How about this? [Archive] - AudioBanter.com

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 14th 06, 02:50 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
>
> > It does matter to Arny Krueger, because he takes it as a
> > personal affront when someone expresses a preference for
> > the sound of LPs, as witnessed by his constant references to "vinyl
> > bigots"
> > on r.a.o. and his continuing attacks on people like Jenn
> > who dare give voice to that preference.
>
>
> The only place I apply the label "Vinyl Bigot" is those situations where it
> appears to fit. Trouble is, a place like RAO seems to attract a goodly and
> highly vocal segment of that tiny minority of music lovers whose preferences
> appear to be overcome by emotions other than a desire for the most sonically
> faithful and literal reproduction of musical recordings. So, I end up using
> it a lot on RAO.

Gosh. Something sounds good to someone. You are an idiot.

> Jenn is an interesting case because she is probably the most extreme case of
> emotional dependence on the audible effects of the noise and distortion
> inherent in vinyl that I've ever encountered. Presumably she hears lots of
> live music, but somehow she misses or even prefers many audible cues that
> most people hear but dislike pretty intensely. She's very adamant about her
> belief that a form of digital recording that is well-known to be highly
> faithful to the source, is not so faithful.

I think the words I've heard her use are, "The best LPs sound better to
me."

You can't handle that, can you?

> Basically, Jenn is a person who believes something like water naturally
> flows up hill. This belief is common to that miniscule percentage of music
> lovers who will apparently prefer vinyl to the bitter end. If they weren't
> such vigorous proselytizers, there would be nothing to it. She's like a
> person who drinks polluted sea water and brags about how natural and pure it
> tastes.

I'll take this to mean that you don't want to play nice any more, since
you've insulted her several times in this post. Ironic, isn't it? She's
the one who was trying to bring up the level of discourse here. You
just *had* to be ****ty, didn't you? You can't help it. It's who you
are: an anti-social, self-righteous asshole.

Here we have incontrovertible proof of Arny's basic dismissal of any
preference that does not meet his own. Here we have the proof that it
is indeed Arny who starts this crap.

Someone posted here recently to look up 'extra crispy.' I did so. From
what I saw, it is Arny who has chased a large amount of poeple from
this forum. Who can blame them for leaving? When you have a retarded,
anti-social piece of **** like Arny insulting every preference, it
takes the fun out of what could be an enjoyable forum.

The fact that old Arns has been booted from several audio forums and
hooted down on the rest, some of which include many professionals, is
lost on him. It is *our* fault because we don't recognize his
'genius.';-)

Hey, Arns, here's a suggestion. If you want to see who causes the most
acrimony around here, why don't you leave for, say a year or ten? Yes,
you'll no doubt still get mentioned. You, after all, are still bringing
up this Derida fellow, and a host of others that do not appear to be
here any more. A person who is as ****ty to others as you've proven to
be will always get references (Remember old Arns? Remember how he was
always so nasty to people that didn't agree with him? What a loser!).
That can't be helped.

You've made it that way yourself with your disruptive and disgusting
behavior.

Go away.

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 03:12 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>> It does matter to Arny Krueger, because he takes it as a
>>> personal affront when someone expresses a preference for
>>> the sound of LPs, as witnessed by his constant
>>> references to "vinyl bigots"
>>> on r.a.o. and his continuing attacks on people like Jenn
>>> who dare give voice to that preference.
>>
>>
>> The only place I apply the label "Vinyl Bigot" is those
>> situations where it appears to fit. Trouble is, a place
>> like RAO seems to attract a goodly and highly vocal
>> segment of that tiny minority of music lovers whose
>> preferences appear to be overcome by emotions other than
>> a desire for the most sonically faithful and literal
>> reproduction of musical recordings. So, I end up using
>> it a lot on RAO.
>
> Gosh. Something sounds good to someone. You are an idiot.
>
>> Jenn is an interesting case because she is probably the
>> most extreme case of emotional dependence on the audible
>> effects of the noise and distortion inherent in vinyl
>> that I've ever encountered. Presumably she hears lots of
>> live music, but somehow she misses or even prefers many
>> audible cues that most people hear but dislike pretty
>> intensely. She's very adamant about her belief that a
>> form of digital recording that is well-known to be
>> highly faithful to the source, is not so faithful.

> I think the words I've heard her use are, "The best LPs
> sound better to me."

She's said a lot more than that.

> You can't handle that, can you?

Attempt to inflame, noted.

>> Basically, Jenn is a person who believes something like
>> water naturally flows up hill. This belief is common to
>> that miniscule percentage of music lovers who will
>> apparently prefer vinyl to the bitter end. If they
>> weren't such vigorous proselytizers, there would be
>> nothing to it. She's like a person who drinks polluted
>> sea water and brags about how natural and pure it
>> tastes.

> I'll take this to mean that you don't want to play nice
> any more, since you've insulted her several times in this
> post.

It appears that insults don't bother you ****R, since you've already
unloaded a goodly number and we're just getting into your post.

> Ironic, isn't it?

Yes, someone who complains bitterly about insults while delivering a
fusillade of insults is pretty ironic.

> She's the one who was trying to
> bring up the level of discourse here.

Wrong. All Jenn is doing is targeting me repeatedly and letting everybody
else take as many shots as they can without signfifcant interferenace from
here. That makes her a Middius clone, differing only slightly in tone.

> You just *had* to be ****ty, didn't you?

What does this outburst say about you?

> You can't help it. It's who you are: an anti-social, self-righteous
> asshole.

Again, what does this outburst say about you. What about the fact that
you've delivered any number of similar outbursts just lately with minimal
coment from Jenn say about her purported campaign and her?

> Here we have incontrovertible proof of Arny's basic
> dismissal of any preference that does not meet his own.

Yawn.

> Here we have the proof that it is indeed Arny who starts
> this crap.

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

> Someone posted here recently to look up 'extra crispy.' I
> did so. From what I saw, it is Arny who has chased a
> large amount of poeple from this forum.

Absence of self-awareness noted.

>Who can blame them for leaving? When you have a retarded, anti-social
> piece of **** like Arny insulting every preference, it
> takes the fun out of what could be an enjoyable forum.

Jenn is no doubt ROTFLHAO at this point. Middius is cheering. Everybody is
haveing a good time including me, because I can see the ironic humor of it
all. Welcome to RAO.

<remainder of bile snipped to save bandwidth. Bandwidth is now terribly
cheap, but the snipped prose is even cheaper>

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 14th 06, 03:25 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >

> > I'll take this to mean that you don't want to play nice
> > any more, since you've insulted her several times in this
> > post.
>
> It appears that insults don't bother you ****R, since you've already
> unloaded a goodly number and we're just getting into your post.

You perhaps didn't notice that I'd pretty well left you alone since
Jenn had asked us to.

I did ask for your definition of insult, twice, which you were
unwilling or incapable of providing.

But (surprise) there's no need for that any more, as you couldn't make
it. You eventually went back to your 'normal' ;-) state as everyone
knew you would.

> > Ironic, isn't it?
>
> Yes, someone who complains bitterly about insults while delivering a
> fusillade of insults is pretty ironic.

Wasn't it you that said you wouldn't insult unless insulted? Please
point out where Jenn has insulted you.

No, you are a lying, insane asshole.

> > She's the one who was trying to
> > bring up the level of discourse here.
>
> Wrong. All Jenn is doing is targeting me repeatedly and letting everybody
> else take as many shots as they can without signfifcant interferenace from
> here. That makes her a Middius clone, differing only slightly in tone.

Poor Arns! LOL!

> > You just *had* to be ****ty, didn't you?
>
> What does this outburst say about you?

That you make me do it, Arns.;-)

> > You can't help it. It's who you are: an anti-social, self-righteous
> > asshole.
>
> Again, what does this outburst say about you. What about the fact that
> you've delivered any number of similar outbursts just lately with minimal
> coment from Jenn say about her purported campaign and her?

Show me where, Arns, I've 'just lately' given you any negative
attention whatsoever since Jenn asked people to lay off. As I said, I
asked you, twice, for your definition of insult. I asked, just once I
think, for you to point out where an insult was spotted by you. This
was done very politely IMO. If not, provide proof. If you cannot, then
quit lying.

The reason I did that I had to ask was because you noted insults where
no sane person could see one.

> > Someone posted here recently to look up 'extra crispy.' I
> > did so. From what I saw, it is Arny who has chased a
> > large amount of poeple from this forum.
>
> Absence of self-awareness noted.

LMAO!

You're really very funny sometimes. Whether you mean to be or not.;-)

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 03:34 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>
>>> I'll take this to mean that you don't want to play nice
>>> any more, since you've insulted her several times in
>>> this post.

>> It appears that insults don't bother you ****R, since
>> you've already unloaded a goodly number and we're just
>> getting into your post.

> You perhaps didn't notice that I'd pretty well left you
> alone since Jenn had asked us to.

I don't notice imaginary non-events very well.

You could have expressed yourself without all the profane fire and smoke, or
maybe not. Personally, I think you are pretty out-of-control, just about all
the time. I notice you hide behind an alias. I don't blame you for that!

Jenn

November 14th 06, 03:55 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Wrong. All Jenn is doing is targeting me repeatedly and letting everybody
> else take as many shots as they can without signfifcant interferenace from
> here. That makes her a Middius clone, differing only slightly in tone.

Incorrect. I was giving you an opportunity to be the agent of change;
to be the person with class. That you failed to take me up on that
opportunity speaks only to your obvious need to be something else.

Jenn

November 14th 06, 03:55 PM

In article om>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>
> > > I'll take this to mean that you don't want to play nice
> > > any more, since you've insulted her several times in this
> > > post.
> >
> > It appears that insults don't bother you ****R, since you've already
> > unloaded a goodly number and we're just getting into your post.
>
> You perhaps didn't notice that I'd pretty well left you alone since
> Jenn had asked us to.

Thanks for trying.

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 04:10 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article
> om>,
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> >
>>
>>>> I'll take this to mean that you don't want to play nice
>>>> any more, since you've insulted her several times in
>>>> this post.
>>>
>>> It appears that insults don't bother you ****R, since
>>> you've already unloaded a goodly number and we're just
>>> getting into your post.
>>
>> You perhaps didn't notice that I'd pretty well left you
>> alone since Jenn had asked us to.
>
> Thanks for trying.

The coach encourages her team.

It's an old strategy, folks. The coach doesn't get her hands dirty, but
leaves the dirty work up to others.

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 04:14 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>> Wrong. All Jenn is doing is targeting me repeatedly and
>> letting everybody else take as many shots as they can
>> without signfifcant interferenace from here. That makes
>> her a Middius clone, differing only slightly in tone.
>
> Incorrect. I was giving you an opportunity to be the
> agent of change; to be the person with class.

Jenn, you seem to be agressively hard to educate. I'm not the only or even
the major problem around here.

Until you target the major problems, everything else is futile.

> That you failed to take me up on that opportunity speaks only to
> your obvious need to be something else.

Jenn its easy to be a do-gooder when you let other people do your dirty
work. The only reason why you're so worried about me is how effective I am
at making your position so clear. You want me to do something you could
never do, and insult me when I'm not 100 times better than you.

George M. Middius

November 14th 06, 04:26 PM

Jenn said:

> > You perhaps didn't notice that I'd pretty well left you alone since
> > Jenn had asked us to.

> Thanks for trying.

I tried too. (A little.)

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

November 14th 06, 04:30 PM

Paranoa™Borg has uncovered another malevolent plot to humiliate him.

> >> You perhaps didn't notice that I'd pretty well left you
> >> alone since Jenn had asked us to.

> > Thanks for trying.

> The coach encourages her team.

Arnii, out of curiosity, does your raging paranoia also lead you to
believe that gravity has been reversed? You seem to have everything
backwards today, including your demand that Jenn "prove" water doesn't run
uphill.

> It's an old strategy, folks. The coach doesn't get her hands dirty, but
> leaves the dirty work up to others.

When did you "discover" that Jenn was the mastermind behind all the
conspiracies to destroy you, Arnii? In the past, you've attributed the
leadership role mostly to Lord Atkinson, and occasionally to me. Now,
after all these years, you seem to have "realized" that all along, it was
Jenn. I'm not disparaging your fabled powers of deduction -- I'd just like
to know what gave her away.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 14th 06, 04:41 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >

> > You perhaps didn't notice that I'd pretty well left you
> > alone since Jenn had asked us to.
>
> I don't notice imaginary non-events very well.

Please provide any post, other than those that I described, directed at
you during time since Jenn asked for a truce.

> You could have expressed yourself without all the profane fire and smoke, or
> maybe not. Personally, I think you are pretty out-of-control, just about all
> the time. I notice you hide behind an alias. I don't blame you for that!

Isn't it a good thing that I don't care what you think, any more than
you care what others think?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 14th 06, 04:44 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> It's an old strategy, folks. I pretend not to be insane. It goes as it comes, like the ebb-and-flow of a severed artery like my own. Not! My medication is wearing off. I must masturbate some more. Lot';S!

It will all be OK, Arns. Just relax.

John Atkinson

November 14th 06, 04:59 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> Paranoaâ„¢Borg has uncovered another malevolent plot to humiliate him.
> > It's an old strategy, folks. The coach doesn't get her hands dirty, but
> > leaves the dirty work up to others.
>
> When did you "discover" that Jenn was the mastermind behind all the
> conspiracies to destroy you, Arnii? In the past, you've attributed the
> leadership role mostly to Lord Atkinson, and occasionally to me. Now,
> after all these years, you seem to have "realized" that all along, it was
> Jenn. I'm not disparaging your fabled powers of deduction -- I'd just like
> to know what gave her away.

I think your question will be found baffling, George. In the past,
Arny Krueger has suggested that you are really me (or was it I
am really you?). I imagine that he is beginning to suspect that
Jenn is really you (or me). :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Harry Lavo

November 14th 06, 05:15 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Wrong. All Jenn is doing is targeting me repeatedly and
>>> letting everybody else take as many shots as they can
>>> without signfifcant interferenace from here. That makes
>>> her a Middius clone, differing only slightly in tone.
>>
>> Incorrect. I was giving you an opportunity to be the
>> agent of change; to be the person with class.
>
> Jenn, you seem to be agressively hard to educate. I'm not the only or even
> the major problem around here.
>
> Until you target the major problems, everything else is futile.
>
>> That you failed to take me up on that opportunity speaks only to
>> your obvious need to be something else.
>
> Jenn its easy to be a do-gooder when you let other people do your dirty
> work. The only reason why you're so worried about me is how effective I am
> at making your position so clear. You want me to do something you could
> never do, and insult me when I'm not 100 times better than you.
>

I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scream. This is so blatently and
patently rediculous after the two day hiatus we went through including the
early stages of your increasing attempts to insult Jenn, that I can only
conclude you are either very messed up mentally, or you simply are playing
games and are content to look that way. No other explanation makes much
sense.

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 05:31 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>
>>> You perhaps didn't notice that I'd pretty well left you
>>> alone since Jenn had asked us to.
>>
>> I don't notice imaginary non-events very well.
>
> Please provide any post, other than those that I
> described, directed at you during time since Jenn asked
> for a truce.

