zip' also claimed
>to have considerable experience with his 'reference' amp, and had
>already claimed to be able to tell it from others by listening.

So, are you now saying that all you have to do to be a "trained
listener" is to claim that you can tell the difference (or not, as the
case may be)?

> IIRC 'Zip'
>also agreed,*at first*, that he hadn't passed. A week or so later, he decided it
>was *all wrong*.

Well, you can look at the test scores and see a marked improvement the
second day, when the box suddently malfunctioned. It looks to me as if
he was "learning" at that time. But, before you accuse me of it, I'm
not claiming anything sinister about the box not operating as it was
supposed to. It just happened.

BTW, here's the initial report, with the test results:

http://tinyurl.com/a976n

He goes from 3 of 10 to 5 of 10 the next day. On his wife's FIRST (and
only) taking of the test, she scored 9 out of 16. If we use your
logic, either might have been able to improve their score, and it
looked like Zip was certainly doing just that.

Just going by your own standards here, Mr. Sullivan.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> You might also want to alert people to the fact that this
> was a test between 24 gauge zip, 16 gauge zip, and early
> Monster Cable which professed nothing more than to be a
> good quality 14 or16 gauge (depending on model) zip,
> albeit at a high price (moderate by today's standards).

Here's more evidence of Harry Lavo's technical incompetence - he thinks that
there's more to speaker wire than amount of copper per foot and modest
proximity between the two conductors (IOW modest or lower impedance).

> Is it surprising that the test between the "16's" didn't
> show a difference?

There's nothing that can be done to 16 gauge zip cord but make it too long
or make it worse.

> Does that have any direct applicability to more esoteric
> speaker cables of the last ten years?
>
> Not that the test is invalid, perhaps just your use of
> it. I think Lud's point is
> that with music, even the 24 vs 16 gauge test with a 1.75
> db difference didn't show a difference,

Just shows that even with golden ears having their way, peeing in the soup,
and getting long term, slow-switched sessions with music designed to tickle
their ears as opposed to revealing differences, no joy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message


> 'Zip' was free to retake the test if he wanted to.

Not only that, but Zip essentially dictated how the test was done.

> But 'Zip' also claimed
> to have considerable experience with his 'reference' amp,

It was "mind-blowingly" better, right? Well, something like that.

> and had already claimed to be able to tell it from others by
> listening.

Check google for the details.

> IIRC 'Zip' also agreed,*at first*, that he hadn't passed.

Check google for the details.

> A week or so later, he decided it was *all wrong*.

Check google for the details.

Zip was just another golden ear dissembling. Hardly news at all.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>>> >>Your suggestion was investigated by L.
>>>> >>Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51.
>>>> >>
>>> Below is a more accurate summary of the article,
>>> reprinted from an old post I made on RAHE...a
>>> thread that Dr. Mirabilis also posted to:
>>>
>>> 30 foot lengths were used.
>>>
>>> 1) monster vs. ....
>>>
>> That interesting but 1983 Monster cable is
>> not really relevant to consumers today.
>> More than 20 years later some still don't like
>> the implementation of their cable technology,
>> do you?
>
> At audio frequencies and with any kind of reasonble
> speaker load, wire of a given gauge = wire of a
> given gauge. Since wire gauges haven't changed
> since 1983...
>
If I could suspend my disbeliefs in exchange for
a nineteenth century viewpoint of physic, your
statement might be true. To do this I would
need to forget about the advances in computer
modeling not available in 1983, advances in
material science, manufacturing techniques,
improvement in overall equipment standards
and the volumes of cable reviews written in
audio magazines. I’m sorry, I don’t think that
I could dumb-down that far, Arny. :)

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:46:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

>
>> 'Zip' was free to retake the test if he wanted to.
>
>Not only that, but Zip essentially dictated how the test was done.
>
>> But 'Zip' also claimed
>> to have considerable experience with his 'reference' amp,
>
>It was "mind-blowingly" better, right? Well, something like that.
>
>> and had already claimed to be able to tell it from others by
>> listening.
>
>Check google for the details.
>
>> IIRC 'Zip' also agreed,*at first*, that he hadn't passed.
>
>Check google for the details.
>
>> A week or so later, he decided it was *all wrong*.
>
>Check google for the details.
>
>Zip was just another golden ear dissembling. Hardly news at all.

None of this affects the fact that the tests never even came close to
conforming to your own strictures.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>>> >>Your suggestion was investigated by L.
>>>>> >>Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51.
>>>>> >>
>>>> Below is a more accurate summary of the article,
>>>> reprinted from an old post I made on RAHE...a
>>>> thread that Dr. Mirabilis also posted to:
>>>>
>>>> 30 foot lengths were used.
>>>>
>>>> 1) monster vs. ....
>>>>
>>> That interesting but 1983 Monster cable is
>>> not really relevant to consumers today.
>>> More than 20 years later some still don't like
>>> the implementation of their cable technology,
>>> do you?
>>
>> At audio frequencies and with any kind of reasonble
>> speaker load, wire of a given gauge = wire of a
>> given gauge. Since wire gauges haven't changed
>> since 1983...
>>
> If I could suspend my disbeliefs in exchange for
> a nineteenth century viewpoint of physics, your
> statement might be true.

Right, that would require about 2 millenia of advancement on your part,
Powell.

> To do this I would
> need to forget about the advances in computer
> modeling not available in 1983, advances in
> material science, manufacturing techniques,
> improvement in overall equipment standards
> and the volumes of cable reviews written in
> audio magazines.

The inclusion of the last item sets the pace for the rest of your comment,
Powell. Something about the blind leading the blind.

> I’m sorry, I don’t think that I could dumb-down that far, Arny. :)

Right, Powell. For you to understand how cables really work would take a lot
of development in the opposite directiong.

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:


> swallowing your codswallop

Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > swallowing your codswallop
>
> Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps

For all we know, he's talking about Kroo****s. Pending the results of
appropriately calibrated DBTs, of course.

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:49:38 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:

> >dave weil > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >> >Note, too, that scores tended to be higher for the Monster vs 24g (choral)
> >> >than monster vs 16 (choral) even when they didn't individually reach the
> >> >p<0.05 level. With more trials some of these listeners may have been
> >> >able to score a statistically significant difference.
> >
> >> So, did you offer the same sort of insight after the "Zip test", when
> >> the test had to be terminated early, right in the middle of a trend
> >> that Zip was displaying towords showing a positive difference between
> >> amps? Seems like the box malfunctioned right at the point where he was
> >> becoming a "trained listener"...
> >
> >'Zip' was free to retake the test if he wanted to.

> And the proctors were free to extend the testing to meet your new
> criteria as well. So what's your point? Are you now claiming things
> that aren'tin evidence, because that's what it seems here. "May have
> been able..." falls under the umbrella of pure unfounded speculation.
> Zip *may* have also been able to score a statistically significant
> difference as well, and there's more support for that opinion when you
> look at the trending of his scores. Still, I wouldn't claim it as
> anything other than a partially founded speculation itself.


Sir, I use the word 'may' for a reason. Please don't disregard
the rhetorical care I've taken to not *over*claim. Zip indeed
'may' have done better too with repeated trials -- performance
on one trial does not *determine* performance on another in
any absolute way -- but I'm also noting that the conditions of
Zipser's test were different from Greenhill's a some important ways,
which suggest he *may* never have done better. Namely, that
he had already 'trained' on his reference amp, and he helped determine
the conditions he felt would optimize his performance on the test.

Of course, he later claimed he was suffering from a *hangover*....



> > But 'Zip' also claimed
> >to have considerable experience with his 'reference' amp, and had
> >already claimed to be able to tell it from others by listening.

> So, are you now saying that all you have to do to be a "trained
> listener" is to claim that you can tell the difference (or not, as the
> case may be)?

No, but it certainly tends to help performance in a blind listening test...
if there is a real difference. Psychoacoustics and market research often
uses training sessions. Nothing controversial about that.
It's on Arny's list too. Zip, for that matter, was allowed
to acclimate himself repeatedly to the 'guest' amp , in sighted
trials during his test. Maki implies that Zip did this until
he felt he could tell them apart. This isn't the same as rigorous
training where differences are introduced then gradually reduced
to threshold, but it's better than nothing.

At the same time, the Greenhill results simply didn't display much that
yells out for retesting, from a science/engineering/psychoacoustics
POV. They rather boringly accorded with what an engineer of
scientist would have expected from the variables being compared.
Wires with physically 'big' differences can be predicted to
sound different (in blind tests)to at least some people, and the
differences can be expected to be apparent to *more* people
when sensitivity-enhancing test signals are used. When levels
are matched, the differences become harder to hear. Alert the media.

The one interesting result was the subject who got 13/15 on the
monster vs 16g, with pink noise. That one was worthy of
retest to see if the result is robust or a fluke. But
certainly one could add more trials to any of the other test
to increase their predictive power. I would like to have seen
25 trials per subject per test, myself.


> > IIRC 'Zip'
> >also agreed,*at first*, that he hadn't passed. A week or so later, he decided it
> >was *all wrong*.

> Well, you can look at the test scores and see a marked improvement the
> second day, when the box suddently malfunctioned. It looks to me as if
> he was "learning" at that time. But, before you accuse me of it, I'm
> not claiming anything sinister about the box not operating as it was
> supposed to. It just happened.

The question underlying your complaint is whether the correct/15 seen in
16 vs 24g, using the same music

Monster vs. 16ga.,choral music
4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
Monster vs. 24ga, choral music
14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10


are more *significantly* different than the correct/10 zip got from day 1
to 2, using a variety of music

3
5


That is, how do differences of 10, 1,4,2,-1,5,1,3,5,2,0 more out of 15
each compare to 2 more out of 10? This requires a different statistical
analysis.


But even before that, perhaps you now see two problem comparing the two
tests.

First, what could account for the difference from day one to 2? It's not
reasonable to attribute a putative change to the *gear* under test,
because that didn't change. In fact you could argue for simply summing the
two days' results together as one test -- (the argument *against* tjat
depends on a claim that an ABX box makes a notable difference in
sensitivity , and should be considered an independent test. *If* you
believe that, btw, one could not help noting that he did a little better
when he used the ABX box. ;> ) In the Greenhill test, the 'gear' under
test DOES change betweem the two sessions, so it's reasonable to propse
that the gear may have been the cause of any putative change. Which is
what I did propose. I didn't claim that the change was proven to be
significant.

Second, in another sense the two tests are different in even more ways.
Between the two Greenhill tests above, there's just one variable from the
subject's POV: the component. In Zipser's, his variables were the
component *and* the test signal. The latter was not varied systematically.


If you want to critize the Zipser trial, where different sound samples
were used *within* a single test, it would be valid to suggest that test
signal should have been controlled for. Perhaps Zip did better with
certain music than others, but AFAIK that analysis wasn't done (and with
the small number of trials vs the multiplicity of music, I doubt it could
have been done.) But it seems to have been Zip's choice to play a variety
of music -- stuff I imagine he felt comfortable and familiar with -- for
sighted warm-up as well as test runs. However, we do have one possible comparison point:
his wife, focusing on just one part of one track -- a more highly
recommended protocol -- got 9/16 on her ABX run: not much better than
Zips' best 5/10. But now we've varied the test subject too.



Maki summed up the test this way:

Conclusion.
The results indicated that in these sessions at least, the Pass amps
could not be distinguished from the Yamaha integrated amp.


Which is close to dead-on. Somewhat more neutral would be: the subjects'
perceptions of audible difference between the Pass amp and Yamaha
integrated were not supported in these sessions.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[ScottW]

"Fella" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote:
>
>> But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
>> furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and death
>> matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
>> occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars".
>
>
> Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was
> ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar,
> not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record.

Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my
classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
>
>
> > swallowing your codswallop
>
> Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps
>
No, Mr. Slick. This is just one frustrated chapel member venting his
spite.
Mind you , it could be worse. At least Sullivan stops at inventing a
funny ha ha name for me: and talking about "codswallop". I wonder how
I earned all this bile? Could it really be that it sticks in his craw
that I am an M.D and a Fellow of the Royal College and a former
researcher in the Medical Research Ccil of Great Britain while he
contributes to news groups. Does seem a little primitive but what is
one to think knowing that once he really took trouble to search for my
credentials (in the wrong place) hoping to prove that I was a fake
because he could not find my name in the U.S. sources where I never
practiced.
At that his is only a mild version of the foam at the mouth fury
of some of his brethren in the in true faith chapel. "Liar" from the
pens of these fanatics for truth the fatuous NYOB and his pal Scottie,
"Lying ****bag" repeated 3 times in one posting from Pinkerton when I
caught him spewing fake references. that had nothing to do with the
subject under discussion.
That is why I feel obliged to note that Krueger, at least in his
arguments with me, kept to the rules of civilised discourse. Which does
not mean that I won't continue fighting him tooth and nail....on paper.
I do wish though he'd stop giving the impression he suspects that most
of those disagreeing with him are in a sinister plot.
Ludovic Mirabel

Not being able to resist argument but unwilling to have
Sullivan go into one of his "I don't have an answer" silent sulks (
Sully sulking. Ha ha- irresistibly funny. Almost as funny as his "Dr.
Mirabilis") I'll say something here about his posting today:

He says: "The scores were not *uniformly* worse".
My sentence was: "uniformly worse when MUSIC was played" (as compared
with pink noise)
Granted anputating crucial sense in this fashion allows you to argue
still standing up. All in a day's work for our local self-nominated
representative of science. Since it seems consistent with his standards
of debate he can have it and keep it.

He continues:
" In fact the scores were
almost uniformly *better* whenever 24 guage was used --
and two listeners still scoring better than chance regardless of
sound samples used. That is sufficient evidence that the two
cables were *different* -- a result that you have claimed, btw,
never occurs in audio gear ABX tests"

It is hard to believe that a man wants to be taken seriously
while attributing such moronisms dug out from the depths of his
distorted psyche to others. I "claimed" that you can "never" get a
"different result".in ABX!!!!.
Just two weeks ago I rereviewed for his benefit the Oakland
ABX website that Sullivan quoted at me twice. For the nth time I
pointed out that the had positive results but only when comparing
badly dissimilar components that a deaf man would have a problem not
hearing.. Of course you have positive results when you compare apples
with oranges or a 24 g wire with a 16 g wire- using man made noise
instead of music.

Now kiddies watch Sullivan tie himself up in knots..
Greenhill's states his statistical criteria thus( loc.cit.p.50) "It is
generally accepted that the threshold at which a phenomenon can be
considered definitely audible is when listeners are aware of it at
least 75% of the time" Did you see it? 75&. Two listeners out of 11
just reached that threshold. I pointed out several times before and
Sullivan must know (am I overestimating him?) that the moderators of
all the other "Stereo Review" and "Audio" ABX component comparions
amalgamated the results and came up with nul, negative majority verdict
while in my opinion the only interesting panelists were those few who
HEARD inspite of the ABX fog. There was quite a discussion about it in
RAHE with Marcus the litigation lawyer putting on a positively last
appearance in this thread telling me how wrong I was
I was severely chastised by the other members and friends
of Sullivan's chapel Ovchain, Pierce, JJ etc. (Quotes on request) The
positive results were just flukes- majority rules, Mirabel doesn't know
what he's talking about.
Lo and behold Suddenly our Sullivan prefers the minority
verdict. At his convenience- when it suits him he finds "sufficient
evidence" in a testimony of two.
more gifted listeners. And he has the brass to charge ME with
neglecting those who did better than the average........
Watch now. .As it happens TWO ( note;also TWO) listeners also
reached this threshold of "hits" when comparing Monster vs. 16 gauge
cable (same diameter- remember?:"wire is wire) in pink noise test. They
HEARD the difference. I don't hear Sullivan applauding:" that is
sufficient evidence that the two cables were different". God forbid.
Cables never are- instant excommunication from the chapel.
I'm just waiting to see how he gets out of this one. Or do we
get another sulk? Bets on for how long anyone?
Sullivan will say whatever spittle brings to his tongue as we
used to say in my native country. Perhaps he underestimates the IQ of
his audience, perhaps he overestimates the effect of his audacity.
And he has the almost incredible brass to say: "Even so,two of
the listeners were statistically able to detect the difference with
choral music as well -- *if* the system response was different enough.
In the case of 16 vs Monster, it wasn't"


A little story from the past: . In my previous postings I
mentioned that one of the participants whom the (so-called) objectivist
Greenhill called a "golden ear" (no doubt tongue-in-cheek) showed that
he could distinguish between cables while ABXing
with results that surpassed. Greenhill's statistical criteria for
validity-.he scored 82% in atotal of 90 tests
You can imagine the outcry!!! Flags were being burnt,
windows broken, revenge sworn. Everyone in the chapel knows that wires
*must not* sound different. It is an article of faith. So they don't. I
was screamed at dozens of times that in DBT testing majority rules. I
thought it was an idiocy and I still do. People differ- that's why
ticks on paper "tests" which do not embrace human variety test only the
abilities of the participants . That's why they are most unlikely to
ever be of slightest use to non-participants.
Now Sullivan emerges and teaches me to respect the
minority that does better!
..:All of a sudden our Sullivan is defending the fact that individuals
with individual abilities, musical exposure etc. matter in a listening
group not the average Tom.Dick and Harry. He is telling this to ME who
has been repeating it again and again.
Did our Sullivan think over what he was doing to the ABX
faith?; If two good ones outweigh the others how can you be sure that
you got a convincing negative DBT ever? "No difference" to anyone in
the panel you collected this time?. How can you be certain, but truly
CERTAIN that somewhere there isn't a guy or a girl who hear the
difference, Or a whole slew of them? Virtuosi, conductors, Jenn et al?
He may change tactics and invoke measurements? But
Sullivan, my boy. if the mesurements tell you everything you need to
know why pester people with your "test". Are you a collector of
negatives? So far you can not reference one, single ABX component
comparison with a positive outcome by the majority of listeners
published in any reputable scientific journal. Not even about
loudspeakers (See Sean Olive's text).
Sullivan do you see where you got your ABX. by defending individual
results as distinct from the group?? Arny would never dig that hole for
himself.
With friends like NYOB, ScottW and you he doesn't need enemies.
Could it be that you reached your competence level some time ago and
that it is all the way downhill from now on?
..
Ludovic Mirabel



>

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:50:51 -0800, "Scott "broken record"W"
> wrote:

>
> Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
>misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my
>classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
>before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself.

Don't you have some Hispanic to arrest or something?

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:50:51 -0800, "Scott "broken record"W"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
>>misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my
>>classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
>>before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself.
>
> Don't you have some Hispanic to arrest or something?

How could you work if the kitchen was closed?

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:26:50 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:50:51 -0800, "Scott "broken record"W"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
>>>misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my
>>>classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
>>>before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself.
>>
>> Don't you have some Hispanic to arrest or something?
>
> How could you work if the kitchen was closed?

None of our kitchen people live in your state.

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > swallowing your codswallop
>>
>> Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps
>>
> No, Mr. Slick. This is just one frustrated chapel member venting his
> spite.
> Mind you , it could be worse. At least Sullivan stops at inventing a
> funny ha ha name for me: and talking about "codswallop". I wonder how
> I earned all this bile? Could it really be that it sticks in his craw
> that I am an M.D and a Fellow of the Royal College and a former
> researcher in the Medical Research Ccil of Great Britain while he
> contributes to news groups. Does seem a little primitive but what is
> one to think knowing that once he really took trouble to search for my
> credentials (in the wrong place) hoping to prove that I was a fake
> because he could not find my name in the U.S. sources where I never
> practiced.
> At that his is only a mild version of the foam at the mouth fury
> of some of his brethren in the in true faith chapel. "Liar" from the
> pens of these fanatics for truth the fatuous NYOB and his pal Scottie,
> "Lying ****bag" repeated 3 times in one posting from Pinkerton when I
> caught him spewing fake references. that had nothing to do with the
> subject under discussion.
> That is why I feel obliged to note that Krueger, at least in his
> arguments with me, kept to the rules of civilised discourse. Which does
> not mean that I won't continue fighting him tooth and nail....on paper.
> I do wish though he'd stop giving the impression he suspects that most
> of those disagreeing with him are in a sinister plot.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Not being able to resist argument but unwilling to have
> Sullivan go into one of his "I don't have an answer" silent sulks (
> Sully sulking. Ha ha- irresistibly funny. Almost as funny as his "Dr.
> Mirabilis") I'll say something here about his posting today:
>
> He says: "The scores were not *uniformly* worse".
> My sentence was: "uniformly worse when MUSIC was played" (as compared
> with pink noise)
> Granted anputating crucial sense in this fashion allows you to argue
> still standing up. All in a day's work for our local self-nominated
> representative of science. Since it seems consistent with his standards
> of debate he can have it and keep it.
>
> He continues:
> " In fact the scores were
> almost uniformly *better* whenever 24 guage was used --
> and two listeners still scoring better than chance regardless of
> sound samples used. That is sufficient evidence that the two
> cables were *different* -- a result that you have claimed, btw,
> never occurs in audio gear ABX tests"
>
> It is hard to believe that a man wants to be taken seriously
> while attributing such moronisms dug out from the depths of his
> distorted psyche to others. I "claimed" that you can "never" get a
> "different result".in ABX!!!!.
> Just two weeks ago I rereviewed for his benefit the Oakland
> ABX website that Sullivan quoted at me twice. For the nth time I
> pointed out that the had positive results but only when comparing
> badly dissimilar components that a deaf man would have a problem not
> hearing.. Of course you have positive results when you compare apples
> with oranges or a 24 g wire with a 16 g wire- using man made noise
> instead of music.
>
> Now kiddies watch Sullivan tie himself up in knots..
> Greenhill's states his statistical criteria thus( loc.cit.p.50) "It is
> generally accepted that the threshold at which a phenomenon can be
> considered definitely audible is when listeners are aware of it at
> least 75% of the time" Did you see it? 75&. Two listeners out of 11
> just reached that threshold. I pointed out several times before and
> Sullivan must know (am I overestimating him?) that the moderators of
> all the other "Stereo Review" and "Audio" ABX component comparions
> amalgamated the results and came up with nul, negative majority verdict
> while in my opinion the only interesting panelists were those few who
> HEARD inspite of the ABX fog. There was quite a discussion about it in
> RAHE with Marcus the litigation lawyer putting on a positively last
> appearance in this thread telling me how wrong I was
> I was severely chastised by the other members and friends
> of Sullivan's chapel Ovchain, Pierce, JJ etc. (Quotes on request) The
> positive results were just flukes- majority rules, Mirabel doesn't know
> what he's talking about.
> Lo and behold Suddenly our Sullivan prefers the minority
> verdict. At his convenience- when it suits him he finds "sufficient
> evidence" in a testimony of two.
> more gifted listeners. And he has the brass to charge ME with
> neglecting those who did better than the average........
> Watch now. .As it happens TWO ( note;also TWO) listeners also
> reached this threshold of "hits" when comparing Monster vs. 16 gauge
> cable (same diameter- remember?:"wire is wire) in pink noise test. They
> HEARD the difference.

Same diameter my ass..... look at this pdf page 3
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Greenhill.pdf

The monster cable looks to be 12 gauge equivalent.
Resistance measurements for a 30 foot run are .09 ohms
vs .24 ohms for the 16 gauge.

Ludo... you are simply not to be trusted... and thats putting it politely.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:26:50 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:50:51 -0800, "Scott "broken record"W"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
>>>>misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for
>>>>my
>>>>classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
>>>>before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat
>>>>himself.
>>>
>>> Don't you have some Hispanic to arrest or something?
>>
>> How could you work if the kitchen was closed?
>
> None of our kitchen people live in your state.

Save the heartland... Ca. is already lost, even the waiters are hispanic.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:05:45 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> Save the heartland... Ca. is already lost, even the waiters are hispanic.

Then your son is lost.

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> > ScottW wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> > wrote in message
>>> >> ups.com...
>>> >>
>>> >>> Paul B wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> >>> Paul B. again
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly
>>> >>>> coarse when stepping through volume but I wouldn't
>>> >>>> care to state I could hear even that little in
>>> >>>> a DB test!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo
>>> >>> Review, Aug. 1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found
>>> >>> that most of his panel were unable to distinguish
>>> >>> 1,75db difference between the volumes produced by a
>>> >>> thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a
>>> >>> signal* Once again: to follow Sean Olive's
>>> >>> investigation; "difference" appears to be the wrong
>>> >>> question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
>>> >>> people can distinguish components. "Which one do you
>>> >>> like better?" (blinded-why not?) is a much better bet.
>>> >>> But of course that sounds too human and not
>>> >>> "scientific" enough
>>
>>> >>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>
>>> >>> If this message appears twice in some servers I
>>> >>> apologise. Google accepted it yesterday but failed to
>>> >>> post it.
>>
>>> >> It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a
>>> >> lie.
>>
>>> I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that
>>> Mirabel's
>>> account is factually correct.
>>
>>
>> I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
>> floobylovers bull**** about it.
>>
>
> You might also want to alert people to the fact that this was a test
> between
> 24 gauge zip, 16 gauge zip, and early Monster Cable which professed
> nothing
> more than to be a good quality 14 or16 gauge (depending on model) zip,
> albeit at a high price (moderate by today's standards). Is it surprising
> that the test between the "16's" didn't show a difference?
> Does that have any direct applicability to more esoteric speaker cables of
> the last ten years?
>
> Not that the test is invalid, perhaps just your use of it. I think Lud's
> point is
> that with music, even the 24 vs 16 gauge test with a 1.75 db difference
> didn't show a difference,
> especially if you take the entire panel into account which you need to do
> if
> you want to draw any "universal" conclusions.
>
>
Perhaps if more people got the message that music is not always the best
type of signal to use for difference testing, it would become clearer why
nobody heard a 1.75 difference. Using Pink Noise would have been a uch
better and more revealing way to have discovered that kind of spl differnce.
Instead those who recomend using anything other than music are mocked and
called metrons or some such.