Since you don't care what I post, there is no logical reason for me to go to
this trouble.

>> You could have expressed yourself without all the
>> profane fire and smoke, or maybe not. Personally, I
>> think you are pretty out-of-control, just about all the
>> time. I notice you hide behind an alias. I don't blame
>> you for that!
>
> Isn't it a good thing that I don't care what you think,
> any more than you care what others think?

Since you don't care what I think, there is no reason for you to ever again
comment on any of my posts. Being a fine reasonable person, you will never
again comment on any of my posts, right?

George M. Middius

November 14th 06, 05:38 PM

John Atkinson said:

> > Paranoa™Borg has uncovered another malevolent plot to humiliate him.

> > > It's an old strategy, folks. The coach doesn't get her hands dirty, but
> > > leaves the dirty work up to others.

> > When did you "discover" that Jenn was the mastermind behind all the
> > conspiracies to destroy you, Arnii? In the past, you've attributed the
> > leadership role mostly to Lord Atkinson, and occasionally to me. Now,
> > after all these years, you seem to have "realized" that all along, it was
> > Jenn. I'm not disparaging your fabled powers of deduction -- I'd just like
> > to know what gave her away.

> I think your question will be found baffling, George. In the past,
> Arny Krueger has suggested that you are really me (or was it I
> am really you?). I imagine that he is beginning to suspect that
> Jenn is really you (or me). :-)

You never can tell what Arnii suspects. ;-) Go figure.™ Aside from the
"fact" that we're all indistinguishable, nobody has yet proven to Mr.
Krooger's satisfaction that Marc and Scott Wheeler and Sander aren't the
real puppetmasters. Even that intellectual juggernaut from Florida has
opined that all of us amount only to two or three individuals.

N.B.: I am not you, and neither is dave.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Sander deWaal

November 14th 06, 05:43 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>The only place I apply the label "Vinyl Bigot" is those situations where it
>appears to fit. Trouble is, a place like RAO seems to attract a goodly and
>highly vocal segment of that tiny minority of music lovers whose preferences
>appear to be overcome by emotions other than a desire for the most sonically
>faithful and literal reproduction of musical recordings.

Music is an expression of emotion.
Myfi is better than Hifi.

>So, I end up using it a lot on RAO.

Of course you do.

<rest of childish insults and bigotry snipped>

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 05:47 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>> The only place I apply the label "Vinyl Bigot" is those
>> situations where it appears to fit. Trouble is, a place
>> like RAO seems to attract a goodly and highly vocal
>> segment of that tiny minority of music lovers whose
>> preferences appear to be overcome by emotions other than
>> a desire for the most sonically faithful and literal
>> reproduction of musical recordings.
>
>
> Music is an expression of emotion.
> Myfi is better than Hifi.

How do you do at live concerts, where the sound is clearly the preference of
the house, not yours.

[email protected]

November 14th 06, 06:00 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > said:
> >
> >
> >> The only place I apply the label "Vinyl Bigot" is those
> >> situations where it appears to fit. Trouble is, a place
> >> like RAO seems to attract a goodly and highly vocal
> >> segment of that tiny minority of music lovers whose
> >> preferences appear to be overcome by emotions other than
> >> a desire for the most sonically faithful and literal
> >> reproduction of musical recordings.
> >
> >
> > Music is an expression of emotion.
> > Myfi is better than Hifi.
>
> How do you do at live concerts, where the sound is clearly the preference of
> the house, not yours.

Which is yet another reason why NOT to use the sound of live,
unamplified music in a concert hall as an ultimate reference for sound
quality.

Boon

Sander deWaal

November 14th 06, 06:11 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> The only place I apply the label "Vinyl Bigot" is those
>>> situations where it appears to fit. Trouble is, a place
>>> like RAO seems to attract a goodly and highly vocal
>>> segment of that tiny minority of music lovers whose
>>> preferences appear to be overcome by emotions other than
>>> a desire for the most sonically faithful and literal
>>> reproduction of musical recordings.

>> Music is an expression of emotion.
>> Myfi is better than Hifi.

>How do you do at live concerts, where the sound is clearly the preference of
>the house, not yours.

What live concert?
What concert hall, which conductor and orchestra, which programn
material, which seat?

At home, I try to create the sound *I* like, something I never denied
or tried to hide from anyone.

Apparently, people who hear and (want to) buy my amplifiers, or are
having a system "composed" by me, are satisfied by what I do.

On my current system, I can tell which brand and type of grand piano
is used (since I play piano, and know the distinct character of most
well-known brands and types, this is a reference point for me).

It is even possible to get an indication of the (size of the) room,
concert hall or jazz cafe where the recording was made, if that
recording is good in the first place.
And all that with just a humble stereo system.

Real, true high fidelity to the actual event is illusory.
No reproducing system is able to recreate the original event, it is
always an approach.

Might as well be an approach one likes, instead of just "accurate
reproducing of what is on the source disk or tape".

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 06:16 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>>>> The only place I apply the label "Vinyl Bigot" is those
>>>> situations where it appears to fit. Trouble is, a place
>>>> like RAO seems to attract a goodly and highly vocal
>>>> segment of that tiny minority of music lovers whose
>>>> preferences appear to be overcome by emotions other
>>>> than a desire for the most sonically faithful and
>>>> literal reproduction of musical recordings.
>
>
>>> Music is an expression of emotion.
>>> Myfi is better than Hifi.

>> How do you do at live concerts, where the sound is
>> clearly the preference of the house, not yours.

> What live concert?
> What concert hall, which conductor and orchestra, which
> programn material, which seat?

That's my argument, but it doesn't apply here.

You've missed the point.

> At home, I try to create the sound *I* like, something I
> never denied or tried to hide from anyone.

In several senses, that is an intelligent thing to do.

> Apparently, people who hear and (want to) buy my
> amplifiers, or are having a system "composed" by me, are
> satisfied by what I do.

Or, its something else. As you say, your conclusion is based on shallow
appearances.

> On my current system, I can tell which brand and type of
> grand piano is used (since I play piano, and know the
> distinct character of most well-known brands and types,
> this is a reference point for me).

Sometimes one can do that while listening to a pretty crappy system.

> It is even possible to get an indication of the (size of
> the) room, concert hall or jazz cafe where the recording
> was made, if that recording is good in the first place.
> And all that with just a humble stereo system.

It might be exceptional for a tubes/vinyl system, but its not exceptional in
general.

> Real, true high fidelity to the actual event is illusory.

Agreed.

> No reproducing system is able to recreate the original
> event, it is always an approach.

Agreed.

> Might as well be an approach one likes, instead of just
> "accurate reproducing of what is on the source disk or
> tape".

You've been listening to Ferstler too much.

My argument is more like "How can you add enough dirt to water to make it
sound dirty, and say that's better than clean water?"

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 14th 06, 06:16 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Since you don't care what I post, there is no logical reason for me to go to
> this trouble.

Translation: "I can't because they do not exist."

> Since you don't care what I think, there is no reason for you to ever again
> comment on any of my posts. Being a fine reasonable person, you will never
> again comment on any of my posts, right?

Wrongo, sphincter breath. I will comment on your posts as I see fit,
exactly because I am a 'fine reasonable person.'

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 06:20 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com

>>"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > spewed:

>>> Isn't it a good thing that I don't care what you think,

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Since you don't care what I post, there is no logical
>> reason for me to go to this trouble.

> Translation: "I can't because they do not exist."

Non sequitur.

>> Since you don't care what I think, there is no reason
>> for you to ever again comment on any of my posts. Being
>> a fine reasonable person, you will never again comment
>> on any of my posts, right?

> I will comment on your posts as
> I see fit, exactly because I am a 'fine reasonable
> person.'

Non sequitur.

Sander deWaal

November 14th 06, 06:44 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>> "Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>>> The only place I apply the label "Vinyl Bigot" is those
>>>>> situations where it appears to fit. Trouble is, a place
>>>>> like RAO seems to attract a goodly and highly vocal
>>>>> segment of that tiny minority of music lovers whose
>>>>> preferences appear to be overcome by emotions other
>>>>> than a desire for the most sonically faithful and
>>>>> literal reproduction of musical recordings.

>>>> Music is an expression of emotion.
>>>> Myfi is better than Hifi.

>>> How do you do at live concerts, where the sound is
>>> clearly the preference of the house, not yours.

>> What live concert?
>> What concert hall, which conductor and orchestra, which
>> programn material, which seat?

>That's my argument, but it doesn't apply here.

>You've missed the point.

I think not.
One has the option of visiting different concert halls, or venues
where music is made.
One has the option of choosing the desired orchestra and/or conductor,
or band, or soloist.
One has the option of changing seats, or moving around the place where
the sound is best to one's ears.
One even has the option of wearing custom-made ear plugs (I do at
least, since I'm in the PA business, and since I make music myself as
well).

BTW you agreed below that no system is able to recreate the actual
event, so in that sense, your argument is "non-sequitur" in PC speak,
and bogus in understandable language, anyway.

>> At home, I try to create the sound *I* like, something I
>> never denied or tried to hide from anyone.

>In several senses, that is an intelligent thing to do.

How is this possible?
You've called me dumb, stupid, uninformed, of limited mental
capacities, a bigot and a know-nothing poseur in the past.

How could I *possibly* do something as intelligent as that?

>> Apparently, people who hear and (want to) buy my
>> amplifiers, or are having a system "composed" by me, are
>> satisfied by what I do.

>Or, its something else. As you say, your conclusion is based on shallow
>appearances.

Personal preference = shallow appearance?

>> On my current system, I can tell which brand and type of
>> grand piano is used (since I play piano, and know the
>> distinct character of most well-known brands and types,
>> this is a reference point for me).

>Sometimes one can do that while listening to a pretty crappy system.

Not sometimes, always.
Look it up in your dictionary, there *is* a difference between both
words.

>> It is even possible to get an indication of the (size of
>> the) room, concert hall or jazz cafe where the recording
>> was made, if that recording is good in the first place.
>> And all that with just a humble stereo system.

>It might be exceptional for a tubes/vinyl system, but its not exceptional in
>general.

Who said anything about tubes and/or vinyl?
My amplification is 3/4 solid state, and only 1/4 tubed.
I have the choice of swapping from all tubed, via hybrid, to full
solid state amplification, or a combination of all 3, at the throw of
a switch, or swapping some cables.

My DAC and transport are both fully solid state.
I also have turntables, yes, as do you.
I can switch between tubed and solid state RIAA amplification and
equalization, , again at the flip of a switch, and I can throw in a
decent tone control, equalizer or DSP whenever I feel like it.

Your point?
To be insulting again?

>> Real, true high fidelity to the actual event is illusory.

>Agreed.

Thank you.

>> No reproducing system is able to recreate the original
>> event, it is always an approach.

>Agreed.

Thank you.

>> Might as well be an approach one likes, instead of just
>> "accurate reproducing of what is on the source disk or
>> tape".

>You've been listening to Ferstler too much.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

While I may agree with Howard on certain things, I hardly share his
audio views.

It doesn't take a clairvoyant to see that, but as I've noticed before,
your powers of perception are somewhat limited, to say the least.

>My argument is more like "How can you add enough dirt to water to make it
>sound dirty, and say that's better than clean water?"

Non sequitur.
Bogus argument, straw man, red herring, circular logic, one track mind
and blinders on, noted.

LoT;'S! ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 14th 06, 06:49 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
>
> >>"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > spewed:
>
>
> >>> Isn't it a good thing that I don't care what you think,
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> Since you don't care what I post, there is no logical
> >> reason for me to go to this trouble.
>
> > Translation: "I can't because they do not exist."
>
> Non sequitur.

Insane asshole noted.

> >> Since you don't care what I think, there is no reason
> >> for you to ever again comment on any of my posts. Being
> >> a fine reasonable person, you will never again comment
> >> on any of my posts, right?
>
> > I will comment on your posts as
> > I see fit, exactly because I am a 'fine reasonable
> > person.'

Insane asshole noted.

Harry Lavo

November 14th 06, 06:59 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..

>snip<

> My argument is more like "How can you add enough dirt to water to make it
> sound dirty, and say that's better than clean water?"

I think a better analogy would be adding a UV filter or a "warm" filter to a
photography lense....done all the time...in fact removal is the exception,
not the rule, for outdoor work.

A "tint"....visual or audio...is not "mud", Arns (the debil mad me do it).

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 07:55 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>> snip<
>
>> My argument is more like "How can you add enough dirt to
>> water to make it sound dirty, and say that's better than
>> clean water?"
>
> I think a better analogy would be adding a UV filter or a
> "warm" filter to a photography lense....done all the
> time...in fact removal is the exception, not the rule,
> for outdoor work.

Harry, you've got tone controls (selective, under user control) which are
like photographic filters, mixed up with what the LP format does, which is
to add arbitraily-chosen muddiness that the user can't do anything about
because it is inherent in the LP medium.

John Atkinson

November 14th 06, 08:08 PM

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2006 04:17:47 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> > wrote:
> wrote:
> >> Mr. Atkinson, why does it seem to matter to you how much vinyl
> >> is being sold?
> >
> >It doesn't matter directly to me, except for when it affects what
> >I publish in my magazine. If a higher proportion of readers are
> >interested in LP playback, then I need to shift the balance of content
> >their way.
>
> Are the RIAA figures, or even info directly from retailers, really
> representative of what your readers are using?

No.

> Have you done any polls to see if Stereophile users are using vinyl,
> what proportion are using it, and how they're using it?

We most recently ran a poll on www.stereophile.com. Following
are the results from several hundered respondents, which are not
too different from what we have found in the past:

LP Turntable: 23%
CD Disc Player: 39%
CDs on a DVD-V Player: 4%
SACD Disc Player: 8%
DVD-A Disc Player: 0%
FM Radio: 6%
Satellite Radio: 1%
Web Radio: 0%
Hard Disk Device: 7%
Other: 2%

The question asked was "how do you listen to the _majority_ of
your music during the year?" thus addressing your question
about "how."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 14th 06, 08:09 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> >> snip<
> >
> >> My argument is more like "How can you add enough dirt to
> >> water to make it sound dirty, and say that's better than
> >> clean water?"
> >
> > I think a better analogy would be adding a UV filter or a
> > "warm" filter to a photography lense....done all the
> > time...in fact removal is the exception, not the rule,
> > for outdoor work.
>
> Harry, you've got tone controls (selective, under user control) which are
> like photographic filters, mixed up with what the LP format does, which is
> to add arbitraily-chosen muddiness that the user can't do anything about
> because it is inherent in the LP medium.

Hey, Arns! You're starting to get it!

It's like using a Kodak film or a Fuji film. Photographers like
different films for different reasons. Some have slightly different
color balance, sharpness, contrast, and so on.

There is no such thing as 'the most accurate' film.

So if a photographer wants something balanced for skin tone, or deep
color saturation, he or she might choose different films. There's
nothing wrong with that.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e182/e182.jhtml

And if someone prefers the sound of LPs, there's nothing wrong with
that either.