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> "Fella" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > wrote:
> >
> >> But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
> >> furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and death
> >> matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
> >> occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars".
> >
> > Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was
> > ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar,
> > not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record.
>
> Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
> misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my
> classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
> before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself.
>
> ScottW

Scottie seems to think that everyone has no other life
to
live but like he lives and breathes lurking in the undergrowth of the
web waiting for an opportunity to yap at someone.
Reluctantly and feeling somewhat nauseated I had to
answer his semiliterate efforts several times before. Every time the
answer was followed by a couple of weeks silence. Then a new clever,
clever trap would be sprung quoting past failures as though they
were victories.
So in his phrase: "for the record". He started by
accusing me of
"hypocrisy" about Greenhill article. My hypocrisy consisted of quoting
one
of the participants 82% accuracy score, when distinguishing between
cables and repeating Greenhill's description of him as "golden ear".-
This was my reason for criticising the "Stereo Review"
writers'
invariable conclusions that the outcome of their ABX tests were
negative
ignoring individuals such as the "golden ear'". The distinction between

*quoting* and expressing an opinion about the quote was too
sophisticated for Scottie. He called it "hypocrisy"
It also became quite obvious that he was not
familiar with
the meaning of "reference".. After I gave the precise Journal, volume,
names of writers, title and dates reference to an article he wanted me
to copy all of it for his benefit. He claimed that he could not find a
Public Library in the City of San Diego!!! Obviously he never visited
one.
And he has not done so to-date while he has the temerity to pontificate

about subjects he simply does not understand.
His next effort culminated in calling me a liar
over Olive's
article. This was based truly incredibly on one sentence that I chose
to
quote. Once again, equally incredibly, instead of finding and reading
the
original he wanted me to post it to him.
Basing himself on that one sentence this
illiterate buffoon
had the temerity to call me a liar, and repeat it because I said that
Olive's
panel *performed badly when asked to discriminate between components
and much better when asked simply " which one do you prefer?"
So here- reluctantly (because I hate typing nearly
as much
as I hate stupidity)- is more from Olive's article: (JAES, vol.51, #9,
Sept.2003, pps. 806-825)
" "The loudspeaker preferences AND PERFORMANCE of these listeners
were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant
differences IN PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different
categories of listeners.. The trained listeners were the most
discriminating and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27 times
higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES
ASIDE loudspeaker PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT across all
categories of listeners...."
FURTHER:
He says also " PERFORMANCE AND preference " in the very title of
his article. And defines his index of performance so that there is no
ambiguity thusly: ""This metric accounts for the listeners'
ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings expressed in the denominator."
In the future if Scottie yaps again I'll just
requote this text.
Life is to short to deal with Scotties of this world again and again.
Ludovic Mirabel.

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
>> >> furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and
>> >> death
>> >> matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
>> >> occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars".
>> >
>> > Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was
>> > ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar,
>> > not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record.
>>
>> Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
>> misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for
>> my
>> classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
>> before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat
>> himself.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> Scottie seems to think that everyone has no other life
> to
> live but like he lives and breathes lurking in the undergrowth of the
> web waiting for an opportunity to yap at someone.
> Reluctantly and feeling somewhat nauseated I had to
> answer his semiliterate efforts several times before. Every time the
> answer was followed by a couple of weeks silence. Then a new clever,
> clever trap would be sprung quoting past failures as though they
> were victories.
> So in his phrase: "for the record". He started by
> accusing me of
> "hypocrisy" about Greenhill article. My hypocrisy consisted of quoting
> one
> of the participants 82% accuracy score, when distinguishing between
> cables and repeating Greenhill's description of him as "golden ear".-
> This was my reason for criticising the "Stereo Review"
> writers'
> invariable conclusions that the outcome of their ABX tests were
> negative
> ignoring individuals such as the "golden ear'". The distinction between
>
> *quoting* and expressing an opinion about the quote was too
> sophisticated for Scottie. He called it "hypocrisy"
> It also became quite obvious that he was not
> familiar with
> the meaning of "reference".. After I gave the precise Journal, volume,
> names of writers, title and dates reference to an article he wanted me
> to copy all of it for his benefit. He claimed that he could not find a
> Public Library in the City of San Diego!!! Obviously he never visited
> one.
> And he has not done so to-date while he has the temerity to pontificate
>
> about subjects he simply does not understand.
> His next effort culminated in calling me a liar
> over Olive's
> article. This was based truly incredibly on one sentence that I chose
> to
> quote. Once again, equally incredibly, instead of finding and reading
> the
> original he wanted me to post it to him.
> Basing himself on that one sentence this
> illiterate buffoon
> had the temerity to call me a liar, and repeat it because I said that
> Olive's
> panel *performed badly when asked to discriminate between components
> and much better when asked simply " which one do you prefer?"
> So here- reluctantly (because I hate typing nearly
> as much
> as I hate stupidity)- is more from Olive's article: (JAES, vol.51, #9,
> Sept.2003, pps. 806-825)
> " "The loudspeaker preferences AND PERFORMANCE of these listeners
> were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant
> differences IN PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different
> categories of listeners.. The trained listeners were the most
> discriminating and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27 times
> higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES
> ASIDE loudspeaker PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT across all
> categories of listeners...."
> FURTHER:
> He says also " PERFORMANCE AND preference " in the very title of
> his article. And defines his index of performance so that there is no
> ambiguity thusly: ""This metric accounts for the listeners'
> ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability
> to repeat their ratings expressed in the denominator."
> In the future if Scottie yaps again I'll just
> requote this text.
> Life is to short to deal with Scotties of this world again and again.
> Ludovic Mirabel.

To which I will reply:
Olive said, "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?" "


Now you've gone on and claimed 12 gauge is the same thickness as 16 gauge.

You sure that was a school you attended.... or an asylum?

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
> > "Fella" > wrote in message
> >
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > >
> > >> > wrote in message
> > >> ups.com...
> > >>
> > >>> Paul B wrote:
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> Paul B. again
> > >>>
> > >>>> The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly
> > >>>> coarse when stepping through volume but I wouldn't
> > >>>> care to state I could hear even that little in
> > >>>> a DB test!
> > >>>
> > >>> Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo
> > >>> Review, Aug. 1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found
> > >>> that most of his panel were unable to distinguish
> > >>> 1,75db difference between the volumes produced by a
> > >>> thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a
> > >>> signal* Once again: to follow Sean Olive's
> > >>> investigation; "difference" appears to be the wrong
> > >>> question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
> > >>> people can distinguish components. "Which one do you
> > >>> like better?" (blinded-why not?) is a much better bet.
> > >>> But of course that sounds too human and not
> > >>> "scientific" enough
>
> > >>> Ludovic Mirabel
>
> > >>> If this message appears twice in some servers I
> > >>> apologise. Google accepted it yesterday but failed to
> > >>> post it.
>
> > >> It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a
> > >> lie.
>
> > I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
> > account is factually correct.
>
>
> I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
> floobylovers bull**** about it.
>
>
> > Mirabel's error is that he lives in the past and he sets the bar for proof
> > related to DBTs far higher than he sets the bar for his golden-eared
> > beliefs.
>
>
> Typical of his kind. For every article like Greenhill's, there are
> dozens if not hundreds of claims of difference in audiophilia
> that are based on far flimsier methodology. And his own 'comparisons'
> are doubtless no better. So why can't he just admit that unless he's
> controlled for standard biases, his own claims of difference are
> potentially colored by the same frailties we all share? It's not
> so hard to say, 'I might have been imagining what I heard, I can't
> know for sure, based on how I did the comparison.'
>
The answer is easy I'm full of biases: my DNA, education,
musical preferences, experience what not. Unique just like the
fingerprints. I. have my likes and dislikes no doubt influenced by my
biases.
I do not claim that my likes and dislikes can be "proved-or disproved-
by a never validated, never properly researched "test." or by any other
"test" still to come..
I'm well aware that I can keep on repeating this till the
cows come home but someone will still pop up and charge me with "making
claims"
Ludovic Mirabel
>
>
>
> --
> -S
> "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Arny Krueger > wrote:
> > > I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
> > > account is factually correct.
> >
> > I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
> > floobylovers bull**** about it.
>
> As I have pointed out before, you need to take care reading this
> article,
> as subsequent discussion with Dr. Greenhill revealed that much of the
> published analysis of the data and the resultant editorializing that
> appeared under his byline was not written by Greenhill. Instead,
> it was written by some of the editors of Stereo Review, particularly,
> I understand, by the magazine's long-time technical editor David
> Ranada who, sadly, left SR's succesor, Sound & Vision, last week,
> along with editor Bob Ankosko and other members of staff.
>
> The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text were examined
> at length in International Audio Review and Stereophile in the
> mid-1980s,
> whose editors were supplied copies of the original manuscript.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Mr. Atkinson, with all due respect this won't do. The issue was raised
before in RAHE with the same non-resolution.
I understand Greenhill is alive and well. Until and unless he corrects
the only text available to the public the contradictory opinions
printed are the only ones we have and can quote.
If he does not care that's his privilege. If he is misquoted that's
ours.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Good god, man, you actually post in that cesspool?! I refuse to,
> although I do flip to it occasionally just to see if there's anything
> besides the usual filth. I'm amused to find my old friend Elmer there.
> He used to take umbrage at even the slightest off-color remark. I guess
> if you're desperate to be heard, you'll put up with anything.
>
> To save wear and tear on your fax machine, you might refer people to
> this page, from which they can download the article;
>
> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/wisdom.html
>
> bob

I have no way of finding out whom you're addressing. I must (for once)
agree with you: RAO is often a cesspool or a medium for mediocre people
ventilating their views about politics, sex and whatever, views their
wives will no longer listen to.
There is nowhere else. I quit RAHE slamming the door after the
transparently biased Il Duce Bates rejected 9 of my postings in a row
for being "repetitive". I had the temerity to argue with people like
eg. you and he, the "objective" moderator, felt compelled to come out
in your defence as a knowledgeable electronics man, which of course
being a lawyer you're not- no more than I. I don't think he ever
forgave me for his discomfiture.
I objected also to his hypocrisy in supposedly banning the DBT topic.
In practice he allowed people left and right to use transparent
synonyms like "bias-free testing" but banned any counter argument for
being about DBT. As a result all the non-party line contributors left
one by one: MKuller, a Dutch guy whose name I no longer rember, Only
the saintly and patient Harry Lavo remains mindinding his manners.
It is all yours. Breathe the clean air.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > swallowing your codswallop
> >>
> >> Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps
> >>
> > No, Mr. Slick. This is just one frustrated chapel member venting his
> > spite.
> > Mind you , it could be worse. At least Sullivan stops at inventing a
> > funny ha ha name for me: and talking about "codswallop". I wonder how
> > I earned all this bile? Could it really be that it sticks in his craw
> > that I am an M.D and a Fellow of the Royal College and a former
> > researcher in the Medical Research Ccil of Great Britain while he
> > contributes to news groups. Does seem a little primitive but what is
> > one to think knowing that once he really took trouble to search for my
> > credentials (in the wrong place) hoping to prove that I was a fake
> > because he could not find my name in the U.S. sources where I never
> > practiced.
> > At that his is only a mild version of the foam at the mouth fury
> > of some of his brethren in the in true faith chapel. "Liar" from the
> > pens of these fanatics for truth the fatuous NYOB and his pal Scottie,
> > "Lying ****bag" repeated 3 times in one posting from Pinkerton when I
> > caught him spewing fake references. that had nothing to do with the
> > subject under discussion.
> > That is why I feel obliged to note that Krueger, at least in his
> > arguments with me, kept to the rules of civilised discourse. Which does
> > not mean that I won't continue fighting him tooth and nail....on paper.
> > I do wish though he'd stop giving the impression he suspects that most
> > of those disagreeing with him are in a sinister plot.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> > Not being able to resist argument but unwilling to have
> > Sullivan go into one of his "I don't have an answer" silent sulks (
> > Sully sulking. Ha ha- irresistibly funny. Almost as funny as his "Dr.
> > Mirabilis") I'll say something here about his posting today:
> >
> > He says: "The scores were not *uniformly* worse".
> > My sentence was: "uniformly worse when MUSIC was played" (as compared
> > with pink noise)
> > Granted anputating crucial sense in this fashion allows you to argue
> > still standing up. All in a day's work for our local self-nominated
> > representative of science. Since it seems consistent with his standards
> > of debate he can have it and keep it.
> >
> > He continues:
> > " In fact the scores were
> > almost uniformly *better* whenever 24 guage was used --
> > and two listeners still scoring better than chance regardless of
> > sound samples used. That is sufficient evidence that the two
> > cables were *different* -- a result that you have claimed, btw,
> > never occurs in audio gear ABX tests"
> >
> > It is hard to believe that a man wants to be taken seriously
> > while attributing such moronisms dug out from the depths of his
> > distorted psyche to others. I "claimed" that you can "never" get a
> > "different result".in ABX!!!!.
> > Just two weeks ago I rereviewed for his benefit the Oakland
> > ABX website that Sullivan quoted at me twice. For the nth time I
> > pointed out that the had positive results but only when comparing
> > badly dissimilar components that a deaf man would have a problem not
> > hearing.. Of course you have positive results when you compare apples
> > with oranges or a 24 g wire with a 16 g wire- using man made noise
> > instead of music.
> >
> > Now kiddies watch Sullivan tie himself up in knots..
> > Greenhill's states his statistical criteria thus( loc.cit.p.50) "It is
> > generally accepted that the threshold at which a phenomenon can be
> > considered definitely audible is when listeners are aware of it at
> > least 75% of the time" Did you see it? 75&. Two listeners out of 11
> > just reached that threshold. I pointed out several times before and
> > Sullivan must know (am I overestimating him?) that the moderators of
> > all the other "Stereo Review" and "Audio" ABX component comparions
> > amalgamated the results and came up with nul, negative majority verdict
> > while in my opinion the only interesting panelists were those few who
> > HEARD inspite of the ABX fog. There was quite a discussion about it in
> > RAHE with Marcus the litigation lawyer putting on a positively last
> > appearance in this thread telling me how wrong I was
> > I was severely chastised by the other members and friends
> > of Sullivan's chapel Ovchain, Pierce, JJ etc. (Quotes on request) The
> > positive results were just flukes- majority rules, Mirabel doesn't know
> > what he's talking about.
> > Lo and behold Suddenly our Sullivan prefers the minority
> > verdict. At his convenience- when it suits him he finds "sufficient
> > evidence" in a testimony of two.
> > more gifted listeners. And he has the brass to charge ME with
> > neglecting those who did better than the average........
> > Watch now. .As it happens TWO ( note;also TWO) listeners also
> > reached this threshold of "hits" when comparing Monster vs. 16 gauge
> > cable (same diameter- remember?:"wire is wire) in pink noise test. They
> > HEARD the difference.
>
> Same diameter my ass..... look at this pdf page 3
> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Greenhill.pdf
>
> The monster cable looks to be 12 gauge equivalent.
> Resistance measurements for a 30 foot run are .09 ohms
> vs .24 ohms for the 16 gauge.
>
> Ludo... you are simply not to be trusted... and thats putting it politely.
>
> ScottW

Scottie says in posting Nr.1:

"The monster cable looks to be 12 gauge equivalent.
Resistance measurements for a 30 foot run are .09 ohms
vs .24 ohms for the 16 gauge.
Ludo... you are simply not to be trusted... and thats
putting it politely."
And in Nr.2:
Olive said, "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?" "

Now you've gone on and claimed 12 gauge is the same
thickness as 16 gauge".

Quite Scottie quite- I said that Olive asked :"Which one
do you like better". In fact he said "prefer" And you trumpeted
that as "Mirabel's lies". You are a card , you are.. Try harder
and you'll find more of my lies like this one.
Now Scottie found another bone to chew at. "It
looks (the Monster) to be 12g" . he said. And I said- 16. Gotcha.
In this latst posting it no longer "looks" .Now it IS 12g-

I have no intention of downloading a long and
boring PDF to find out what the diameter "looks to be". Also
I'm not going to the Public Library just to check Scottie's latest.
Instead I'll run with Scottie's bone. According to
him Greenhill compared a 12 gauge Monster first
against a 24 gauge wire, next against 16g. cable. And NOTE:
He did not, repeat not, match the levels. So: in ALL of his tests
he would get difference in volumes resulting from the difference in
diameters.
In other words according to Scottie Greenhill was completely
out to lunch.. Instead of testing for the perceived difference between
supposed superior *quality* of the Monster vs. zip-cord he tested
the ability of his panel to detect significant volume differences.
He could just as well had used two ordinary wires. Was that his
intention little Scottie dear? Just imagine ; then and in all the years

since no one noticed this fundamental flaw till Scottie spotted it.
And wait: if you're right most of his panel heard no difference
between 50' lengths of Monster and not only 24 but 16 g.cable as
well
See what ABX does to you?.
We now have to decide who is the shoot-myself-in-the-foot
moron- Greenhill or Scottie?
Any bets?
Ludovic Mirabel
I have a suggestion in all kindness.. In the future pick on
adversaries your own minuscule size.

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Fella" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
> >> >> furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and
> >> >> death
> >> >> matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
> >> >> occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars".
> >> >
> >> > Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was
> >> > ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar,
> >> > not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record.
> >>
> >> Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
> >> misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for
> >> my
> >> classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
> >> before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat
> >> himself.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > Scottie seems to think that everyone has no other life
> > to
> > live but like he lives and breathes lurking in the undergrowth of the
> > web waiting for an opportunity to yap at someone.
> > Reluctantly and feeling somewhat nauseated I had to
> > answer his semiliterate efforts several times before. Every time the
> > answer was followed by a couple of weeks silence. Then a new clever,
> > clever trap would be sprung quoting past failures as though they
> > were victories.
> > So in his phrase: "for the record". He started by
> > accusing me of
> > "hypocrisy" about Greenhill article. My hypocrisy consisted of quoting
> > one
> > of the participants 82% accuracy score, when distinguishing between
> > cables and repeating Greenhill's description of him as "golden ear".-
> > This was my reason for criticising the "Stereo Review"
> > writers'
> > invariable conclusions that the outcome of their ABX tests were
> > negative
> > ignoring individuals such as the "golden ear'". The distinction between
> >
> > *quoting* and expressing an opinion about the quote was too
> > sophisticated for Scottie. He called it "hypocrisy"
> > It also became quite obvious that he was not
> > familiar with
> > the meaning of "reference".. After I gave the precise Journal, volume,
> > names of writers, title and dates reference to an article he wanted me
> > to copy all of it for his benefit. He claimed that he could not find a
> > Public Library in the City of San Diego!!! Obviously he never visited
> > one.
> > And he has not done so to-date while he has the temerity to pontificate
> >
> > about subjects he simply does not understand.
> > His next effort culminated in calling me a liar
> > over Olive's
> > article. This was based truly incredibly on one sentence that I chose
> > to
> > quote. Once again, equally incredibly, instead of finding and reading
> > the
> > original he wanted me to post it to him.
> > Basing himself on that one sentence this
> > illiterate buffoon
> > had the temerity to call me a liar, and repeat it because I said that
> > Olive's
> > panel *performed badly when asked to discriminate between components
> > and much better when asked simply " which one do you prefer?"
> > So here- reluctantly (because I hate typing nearly
> > as much
> > as I hate stupidity)- is more from Olive's article: (JAES, vol.51, #9,
> > Sept.2003, pps. 806-825)
> > " "The loudspeaker preferences AND PERFORMANCE of these listeners
> > were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant
> > differences IN PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different
> > categories of listeners.. The trained listeners were the most
> > discriminating and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27 times
> > higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES
> > ASIDE loudspeaker PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT across all
> > categories of listeners...."
> > FURTHER:
> > He says also " PERFORMANCE AND preference " in the very title of
> > his article. And defines his index of performance so that there is no
> > ambiguity thusly: ""This metric accounts for the listeners'
> > ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability
> > to repeat their ratings expressed in the denominator."
> > In the future if Scottie yaps again I'll just
> > requote this text.
> > Life is to short to deal with Scotties of this world again and again.
> > Ludovic Mirabel.
>
> To which I will reply:
> Olive said, "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?" "
>
>
> Now you've gone on and claimed 12 gauge is the same thickness as 16 gauge.
>
> You sure that was a school you attended.... or an asylum?
>
> ScottW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't quote this little gem from Scottie's posting:
> Now you've gone on and claimed 12 gauge is the same thickness as 16 gauge.
>
> You sure that was a school you attended.... or an asylum?
Of course Scottie I did "claim" that 12 equals 16. Doesn't it?
Anything . else you can think of little Scottie? If not, think this
one out. According to you it "looks" that that poor misguided Greenhill
tested the fat 12 g. Monster against very thin 24 g. wire- level
unmatched twice- and then against still thin but less so 16 g. wire
(levels unmatched throughout).
In other words he never compared the Monster against wire of the
same diameter. In other words he made sure that it would always sound
BETTER than ordinary wire. Because higher volume is perceived as
"better". (Ask Uncle Krueger if you never heard of that.).
More: his ABXing audience failed to notice that it was bette and
vote for it as they should.. OObviously poor Greenhill was out to bury
ABX..
.. More: Greenhill's article was discussed ad nauseam in the
succeeding years. And no one asked why would Greenhill do such a mad
thing? Not Atkinson, not Krueger, no one. It waited for you to discover
it.
Don't let the fame go to your head..
Regards Ludovic M.

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > swallowing your codswallop
>> >>
>> >> Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps
>> >>
>> > No, Mr. Slick. This is just one frustrated chapel member venting his
>> > spite.
>> > Mind you , it could be worse. At least Sullivan stops at inventing a
>> > funny ha ha name for me: and talking about "codswallop". I wonder how
>> > I earned all this bile? Could it really be that it sticks in his craw
>> > that I am an M.D and a Fellow of the Royal College and a former
>> > researcher in the Medical Research Ccil of Great Britain while he
>> > contributes to news groups. Does seem a little primitive but what is
>> > one to think knowing that once he really took trouble to search for my
>> > credentials (in the wrong place) hoping to prove that I was a fake
>> > because he could not find my name in the U.S. sources where I never
>> > practiced.
>> > At that his is only a mild version of the foam at the mouth fury
>> > of some of his brethren in the in true faith chapel. "Liar" from the
>> > pens of these fanatics for truth the fatuous NYOB and his pal Scottie,
>> > "Lying ****bag" repeated 3 times in one posting from Pinkerton when I
>> > caught him spewing fake references. that had nothing to do with the
>> > subject under discussion.
>> > That is why I feel obliged to note that Krueger, at least in his
>> > arguments with me, kept to the rules of civilised discourse. Which does
>> > not mean that I won't continue fighting him tooth and nail....on paper.
>> > I do wish though he'd stop giving the impression he suspects that most
>> > of those disagreeing with him are in a sinister plot.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> > Not being able to resist argument but unwilling to have
>> > Sullivan go into one of his "I don't have an answer" silent sulks (
>> > Sully sulking. Ha ha- irresistibly funny. Almost as funny as his "Dr.
>> > Mirabilis") I'll say something here about his posting today:
>> >
>> > He says: "The scores were not *uniformly* worse".
>> > My sentence was: "uniformly worse when MUSIC was played" (as compared
>> > with pink noise)
>> > Granted anputating crucial sense in this fashion allows you to argue
>> > still standing up. All in a day's work for our local self-nominated
>> > representative of science. Since it seems consistent with his standards
>> > of debate he can have it and keep it.
>> >
>> > He continues:
>> > " In fact the scores were
>> > almost uniformly *better* whenever 24 guage was used --
>> > and two listeners still scoring better than chance regardless of
>> > sound samples used. That is sufficient evidence that the two
>> > cables were *different* -- a result that you have claimed, btw,
>> > never occurs in audio gear ABX tests"
>> >
>> > It is hard to believe that a man wants to be taken seriously
>> > while attributing such moronisms dug out from the depths of his
>> > distorted psyche to others. I "claimed" that you can "never" get a
>> > "different result".in ABX!!!!.
>> > Just two weeks ago I rereviewed for his benefit the Oakland
>> > ABX website that Sullivan quoted at me twice. For the nth time I
>> > pointed out that the had positive results but only when comparing
>> > badly dissimilar components that a deaf man would have a problem not
>> > hearing.. Of course you have positive results when you compare apples
>> > with oranges or a 24 g wire with a 16 g wire- using man made noise
>> > instead of music.
>> >
>> > Now kiddies watch Sullivan tie himself up in knots..
>> > Greenhill's states his statistical criteria thus( loc.cit.p.50) "It is
>> > generally accepted that the threshold at which a phenomenon can be
>> > considered definitely audible is when listeners are aware of it at
>> > least 75% of the time" Did you see it? 75&. Two listeners out of 11
>> > just reached that threshold. I pointed out several times before and
>> > Sullivan must know (am I overestimating him?) that the moderators of
>> > all the other "Stereo Review" and "Audio" ABX component comparions
>> > amalgamated the results and came up with nul, negative majority verdict
>> > while in my opinion the only interesting panelists were those few who
>> > HEARD inspite of the ABX fog. There was quite a discussion about it in
>> > RAHE with Marcus the litigation lawyer putting on a positively last
>> > appearance in this thread telling me how wrong I was
>> > I was severely chastised by the other members and friends
>> > of Sullivan's chapel Ovchain, Pierce, JJ etc. (Quotes on request) The
>> > positive results were just flukes- majority rules, Mirabel doesn't know
>> > what he's talking about.
>> > Lo and behold Suddenly our Sullivan prefers the minority
>> > verdict. At his convenience- when it suits him he finds "sufficient
>> > evidence" in a testimony of two.
>> > more gifted listeners. And he has the brass to charge ME with
>> > neglecting those who did better than the average........
>> > Watch now. .As it happens TWO ( note;also TWO) listeners also
>> > reached this threshold of "hits" when comparing Monster vs. 16 gauge
>> > cable (same diameter- remember?:"wire is wire) in pink noise test. They
>> > HEARD the difference.
>>
>> Same diameter my ass..... look at this pdf page 3
>> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Greenhill.pdf
>>
>> The monster cable looks to be 12 gauge equivalent.
>> Resistance measurements for a 30 foot run are .09 ohms
>> vs .24 ohms for the 16 gauge.
>>
>> Ludo... you are simply not to be trusted... and thats putting it
>> politely.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> Scottie says in posting Nr.1:
>
> "The monster cable looks to be 12 gauge equivalent.
> Resistance measurements for a 30 foot run are .09 ohms
> vs .24 ohms for the 16 gauge.
> Ludo... you are simply not to be trusted... and thats
> putting it politely."
> And in Nr.2:
> Olive said, "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?" "
>
> Now you've gone on and claimed 12 gauge is the same
> thickness as 16 gauge".
>
> Quite Scottie quite- I said that Olive asked :"Which one
> do you like better". In fact he said "prefer" And you trumpeted
> that as "Mirabel's lies". You are a card , you are.. Try harder
> and you'll find more of my lies like this one.
> Now Scottie found another bone to chew at. "It
> looks (the Monster) to be 12g" . he said. And I said- 16. Gotcha.
> In this latst posting it no longer "looks" .Now it IS 12g-