But you're too big of an asshole to see that.

John Atkinson

November 14th 06, 08:11 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> CD Disc Player: 39%

Should be 49%, I believe. (Don't have the raw data to hand.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jenn

November 14th 06, 08:19 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Wrong. All Jenn is doing is targeting me repeatedly and
> >> letting everybody else take as many shots as they can
> >> without signfifcant interferenace from here. That makes
> >> her a Middius clone, differing only slightly in tone.
> >
> > Incorrect. I was giving you an opportunity to be the
> > agent of change; to be the person with class.
>
> Jenn, you seem to be agressively hard to educate. I'm not the only or even
> the major problem around here.

I didn't say that you were, Arny. Let me say again: You were given the
chance to be the hero; to change the atmosphere around here. YOU could
have changed things. Instead we get excuses and more "snot". Obviously
you don't want things to change.

>
> Until you target the major problems, everything else is futile.

One at a time. If you had taken away the fuel, there would be no fire.

>
> > That you failed to take me up on that opportunity speaks only to
> > your obvious need to be something else.
>
> Jenn its easy to be a do-gooder when you let other people do your dirty
> work.

Stop right there. You, as always, presume some kind of ulterior motive.
You are wrong. I'm not "letting others do my dirty work." Grow up and
take responsibility for YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

> The only reason why you're so worried about me is how effective I am
> at making your position so clear. You want me to do something you could
> never do,

What's that, Arny?

> and insult me when I'm not 100 times better than you.

Arny the amount of snot that you spread is far, far more than I could
ever do. Don't you see that?

Jenn

November 14th 06, 08:20 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article
> > om>,
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>> >
> >>
> >>>> I'll take this to mean that you don't want to play nice
> >>>> any more, since you've insulted her several times in
> >>>> this post.
> >>>
> >>> It appears that insults don't bother you ****R, since
> >>> you've already unloaded a goodly number and we're just
> >>> getting into your post.
> >>
> >> You perhaps didn't notice that I'd pretty well left you
> >> alone since Jenn had asked us to.
> >
> > Thanks for trying.
>
> The coach encourages her team.
>
> It's an old strategy, folks. The coach doesn't get her hands dirty, but
> leaves the dirty work up to others.

lol. It's all a big conspiracy Arny. Good on you for finding it out.

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 09:00 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Wrong. All Jenn is doing is targeting me repeatedly and
>>>> letting everybody else take as many shots as they can
>>>> without signfifcant interferenace from here. That makes
>>>> her a Middius clone, differing only slightly in tone.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. I was giving you an opportunity to be the
>>> agent of change; to be the person with class.
>>
>> Jenn, you seem to be agressively hard to educate. I'm
>> not the only or even the major problem around here.
>
> I didn't say that you were, Arny. Let me say again: You
> were given the chance to be the hero; to change the
> atmosphere around here. YOU could have changed things.
> Instead we get excuses and more "snot". Obviously you
> don't want things to change.
>
>>
>> Until you target the major problems, everything else is
>> futile.
>
> One at a time. If you had taken away the fuel, there
> would be no fire.

It appears that there is no amount of evidence or logic that will convince
you of the futility of that assertion.

>>> That you failed to take me up on that opportunity
>>> speaks only to your obvious need to be something else.
>>
>> Jenn its easy to be a do-gooder when you let other
>> people do your dirty work.

> Stop right there. You, as always, presume some kind of
> ulterior motive.

Delusions of omniscience noted. You don't know what I *always* do because
you don't monitor my life 24/7.

> You are wrong. I'm not "letting others do my dirty work."

Jenn, you are obviously unable to connect your own dotted lines.

> Grow up and take responsibility for YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

I think that statement says more than enough about you Jenn, to end this
part of the discussion.

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 09:03 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>
>>>> snip<
>>>
>>>> My argument is more like "How can you add enough dirt
>>>> to water to make it sound dirty, and say that's better
>>>> than clean water?"
>>>
>>> I think a better analogy would be adding a UV filter or
>>> a "warm" filter to a photography lense....done all the
>>> time...in fact removal is the exception, not the rule,
>>> for outdoor work.
>>
>> Harry, you've got tone controls (selective, under user
>> control) which are like photographic filters, mixed up
>> with what the LP format does, which is to add
>> arbitraily-chosen muddiness that the user can't do
>> anything about because it is inherent in the LP medium.
>
> Hey, Arns! You're starting to get it!
>
> It's like using a Kodak film or a Fuji film.
> Photographers like different films for different reasons.
> Some have slightly different color balance, sharpness,
> contrast, and so on.
>
> There is no such thing as 'the most accurate' film.

However there clearly is such a thing as "lesser accurate film".

Oh, have you never seen pictures taken with poor quality, old technology
film?

> So if a photographer wants something balanced for skin
> tone, or deep color saturation, he or she might choose
> different films. There's nothing wrong with that.

That would be like tone controls.

> And if someone prefers the sound of LPs, there's nothing
> wrong with that either.

Where did I say that there is something wrong with that?

Quote me saying that it is morally wrong to have quiet enjoyment of LPs.

Arny Krueger

November 14th 06, 09:04 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> Here in Ohio wrote:
>> On 14 Nov 2006 04:17:47 -0800, "John Atkinson"
>> > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> Mr. Atkinson, why does it seem to matter to you how
>>>> much vinyl is being sold?
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter directly to me, except for when it
>>> affects what
>>> I publish in my magazine. If a higher proportion of
>>> readers are interested in LP playback, then I need to
>>> shift the balance of content their way.
>>
>> Are the RIAA figures, or even info directly from
>> retailers, really representative of what your readers
>> are using?
>
> No.
>
>> Have you done any polls to see if Stereophile users are
>> using vinyl, what proportion are using it, and how
>> they're using it?
>
> We most recently ran a poll on www.stereophile.com.
> Following are the results from several hundered
> respondents, which are not too different from what we
> have found in the past:
>
> LP Turntable: 23%
> CD Disc Player: 39%
> CDs on a DVD-V Player: 4%
> SACD Disc Player: 8%
> DVD-A Disc Player: 0%
> FM Radio: 6%
> Satellite Radio: 1%
> Web Radio: 0%
> Hard Disk Device: 7%
> Other: 2%
>
> The question asked was "how do you listen to the
> _majority_ of your music during the year?" thus
> addressing your question about "how."

Well, that explains the SP editorial policy.

The 0% DVD-A seems to be hard to explain, though.

Harry Lavo

November 14th 06, 09:10 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>> snip<
>>
>>> My argument is more like "How can you add enough dirt to
>>> water to make it sound dirty, and say that's better than
>>> clean water?"
>>
>> I think a better analogy would be adding a UV filter or a
>> "warm" filter to a photography lense....done all the
>> time...in fact removal is the exception, not the rule,
>> for outdoor work.
>
> Harry, you've got tone controls (selective, under user control) which are
> like photographic filters, mixed up with what the LP format does, which is
> to add arbitraily-chosen muddiness that the user can't do anything about
> because it is inherent in the LP medium.
>

You are right about what I was thinking....jumped to the bottom of the
argument too soon.

But as far as LP's are concerned, IMO it is still not mud....perhaps I can
liken it to a smidgen of grain left after I take a digital picture in the
near-dark at ISO 1600 with my SLR...then clean it up with software. There
is grain there...you can see it...but it really doesn't destroy the thrill
of seeing a picutre the way we and our human eyes see things. Likewise, for
many of us (particularly those of us with line contact styli) the
occassional tic or pop doesn't get in the way of the music....and "behind"
those occasional tics and pops lies some glorious, transparent sound much of
the time.

George M. Middius

November 14th 06, 09:31 PM

Arnii "You're not my mommy!" Krooger said:

> > Grow up and take responsibility for YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

> I think that statement says more than enough about you Jenn

To me (and probably to most of us), that statement says that Jenn has lost
patience with trying to indulge you in the hope that you'll impart some
useful information.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

November 14th 06, 09:33 PM

The Krooborg smashes its pedal appendages with its own hammer. LOt"S.

> > And if someone prefers the sound of LPs, there's nothing
> > wrong with that either.

> Where did I say that there is something wrong with that?

You forgot the smarmy-winky, Arnii. Here's a few extras for you to set by:

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

> Quote me saying that it is morally wrong to have quiet enjoyment of LPs.

Thank's Mr. Krooger for, admitting Mr. Krooger that it's sinful to play
LP's loudly Mr. Krooger.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 14th 06, 10:49 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> The Krooborg smashes its pedal appendages with its own hammer. LOt"S.
>
> > > And if someone prefers the sound of LPs, there's nothing
> > > wrong with that either.
>
> > Where did I say that there is something wrong with that?
>
> You forgot the smarmy-winky, Arnii. Here's a few extras for you to set by:
>
> ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
> > Quote me saying that it is morally wrong to have quiet enjoyment of LPs.
>
> Thank's Mr. Krooger for, admitting Mr. Krooger that it's sinful to play
> LP's loudly Mr. Krooger.

I think he meant that it's sinful to enjoy them and *talk* about them.
If you like them you need to keep it quiet.

Otherwise, raging assholes will appear like flies to ****.

Jenn

November 14th 06, 11:14 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Wrong. All Jenn is doing is targeting me repeatedly and
> >>>> letting everybody else take as many shots as they can
> >>>> without signfifcant interferenace from here. That makes
> >>>> her a Middius clone, differing only slightly in tone.
> >>>
> >>> Incorrect. I was giving you an opportunity to be the
> >>> agent of change; to be the person with class.
> >>
> >> Jenn, you seem to be agressively hard to educate. I'm
> >> not the only or even the major problem around here.
> >
> > I didn't say that you were, Arny. Let me say again: You
> > were given the chance to be the hero; to change the
> > atmosphere around here. YOU could have changed things.
> > Instead we get excuses and more "snot". Obviously you
> > don't want things to change.
> >
> >>
> >> Until you target the major problems, everything else is
> >> futile.
> >
> > One at a time. If you had taken away the fuel, there
> > would be no fire.
>
> It appears that there is no amount of evidence or logic that will convince
> you of the futility of that assertion.

Why wouldn't you give it a chance? It works in other situations.

>
> >>> That you failed to take me up on that opportunity
> >>> speaks only to your obvious need to be something else.
> >>
> >> Jenn its easy to be a do-gooder when you let other
> >> people do your dirty work.
>
> > Stop right there. You, as always, presume some kind of
> > ulterior motive.
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted. You don't know what I *always* do because
> you don't monitor my life 24/7.

Always = around here, obviously.

>
> > You are wrong. I'm not "letting others do my dirty work."
>
> Jenn, you are obviously unable to connect your own dotted lines.

I'm simply speaking the truth.

>
> > Grow up and take responsibility for YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
>
> I think that statement says more than enough about you Jenn, to end this
> part of the discussion.

Surrender accepted.

George M. Middius

November 14th 06, 11:22 PM

Shhhh! said:

> > > Quote me saying that it is morally wrong to have quiet enjoyment of LPs.

> > Thank's Mr. Krooger for, admitting Mr. Krooger that it's sinful to play
> > LP's loudly Mr. Krooger.

> I think he meant that it's sinful to enjoy them and *talk* about them.
> If you like them you need to keep it quiet.

You might be right, I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps Mr. Krooborg will
clarify which aspect of enjoying LPs is sinful.

> Otherwise, raging assholes will appear like flies to ****.

Yep, that's inevitable.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Sander deWaal

November 14th 06, 11:26 PM

"Harry Lavo" > said:

>>>> My argument is more like "How can you add enough dirt to
>>>> water to make it sound dirty, and say that's better than
>>>> clean water?"

>>> I think a better analogy would be adding a UV filter or a
>>> "warm" filter to a photography lense....done all the
>>> time...in fact removal is the exception, not the rule,
>>> for outdoor work.

>> Harry, you've got tone controls (selective, under user control) which are
>> like photographic filters, mixed up with what the LP format does, which is
>> to add arbitraily-chosen muddiness that the user can't do anything about
>> because it is inherent in the LP medium.

>You are right about what I was thinking....jumped to the bottom of the
>argument too soon.

>But as far as LP's are concerned, IMO it is still not mud....perhaps I can
>liken it to a smidgen of grain left after I take a digital picture in the
>near-dark at ISO 1600 with my SLR...then clean it up with software. There
>is grain there...you can see it...but it really doesn't destroy the thrill
>of seeing a picutre the way we and our human eyes see things. Likewise, for
>many of us (particularly those of us with line contact styli) the
>occassional tic or pop doesn't get in the way of the music....and "behind"
>those occasional tics and pops lies some glorious, transparent sound much of
>the time.

There's a perfect birthday present for Arns: a photocopy of a Matisse
to hang on his wall ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

Sander deWaal

November 14th 06, 11:30 PM

Jenn > said:

>Arny the amount of snot that you spread is far, far more than I could
>ever do. Don't you see that?

Sadly, he doesn't, Jenn.

I'm not going to say "See, told you so!", because that would blow my
cover as a Middius/Atkinson/Jenn/Packer/McElroy/Stevenson/Dormer/
Broens/Ferstler/Phillips/Sackman sockpuppet.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

dizzy

November 15th 06, 12:18 AM

Here in Ohio wrote:

>It would be interesting to know why CD players are a bigger percentage
>than DVD players. We could speculate that Stereophile readers are
>purchasing expensive CD players (since they're about the only kind of
>dedicated CD players left) or that Stereophile readers are using a
>bunch of old CD players.

DVD players suck, for one thing. The crappy FF function alone is a
deal killer for me.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 15th 06, 01:06 AM

Signal wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >She's like a
> >person who drinks polluted sea water and brags about how natural and pure it
> >tastes.
>
> Spin the table :
>
> You are like a person who proclaims that purified tap water is
> "superior", describing those who express a preference for natural
> spring water as "bigots".
>
> ;-)

That does seem to sum it up nicely...

Except that you forgot the part about old Arns being an unqualified
asshole.

Harry Lavo

November 15th 06, 04:46 AM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Nov 2006 12:08:57 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>> Have you done any polls to see if Stereophile users are using vinyl,
>>> what proportion are using it, and how they're using it?
>>
>>We most recently ran a poll on www.stereophile.com. Following
>>are the results from several hundered respondents, which are not
>>too different from what we have found in the past:
>>
>>LP Turntable: 23%
>>CD Disc Player: 39%
>>CDs on a DVD-V Player: 4%
>>SACD Disc Player: 8%
>>DVD-A Disc Player: 0%
>>FM Radio: 6%
>>Satellite Radio: 1%
>>Web Radio: 0%
>>Hard Disk Device: 7%
>>Other: 2%
>>
>>The question asked was "how do you listen to the _majority_ of
>>your music during the year?" thus addressing your question
>>about "how."
>
> Ok, I can see why you would cover vinyl in Stereophile. The readers
> want it.
>
> It would be interesting to know why CD players are a bigger percentage
> than DVD players. We could speculate that Stereophile readers are
> purchasing expensive CD players (since they're about the only kind of
> dedicated CD players left) or that Stereophile readers are using a
> bunch of old CD players.