It might... might be 14... but it sure as hell is thicker than 16.

>
> I have no intention of downloading a long and
> boring PDF to find out what the diameter "looks to be".

But you have no problem misstating its content.

So your original statement that they were same thickness is
a based upon what? An article you never read.

Ludo, you're an absolute nut. But I think you know that.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> >> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > swallowing your codswallop
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps
> >> >>
> >> > No, Mr. Slick. This is just one frustrated chapel member venting his
> >> > spite.
> >> > Mind you , it could be worse. At least Sullivan stops at inventing a
> >> > funny ha ha name for me: and talking about "codswallop". I wonder how
> >> > I earned all this bile? Could it really be that it sticks in his craw
> >> > that I am an M.D and a Fellow of the Royal College and a former
> >> > researcher in the Medical Research Ccil of Great Britain while he
> >> > contributes to news groups. Does seem a little primitive but what is
> >> > one to think knowing that once he really took trouble to search for my
> >> > credentials (in the wrong place) hoping to prove that I was a fake
> >> > because he could not find my name in the U.S. sources where I never
> >> > practiced.
> >> > At that his is only a mild version of the foam at the mouth fury
> >> > of some of his brethren in the in true faith chapel. "Liar" from the
> >> > pens of these fanatics for truth the fatuous NYOB and his pal Scottie,
> >> > "Lying ****bag" repeated 3 times in one posting from Pinkerton when I
> >> > caught him spewing fake references. that had nothing to do with the
> >> > subject under discussion.
> >> > That is why I feel obliged to note that Krueger, at least in his
> >> > arguments with me, kept to the rules of civilised discourse. Which does
> >> > not mean that I won't continue fighting him tooth and nail....on paper.
> >> > I do wish though he'd stop giving the impression he suspects that most
> >> > of those disagreeing with him are in a sinister plot.
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >
> >> > Not being able to resist argument but unwilling to have
> >> > Sullivan go into one of his "I don't have an answer" silent sulks (
> >> > Sully sulking. Ha ha- irresistibly funny. Almost as funny as his "Dr.
> >> > Mirabilis") I'll say something here about his posting today:
> >> >
> >> > He says: "The scores were not *uniformly* worse".
> >> > My sentence was: "uniformly worse when MUSIC was played" (as compared
> >> > with pink noise)
> >> > Granted anputating crucial sense in this fashion allows you to argue
> >> > still standing up. All in a day's work for our local self-nominated
> >> > representative of science. Since it seems consistent with his standards
> >> > of debate he can have it and keep it.
> >> >
> >> > He continues:
> >> > " In fact the scores were
> >> > almost uniformly *better* whenever 24 guage was used --
> >> > and two listeners still scoring better than chance regardless of
> >> > sound samples used. That is sufficient evidence that the two
> >> > cables were *different* -- a result that you have claimed, btw,
> >> > never occurs in audio gear ABX tests"
> >> >
> >> > It is hard to believe that a man wants to be taken seriously
> >> > while attributing such moronisms dug out from the depths of his
> >> > distorted psyche to others. I "claimed" that you can "never" get a
> >> > "different result".in ABX!!!!.
> >> > Just two weeks ago I rereviewed for his benefit the Oakland
> >> > ABX website that Sullivan quoted at me twice. For the nth time I
> >> > pointed out that the had positive results but only when comparing
> >> > badly dissimilar components that a deaf man would have a problem not
> >> > hearing.. Of course you have positive results when you compare apples
> >> > with oranges or a 24 g wire with a 16 g wire- using man made noise
> >> > instead of music.
> >> >
> >> > Now kiddies watch Sullivan tie himself up in knots..
> >> > Greenhill's states his statistical criteria thus( loc.cit.p.50) "It is
> >> > generally accepted that the threshold at which a phenomenon can be
> >> > considered definitely audible is when listeners are aware of it at
> >> > least 75% of the time" Did you see it? 75&. Two listeners out of 11
> >> > just reached that threshold. I pointed out several times before and
> >> > Sullivan must know (am I overestimating him?) that the moderators of
> >> > all the other "Stereo Review" and "Audio" ABX component comparions
> >> > amalgamated the results and came up with nul, negative majority verdict
> >> > while in my opinion the only interesting panelists were those few who
> >> > HEARD inspite of the ABX fog. There was quite a discussion about it in
> >> > RAHE with Marcus the litigation lawyer putting on a positively last
> >> > appearance in this thread telling me how wrong I was
> >> > I was severely chastised by the other members and friends
> >> > of Sullivan's chapel Ovchain, Pierce, JJ etc. (Quotes on request) The
> >> > positive results were just flukes- majority rules, Mirabel doesn't know
> >> > what he's talking about.
> >> > Lo and behold Suddenly our Sullivan prefers the minority
> >> > verdict. At his convenience- when it suits him he finds "sufficient
> >> > evidence" in a testimony of two.
> >> > more gifted listeners. And he has the brass to charge ME with
> >> > neglecting those who did better than the average........
> >> > Watch now. .As it happens TWO ( note;also TWO) listeners also
> >> > reached this threshold of "hits" when comparing Monster vs. 16 gauge
> >> > cable (same diameter- remember?:"wire is wire) in pink noise test. They
> >> > HEARD the difference.
> >>
> >> Same diameter my ass..... look at this pdf page 3
> >> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Greenhill.pdf
> >>
> >> The monster cable looks to be 12 gauge equivalent.
> >> Resistance measurements for a 30 foot run are .09 ohms
> >> vs .24 ohms for the 16 gauge.
> >>
> >> Ludo... you are simply not to be trusted... and thats putting it
> >> politely.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > Scottie says in posting Nr.1:
> >
> > "The monster cable looks to be 12 gauge equivalent.
> > Resistance measurements for a 30 foot run are .09 ohms
> > vs .24 ohms for the 16 gauge.
> > Ludo... you are simply not to be trusted... and thats
> > putting it politely."
> > And in Nr.2:
> > Olive said, "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?" "
> >
> > Now you've gone on and claimed 12 gauge is the same
> > thickness as 16 gauge".
> >
> > Quite Scottie quite- I said that Olive asked :"Which one
> > do you like better". In fact he said "prefer" And you trumpeted
> > that as "Mirabel's lies". You are a card , you are.. Try harder
> > and you'll find more of my lies like this one.
> > Now Scottie found another bone to chew at. "It
> > looks (the Monster) to be 12g" . he said. And I said- 16. Gotcha.
> > In this latst posting it no longer "looks" .Now it IS 12g-
>
> It might... might be 14... but it sure as hell is thicker than 16.
>
> >
> > I have no intention of downloading a long and
> > boring PDF to find out what the diameter "looks to be".
>

Scottie says:
It might... might be 14... but it sure as hell is thicker than 16.
> I answered:
> > I have no intention of downloading a long and
> > boring PDF to find out what the diameter "looks to be".
>
> But you have no problem misstating its content.
> So your original statement that they were same thickness is
> a based upon what? An article you never read.
> Ludo, you're an absolute nut. But I think you know that.
> ScottW

Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.
It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
text and this is what I found:
"There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
difference between the two cables
(He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
105.2 speakers..

Imjagine, 0,04 db!!!! That old fraud Greenhill!!!.
The undercover agent of the subjectivists in an
objectivist's clothing loading dice shamelessly
in favour of Monster.
He never reckoned that a sleuth like you will get on the
job and find him out. He deserves to lose his
"Stereophile " publisher and to be banned from the
Psychiatric Association for dishonouring it.
And the good old ABX will get another chance when
the new panel listens carefully for 0,04 db. difference.

I'll draw an imaginary profile Scottie. Nothing to
do with you so you don't need to read it.
Little Jimmy in the Kindergarten- shouts: "Miss, Miss Billy
said bad things about you" Billy is a favourite, he can read
already and plays soccer like a professional.
Jimmy at school- firmly in the middle- ambitious beyond
his IQ level and verry, very envious of the top boys.
Jimmy at Univ. Just manages to get a degree maybe
with a year or two delay for repeating failed exams.
A joiner but never too popular- in fact in the coffee room
people say: "I hope this bore does not come here to
harangue us.
Billy discovers the internet. At last he can spout to his
heart content. Main purpose- lurking in the undergroeth
hoping to trip up all those guys giving themselves airs.
"Think they are clever, do they?.I'll show..em"
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.

thank-you.

> It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
> text and this is what I found:

Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..

> "There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
> difference between the two cables
> (He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
> or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
> VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
> 105.2 speakers..

So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
come up different? I don't.

ScottW

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> >>>>> >>Your suggestion was investigated by L.
> >>>>> >>Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51.
> >>>>> >>
> > To do this I would
> > need to forget about the advances in computer
> > modeling not available in 1983, advances in
> > material science, manufacturing techniques,
> > improvement in overall equipment standards
> > and the volumes of cable reviews written in
> > audio magazines.
>
> The inclusion of the last item sets the pace
> for the rest of your comment, Powell.
> Something about the blind leading the blind.
>
Mmmm... Greenhill, Stereo Review that was a
magazine review, no?


> > I’m sorry, I don’t think that I could dumb-down
> > that far, Arny. :)
>
> Right, Powell. For you to understand how cables
> really work would take a lot of development in the
> opposite directiong.
>
Let me sum up your understanding of wire
technology then.

Metallurgy = Metallurgy
Dielectrics = Dielectrics
Geometry = Geometry
Connectors = Connectors
------------------------------
Therefore Wire = Wire

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.
>
> thank-you.
>
> > It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
> > text and this is what I found:
>
> Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..
>
> > "There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
> > difference between the two cables
> > (He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
> > or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
> > VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
> > 105.2 speakers..
>
> So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
> come up different? I don't.
>
> ScottW

The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.
> >
> > thank-you.
> >
> > > It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
> > > text and this is what I found:
> >
> > Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..
> >
> > > "There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
> > > difference between the two cables
> > > (He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
> > > or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
> > > VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
> > > 105.2 speakers..
> >
> > So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
> > come up different? I don't.
> >
> > ScottW
>
> The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
> was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
> metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
> Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
> to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
> Ludovic Mirabel

Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears when
his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
Why didn't you mention that Greenville didn't do level matched tests
between Monster and 16 gauge?
Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1 panelist?
Oh... that's right... you didn't read it.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

>
> Let me sum up your understanding of wire
> technology then.

> Metallurgy = Metallurgy
> Dielectrics = Dielectrics
> Geometry = Geometry
> Connectors = Connectors
> ------------------------------
> Therefore Wire = Wire

Not at all, Powell.

All of these things matter, depending on the situation.

In Powell world, they matter regardless.

Here's a new flash for you Powell: Home audio ain't rocket science.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:41:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Here's a new flash for you Powell: Home audio ain't rocket science.

Wild that you now admit that home audio doesn't follow the laws of
physics.

That's quite a breakthrough for you, Arnold.

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.
> > >
> > > thank-you.
> > >
> > > > It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
> > > > text and this is what I found:
> > >
> > > Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..
> > >
> > > > "There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
> > > > difference between the two cables
> > > > (He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
> > > > or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
> > > > VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
> > > > 105.2 speakers..
> > >
> > > So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
> > > come up different? I don't.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
> > was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
> > metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
> > Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
> > to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears when
> his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
> Why didn't you mention that Greenville didn't do level matched tests
> between Monster and 16 gauge?
> Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1 panelist?
> Oh... that's right... you didn't read it.
>
> ScottW

Keep on buzzing 0.04db gnattie. I know it is hard but practice
makes perfect and eventually you may come up with something
half-coherent about Greenvile whoever he is. You'll be then the wonder
of
the world: an objectivist, talking gnat.
Poor Arnie. With you, 124 and NYOB he must feel like Duke Wellington
about his soldiers: " I don't know if they frighten the enemy but they
sure
frighten me".
On the other hand anyone who uses debating tricks like
attributing
moronic statements " Blind tests can never be positive" to his
opponents
deserves all he gets.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.
> > >
> > > thank-you.
> > >
> > > > It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
> > > > text and this is what I found:
> > >
> > > Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..
> > >
> > > > "There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
> > > > difference between the two cables
> > > > (He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
> > > > or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
> > > > VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
> > > > 105.2 speakers..
> > >
> > > So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
> > > come up different? I don't.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
> > was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
> > metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
> > Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
> > to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears when
> his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
> Why didn't you mention that Greenville didn't do level matched tests
> between Monster and 16 gauge?
> Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1 panelist?
> Oh... that's right... you didn't read it.
>
> ScottW

Old Greenville(?) appeared to me in a dream (he's a psychiatrist by
profession- dreams are his forte) and said to tell you that anyone
level matching speakers for 0,04 db difference is sort of, kind of
....shall we say ...no I can't bring myself to repeat it..
Regards Ludovic M.

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> > > > wrote in message
>> > > oups.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.
>> > >
>> > > thank-you.
>> > >
>> > > > It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
>> > > > text and this is what I found:
>> > >
>> > > Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..
>> > >
>> > > > "There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
>> > > > difference between the two cables
>> > > > (He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
>> > > > or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
>> > > > VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
>> > > > 105.2 speakers..
>> > >
>> > > So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
>> > > come up different? I don't.
>> > >
>> > > ScottW
>> >
>> > The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
>> > was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
>> > metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
>> > Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
>> > to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>>
>> Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears when
>> his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
>> Why didn't you mention that Greenville didn't do level matched tests
>> between Monster and 16 gauge?
>> Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1 panelist?
>> Oh... that's right... you didn't read it.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> Old Greenville(?) appeared to me in a dream (he's a psychiatrist by
> profession- dreams are his forte) and said to tell you that anyone
> level matching speakers for 0,04 db difference is sort of, kind of
> ...shall we say ...no I can't bring myself to repeat it..

Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss? You saved the file didn't you
ludo? Or do you need another half hour on your modem
to figure out your mistake?

ScottW

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>> Let me sum up your understanding of wire
>> technology then.
>
>> Metallurgy = Metallurgy
>> Dielectrics = Dielectrics
>> Geometry = Geometry
>> Connectors = Connectors
>> ------------------------------
>> Therefore Wire = Wire
>
> Not at all, Powell.
>
> All of these things matter, depending on the situation.
>
Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
think?


> In Powell world, they matter regardless.
>
True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.


> Here's a new flash for you Powell: Home
> audio ain't rocket science.
>
Are you familiar with Quantum Chromo-
dynamics? :)

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>> Let me sum up your understanding of wire
>>> technology then.
>>
>>> Metallurgy = Metallurgy
>>> Dielectrics = Dielectrics
>>> Geometry = Geometry
>>> Connectors = Connectors
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Therefore Wire = Wire
>>
>> Not at all, Powell.
>>
>> All of these things matter, depending on the situation.
>>
> Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
> think?
>
>
>> In Powell world, they matter regardless.

> True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.

Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks on status symbols.

Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols - houses, cars, boats,
degrees club memberships. I get that.

>> Here's a new flash for you Powell: Home
>> audio ain't rocket science.
>
> Are you familiar with Quantum Chromodynamics? :)

Right, a joke in the context of audio. ;-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Powell" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" wrote
> >
> >>> Let me sum up your understanding of wire
> >>> technology then.
> >>
> >>> Metallurgy = Metallurgy
> >>> Dielectrics = Dielectrics
> >>> Geometry = Geometry
> >>> Connectors = Connectors
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> Therefore Wire = Wire
> >>
> >> Not at all, Powell.
> >>
> >> All of these things matter, depending on the situation.
> >>
> > Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
> > think?
> >
> >
> >> In Powell world, they matter regardless.
>
> > True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.
>
> Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks on status symbols.
>
> Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols - houses, cars, boats,
> degrees club memberships. I get that.

Degrees are status symbols?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Powell" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>>>
>>>>> Let me sum up your understanding of wire
>>>>> technology then.
>>>>
>>>>> Metallurgy = Metallurgy
>>>>> Dielectrics = Dielectrics
>>>>> Geometry = Geometry
>>>>> Connectors = Connectors
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Therefore Wire = Wire

>>>> Not at all, Powell.

>>>> All of these things matter, depending on the situation.

>>> Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
>>> think?

>>>> In Powell world, they matter regardless.

>>> True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.

>> Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks on
>> status symbols.

>> Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols -
>> houses, cars, boats, degrees, club memberships. I get
>> that.

> Degrees are status symbols?

Of course.

Warning! Warning! The turnip truck is coming through town! ;-)

However, it hasn't kept any of my family from getting one or more. For us
they are an unintended consequence of learning useful stuff.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..

>
> Warning! Warning! The turnip truck is coming through town! ;-)
>

It will do as well as a city bus, in a pinch.
Go for it!!!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols - houses, cars, boats,
> > degrees club memberships. I get that.

> Degrees are status symbols?

Krooger doesn't have any degrees, you know. In his persistent delusional
state he attributes some part of his panorama of failure to that lack.

[Arny Krueger]

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

> Jenn said:
>
>>> Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols -
>>> houses, cars, boats, degrees club memberships. I get
>>> that.
>
>> Degrees are status symbols?
>
> Krooger doesn't have any degrees, you know.

There is no such person as "Krooger" in the real world, so of course he or
she or whatever Middius imagines in his delusional state, has no degrees.

OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.

Middius, being a sockpuppet can have whatever degrees he needs at any time
or none, depending what he needs to score debating points.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Powell" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
> >>>
> >>>>> Let me sum up your understanding of wire
> >>>>> technology then.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Metallurgy = Metallurgy
> >>>>> Dielectrics = Dielectrics
> >>>>> Geometry = Geometry
> >>>>> Connectors = Connectors
> >>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>> Therefore Wire = Wire
>
> >>>> Not at all, Powell.
>
> >>>> All of these things matter, depending on the situation.
>
> >>> Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
> >>> think?
>
> >>>> In Powell world, they matter regardless.
>
> >>> True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.
>
> >> Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks on
> >> status symbols.
>
> >> Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols -
> >> houses, cars, boats, degrees, club memberships. I get
> >> that.
>
> > Degrees are status symbols?
>
> Of course.
>
> Warning! Warning! The turnip truck is coming through town! ;-)
>
> However, it hasn't kept any of my family from getting one or more. For us
> they are an unintended consequence of learning useful stuff.

Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the work of
getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.


I bet that takes LoT;S! of knowlege ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.

> I bet that takes LoT;S! of knowlege ;-)

Wouldn't it be adorable if Krooger were asked to instruct some enjuhnears
in Krooglish? ;-)

[dave weil]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:26:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>However, it hasn't kept any of my family from getting one or more. For us
>they are an unintended consequence of learning useful stuff.

Interesting that none of you actually intended to get a degree.

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Powell" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Let me sum up your understanding of wire
>> >>>>> technology then.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Metallurgy = Metallurgy
>> >>>>> Dielectrics = Dielectrics
>> >>>>> Geometry = Geometry
>> >>>>> Connectors = Connectors
>> >>>>> ------------------------------
>> >>>>> Therefore Wire = Wire
>>
>> >>>> Not at all, Powell.
>>
>> >>>> All of these things matter, depending on the situation.
>>
>> >>> Your qualification is a little late, don't you
>> >>> think?
>>
>> >>>> In Powell world, they matter regardless.
>>
>> >>> True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.
>>
>> >> Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks on
>> >> status symbols.
>>
>> >> Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols -
>> >> houses, cars, boats, degrees, club memberships. I get
>> >> that.
>>
>> > Degrees are status symbols?
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> Warning! Warning! The turnip truck is coming through town! ;-)
>>
>> However, it hasn't kept any of my family from getting one or more. For us
>> they are an unintended consequence of learning useful stuff.
>
> Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the work of
> getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.

Well, given Arny's need to feel superior to everybody else in every aspect
of his life, how else is he going to do it with other people with degrees
(including many with Masters or PhD's) unless all those people did it for
the status, while HE did it to learn?

LOL.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >However, it hasn't kept any of my family from getting one or more. For us
> >they are an unintended consequence of learning useful stuff.
>
> Interesting that none of you actually intended to get a degree.

Of course they didn't. It wasn't until Krooger and the Kroo-brats were able
to entrap some university officials in compromising positions that the
degrees even came into the picture.

[George M. Middius]

Harry Lavo said:

> > Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the work of
> > getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.
>
> Well, given Arny's need to feel superior to everybody else in every aspect
> of his life, how else is he going to do it with other people with degrees
> (including many with Masters or PhD's) unless all those people did it for
> the status, while HE did it to learn?

Harry, you're probably right, but I'd like to offer a word of warning here.
I, too, have attempted to parse the convoluted impulses egotism and
paranoia that fill Krooger's dysfunctional mind. It's a dangerous and
disgusting undertaking. You can, before you realize it, start to feel a
familiarity with the bizarre dimension Krooger has konstructed. If you're
going to dwell there for any length of time, it's wise to take precautions.
Just as psychiatrists need to consult other psychiatrists periodically as a
safeguard against getting drawn too far into their patients' worlds, you
should leave yourself a trail of breadcrumbs. Just in case.

[Sander deWaal]

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


>Sander deWaal said:

>> >OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.

>> I bet that takes LoT;S! of knowlege ;-)

>Wouldn't it be adorable if Krooger were asked to instruct some enjuhnears
>in Krooglish? ;-)


George, George, George............

Next I'll be accused of being/operating a sockpuppet ;-(

BTW when am I scheduled? I need to know because of a short vacation,
you know.

Can Ruud take over next week?

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the
> work of getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.

That would be an excluded middle argument.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> Well, given Arny's need to feel superior to everybody
> else in every aspect of his life,


Extrenalizing, again Harry?

Please buy, beg, borrow or steal a clue at your earliest convenience!

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >Wouldn't it be adorable if Krooger were asked to instruct some enjuhnears
> >in Krooglish? ;-)

> George, George, George............

Not my fault. Whatever.

> Next I'll be accused of being/operating a sockpuppet ;-(

Nice try at defelction Mr. Dweall. Its like you think we don't know you
think we suspect your not a scokpuppet. ;-)

> BTW when am I scheduled? I need to know because of a short vacation,
> you know.

Looks like you missed the memo. Sockpuppeting assignments are now being
handled by Ferstler. Sacky and I invited him, mostly out of pity because of
his unbearable shame at being exposed for you-know-what. Surprisingly to
me, Harold accepted. Perhaps he felt it was better to be involved in his
lifeblood activity behind the scenes, anonymously even, than not at all.

> Can Ruud take over next week?