Or we could conclude that we know little to nothing about their DVD-A
players, other than that if they have them they are not their main vehicle
for listening to music. I myself fall into that category....it sits right
on top of my SACD/CD player....and it plays DVD-V's and an OCCASIONAL DVD-A.
But it doesn't come close to being my main source of music.

Harry Lavo

November 15th 06, 04:48 AM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > said:
>
>
>>>>> My argument is more like "How can you add enough dirt to
>>>>> water to make it sound dirty, and say that's better than
>>>>> clean water?"
>
>
>>>> I think a better analogy would be adding a UV filter or a
>>>> "warm" filter to a photography lense....done all the
>>>> time...in fact removal is the exception, not the rule,
>>>> for outdoor work.
>
>
>>> Harry, you've got tone controls (selective, under user control) which
>>> are
>>> like photographic filters, mixed up with what the LP format does, which
>>> is
>>> to add arbitraily-chosen muddiness that the user can't do anything
>>> about
>>> because it is inherent in the LP medium.
>
>
>>You are right about what I was thinking....jumped to the bottom of the
>>argument too soon.
>
>
>>But as far as LP's are concerned, IMO it is still not mud....perhaps I can
>>liken it to a smidgen of grain left after I take a digital picture in the
>>near-dark at ISO 1600 with my SLR...then clean it up with software. There
>>is grain there...you can see it...but it really doesn't destroy the thrill
>>of seeing a picutre the way we and our human eyes see things. Likewise,
>>for
>>many of us (particularly those of us with line contact styli) the
>>occassional tic or pop doesn't get in the way of the music....and "behind"
>>those occasional tics and pops lies some glorious, transparent sound much
>>of
>>the time.
>
>
> There's a perfect birthday present for Arns: a photocopy of a Matisse
> to hang on his wall ;-)
>

LOL, truly!

Arny Krueger

November 15th 06, 02:14 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> I fail to understand why you are obsessing about this
>>> matter.
>>
>> Well, it's pretty obvious why he's obsessing about
>> it...you said it.
>
> There is that, of course, which is why Mr. Krueger
> trolled me by starting a new thread to discuss a casual
> remark I made a while back.
>
>> I've been pretty underwhelmed by the RIAA tracking for
>> years. It doesn't account for specialized retailers,
>> such as high-end stereo stores that sell vinyl on the
>> side, or most mail-order retailers.

Actually it does, but not by surveying retailers. John has been embarassed
and humiliated and driven to further obfuscation by find print from the RIAA
web site in the recent past. I guess that John needs to read a bit more
fine print on the RIAA web site such as the following:

"The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group
that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a
business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative
and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise
the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create,
manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound
recordings produced and sold in the United States."

Note that the RIAA is not about membership composed of small niche dealers.

I guess it is a mystery to John how one can account for media sales without
surveying dealers. To understand this you need some experience with how
retailing works which John obviously lacks.

Retailers buy product from a distrubution chain that for all intents and
purposes is highly likely to include organizations that *are* RIAA members.
IOW record stores don't sell product that they create, they buy it from
someone else, and that someone else can track sales by analyzing payments
and shipments.

Payments and shipments are tracked in the normal course of business. IOW,
if you ship recordings to a dealer, you don't know what happens to them
until they are sold, destroyed, returned, or paid for. If they are paid for,
then and only then are they counted as being sold.

New recordings that end up in the hands of consumers without being paid for
are commonly known as "pirated" recordings. If John wants to claim that the
LP and so-called high-resolution recording market is dominated by piracy, he
can be my guest. ;-)

>> It also doesn't
>> account for all of the new vinyl sales on e-Bay, which
>> for years has been a hotbed of LP activity.

> That's been my impression also, though if the RIAA are
> trying harder to track that sales activity, as Mr.
> Krueger claims, that would be commendable. Mr. Krueger,
> of course, for personal reasons, needs to "prove" that
> the LP sales activity you
> and I are talking about doesn't actually exist.
>
> These are intersting times for audio, in that the two
> hottest product areas right now, in terms of reader
> passion, are LP playback and network-distributed digital
> music.

Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason
why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all
starting to slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of production
of the V15.

Arny Krueger

November 15th 06, 02:21 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On the other hand, Arny didn't do a good job either. The
> appropriate thing would have been to turn the other cheek
> no matter what anyone said. Then he would have been able
> to point out how he was a saint.

Remember, the current "Game Of RAO" has been going on for about a decade.

I don't think you were here in my cheek-turning days. You need to be an
old-timer like Middius to remember that. I pointed out at the time that I
have only 4 cheeks to turn, and that Middius had exhausted my personal
supply of cheeks with his incessant attacks.

What's going on here right now is that most of the more agressive parties
want to simultaneously represent that they have felt no pain as a
consequences of their incessant attacks on me, but that their wails and
screams are only due to moral outrange and interest in peace and quiet.

There's plenty of piece and quiet on Usenet, just go to some other group
than RAO. The other groups have done a pretty good job of controlling and
containing pointless aargumentative people like Middius and Jenn.

Clyde Slick

November 15th 06, 02:31 PM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:

> Hey, Arns, here's a suggestion. If you want to see who causes the most
> acrimony around here, why don't you leave for, say a year or ten? Yes,
> you'll no doubt still get mentioned. You, after all, are still bringing
> up this Derida fellow, and a host of others that do not appear to be
> here any more.

After Clerkie left, I stopped making derogatory references about him,
OOPS!

George M. Middius

November 15th 06, 02:46 PM

The Krooborg has lost its mission notes.

> I don't think you were here in my cheek-turning days. You need to be an
> old-timer like Middius to remember that. I pointed out at the time that I
> have only 4 cheeks to turn, and that Middius had exhausted my personal
> supply of cheeks with his incessant attacks.

Here are your orders for the remainder of week 45, Cpl. Krooborg:

1. You will eliminate 20% of your hoard of obsolete sound cards. Recycling
is not mandatory. Trucking fees are not reimbursable.

2. You will seek and destroy vinyl relics being offered for sale in your
geographical vicinity. Your reports to HQ indicate you are seriously
behind in meeting your 2006 quota. Get cracking, Corporal!

3. You will beg forgiveness from your pastor for subjecting him to the
nastiness you generate in cyberspace.

4. You will abstain from acquiring any new turds. Period.

5. You will purge the following phrases from your language module:
"You have me confused..."
"Thanks for admitting..."
"You've got me confused..."
"[_____] is a liar..."

These are your tasks for the week, Cpl. Krooborg. Hut-hut-HUT!

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Sander deWaal

November 15th 06, 05:16 PM

Here in Ohio > said:

>Or maybe "The Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies" would be better?
>:-)

Obscure refernece noted, LoT:'S! ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

Harry Lavo

November 15th 06, 06:08 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
>> wrote:
>>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>>> I fail to understand why you are obsessing about this
>>>> matter.
>>>
>>> Well, it's pretty obvious why he's obsessing about
>>> it...you said it.
>>
>> There is that, of course, which is why Mr. Krueger
>> trolled me by starting a new thread to discuss a casual
>> remark I made a while back.
>>
>>> I've been pretty underwhelmed by the RIAA tracking for
>>> years. It doesn't account for specialized retailers,
>>> such as high-end stereo stores that sell vinyl on the
>>> side, or most mail-order retailers.
>
> Actually it does, but not by surveying retailers. John has been embarassed
> and humiliated and driven to further obfuscation by find print from the
> RIAA web site in the recent past. I guess that John needs to read a bit
> more fine print on the RIAA web site such as the following:
>
> "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group
> that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a
> business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members'
> creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that
> comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA
> members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all
> legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States."
>
> Note that the RIAA is not about membership composed of small niche
> dealers.
>
> I guess it is a mystery to John how one can account for media sales
> without surveying dealers. To understand this you need some experience
> with how retailing works which John obviously lacks.
>
> Retailers buy product from a distrubution chain that for all intents and
> purposes is highly likely to include organizations that *are* RIAA
> members. IOW record stores don't sell product that they create, they buy
> it from someone else, and that someone else can track sales by analyzing
> payments and shipments.
>
> Payments and shipments are tracked in the normal course of business. IOW,
> if you ship recordings to a dealer, you don't know what happens to them
> until they are sold, destroyed, returned, or paid for. If they are paid
> for, then and only then are they counted as being sold.
>
> New recordings that end up in the hands of consumers without being paid
> for are commonly known as "pirated" recordings. If John wants to claim
> that the LP and so-called high-resolution recording market is dominated by
> piracy, he can be my guest. ;-)
>

And what about that missing 10% that the RIAA doesn't account for. You
don't suppose that that could include the smaller manufacturers recording
and producing SACDs, DADs, and LP's these days do you? And selling *direct*
to large web retailers such as CDNow, Music Direct, Acoustic Sounds, etc.
Do you Arny?

Think, man.

Oh, I forgot....you really have nothing to do with these markets.

>>> It also doesn't
>>> account for all of the new vinyl sales on e-Bay, which
>>> for years has been a hotbed of LP activity.
>
>
>
>> That's been my impression also, though if the RIAA are
>> trying harder to track that sales activity, as Mr.
>> Krueger claims, that would be commendable. Mr. Krueger,
>> of course, for personal reasons, needs to "prove" that
>> the LP sales activity you
>> and I are talking about doesn't actually exist.
>>
>> These are intersting times for audio, in that the two
>> hottest product areas right now, in terms of reader
>> passion, are LP playback and network-distributed digital
>> music.
>
> Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One
> reason why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that
> its all starting to slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of
> production of the V15.

Frankly, the V15 was done in more by the presense of much better, albeit
slightly more expensive cartridges catering to the audiophile market. And
as well by the abandonment of the LP by the more casual audio mavens such as
yourself who were its main market....abandonment in favor of the more
convenient but sonically less satisfying CD.

Harry Lavo

November 15th 06, 06:14 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:15:24 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scream. This is so blatently and
>>patently rediculous after the two day hiatus we went through including the
>
> It really wasn't "normal discussion minus the insults." There was a
> lot of talking about Arny's past behavior and speculations that he
> wouldn't be able to stop insulting people.

True, because people were jaundiced by past experience.

However, when Arny was on vacation for nine days or so, we did discuss audio
and rarely mentioned Arny.

>
> On the other hand, Arny didn't do a good job either. The appropriate
> thing would have been to turn the other cheek no matter what anyone
> said. Then he would have been able to point out how he was a saint.
>
> Instead, Arny seemed to be looking for any excuse to resume
> hostilities.

He was.

> On the gripping hand, everyone else seemed to be too ready to give up
> the ceasefire.
>
> Shame on everyone!

I guess if we really want to quit, we can go to other newsgroups. There is
a certain morbid satisfaction in watching Arny self-destruct every so often.
And despite it all, enough audio discussion to keep it interesting.

George M. Middius

November 15th 06, 06:45 PM

Sander deWaal said to RibbetBorg:

> Obscure refernece noted, LoT:'S! ;-)

Mock Krooglish is wasted on Kroopologists, note.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Arny Krueger

November 15th 06, 06:54 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:15:24 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scream. This is
>>> so blatently and patently rediculous after the two day
>>> hiatus we went through including the
>>
>> It really wasn't "normal discussion minus the insults."
>> There was a lot of talking about Arny's past behavior
>> and speculations that he wouldn't be able to stop
>> insulting people.
>
> True, because people were jaundiced by past experience.

No, it was true becasue they couldn't stop insulting me.

It was all a farce.

Clyde Slick

November 15th 06, 07:26 PM

> The Krooborg has lost its mission notes.
>
>
> > I have only 4 cheeks to turn,

That explains his extraordinary ****ting capacity..

Clyde Slick

November 15th 06, 07:28 PM

Arny Krueger a scris:
>
> It was all a farce.

as opposed to an "insult".

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 15th 06, 09:15 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> No, it was true becasue they couldn't stop insulting me.
>
> It was all a farce.

Yes, dear. Poor dear!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 15th 06, 09:18 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason
> why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all
> starting to slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of production
> of the V15.

I have two of them. What a terrible-sounding cartridge, IMO. Neither
one is mounted currently.

But I am panicked: it's all starting to slip away!

And I still call you "asshole."

[email protected]

November 15th 06, 10:47 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
> > wrote:
> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>> I fail to understand why you are obsessing about this
> >>> matter.
> >>
> >> Well, it's pretty obvious why he's obsessing about
> >> it...you said it.
> >
> > There is that, of course, which is why Mr. Krueger
> > trolled me by starting a new thread to discuss a casual
> > remark I made a while back.
> >
> >> I've been pretty underwhelmed by the RIAA tracking for
> >> years. It doesn't account for specialized retailers,
> >> such as high-end stereo stores that sell vinyl on the
> >> side, or most mail-order retailers.
>
> Actually it does, but not by surveying retailers. John has been embarassed
> and humiliated and driven to further obfuscation by find print from the RIAA
> web site in the recent past. I guess that John needs to read a bit more
> fine print on the RIAA web site such as the following:
>
> "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group
> that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a
> business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative
> and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise
> the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create,
> manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound
> recordings produced and sold in the United States."
>
> Note that the RIAA is not about membership composed of small niche dealers.
>
> I guess it is a mystery to John how one can account for media sales without
> surveying dealers. To understand this you need some experience with how
> retailing works which John obviously lacks.
>
> Retailers buy product from a distrubution chain that for all intents and
> purposes is highly likely to include organizations that *are* RIAA members.
> IOW record stores don't sell product that they create, they buy it from
> someone else, and that someone else can track sales by analyzing payments
> and shipments.
>
> Payments and shipments are tracked in the normal course of business. IOW,
> if you ship recordings to a dealer, you don't know what happens to them
> until they are sold, destroyed, returned, or paid for. If they are paid for,
> then and only then are they counted as being sold.
>
> New recordings that end up in the hands of consumers without being paid for
> are commonly known as "pirated" recordings. If John wants to claim that the
> LP and so-called high-resolution recording market is dominated by piracy, he
> can be my guest. ;-)
>
> >> It also doesn't
> >> account for all of the new vinyl sales on e-Bay, which
> >> for years has been a hotbed of LP activity.
>
>
>
> > That's been my impression also, though if the RIAA are
> > trying harder to track that sales activity, as Mr.
> > Krueger claims, that would be commendable. Mr. Krueger,
> > of course, for personal reasons, needs to "prove" that
> > the LP sales activity you
> > and I are talking about doesn't actually exist.
> >
> > These are intersting times for audio, in that the two
> > hottest product areas right now, in terms of reader
> > passion, are LP playback and network-distributed digital
> > music.
>
> Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason
> why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all
> starting to slip away.

I've been hearing that for the last twenty years. Still hasn't
materialized.

One shoe dropping was the termination of production
> of the V15.

Word is, thanks to the backlash, they're going to reintroduce it.
Besides, the only real result of discontinuing the V15 is that now
M97xEs are flying off the shelf.