Very funny. Like we didn't know "Ruud" is really "Lionel". LOl! ;-(

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the
> > work of getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.
>
> That would be an excluded middle argument.

No it isn't.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Sander deWaal > wrote:

> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> said:
>
>
> >Sander deWaal said:
>
> >> >OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.
>
> >> I bet that takes LoT;S! of knowlege ;-)
>
> >Wouldn't it be adorable if Krooger were asked to instruct some enjuhnears
> >in Krooglish? ;-)
>
>
> George, George, George............
>
> Next I'll be accused of being/operating a sockpuppet ;-(

I haven't been told yet whose sock Arny believes I am. I'm hurt.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > > Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the
> > > work of getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.

> > That would be an excluded middle argument.

> No it isn't.

You're venturing into the warped dimension of Kroologic. When the Krooborg
says "excluded middle", it's analogous to when a human says "we're in
agreement".

For more on Kroologic, see Usenet (1997 - present), Audio Asylum, and all
the forums from which the Beast has been banned.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
>> Jenn said:
>>
>>>> Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols -
>>>> houses, cars, boats, degrees club memberships. I get
>>>> that.
>>
>>> Degrees are status symbols?
>>
>> Krooger doesn't have any degrees, you know.
>
> There is no such person as "Krooger" in the real world, so of course he or
> she or whatever Middius imagines in his delusional state, has no degrees.
>
> OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.
>

in what engineering specialty?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Sander deWaal]

Jenn > said:

>> Next I'll be accused of being/operating a sockpuppet ;-(

>I haven't been told yet whose sock Arny believes I am. I'm hurt.


Watch out, watch out, here comes the, delivrey truck full of it ;-(

Thank's Jenn or whatever you're name is, today for admitting your
guilty of scokpuupeting naivety and, a vynil biggot Jenn , LoT;S!

;-)

LOL!

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Jenn]

In article >,
Sander deWaal > wrote:

> Jenn > said:
>
> >> Next I'll be accused of being/operating a sockpuppet ;-(
>
> >I haven't been told yet whose sock Arny believes I am. I'm hurt.
>
>
> Watch out, watch out, here comes the, delivrey truck full of it ;-(
>
> Thank's Jenn or whatever you're name is, today for admitting your
> guilty of scokpuupeting naivety and, a vynil biggot Jenn , LoT;S!
>
> ;-)
>
> LOL!

LOL Perhaps I can "do a little deep thinking for once in my life" in
order to figure all of this out.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> Perhaps I can "do a little deep thinking for once in
> my life" in order to figure all of this out.

It's not too late to start trying, Jenn.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Thank's Jenn or whatever you're name is, today for admitting your
> > guilty of scokpuupeting naivety and, a vynil biggot Jenn , LoT;S!

> LOL Perhaps I can "do a little deep thinking for once in my life" in
> order to figure all of this out.

You don't want to get in as deep as Krooger is, of course.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Perhaps I can "do a little deep thinking for once in
> > my life" in order to figure all of this out.
>
> It's not too late to start trying, Jenn.

IC

[Jenn]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > > Thank's Jenn or whatever you're name is, today for admitting your
> > > guilty of scokpuupeting naivety and, a vynil biggot Jenn , LoT;S!
>
> > LOL Perhaps I can "do a little deep thinking for once in my life" in
> > order to figure all of this out.
>
> You don't want to get in as deep as Krooger is, of course.

Of course.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote:
>
>> Jenn said:
>>
>>>> Thank's Jenn or whatever you're name is, today for
>>>> admitting your guilty of scokpuupeting naivety and, a
>>>> vynil biggot Jenn , LoT;S!
>>
>>> LOL Perhaps I can "do a little deep thinking for once
>>> in my life" in order to figure all of this out.
>>
>> You don't want to get in as deep as Krooger is, of
>> course.
>
> Of course.

Yeah Middius might start repulsing you. Can't have that, right? ;-)

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> > [dot] net> wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn said:
> >>
> >>>> Thank's Jenn or whatever you're name is, today for
> >>>> admitting your guilty of scokpuupeting naivety and, a
> >>>> vynil biggot Jenn , LoT;S!
> >>
> >>> LOL Perhaps I can "do a little deep thinking for once
> >>> in my life" in order to figure all of this out.
> >>
> >> You don't want to get in as deep as Krooger is, of
> >> course.
> >
> > Of course.
>
> Yeah Middius might start repulsing you. Can't have that, right? ;-)

Thanks for your opinion on who should repulse me. I consider that to
be valuable information.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
>>> comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jenn said:
>>>>
>>>>>> Thank's Jenn or whatever you're name is, today for
>>>>>> admitting your guilty of scokpuupeting naivety and, a
>>>>>> vynil biggot Jenn , LoT;S!
>>>>
>>>>> LOL Perhaps I can "do a little deep thinking for once
>>>>> in my life" in order to figure all of this out.
>>>>
>>>> You don't want to get in as deep as Krooger is, of
>>>> course.
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>
>> Yeah Middius might start repulsing you. Can't have that,
>> right? ;-)

Jenn, dripping with sarcasm writes:

> Thanks for your opinion on who should repulse me. I
> consider that to be valuable information.

Yawn.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
> >>> comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jenn said:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Thank's Jenn or whatever you're name is, today for
> >>>>>> admitting your guilty of scokpuupeting naivety and, a
> >>>>>> vynil biggot Jenn , LoT;S!
> >>>>
> >>>>> LOL Perhaps I can "do a little deep thinking for once
> >>>>> in my life" in order to figure all of this out.
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't want to get in as deep as Krooger is, of
> >>>> course.
> >>>
> >>> Of course.
> >>
> >> Yeah Middius might start repulsing you. Can't have that,
> >> right? ;-)
>
> Jenn, dripping with sarcasm writes:
>
> > Thanks for your opinion on who should repulse me. I
> > consider that to be valuable information.
>
> Yawn.

You're welcome.

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > > > wrote in message
> >> > > oups.com...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.
> >> > >
> >> > > thank-you.
> >> > >
> >> > > > It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
> >> > > > text and this is what I found:
> >> > >
> >> > > Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..
> >> > >
> >> > > > "There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
> >> > > > difference between the two cables
> >> > > > (He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
> >> > > > or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
> >> > > > VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
> >> > > > 105.2 speakers..
> >> > >
> >> > > So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
> >> > > come up different? I don't.
> >> > >
> >> > > ScottW
> >> >
> >> > The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
> >> > was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
> >> > metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
> >> > Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
> >> > to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >>
> >> Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears when
> >> his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
> >> Why didn't you mention that Greenville didn't do level matched tests
> >> between Monster and 16 gauge?
> >> Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1 panelist?
> >> Oh... that's right... you didn't read it.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > Old Greenville(?) appeared to me in a dream (he's a psychiatrist by
> > profession- dreams are his forte) and said to tell you that anyone
> > level matching speakers for 0,04 db difference is sort of, kind of
> > ...shall we say ...no I can't bring myself to repeat it..
>
> Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
> What was the insertion loss? You saved the file didn't you
> ludo? Or do you need another half hour on your modem
> to figure out your mistake?
>
> ScottW
=============================================
Out of Scottie's album of moronic snares:
..> Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
> What was the insertion loss?

THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16 OF A DB.
Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.
Who remembers figures like 0,16 of a db? Who cares?
Answer:
Moronic snare layers think they got something to lie about in the
future
just because no one will remember.
Ludovic Mirabel
I answered it previously, a little more politely , but the answer got
lost
in the shuffle. Since then - as I foresaw- the thing kept on about my
"lies"
.. .

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>>> Let me sum up your understanding of wire
>>>> technology then.
>>>
>>>> Metallurgy = Metallurgy
>>>> Dielectrics = Dielectrics
>>>> Geometry = Geometry
>>>> Connectors = Connectors
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Therefore Wire = Wire
>>>
>>> Not at all, Powell.
>>>
>>> All of these things matter, depending on the situation.
>>>
>> Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
>> think?
>>
>>
>>> In Powell world, they matter regardless.
>
>> True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.
>
> Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks
> on status symbols.
>
OK, I’m looking for RCA/RCA cables. What
makes and models of RCA to RCA cables meet
your personal standards? My specifications,
when possible, would include; must be fully
shielded, 5 nines copper, connectors with
excellent surface contact but will release
without tearing off female RCA, significant strain
relief, solid core not stranded, consistent
sounding from component to component, and
not impedance sensitive. So your short list of
cost effective cables would include what
makes and models, Arny?


> Hey, I live in a community that prizes status
> symbols - houses, cars, boats, degrees club
> memberships. I get that.
>
Yes, I was in your neck of the woods, Grosse
Pointe Yacht Club for a wedding last year.

Why is the turbidity in the St. Clair River so
high... pollution, high volume? Saint Mary’s
River by comparison is pristine.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>>> Let me sum up your understanding of wire
>>>>> technology then.
>>>>
>>>>> Metallurgy = Metallurgy
>>>>> Dielectrics = Dielectrics
>>>>> Geometry = Geometry
>>>>> Connectors = Connectors
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Therefore Wire = Wire
>>>>
>>>> Not at all, Powell.
>>>>
>>>> All of these things matter, depending on the situation.
>>>>
>>> Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
>>> think?
>>>
>>>
>>>> In Powell world, they matter regardless.
>>
>>> True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.
>>
>> Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks
>> on status symbols.
>>
> OK, I’m looking for RCA/RCA cables. What
> makes and models of RCA to RCA cables meet
> your personal standards? My specifications,
> when possible, would include; must be fully
> shielded, 5 nines copper, connectors with
> excellent surface contact but will release
> without tearing off female RCA, significant strain
> relief, solid core not stranded, consistent
> sounding from component to component, and
> not impedance sensitive. So your short list of
> cost effective cables would include what
> makes and models, Arny?
>
>
>> Hey, I live in a community that prizes status
>> symbols - houses, cars, boats, degrees club
>> memberships. I get that.

> Yes, I was in your neck of the woods, Grosse
> Pointe Yacht Club for a wedding last year.

I guess they are upgrading the harbor.

> Why is the turbidity in the St. Clair River so
> high... pollution, high volume? Saint Mary’s
> River by comparison is pristine.

Lake Huron and Lake St Clair are sandy in that area. The St Clair river has
a lot of sandy bottom. Part of the appearance of turbidity in some places is
actually the shallow sandy bottom showing through. Also, some of the the
sand gets picked up by the water. This is especially true when its stormy or
where the current is swift.

BTW Lake Superior is fairly turbid where the shore is sandy, especially when
the water is stirred up by the weather. Especially true where we hiked this
fall between Grand Marais and the Two Hearted River. We had a gale one
night. We filtered our drinking water and cleaned the filter maybe three
times in 8 days.

AFAIK the Saint Mary's river has rock bottom and shore upstream by Superior
where its generally clear, but it gets more turbid as it approaches Drummond
Island and Lake Huron.

[Sander deWaal]

"Powell" > said:

>OK, I’m looking for RCA/RCA cables. What
>makes and models of RCA to RCA cables meet
>your personal standards? My specifications,
>when possible, would include; must be fully
>shielded, 5 nines copper, connectors with
>excellent surface contact but will release
>without tearing off female RCA, significant strain
>relief, solid core not stranded, consistent
>sounding from component to component, and
>not impedance sensitive. So your short list of
>cost effective cables would include what
>makes and models, Arny?


Can you solder?
Then get a few meters of RG58U coax, and some WBT connectors with
twistable surround that will clamp on the receptacle.
A 1 meter stereo pair will set you back about $26 (with the connectors
being about $8 each).

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[ScottW]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> "Powell" > said:
>
> >OK, I'm looking for RCA/RCA cables. What
> >makes and models of RCA to RCA cables meet
> >your personal standards? My specifications,
> >when possible, would include; must be fully
> >shielded, 5 nines copper, connectors with
> >excellent surface contact but will release
> >without tearing off female RCA, significant strain
> >relief, solid core not stranded, consistent
> >sounding from component to component, and
> >not impedance sensitive. So your short list of
> >cost effective cables would include what
> >makes and models, Arny?
>
>
> Can you solder?
> Then get a few meters of RG58U coax, and some WBT connectors with
> twistable surround that will clamp on the receptacle.
> A 1 meter stereo pair will set you back about $26 (with the connectors
> being about $8 each).

I made a set of those about 20 years ago. Too stiff and didn't sound
any different so I put 'em in my box o spare cables and there they rest
to this day :).