Boon

Harry Lavo

November 16th 06, 03:39 AM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:14:31 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>And despite it all, enough audio discussion to keep it interesting.
>>
>
> Yes, there is that. :-)
>
>
> I just got a copy of "Suit Yourself" by Shelby Lynne yesterday. Very
> enjoyable.
>
> Last week I got a copy of "Let It Go" by Clair Marlo after having it
> recommended to me. (I made sure I got the original CD from Sheffield
> Labs.) I liked this one too.
>

I'm a predominantly a classical and jazz fan, although I also tend to like
singer/songwriters of the folk/rock persuasion.

A few weeks ago I bought the boxed set of Beethoven's nine symphonies put
out under the LSO (London Symphony Orchestra) label and featuring the LSO
under the direction of Bernard Haitink. They gave the whole series in
London in November-December of 2005 and March-April of 2006. Recorded the
live performances, selected and merged the best, cleaned up extraneous
sounds, and issues them as Hybrid multi-channel SACDs.

The performances in London got rave reviews...so when the set became
available and bought it. Was immediately bowled over...really interesting
and fresh interpretations...and the best SACD orchestral surround sound I
have heard. In my living room, I can close my eyes and hear the same sound
as I hear when listening live in a decent concert hall. Been waiting for
that all my adult life.

And then for a change of pace, I put on my Mary Chapin Carpenter
Time*Sex*Love album, which I really like and has some of the best studio
production value I have heard on SACD (again in surround sound...the stereo
mix isn't particularly good IMO).

I can recommend these to anybody interested in the genre's.

ScottW

November 16th 06, 04:37 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason
>> why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all
>> starting to slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of production
>> of the V15.
>
> I have two of them. What a terrible-sounding cartridge, IMO.

How'd you end up with 2 similar make carts you don't like?
One I can understand.

> Neither
> one is mounted currently.

Which version? If its a current one with available replacement
stylii I'll let you give it to me.

ScottW

paul packer

November 16th 06, 05:45 AM

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:54:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> True, because people were jaundiced by past experience.
>
>No, it was true becasue they couldn't stop insulting me.

And so the world continues to revolve around one Arnold Krueger Esq.

Arny Krueger

November 16th 06, 12:07 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy
>>> minority". One reason why LP bigots are so passionate
>>> is that they probably sense that its all starting to
>>> slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of
>>> production of the V15.
>>
>> I have two of them. What a terrible-sounding cartridge,
>> IMO.
>
> How'd you end up with 2 similar make carts you don't like?
> One I can understand.
>
>> Neither
>> one is mounted currently.

> Which version? If its a current one with available
> replacement stylii I'll let you give it to me.

I'd even pay shipping and a nominal handling fee if the cartridge was in
good shape.

It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge
to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that
****R is capable of doing such a thing. Of course, why would I believe that
he could tell if he hadn't damaged it or pack and ship it properly?

Arny Krueger

November 16th 06, 12:08 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:54:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>> True, because people were jaundiced by past experience.
>>
>> No, it was true becasue they couldn't stop insulting me.
>
> And so the world continues to revolve around one Arnold
> Krueger Esq.

Well, that is something that the relevant parties do to themselves.

Arny Krueger

November 16th 06, 03:58 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

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

>> It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you
>> match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your
>> preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is
>> capable of doing such a thing.

> What about the load resistance?

> http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html

Nice reference, BTW.

I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with anything but
the standard 47K.

Harry Lavo

November 16th 06, 04:09 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>
>
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>
>>> It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you
>>> match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your
>>> preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is
>>> capable of doing such a thing.
>
>> What about the load resistance?
>
>> http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
>
> Nice reference, BTW.
>
> I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with anything but
> the standard 47K.

It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other MM's.

John Atkinson

November 16th 06, 04:13 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>
> > What about the load resistance?
> > http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
>
> I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with
> anything but the standard 47k.

The V15 III needed to be loaded with 68k ohms for flat response.
I believed the V15-IV and V were okay with 47k ohms.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

November 16th 06, 04:20 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you
>>>> match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your
>>>> preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is
>>>> capable of doing such a thing.
>>
>>> What about the load resistance?
>>
>>> http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
>>
>> Nice reference, BTW.
>>
>> I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used
>> with anything but the standard 47K.
>
> It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other MM's.

It is bad news for people who can't follow instructions and good news for
the people who can.

BTW Harry, I just checked google and noticed your many denouncments of the
V15.

I guessed that would be the outcome, but decided to give you the benefit of
the doubt. Thanks for running true to form.

Harry Lavo

November 16th 06, 04:39 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you
>>>>> match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your
>>>>> preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is
>>>>> capable of doing such a thing.
>>>
>>>> What about the load resistance?
>>>
>>>> http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
>>>
>>> Nice reference, BTW.
>>>
>>> I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used
>>> with anything but the standard 47K.
>>
>> It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other MM's.
>
> It is bad news for people who can't follow instructions and good news for
> the people who can.
>
> BTW Harry, I just checked google and noticed your many denouncments of the
> V15.
>
> I guessed that would be the outcome, but decided to give you the benefit
> of the doubt. Thanks for running true to form.

There is a difference between "knowing" a cartridge and "liking" it, Arny.
I did the original V15 reveiw for TAS. I inherited a V15III with the Dual
701 I bought. I had preamps that I could play with loading. I also talked
to dealers, and I subscribed to IAR who did extensive testing of the
load-effects of resistance and capitance on cartridges.

IMO the V15 series was always overhyped...in part because of its
"trackability" which was real but no better than the early top-of-line
ADC's, and the ADC's sounded much better (eg. more like music) although by
today's standards they are a bit "colored" but in a music-friendly way. I
could get it "flat" but I never could get it "real". Their was a reason
that the XLM was TAS's reference cartridge during the early days of the V15.
I had figured it out for myself earlier and used the ADC 25 (three styli)
cartridge from the late '60's until the XLM was introduced.

Harry Lavo

November 16th 06, 04:45 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:39:05 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:14:31 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And despite it all, enough audio discussion to keep it interesting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, there is that. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> I just got a copy of "Suit Yourself" by Shelby Lynne yesterday. Very
>>> enjoyable.
>>>
>>> Last week I got a copy of "Let It Go" by Clair Marlo after having it
>>> recommended to me. (I made sure I got the original CD from Sheffield
>>> Labs.) I liked this one too.
>>>
>>
>>I'm a predominantly a classical and jazz fan, although I also tend to like
>>singer/songwriters of the folk/rock persuasion.
>
> My tastes can only be described as "eclectic." :-)

Well, then you should have SACD capability. The Sony C2000ES sold on eBay
(Canadian grey market w/three year warranty) for under $300 is an excellent
CD/SACD changer...very transparent, although its midrange smoothness can be
bettered (I use a separate DAC for critical CD listening) but superb on SACD
because it has a "direct out" that is pure DSD and bypasses any PCM
conversion, which tends to reduce ambience on this machine (and on my
Pioneer 578a).

>
>>
>>A few weeks ago I bought the boxed set of Beethoven's nine symphonies put
>>out under the LSO (London Symphony Orchestra) label and featuring the LSO
>>under the direction of Bernard Haitink. They gave the whole series in
>>London in November-December of 2005 and March-April of 2006. Recorded the
>>live performances, selected and merged the best, cleaned up extraneous
>>sounds, and issues them as Hybrid multi-channel SACDs.
>
> How do they sound as two-channel CDs? I did some exploring of this
> yesterday. Obviously they use the same DSD mixdown, and the CD's sound
> slightly different thatn the SACD, but still excellent. It's just that
> the orchestra doesn't translate to stereo very well, once you've grown
> accustom to multi-channel. I guess a truthful answer would be that I
> probably no longer can make that judgement with the same frame of
> reference that you might have. They are excellent performances IMO,
> opinion, however.

Arny Krueger

November 16th 06, 05:01 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you
>>>>>> match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of
>>>>>> your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R
>>>>>> is capable of doing such a thing.
>>>>
>>>>> What about the load resistance?
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
>>>>
>>>> Nice reference, BTW.
>>>>
>>>> I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be
>>>> used with anything but the standard 47K.
>>>
>>> It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other
>>> MM's.
>>
>> It is bad news for people who can't follow instructions
>> and good news for the people who can.
>>
>> BTW Harry, I just checked google and noticed your many
>> denouncments of the V15.
>>
>> I guessed that would be the outcome, but decided to give
>> you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for running true to
>> form.
>
> There is a difference between "knowing" a cartridge and
> "liking" it, Arny.

Depends on where you are on the accuracy ladder. Note all those audiophiles
who were caught flat-footed by Sander's little NL distortion test.

> I did the original V15 reveiw for TAS.

I bet it was a review, not a reveiw. ;-)

> I inherited a V15III with the Dual 701 I bought. I had
> preamps that I could play with loading. I also talked to
> dealers, and I subscribed to IAR who did extensive
> testing of the load-effects of resistance and capitance
> on cartridges.

So, what sort of bias controls did you use to clear yourself of the
influence of all of these highly biased authorities in your life, Harry?

> IMO the V15 series was always overhyped...in part because
> of its "trackability" which was real but no better than
> the early top-of-line ADC's, and the ADC's sounded much
> better (eg. more like music) although by today's
> standards they are a bit "colored" but in a
> music-friendly way.

The difference in warp-induced and eccentricity-induced amplitude modulation
distortion between V15 and XLM cartridges was one of those night and day
things. Problem is that the XLM's fairly gross amplitude modulation
distortion was interpreted by the naive as being a good soundstage.

> I could get it "flat" but I never could get it "real".

Once I started listening to digital recordings, I never lost a lot of sleep
over such facts of life. The LP format is pretty much what it is, and that's
not all that good.

> Their was a reason that the XLM was
> TAS's reference cartridge during the early days of the V15.

Probably, it was the distortion, which they interpreted as being euphonic.

>I had figured it out for myself earlier and used the
> ADC 25 (three styli) cartridge from the late '60's until
> the XLM was introduced.

You sound like Peter Pritchard true believer, Harry. There seems to be a
pattern there... ;-)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 16th 06, 05:06 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason
> >> why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all
> >> starting to slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of production
> >> of the V15.
> >
> > I have two of them. What a terrible-sounding cartridge, IMO.
>
> How'd you end up with 2 similar make carts you don't like?
> One I can understand.

I got them at different times for very little investment. One is a Type
IV, one is a Type VMR.

You see, I'm open-minded. (I'm sure there's a reason you cannot
understand.)

At the time, I was willing to try a newer version.

> > Neither
> > one is mounted currently.
>
> Which version? If its a current one with available replacement
> stylii I'll let you give it to me.

So no, they're not the current version. I haven't used them in years.
Maybe I'll give them another spin one of these days.

Sander deWaal

November 16th 06, 05:37 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Depends on where you are on the accuracy ladder. Note all those audiophiles
>who were caught flat-footed by Sander's little NL distortion test.

Umm.....you're actually flattering me a little, Arns.

It was Jacco's test, I merely posted the files and the end result of
this unscientific, sighted test.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 16th 06, 06:25 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >>
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>> Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy
> >>> minority". One reason why LP bigots are so passionate
> >>> is that they probably sense that its all starting to
> >>> slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of
> >>> production of the V15.
> >>
> >> I have two of them. What a terrible-sounding cartridge,
> >> IMO.
> >
> > How'd you end up with 2 similar make carts you don't like?
> > One I can understand.
> >
> >> Neither
> >> one is mounted currently.
>
> > Which version? If its a current one with available
> > replacement stylii I'll let you give it to me.
>
> I'd even pay shipping and a nominal handling fee if the cartridge was in
> good shape.
>
> It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge
> to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that
> ****R is capable of doing such a thing. Of course, why would I believe that
> he could tell if he hadn't damaged it or pack and ship it properly?

Or (could it possibly be) that I preferred other cartridges? Or do you
disagree that a mechanical device (like a phono cartridge) can sound
different?

Nah. Impossible.

in·sane (in-san')
adj.
Of, exhibiting, or afflicted with insanity.
Characteristic of or associated with persons afflicted with insanity:
an insane laugh; insane babbling.

ass·hole (as'hol')
n. Vulgar Slang.
A thoroughly contemptible, detestable person.

Harry Lavo

November 16th 06, 09:50 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you
>>>>>>> match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of
>>>>>>> your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R
>>>>>>> is capable of doing such a thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What about the load resistance?
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice reference, BTW.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be
>>>>> used with anything but the standard 47K.
>>>>
>>>> It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other
>>>> MM's.
>>>
>>> It is bad news for people who can't follow instructions
>>> and good news for the people who can.
>>>
>>> BTW Harry, I just checked google and noticed your many
>>> denouncments of the V15.
>>>
>>> I guessed that would be the outcome, but decided to give
>>> you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for running true to
>>> form.
>>
>> There is a difference between "knowing" a cartridge and
>> "liking" it, Arny.
>
> Depends on where you are on the accuracy ladder. Note all those
> audiophiles who were caught flat-footed by Sander's little NL distortion
> test.

Between the two, I had a strong prefereence. And it had to do with which
sounded the most like real voices and real instruments in my system...which
allowed more suspension of disbelief. In other words, Arny...like most
audiophiles make judgements.

Oh, I'm sorry, preferences are totally bogus unless they match up with
yours.....

>
>> I did the original V15 reveiw for TAS.
>
> I bet it was a review, not a reveiw. ;-)

touche'

>
>> I inherited a V15III with the Dual 701 I bought. I had
>> preamps that I could play with loading. I also talked to
>> dealers, and I subscribed to IAR who did extensive
>> testing of the load-effects of resistance and capitance
>> on cartridges.
>
> So, what sort of bias controls did you use to clear yourself of the
> influence of all of these highly biased authorities in your life, Harry?

Which are those, Arny. Did you miss the part that said I made the choice of
ADC over Shure about eight years before TAS was concieved, and based on my
own auditioning?

I still have a tape of a cartridge comparison I made a year later (having
rejected the best Shure at the time...of the ADC 10e vs. Stanton 681EE and
the Ortofon SL-15. The ADC beat them for "musicality" as well.

>
>> IMO the V15 series was always overhyped...in part because
>> of its "trackability" which was real but no better than
>> the early top-of-line ADC's, and the ADC's sounded much
>> better (eg. more like music) although by today's
>> standards they are a bit "colored" but in a
>> music-friendly way.
>
> The difference in warp-induced and eccentricity-induced amplitude
> modulation distortion between V15 and XLM cartridges was one of those
> night and day things. Problem is that the XLM's fairly gross amplitude
> modulation distortion was interpreted by the naive as being a good
> soundstage.

Soundstage had nothing to do with my preference.

>> I could get it "flat" but I never could get it "real".
>
> Once I started listening to digital recordings, I never lost a lot of
> sleep over such facts of life. The LP format is pretty much what it is,
> and that's not all that good.

Complete non-sequitor noted, apparently just to fill up space.

>
>> Their was a reason that the XLM was
>> TAS's reference cartridge during the early days of the V15.
>
> Probably, it was the distortion, which they interpreted as being euphonic.