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> Sander deWaal wrote:
> > "Powell" > said:
> >
> > >OK, I'm looking for RCA/RCA cables. What
> > >makes and models of RCA to RCA cables meet
> > >your personal standards? My specifications,
> > >when possible, would include; must be fully
> > >shielded, 5 nines copper, connectors with
> > >excellent surface contact but will release
> > >without tearing off female RCA, significant strain
> > >relief, solid core not stranded, consistent
> > >sounding from component to component, and
> > >not impedance sensitive. So your short list of
> > >cost effective cables would include what
> > >makes and models, Arny?
> >
> >
> > Can you solder?
> > Then get a few meters of RG58U coax, and some WBT connectors with
> > twistable surround that will clamp on the receptacle.
> > A 1 meter stereo pair will set you back about $26 (with the connectors
> > being about $8 each).
>
> I made a set of those about 20 years ago. Too stiff and didn't sound
> any different so I put 'em in my box o spare cables and there they rest
> to this day :).
>
> ScottW

Scottie accused me of lying about Greenhill's ABX
cable comparison in 1983. Greenhill compared an early Master
cable against 16g zipcord.
.. Greenhill did not give a diameter for the Master cable
but I assumed that if for no other reason that objectivist would not
falsify the data to favour the proprietary Master (Remember? "Wire
is wire" is an article of faith in the Chapel.
I assumed the cables were of the same diameter= functionally
identical.
Scottie calculalated the monster gauge at 12 ( "or maybe 14").

He said I was "lying" when I said that 16g zipcord that Greenhill
used and Master cable were equal ( same diameter, functionally
identical,whatever)
I reread Greenhill and found that the frequency response
difference between the two was all of 0,04 db. Yes, 0,04.!!!
Scottie had an answer:
> Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
> What was the insertion loss?

..I answered:

"Out of Scottie's album of moronic snares:
"THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16
OF A DB.
Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.
Who remembers figures like 0,16 of a db? Who cares?
Moronic snare layers think they got something to lie about in the
future just because no one will remember".

I apologise for going on about this but I want a to have a record.
To me accusation of lying, RAO or not, is a serious matter
As I foresaw Scottie is letting sleeping dogs lie waiting in ambush
to pop up when details are forgotten and he can restart.
He has done this several times before in several different threads.
It seems to be his internet technique.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
> Scottie accused me of lying about Greenhill's ABX
> cable comparison in 1983. Greenhill compared an early Master
> cable against 16g zipcord.
> . Greenhill did not give a diameter for the Master cable
> but I assumed that if for no other reason that objectivist would not
> falsify the data to favour the proprietary Master (Remember? "Wire
> is wire" is an article of faith in the Chapel.
> I assumed the cables were of the same diameter= functionally
> identical.
> Scottie calculalated the monster gauge at 12 ( "or maybe 14").

Poor deLudo... he can't keep anything straight.
First... It was Monster Cable.
Second.... there was a photo in the article of the 3 cables showing
they aren't close to same so why did deLudo claim otherwise?
Third... deLudo hadn't even read the article till I called him on his
extensive and repetitive errors in trying to quote the article.

> He said I was "lying" when I said that 16g zipcord that Greenhill
> used and Master cable were equal ( same diameter, functionally
> identical,whatever)
> I reread Greenhill and found that the frequency response
> difference between the two was all of 0,04 db. Yes, 0,04.!!!
> Scottie had an answer:
> > Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
> > What was the insertion loss?
>
> .I answered:
>
> "Out of Scottie's album of moronic snares:
> "THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16
> OF A DB.
> Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.

Exactly and no one did using music. No one.

> Who remembers figures like 0,16 of a db? Who cares?

Apparently people who use pink noise as a source may care..
cuz some could hear the difference with pink noise.
None could with music though.

Oddly, Greenhill never did a level matched comparison of Monster
and 16 guage. Why not Ludo?

> Moronic snare layers think they got something to lie about in the
> future just because no one will remember".
>
> I apologise for going on about this but I want a to have a record.

Record of what? You're numerous blatant misrepresentations?
Ok... you should thank me.

> To me accusation of lying, RAO or not, is a serious matter

Simple solution to your problem deLudo. Get your facts
straight and stop misquoting people.

Hey deLudo... I can post on RAHE if I choose to..
why can't you? Answer: They don't like liars.

ScottW

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>> Hey, I live in a community that prizes status
>>> symbols - houses, cars, boats, degrees club
>>> memberships. I get that.
>
>> Yes, I was in your neck of the woods, Grosse
>> Pointe Yacht Club for a wedding last year.
>
> I guess they are upgrading the harbor.
>
The St. Clair River area seems like some
pretty boring boating. No open water for 15 miles
in either direction. Boats pace upriver and then
down river. The bikini-girls on the larger cruisers
were nice viewing. I passed a dive shop in the
area, how does he stay in business?


> BTW Lake Superior is fairly turbid where the
> shore is sandy, especially when the water is
> stirred up by the weather. Especially true
> where we hiked this fall between Grand Marais
> and the Two Hearted River. We had a gale one
> night.
>
The Two Hearted River is notorious for plagues
of black flies in the spring to mid summer.

"gale one night"... been there, on the Canadian
shore of Superior. Even with all the stakes tied
to the tent's storm cover the wind pushed the
tent walls inward. To noisy to sleep, can't walk
around because of all the sand in the wind and
it is to cold to be outside of a sleeping bag.
And unfortunately one has to urinate lot when
you are not moving around and the body
core temp is below optimal.

That's right up there with spending the better
part of 10 days camping in the rain on Superior
Eastern shoreline. :)


> AFAIK the Saint Mary's river has rock bottom
> and shore upstream by Superior where its
> generally clear, but it gets more turbid as it
> approaches Drummond Island and Lake Huron.
>
I've canoed the area between the Sault and
Neebish Island. Near the locks the bottom is
blasted rock and the channel is very narrow
in spots. Carriers pass with only a few feet
under the keel. Passed the loaded down-bound
Roger Blough (858' ) in such a channel.
28,400 bhp makes for an interesting Doppler
effect off the craggy rock bottom to the canoe's
bottom to mine. :)

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>> Hey, I live in a community that prizes status
>>>> symbols - houses, cars, boats, degrees club
>>>> memberships. I get that.
>>
>>> Yes, I was in your neck of the woods, Grosse
>>> Pointe Yacht Club for a wedding last year.

>> I guess they are upgrading the harbor.

> The St. Clair River area seems like some
> pretty boring boating. No open water for 15 miles
> in either direction. Boats pace upriver and then
> down river. The bikini-girls on the larger cruisers
> were nice viewing. I passed a dive shop in the
> area, how does he stay in business?

Wrecks abound in Lake Huron.

>> BTW Lake Superior is fairly turbid where the
>> shore is sandy, especially when the water is
>> stirred up by the weather. Especially true
>> where we hiked this fall between Grand Marais
>> and the Two Hearted River. We had a gale one
>> night.

> The Two Hearted River is notorious for plagues
> of black flies in the spring to mid summer.

You won't find me camping then. Wife and I are empty-nesters so we wait
till the kiddies are back in school.

> "gale one night"... been there, on the Canadian
> shore of Superior. Even with all the stakes tied
> to the tent's storm cover the wind pushed the
> tent walls inward. To noisy to sleep, can't walk
> around because of all the sand in the wind and
> it is to cold to be outside of a sleeping bag.
> And unfortunately one has to urinate lot when
> you are not moving around and the body
> core temp is below optimal.

I've slept through some record wind storms.

> That's right up there with spending the better
> part of 10 days camping in the rain on Superior
> Eastern shoreline. :)

Another advantage of camping in early-mid fall. Reduced rain.

>> AFAIK the Saint Mary's river has rock bottom
>> and shore upstream by Superior where its
>> generally clear, but it gets more turbid as it
>> approaches Drummond Island and Lake Huron.

> I've canoed the area between the Sault and
> Neebish Island. Near the locks the bottom is
> blasted rock and the channel is very narrow
> in spots. Carriers pass with only a few feet
> under the keel. Passed the loaded down-bound
> Roger Blough (858' ) in such a channel.
> 28,400 bhp makes for an interesting Doppler
> effect off the craggy rock bottom to the canoe's
> bottom to mine. :)

We might be canoeing along Superior's eastern shore this summer.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>> The Two Hearted River is notorious for plagues
>> of black flies in the spring to mid summer.
>
> You won't find me camping then. Wife and I are
> empty-nesters so we wait till the kiddies are back
> in school.
>
Have you considered a RV instead of tenting,
now that the kids are gone?


>>> AFAIK the Saint Mary's river has rock bottom
>>> and shore upstream by Superior where its
>>> generally clear, but it gets more turbid as it
>>> approaches Drummond Island and Lake Huron.
>
>> I've canoed the area between the Sault and
>> Neebish Island. Near the locks the bottom is
>> blasted rock and the channel is very narrow
>> in spots. Carriers pass with only a few feet
>> under the keel. Passed the loaded down-bound
>> Roger Blough (858' ) in such a channel.
>> 28,400 bhp makes for an interesting Doppler
>> effect off the craggy rock bottom to the canoe's
>> bottom to mine. :)
>
> We might be canoeing along Superior's eastern
> shore this summer.
>
If you enjoy geology, wilderness hiking and canoeing
then add to your short list:
Lake Superior Provincial Park
http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/lakes.html
Pukaskwa National Park
http://canadianparks.com/ontario/pukasnp/index.htm

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>> The Two Hearted River is notorious for plagues
>>> of black flies in the spring to mid summer.
>>
>> You won't find me camping then. Wife and I are
>> empty-nesters so we wait till the kiddies are back
>> in school.
>>
> Have you considered a RV instead of tenting,
> now that the kids are gone?


RVs are for wimps.

>>>> AFAIK the Saint Mary's river has rock bottom
>>>> and shore upstream by Superior where its
>>>> generally clear, but it gets more turbid as it
>>>> approaches Drummond Island and Lake Huron.
>>
>>> I've canoed the area between the Sault and
>>> Neebish Island. Near the locks the bottom is
>>> blasted rock and the channel is very narrow
>>> in spots. Carriers pass with only a few feet
>>> under the keel. Passed the loaded down-bound
>>> Roger Blough (858' ) in such a channel.
>>> 28,400 bhp makes for an interesting Doppler
>>> effect off the craggy rock bottom to the canoe's
>>> bottom to mine. :)
>>
>> We might be canoeing along Superior's eastern
>> shore this summer.
>>
> If you enjoy geology, wilderness hiking and canoeing
> then add to your short list:
> Lake Superior Provincial Park
> http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/lakes.html

Been there, done that a great many many times. We've been over most of it,
some parts several times. Canoed the interior lake system around Minjiin
lake.

Walked and climbed the trail to Agawa files. Good pictures of that trail at
http://www.gowaterfalling.com/waterfalls/images/splash/vagawatrail.jpg

We are currently planning to return this summer for a liesurly canoe trip
along the Superior shore, particularly the Gargantua area, in August before
the lake turns nasty.

> Pukaskwa National Park
> http://canadianparks.com/ontario/pukasnp/index.htm

Thinking about it.

Our favorite Canadian park:

http://www.ontarioparks.com/English/quet.html

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>> Have you considered a RV instead of tenting,
>> now that the kids are gone?
>
> RVs are for wimps.
>
That's to bad. Haven't used a tent in about ten
years and don't miss it one bit. ;-)
http://www.keystone-cougar.com/index.html?page=detail&model=291EFS&year=2006


> We are currently planning to return this summer for a liesurly canoe trip
> along the Superior shore, particularly the Gargantua area, in August
> before the lake turns nasty.
>
>> Pukaskwa National Park
>> http://canadianparks.com/ontario/pukasnp/index.htm
>
> Thinking about it.
>
If you like inland waterway canoeing and less distance
to drive than Pukaskwa there is The Shoals Provincial
Park. Located between Wawa and Chapleau.
http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/shoa.html

OTOH, if you really want to get from it all there's
Missinaibi Provincial Park. Located in the largest
game preserve in North America (99,000 hectares).
The Missinaibi runs northward to the Moose River
(James Bay). It's a transition zone between boreal
forest to lowland muskeg. The bear pressure was
intense, with leaches and windy conditions to
contend with. There are some major pictographs
and relics of logging and fur trade to be seen. Best
to carry a short wave radio or Emergency transmitter
if you have one or bring a BIG boat. :)
http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/miss.html


> Our favorite Canadian park:
>
> http://www.ontarioparks.com/English/quet.html
Thanks... I'll check it out. Lots of people in
the park?

[George M. Middius]

Powell said:

> > RVs are for wimps.

> That's to bad. Haven't used a tent in about ten
> years and don't miss it one bit. ;-)

I suppose that you being a christian "brother" to Krooger is the reason
you didn't sneer at Mr. ****'s obvious red herring. The real reason
Krooger postures as a hardcore outdoorsborg is because he can't afford to
buy an RV.






--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.