Your profound ignorance of the reality of how and why that choice was made
is evident.

>
>>I had figured it out for myself earlier and used the
>> ADC 25 (three styli) cartridge from the late '60's until
>> the XLM was introduced.
>
> You sound like Peter Pritchard true believer, Harry. There seems to be a
> pattern there... ;-)

At the time he made the best sounding cartridges, that's all. His wooden
tonearm, however, while a nice concept, sucked. Such was its flimsy
construction.

Arny Krueger

November 17th 06, 02:13 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless
>>>>>>>> you match up the cartridge to the input
>>>>>>>> capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously
>>>>>>>> doubt that ****R is capable of doing such a thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about the load resistance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice reference, BTW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be
>>>>>> used with anything but the standard 47K.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other
>>>>> MM's.
>>>>
>>>> It is bad news for people who can't follow instructions
>>>> and good news for the people who can.
>>>>
>>>> BTW Harry, I just checked google and noticed your many
>>>> denouncments of the V15.
>>>>
>>>> I guessed that would be the outcome, but decided to
>>>> give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for running
>>>> true to form.
>>>
>>> There is a difference between "knowing" a cartridge and
>>> "liking" it, Arny.
>>
>> Depends on where you are on the accuracy ladder. Note
>> all those audiophiles who were caught flat-footed by
>> Sander's little NL distortion test.

> Between the two, I had a strong preference.

As did I. I owned an XLM and a V15. After a lot of listening, the XLM went
into a drawer.

> And it had
> to do with which sounded the most like real voices and
> real instruments in my system...which allowed more
> suspension of disbelief. In other words, Arny...like
> most audiophiles make judgements.

We came up with different conclusions. I picked the cartrdige that was, in
the large scheme of things, more accurate.

> Oh, I'm sorry, preferences are totally bogus unless they
> match up with yours.....

Never said that. I just said that the XLM had these pretty strong technical
flaws.

>>> I did the original V15 reveiw for TAS.
>>
>> I bet it was a review, not a reveiw. ;-)

> touche'

>>> I inherited a V15III with the Dual 701 I bought. I had
>>> preamps that I could play with loading. I also talked
>>> to dealers, and I subscribed to IAR who did extensive
>>> testing of the load-effects of resistance and capitance
>>> on cartridges.
>>
>> So, what sort of bias controls did you use to clear
>> yourself of the influence of all of these highly biased
>> authorities in your life, Harry?

> Which are those, Arny. Did you miss the part that said I
> made the choice of ADC over Shure about eight years
> before TAS was concieved, and based on my own auditioning?

OK Harry, so you're a true believer in a certain brand. In the 8 years
before TAS was conceived of, I tried lots of brands. For example, my first
magnetic cartridge was an Empire 108. Now I don't know exactly how many
years that was before TAS was conceived of, but whatever.

> I still have a tape of a cartridge comparison I made a
> year later (having rejected the best Shure at the
> time...of the ADC 10e vs. Stanton 681EE and the Ortofon
> SL-15. The ADC beat them for "musicality" as well.

Hmm, I had a 681EE or EEE at some point in my life. That was a short
experience.

>>> IMO the V15 series was always overhyped...in part
>>> because of its "trackability" which was real but no
>>> better than the early top-of-line ADC's, and the ADC's sounded much
>>> better (eg. more like music) although by today's
>>> standards they are a bit "colored" but in a
>>> music-friendly way.

>> The difference in warp-induced and eccentricity-induced
>> amplitude modulation distortion between V15 and XLM
>> cartridges was one of those night and day things.
>> Problem is that the XLM's fairly gross amplitude
>> modulation distortion was interpreted by the naive as
>> being a good soundstage.

> Soundstage had nothing to do with my preference.

I find that a little surprising given how many times you've ranted and raved
about superior soundstaging, Harry.

Maybe you didn't know the word then.

>>> I could get it "flat" but I never could get it "real".
>>
>> Once I started listening to digital recordings, I never
>> lost a lot of sleep over such facts of life. The LP
>> format is pretty much what it is, and that's not all
>> that good.

> Complete non-sequitor noted, apparently just to fill up
> space.

Just the facts.

>>> Their was a reason that the XLM was
>>> TAS's reference cartridge during the early days of the V15.
>>
>> Probably, it was the distortion, which they interpreted
>> as being euphonic.

> Your profound ignorance of the reality of how and why
> that choice was made is evident.

Let's put it this way Harry. I was a charter subscriber to TAS, just like I
was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Both were defining moments, but in
different ways. SP was a strong influence in my life for a much longer
period of time. I grew out of TAS pretty quick. TAS was rather thoroughly
debunked in my life by a number of experiences, the XLM being one, and ABX
being another.

>>> I had figured it out for myself earlier and used the
>>> ADC 25 (three styli) cartridge from the late '60's until
>>> the XLM was introduced.

>> You sound like Peter Pritchard true believer, Harry.
>> There seems to be a pattern there... ;-)

> At the time he made the best sounding cartridges, that's
> all. His wooden tonearm, however, while a nice concept,
> sucked. Such was its flimsy construction.

The XLM was flimsy, too.

Arny Krueger

November 17th 06, 05:49 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:13:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Let's put it this way Harry. I was a charter subscriber
>> to TAS, just like I was a charter subscriber to
>> Stereophile. Both were defining moments, but in
>> different ways. SP was a strong influence in my life for
>> a much longer period of time. I grew out of TAS pretty
>> quick. TAS was rather thoroughly debunked in my life by
>> a number of experiences, the XLM being one, and ABX
>> being another.
>
> I had read Audio, Stereo Review, and High Fidelity for a
> number of years, beginning somewhere in the mid-'70s. I
> liked Audio and found the other 2 to be rather boring.

I started out in the late 50s, reading the general-technican audience
ragazines like Popular Electronics, Radio & TV News and Wireless World.

> In the early '80s, I was exposed to TAS, Stereophile, and
> The $ensible Sound.

In the early 60s I got tuned into High Fideilty, High Fidelity Review, and
Audio. My recollection is that an ad in Audio led me to SP. My 12 issue
subscription to SP ended up being the longest-running single magazine
subscription of my life - I think it took Holt more than 6 years to get out
his first 12 issues. But what issues they were!

> I found TAS to be rather snotty.

Consider the sources.

> Stereophile was
> interesting (mostly because of JGH I think), but I
> preferred T$S because of the emphasis on best bang for
> the buck. (I have always preferred products that give you
> good value for money. They tickle my fancy just for that
> reason alone.)

When SP started out there was no high end as such. One could even buy a good
Marantz or Mac power amp or preamp and get change from $300.

> I found that, in some of the magazines, there was a
> certain style of review where they spent a bunch of time
> mentioning recordings and how the equipment sounded with
> those recordings. I quickly made it my practice to skip
> over that part of the reviews. (I still can't tolerate
> that stuff.)

I read it, and for a while I ate it up.

> An example might be:
>
> "Though the 9007 was a somewhat cool customer, less
> "ripe" than some other amplifiers I've encountered, it
> managed to effectively capture the harmonic structures of
> instruments on familiar recordings, reproducing with
> great clarity the texture and tonality of pianos, for
> instance. I pulled out Nat "King" Cole's 1956 trio
> recording After Midnight (LP, Capitol W782) one evening,
> and this mono recording's three-dimensionality and
> instrumental palpability were impressively revealed
> thanks to the 9007's musical grip. Rhythmically, the
> record had never sounded more assured, though it had less
> of its familiar tubey warmth and "golden glow" than I'm
> used to."

We didn't mention IAR, did we? Well now we have, let's move on. ;-)

> Sort of trying to eff the ineffable. I don't effing need
> that crap. :-)

Consider the source.

> In the end, I concluded that most of the reviews weren't
> really worth reading. (On the other hand, people like
> Richard Heyser and D.B. Keele wrote really good reviews.
> Hi Fi News and RR had some good stuff in it, although it
> was hard to obtain in my area. Later on HFN & RR seemed
> to go all mystical, just like some of the US audio mags.
> I had a subscription to Studio Sound for quite a while
> and they had some extremely good articles too.)

I agree that the reviews in Audio and HFN often made more sense than the
rest.

> I've looked at a number of online reviews at various
> sites, and they just don't hold my attention. It's more
> of the "I listened to this recording and the violins
> sounded really ripe on this amplifier... I speculate that
> the blue LEDs the amplifier uses made the sound of the
> violins ripe because my reference amplifier uses red LEDs
> and the violins don't sound ripe on it.)

Does one even need to see much but a picture of the equipment to write a
review like that? I'm sure I've seen one audio product reviewed when there
weren't even finished first prototypes of it. ;-)

> Of the current crop of magazines, only AudioXpress is
> interesting because at least it tells you how to do
> things instead of just telling you to buy things.

AudioXpress appeals to people who have intersts like that. However, I'm
about 45 years on the sunny side of building my first power amp from
scratch. There aren't a lot of people who have built as much custom
electronics as I have. So AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote
and co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their early days.

> I like the tests that JA does for Stereophile too,
> although I think more weight should be given to the results.

There are problems with some of JAs tests, especially in the digital domain.
However, IMO & IME the means by which they do equipment listening tests are
unbelievably crude and inherently highly insensitive, issues of bias control
notwithstanding. In essence their equipment reviews are as good as fiction
or poetry. Well-written pap.

John Atkinson

November 17th 06, 06:38 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote and
> co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their early days.

One article.

> There are problems with some of JA's tests, especially in the
> digital domain.

Another nasty little troll from Arny Krueger. You have not yet
substantiated this criticism in any meaningful way, Mr. Krueger.
And the one time you did try to, it turned out that your criticism
stemmed from your own misunderstanding, as was demonstrated
on r.ah-e by Glenn Zelniker. (Those morbidly interested should
search the Newsgroups using the keywords "dither failure" -- see,
for example, message >.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

November 17th 06, 06:45 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote and
>> co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their
>> early days.
>
> One article.
>
>> There are problems with some of JA's tests, especially
>> in the digital domain.
>
> Another nasty little troll from Arny Krueger. You have
> not yet substantiated this criticism in any meaningful
> way, Mr. Krueger.

As usual, I did. You just didn't like what I did.

> And the one time you did try to, it
> turned out that your criticism stemmed from your own
> misunderstanding, as was demonstrated
> on r.ah-e by Glenn Zelniker.

At that stage of life, I had learned to let Glenn blow hard, as was his
preference.

> (Those morbidly interested
> should search the Newsgroups using the keywords "dither
> failure" -- see, for example, message
> >.)

I agree that appealling to the terminally morbid is a worthwhile use of your
talents, John.

Harry Lavo

November 17th 06, 07:05 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:50:05 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>At the time he made the best sounding cartridges, that's all. His wooden
>>tonearm, however, while a nice concept, sucked. Such was its flimsy
>>construction.
>>
>
> That somehow reminds me of that NAD turntable with the arm made of a
> flat sheet of circuit board material or something. :-)

Well, Pritchards was made of afromosa wood, looked nice, and had decent
bearings. But it had a plastic headshell that was pressure fitted to the
arm, and which worked itself loose in no time. It may have done more to
spread the myth that replacable headshells always muck up the sound than any
other arm.

Harry Lavo

November 17th 06, 07:14 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:13:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Let's put it this way Harry. I was a charter subscriber to TAS, just like
>>I
>>was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Both were defining moments, but
>>in
>>different ways. SP was a strong influence in my life for a much longer
>>period of time. I grew out of TAS pretty quick. TAS was rather thoroughly
>>debunked in my life by a number of experiences, the XLM being one, and ABX
>>being another.
>
> I had read Audio, Stereo Review, and High Fidelity for a number of
> years, beginning somewhere in the mid-'70s. I liked Audio and found
> the other 2 to be rather boring.
>
> In the early '80s, I was exposed to TAS, Stereophile, and The $ensible
> Sound.
>
> I found TAS to be rather snotty. Stereophile was interesting (mostly
> because of JGH I think), but I preferred T$S because of the emphasis
> on best bang for the buck. (I have always preferred products that give
> you good value for money. They tickle my fancy just for that reason
> alone.)
>
> I found that, in some of the magazines, there was a certain style of
> review where they spent a bunch of time mentioning recordings and how
> the equipment sounded with those recordings. I quickly made it my
> practice to skip over that part of the reviews. (I still can't
> tolerate that stuff.)
>
> An example might be:
>
> "Though the 9007 was a somewhat cool customer, less "ripe" than some
> other amplifiers I've encountered, it managed to effectively capture
> the harmonic structures of instruments on familiar recordings,
> reproducing with great clarity the texture and tonality of pianos, for
> instance. I pulled out Nat "King" Cole's 1956 trio recording After
> Midnight (LP, Capitol W782) one evening, and this mono recording's
> three-dimensionality and instrumental palpability were impressively
> revealed thanks to the 9007's musical grip. Rhythmically, the record
> had never sounded more assured, though it had less of its familiar
> tubey warmth and "golden glow" than I'm used to."

It may surprise you find I don't much like them either. For that very
reason, the reviews in Sound and Music are completely worthless, since this
is *all* they do vis-a-vis audio evaluation.

>
> Sort of trying to eff the ineffable. I don't effing need that crap.
> :-)
>
> In the end, I concluded that most of the reviews weren't really worth
> reading. (On the other hand, people like Richard Heyser and D.B. Keele
> wrote really good reviews. Hi Fi News and RR had some good stuff in
> it, although it was hard to obtain in my area. Later on HFN & RR
> seemed to go all mystical, just like some of the US audio mags. I had
> a subscription to Studio Sound for quite a while and they had some
> extremely good articles too.)

Audio and Hi Fi News and RR were my favorites...but so was I(nternational)
A(udio) R(eview) back in its heyday in the late '70's / early '80's. Audio
goes all the way back to my dad...somewhere he had (I've lost) some of the
very earliest copies from the early '50's. But I've been a subscriber to
the subjective mags as well since Stereophile was a baby, and TAS just a
gleam in HP's eye. I never trust any single review in any of them, but in
each there are reviewers that I give more credence to than others.

> I've looked at a number of online reviews at various sites, and they
> just don't hold my attention. It's more of the "I listened to this
> recording and the violins sounded really ripe on this amplifier... I
> speculate that the blue LEDs the amplifier uses made the sound of the
> violins ripe because my reference amplifier uses red LEDs and the
> violins don't sound ripe on it.)

Most are pretty amateurish. When I read them, or often when I read a new
reviewer in a subjective mag, I get a sense of deja vu. They tend to make
the same errors we did in the first few issues of TAS.

> Of the current crop of magazines, only AudioXpress is interesting
> because at least it tells you how to do things instead of just telling
> you to buy things.
>
> I like the tests that JA does for Stereophile too, although I think
> more weight should be given to the results.

The mag provides the info...subjective and objective. You provide the
"weights". How hard is that?

Harry Lavo

November 17th 06, 07:28 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:13:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Let's put it this way Harry. I was a charter subscriber
>>> to TAS, just like I was a charter subscriber to
>>> Stereophile. Both were defining moments, but in
>>> different ways. SP was a strong influence in my life for
>>> a much longer period of time. I grew out of TAS pretty
>>> quick. TAS was rather thoroughly debunked in my life by
>>> a number of experiences, the XLM being one, and ABX
>>> being another.
>>
>> I had read Audio, Stereo Review, and High Fidelity for a
>> number of years, beginning somewhere in the mid-'70s. I
>> liked Audio and found the other 2 to be rather boring.
>
> I started out in the late 50s, reading the general-technican audience
> ragazines like Popular Electronics, Radio & TV News and Wireless World.
>
>> In the early '80s, I was exposed to TAS, Stereophile, and
>> The $ensible Sound.
>
> In the early 60s I got tuned into High Fideilty, High Fidelity Review, and
> Audio. My recollection is that an ad in Audio led me to SP. My 12 issue
> subscription to SP ended up being the longest-running single magazine
> subscription of my life - I think it took Holt more than 6 years to get
> out his first 12 issues. But what issues they were!
>
>> I found TAS to be rather snotty.

HP wasn't snotty in those days...he basically did the same as
Stereophile...look for the best, and evaluate the equipment based primarily
on sound and synergy.

If JGH *had* published more on time, there probably wouldn't have been a
TAS. There was much audiophile unhappiness with Stereophiles erratic
operation, and Harry was a newspaperman and thought he could launch a
magazine that did the same kind of reveiwing but got out on time.
Unfortunately, then there were two. Not out on time, I mean.

> Consider the sources.
>
>> Stereophile was
>> interesting (mostly because of JGH I think), but I
>> preferred T$S because of the emphasis on best bang for
>> the buck. (I have always preferred products that give you
>> good value for money. They tickle my fancy just for that
>> reason alone.)
>
> When SP started out there was no high end as such. One could even buy a
> good Marantz or Mac power amp or preamp and get change from $300.

This is factually wrong. In 1964, a pair of Marantz power amps cost $768
($4800 in todays $). The MAC 275 cost $444 ($2800 in todays $). The only
ones that gave you change from $300 were the Eico, Dynaco, and Citation
kits. Source: 1964 Audio and Stereo Review equipment directories.

>
>> I found that, in some of the magazines, there was a
>> certain style of review where they spent a bunch of time
>> mentioning recordings and how the equipment sounded with
>> those recordings. I quickly made it my practice to skip
>> over that part of the reviews. (I still can't tolerate
>> that stuff.)
>
> I read it, and for a while I ate it up.
>
>> An example might be:
>>
>> "Though the 9007 was a somewhat cool customer, less
>> "ripe" than some other amplifiers I've encountered, it
>> managed to effectively capture the harmonic structures of
>> instruments on familiar recordings, reproducing with
>> great clarity the texture and tonality of pianos, for
>> instance. I pulled out Nat "King" Cole's 1956 trio
>> recording After Midnight (LP, Capitol W782) one evening,
>> and this mono recording's three-dimensionality and
>> instrumental palpability were impressively revealed
>> thanks to the 9007's musical grip. Rhythmically, the
>> record had never sounded more assured, though it had less
>> of its familiar tubey warmth and "golden glow" than I'm
>> used to."
>
> We didn't mention IAR, did we? Well now we have, let's move on. ;-)
>
>> Sort of trying to eff the ineffable. I don't effing need
>> that crap. :-)
>
> Consider the source.

A meaningless comment, if ever there was one.

>
>> In the end, I concluded that most of the reviews weren't
>> really worth reading. (On the other hand, people like
>> Richard Heyser and D.B. Keele wrote really good reviews.
>> Hi Fi News and RR had some good stuff in it, although it
>> was hard to obtain in my area. Later on HFN & RR seemed
>> to go all mystical, just like some of the US audio mags.
>> I had a subscription to Studio Sound for quite a while
>> and they had some extremely good articles too.)
>
> I agree that the reviews in Audio and HFN often made more sense than the
> rest.

Hey, we have a trifecta.

>> I've looked at a number of online reviews at various
>> sites, and they just don't hold my attention. It's more
>> of the "I listened to this recording and the violins
>> sounded really ripe on this amplifier... I speculate that
>> the blue LEDs the amplifier uses made the sound of the
>> violins ripe because my reference amplifier uses red LEDs
>> and the violins don't sound ripe on it.)
>
> Does one even need to see much but a picture of the equipment to write a
> review like that? I'm sure I've seen one audio product reviewed when
> there weren't even finished first prototypes of it. ;-)

If you have, it wasn't in Stereophile or TAS (at least since the late
seventies...Harry got burned once...he was not stupid...and put a policy in
place.)

>
>> Of the current crop of magazines, only AudioXpress is
>> interesting because at least it tells you how to do
>> things instead of just telling you to buy things.
>
> AudioXpress appeals to people who have intersts like that. However, I'm
> about 45 years on the sunny side of building my first power amp from
> scratch. There aren't a lot of people who have built as much custom
> electronics as I have. So AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I
> wrote and co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their early
> days.
>
>> I like the tests that JA does for Stereophile too,
>> although I think more weight should be given to the results.
>
> There are problems with some of JAs tests, especially in the digital
> domain. However, IMO & IME the means by which they do equipment listening
> tests are unbelievably crude and inherently highly insensitive, issues of
> bias control notwithstanding. In essence their equipment reviews are as
> good as fiction or poetry. Well-written pap.

We never would have guessed you held such views, Arny. :-)

Sander deWaal

November 17th 06, 08:50 PM

"Harry Lavo" > said:

>Audio and Hi Fi News and RR were my favorites...but so was I(nternational)
>A(udio) R(eview) back in its heyday in the late '70's / early '80's. Audio
>goes all the way back to my dad...somewhere he had (I've lost) some of the
>very earliest copies from the early '50's.

Look at this:
http://www.audioxpress.com/bksprods/BKSGENHIS.htm

The Audio Anthology series, 6 volumes with reprints from Audio
Engineering starting from 1947.

The Audiocraft Reissue Collection is interesting as well.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

Harry Lavo

November 17th 06, 09:27 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > said:
>
>
>>Audio and Hi Fi News and RR were my favorites...but so was I(nternational)
>>A(udio) R(eview) back in its heyday in the late '70's / early '80's.
>>Audio
>>goes all the way back to my dad...somewhere he had (I've lost) some of the
>>very earliest copies from the early '50's.
>
>
> Look at this:
> http://www.audioxpress.com/bksprods/BKSGENHIS.htm
>
> The Audio Anthology series, 6 volumes with reprints from Audio
> Engineering starting from 1947.
>
> The Audiocraft Reissue Collection is interesting as well.

Thanks for the references....AudioXpress is one of the few audio sites I
didn't have bookmarked, and I was aware of the reprints. Looking at some of
the reprints from McProud's first volume brought back memories....I think
Dad's first issue was in 1948. He was an electrical engineer by training, a
vibration engineer by occupation before he started his own string of
Radio/Television/Audio stores in 1949, and (somehow) a local officer in the
Society of Automotive Engineers. I didn't follow his footsteps, but my
interests didn't diverge much. He built his first homebuilt speaker in
1939....I built mine in 1956.

Clyde Slick

November 17th 06, 11:02 PM

John Atkinson a scris:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote and
> > co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their early days.
>
> One article.
>
> > There are problems with some of JA's tests, especially in the
> > digital domain.
>
> Another nasty little troll from Arny Krueger. You have not yet
> substantiated this criticism in any meaningful way, Mr. Krueger.
> And the one time you did try to, it turned out that your criticism
> stemmed from your own misunderstanding, as was demonstrated
> on r.ah-e by Glenn Zelniker. (Those morbidly interested should
> search the Newsgroups using the keywords "dither failure" -- see,
> for example, message >.)
>

Ahhh!
My all-time favorite Krueger meltdown.

Arny Krueger

November 18th 06, 07:28 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
oups.com
> John Atkinson a scris:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote and
>>> co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their
>>> early days.
>>
>> One article.
>>
>>> There are problems with some of JA's tests, especially
>>> in the digital domain.
>>
>> Another nasty little troll from Arny Krueger. You have
>> not yet substantiated this criticism in any meaningful
>> way, Mr. Krueger. And the one time you did try to, it
>> turned out that your criticism stemmed from your own
>> misunderstanding, as was demonstrated
>> on r.ah-e by Glenn Zelniker. (Those morbidly interested
>> should search the Newsgroups using the keywords "dither
>> failure" -- see, for example, message
>> >.)

> Ahhh!

> My all-time favorite Krueger meltdown.

It's not a meltdown at all.

In contrast we have a great collection of Art's meltdowns - they are simply
full quotes of other people's posts with no additional comments.

My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/d54238316ba088bb

George M. Middius

November 18th 06, 07:54 PM

The Krooborg is stuck behind its own personal language barrier again.

> In contrast we have a great collection of Art's meltdowns - they are simply
> full quotes of other people's posts with no additional comments.

Arnii, could you please tell us what "meltdown" means in Krooglish? All
we know from your outburst quoted above is that the meaning is vastly
different from the human meaning.

Still waiting for the secret instructions on how to purchase an aBxism
switchbox. TIA.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 18th 06, 08:28 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown:

So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't
recall seeing any posts from this person.

This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk
about you when you're not here, would it?

But, as we all know, you're an insane asshole, so you wouldn't be able
to see that.

_______________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

George M. Middius

November 18th 06, 08:47 PM

Shhhh! said:

> > My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown:

> So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't
> recall seeing any posts from this person.

He's a Real Audio Guy who used to post on Usenet. He owns his own company
that makes professional studio gear (www.z-sys.com). Naturally, Krooger is
much smarter than some PhD who earns a fine living supplying equipment to
top sound engineers around the world. Or so Arnii tells us. ;-)

> This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk
> about you when you're not here, would it?

Stop doing that! You can't expect the Krooborg to play fair when everybody
is conspiring against him.

The bottom line about Glenn is that a few times, he tried to teach Arnii a
thing or two about digital electronics. The effort was unsuccessful. My
fave exchange between Dr. Z and Mr. **** involved a test Glenn gives to
job applicants. He posted it on RAO and invited Krooger to submit his
answers. That drove Turdy into a major Kroodown.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 18th 06, 09:23 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown:
>
> > So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't
> > recall seeing any posts from this person.
>
> He's a Real Audio Guy who used to post on Usenet. He owns his own company
> that makes professional studio gear (www.z-sys.com). Naturally, Krooger is
> much smarter than some PhD who earns a fine living supplying equipment to
> top sound engineers around the world. Or so Arnii tells us. ;-)
>
> > This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk
> > about you when you're not here, would it?
>
> Stop doing that! You can't expect the Krooborg to play fair when everybody
> is conspiring against him.
>
> The bottom line about Glenn is that a few times, he tried to teach Arnii a
> thing or two about digital electronics. The effort was unsuccessful. My
> fave exchange between Dr. Z and Mr. **** involved a test Glenn gives to
> job applicants. He posted it on RAO and invited Krooger to submit his
> answers. That drove Turdy into a major Kroodown.

I'll go search that exchange. My guess is that it's pretty funny.

I just read the 'meltdown' post that Arns referred to.

It appears that it's simply another case of somebody trying to have a
discussion with Arns, then Arns frustrates them with lies, distortions,
illogic and so forth, then the person realizes that Arns is an insane
asshole and tells him to **** off, then Arns declares 'victory' due to
a 'meltdown.'

While I haven't been here all that long, it does seem to be a recurring
pattern.

The funny thing is that Arns is so insane he can't see when his ass has
been handed to him.

This comment seemed spot-on:

"How's this? **** YOU, you loathsome, psychotic, subhuman imbecile!
You
deserve every ounce of vitriole and hatred directed your way."
____________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

Jenn

November 18th 06, 09:33 PM

In article m>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> George M. Middius wrote:
> > Shhhh! said:
> >
> > > > My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown:
> >
> > > So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't
> > > recall seeing any posts from this person.
> >
> > He's a Real Audio Guy who used to post on Usenet. He owns his own company
> > that makes professional studio gear (www.z-sys.com). Naturally, Krooger is
> > much smarter than some PhD who earns a fine living supplying equipment to
> > top sound engineers around the world. Or so Arnii tells us. ;-)
> >
> > > This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk
> > > about you when you're not here, would it?
> >
> > Stop doing that! You can't expect the Krooborg to play fair when everybody
> > is conspiring against him.
> >
> > The bottom line about Glenn is that a few times, he tried to teach Arnii a
> > thing or two about digital electronics. The effort was unsuccessful. My
> > fave exchange between Dr. Z and Mr. **** involved a test Glenn gives to
> > job applicants. He posted it on RAO and invited Krooger to submit his
> > answers. That drove Turdy into a major Kroodown.
>
> I'll go search that exchange. My guess is that it's pretty funny.
>
> I just read the 'meltdown' post that Arns referred to.
>
> It appears that it's simply another case of somebody trying to have a
> discussion with Arns, then Arns frustrates them with lies, distortions,
> illogic and so forth, then the person realizes that Arns is an insane
> asshole and tells him to **** off, then Arns declares 'victory' due to
> a 'meltdown.'
>
> While I haven't been here all that long, it does seem to be a recurring
> pattern.

That plus often declaring himself the smartest person in the room.

George M. Middius

November 18th 06, 09:53 PM

Jenn said:

> > While I haven't been here all that long, it does seem to be a recurring
> > pattern.

> That plus often declaring himself the smartest person in the room.

Jenn that's something we expect a Lilliputian like you Jenn to say Jenn.
LOt"S.

Seriously though (harumph)... It's my belief that in Krooger's warped and
delusion-rocked world, he sees himself sitting at a Console Of Ultimate
Power, firing off missives of concentrated "knowledge", thereby
demolishing the puny intellects who dare to challenge him. He's so far
gone, though, that what Arnii thinks is a devastating "deconstruction"
usually amounts to incoherent whining. Krooger fires his missiles and
hears satisfying explosions, but sane people hear the plop-plop-plop of
turds falling on Krooger's front yard.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Clyde Slick

November 18th 06, 10:19 PM

Arny Krueger a scris:

>
> In contrast we have a great collection of Art's meltdowns - they are simply
> full quotes of other people's posts with no additional comments.
>

The only thing melting down in my house is my mouse.

Clyde Slick

November 18th 06, 10:22 PM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:

>
> So who is this Zelniker?
>

A "REAL PROFESSIONAL AUDO ENGINEER" who totally
eviscerated Arny.

Arny Krueger

November 18th 06, 10:34 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
ups.com

> Arny Krueger a scris:

>> In contrast we have a great collection of Art's
>> meltdowns - they are simply full quotes of other
>> people's posts with no additional comments.

> The only thing melting down in my house is my mouse.

Come on Art. On occasions you've admitted that it was operator failure.

You want us to believe that you're the only guy on Usenet with a mouse that
bad?

Oh, I get it Art, you have thousands of dollars invested in your audio gear,
and can't afford a new mouse? LOL!

Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past year
or so:

It is a Mitsumi model S6702.

http://acortech.com/Mitsumi_Optical_Wheel_Mouse_ECM-S6702/ECM-S6702SILVER/partinfo-id-3214737.html

Net price: $7.20.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 18th 06, 10:55 PM

Arny Krueger

November 18th 06, 11:05 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com

> Even where you agree with him, you're still wrong.

It is not just that you agree, it is also how you agree. In your case
you're so poorly-informed that even correct information sounds incorrect
when you present it.

It is almost like someone who knows what they are doing is telling you what
to type in the next room, and by the time you walk next door and type it in,
your addled mind has scrambled it.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 18th 06, 11:22 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > Even where you agree with him, you're still wrong.
>
> It is not just that you agree, it is also how you agree. In your case
> you're so poorly-informed that even correct information sounds incorrect
> when you present it.

So now there's a correct way to agree and an incorrect way to agree.

Arns, I hope some day that someone as perfect as you are agrees with
you...

LMAO!

> It is almost like someone who knows what they are doing is telling you what
> to type in the next room, and by the time you walk next door and type it in,
> your addled mind has scrambled it.

I see. And who is telling me to type, Arns? Who is that person that
'knows what they are doing'?

In my archive search I saw some people who apparently 'know what they
are doing' handing your ass to you, telling you what the rest of us
already know (that you are an insane asshole), and yet...

....they apparently suffer from the same malady that you now accuse me
of having.

Have you ever wondered how so many people could get it exactly wrong,
and how you could be the *only* person to get it so right?

LMAO!

____________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

Arny Krueger

November 18th 06, 11:43 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com

>And who is telling me to type, Arns?

One of the other voices in your head?

> Have you ever wondered how so many people could get it
> exactly wrong,

Easy - arrogant and stupid, like you.

> and how you could be the *only* person to get it so right?

Wrong - there are tons of people in this world who have things right. Few of
them have the strong stomach it takes to bother with RAO, let alone read
your posts.

George M. Middius

November 19th 06, 04:31 AM

The Krooborg is stuck behind its own personal language barrier again.

> In contrast we have a great collection of Art's meltdowns - they are simply
> full quotes of other people's posts with no additional comments.

Arnii, could you please tell us what "meltdown" means in Krooglish? All we
know from your outburst quoted above is that the meaning is vastly
different from the human meaning.

Still waiting for the secret instructions on how to purchase an aBxism
switchbox. TIA.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 19th 06, 07:09 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> >And who is telling me to type, Arns?
>
> One of the other voices in your head?
>
> > Have you ever wondered how so many people could get it
> > exactly wrong,
>
> Easy - arrogant and stupid, like you.

LOL!

> > and how you could be the *only* person to get it so right?
>
> Wrong - there are tons of people in this world who have things right. Few of
> them have the strong stomach it takes to bother with RAO, let alone read
> your posts.

It would seem that people with audio chops --many people with audio
chops far stronger than yours-- disagree with you. I've enjoyed seeing
these people's reactions to you in the archives.

Now why don't you go and tell us all how you are superior to these
people, and how you and not they have it 'right.'

Arrogance? LMAO!

Mirrors aren't allowed in your house, Arns?

I have seen people who appear to be audio researchers, professional
recording engineers, professional audio designers, and other people
with far greater training, experience, and audio resumes which your
eternal hackdom couldn't even come close to, call you an idiot or
worse.

Now who should I pay attention to?

You are clearly insane.

_________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[email protected]

November 20th 06, 08:18 AM

Jenn wrote:
> In article m>,
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > George M. Middius wrote:
> > > Shhhh! said:
> > >
> > > > > My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown:
> > >
> > > > So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't
> > > > recall seeing any posts from this person.
> > >
> > > He's a Real Audio Guy who used to post on Usenet. He owns his own company
> > > that makes professional studio gear (www.z-sys.com). Naturally, Krooger is
> > > much smarter than some PhD who earns a fine living supplying equipment to
> > > top sound engineers around the world. Or so Arnii tells us. ;-)
> > >
> > > > This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk
> > > > about you when you're not here, would it?
> > >
> > > Stop doing that! You can't expect the Krooborg to play fair when everybody
> > > is conspiring against him.
> > >
> > > The bottom line about Glenn is that a few times, he tried to teach Arnii a
> > > thing or two about digital electronics. The effort was unsuccessful. My
> > > fave exchange between Dr. Z and Mr. **** involved a test Glenn gives to
> > > job applicants. He posted it on RAO and invited Krooger to submit his
> > > answers. That drove Turdy into a major Kroodown.
> >
> > I'll go search that exchange. My guess is that it's pretty funny.
> >
> > I just read the 'meltdown' post that Arns referred to.
> >
> > It appears that it's simply another case of somebody trying to have a
> > discussion with Arns, then Arns frustrates them with lies, distortions,
> > illogic and so forth, then the person realizes that Arns is an insane
> > asshole and tells him to **** off, then Arns declares 'victory' due to
> > a 'meltdown.'
> >
> > While I haven't been here all that long, it does seem to be a recurring
> > pattern.
>
>=======================================
>That plus often declaring himself the smartest person in the room.

Whom is Jenn talking about ?.No prizes for the right answer..

Not just simple smart. He said once that in the RAO he felt like
Gulliver amongst the Liliputians.

Long, long ago I was doing a six-week house physicianship in Ediburgh's
largest asylum . (They had those in those days where the insane were
fed and taken care of instead of being encouraged to sleep in the rain
barrels in the street, muttering to their voices, while looking for
scraps in the garbage bins- all in the name of freedom of choice).

Anyway there was one inmate there who stood by the window day in day
out counting aloud. When asked what he counted he'd say matter-of-fact:
" I'm counting the 'planes that salute me" In the textbooks this is
called " ideas of reference" with folie de grandeur added for spice.

And there you have it- the celeb. complex. Let them say what they like,
bad and worse- as long as it is about me. .

But operating just on the verge and surviving is what not a few , "the
world revolves about me" specimens manage to perfection. It takes and
is quite compattible with cunning.

Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the "Arny is not
listening..." thread was mine four days ago.
"He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS backing up the ABX
use for differentiating the musical reproduction characteristics of
audio components- in LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC.
An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks for that
purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable to JAES- the
professional voice of audio engineering"

I issued this challenge to him many times. Every time he blusters for a
bit producing out of this world messages like "JAES Board of Review
approved ABX'- no date , no quote to find what was it approvewd for.

Every time Arny knows when to let the matter die. In those fourr days
he found time for some ten postings. .

He's just biding time only to come back in full fighting mettle, when
all is forgotten, babling about his patented cure for "bias",
"accuracy", "objectivity" and other quack remedies he markets.

He need not feel insulted. He said I was senile. The vigorous young
thinkers don't get upset by the demented old..

Just sail on Arny.
Ludovic Mirabel .
..

.. .

Arny Krueger

November 20th 06, 10:37 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com
>
> Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the
> "Arny is not listening..." thread was mine four days ago.
> "He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS
> backing up the ABX use for differentiating the musical
> reproduction characteristics of audio components- in
> LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC.
> An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks
> for that purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable
> to JAES- the professional voice of audio engineering"

Asked and answered many times:

Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind
Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May
1982, pp. 330-338.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 20th 06, 04:21 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
> >
> > Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the
> > "Arny is not listening..." thread was mine four days ago.
> > "He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS
> > backing up the ABX use for differentiating the musical
> > reproduction characteristics of audio components- in
> > LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC.
> > An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks
> > for that purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable
> > to JAES- the professional voice of audio engineering"
>
>
> Asked and answered many times:
>
> Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind
> Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May
> 1982, pp. 330-338.

Nice to meet you, David.

LOL!

The fog wraps Arns' mind in a thick cloak...

November 20th 06, 06:50 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...

(snip)

> Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the "Arny is not
> listening..." thread was mine four days ago.
> "He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS backing up the ABX
> use for differentiating the musical reproduction characteristics of
> audio components- in LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC.
> An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks for that
> purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable to JAES- the
> professional voice of audio engineering"
>
> I issued this challenge to him many times. Every time he blusters for a
> bit producing out of this world messages like "JAES Board of Review
> approved ABX'- no date , no quote to find what was it approvewd for.

You have a point. For the sake of discussion, how do suppose a scientist
would go about establishing whether or not ABX is a good way to evaluate
audio reproduction? As far as I know, all ABX does is determine which of 2
signals is identical to a 3rd one. Certainly, if one cannot do better than
chance on such a test, the choice can be made on a basis other than sound.

Yes, it's true that failing such a test doesn't mean that nobody can pass
it, and there's always the possibility that the same subject might pass the
test using some other supporting gear. However, repeated failure over a
long period of time does tend to lead one to the conclusion that there is no
audible difference between the 2 signals.

Norm Strong

[email protected]

November 20th 06, 08:53 PM

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> (snip)
>
> > Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the "Arny is not
> > listening..." thread was mine four days ago.
> > "He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS backing up the ABX
> > use for differentiating the musical reproduction characteristics of
> > audio components- in LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC.
> > An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks for that
> > purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable to JAES- the
> > professional voice of audio engineering"
> >
> > I issued this challenge to him many times. Every time he blusters for a
> > bit producing out of this world messages like "JAES Board of Review
> > approved ABX'- no date , no quote to find what was it approvewd for.
>
> You have a point. For the sake of discussion, how do suppose a scientist
> would go about establishing whether or not ABX is a good way to evaluate
> audio reproduction? As far as I know, all ABX does is determine which of 2
> signals is identical to a 3rd one. Certainly, if one cannot do better than
> chance on such a test, the choice can be made on a basis other than sound.
>
> Yes, it's true that failing such a test doesn't mean that nobody can pass
> it, and there's always the possibility that the same subject might pass the
> test using some other supporting gear. However, repeated failure over a
> long period of time does tend to lead one to the conclusion that there is no
> audible difference between the 2 signals.
>
> Norm Strong
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Norman, I have no doubt that you're well motivated and I have no
comment on your reasoning except that you're talking about one, two,
three...., guys'/girls' experience- see the postscript below.

I'm familiar only with one area of science. Namely the medical
treatment research.

For millenia that discipline was full of wonderful reasonings by great
authorities You know the results.

The revolution in medical treatment took place 50 years ago. The Med.
Resrch. Ccil of G.B. established the rules for introduction of new
therapies.

Summarised briefly: experiment, experiment, experiment.

This is called evidential medicine. Thank your lucky stars that these
rules were gradually accepted by the advanced countries including
yours. Your Fed. Drugs. Admin. is one of the
watchdogs.

Ludovic Mirabel

Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into difference/preference
in musical reproduction qualities between audio components would have
to include cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical education,
experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and
his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do
again if requested. Where's Krueger's research?.

Arny Krueger

November 20th 06, 08:57 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into
> difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities
> between audio components would have to include
> cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical
> education, experience/preference etc.

Sounds a lot like the people who have taken ABX tests over the years.

> Not the ridiculous
> "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked
> several times and will be happy to do again if requested.

Go ahead, Mirabel.

> Where's Krueger's research?.

Where is yours, related to difference/preference in musical reproduction
qualities?

According to you, if it isn't in a relevant refereed professional journal,
it ain't squat.

After you, Mirabel.

Arny Krueger

November 20th 06, 08:59 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been
>> using for the past year or so:
>>
>> It is a Mitsumi model S6702.

> Ick. :-)

Not exactly a golden pinnacle of ergonomic research, but on balance, cheap,
comfortable, and reliable.

> I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice.

I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech are IME better tools.

> Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk.

Can't beat the price for something at least halfways decent.

Harry Lavo

November 20th 06, 10:09 PM

> wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> (snip)
>
>> Like for instance:The last unanswered posting in the "Arny is not
>> listening..." thread was mine four days ago.
>> "He still can not produce ONE, SINGLE paper of HIS backing up the ABX
>> use for differentiating the musical reproduction characteristics of
>> audio components- in LISTENING TESTS PLAYING MUSIC.
>> An article providing EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that ABX wotks for that
>> purpose. An article good enough to be acceptable to JAES- the
>> professional voice of audio engineering"
>>
>> I issued this challenge to him many times. Every time he blusters for a
>> bit producing out of this world messages like "JAES Board of Review
>> approved ABX'- no date , no quote to find what was it approvewd for.
>
> You have a point. For the sake of discussion, how do suppose a scientist
> would go about establishing whether or not ABX is a good way to evaluate
> audio reproduction? As far as I know, all ABX does is determine which of
> 2 signals is identical to a 3rd one. Certainly, if one cannot do better
> than chance on such a test, the choice can be made on a basis other than
> sound.
>
> Yes, it's true that failing such a test doesn't mean that nobody can pass
> it, and there's always the possibility that the same subject might pass
> the test using some other supporting gear. However, repeated failure over
> a long period of time does tend to lead one to the conclusion that there
> is no audible difference between the 2 signals.

The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially violates one very
important principle for use as a tool for the open-ended evaluation of
music.. It is a direct test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself
into the process of listening to music, which is a holistic and
emotion-stimulating process that occurs without conscious thought and over a
longer time frame. That is very different from listening to FR differences,
or level differences, or distortion artifacts, or codec artifacts, which is
why this test was developed and how it was designed to be used. So as a
tool for the open-ended evaluation of components as musical transducers, it
can legitimately be questioned. When faced with that kind of situation,
good test methodology calls for an indirect test, where what is being
measured is measured without the test interfering, and by elicited and
measureable response on secondary measures as well as primary measures And
if the proponent believes that a direct test will not interfere while his
peers believe it will, it is imperative (in the scientific world) to
validate the methodology by showing that the test does not interfere with
the variable under test, as feared. Arny (and many other objectivists as
well) refuse to enter into any serious discussion as to how to do that.
Such a discussion was held on RAHE, but under much duress which often tended
to short-circuit civil discourse, even on that proctored site (see last
paragraph for further discussion)

Another issue is its universality. Such testing is used at H-K in the
classic manner...potential panel members are chosen from volunteers within
the company, and then trained in what they are supposed to be listening
for - a single characteristic (which such a test demands). Sean Phillips
who leads the testing at H-K has written that nearly half of all potential
testers are so bad at ABX'ng that even with training they have to be dropped
from the panel. So just dropping abx testing into a randowm group of
audiophiles probably means that as many as half of them automatically have
no chance of succeeding in the test. And that in turn makes a mockery out
of the "win statistics" needed to prove a difference exists. In other
words, this phenomenon alone biases the test toward a null hypothesis.

And the need for testing reveals yet a third shortcoming of the test...how
do you "train" for open-ended evaluation. Such evaluation general is done
in a relaxed, evaluative state where the "perceived shortcoming" suddenly
comes into conscious focus, and then can be a-b'd quickly to verfify that it
exists. ABX testing is particularly ill-suited for such "exploratory"
listening. A blind A-B preference test consisting of long and short term
listening to music of subjects choice, with quick-switch, syncronized A-B
switching under the control of the listener, and with no other requirement
than eventually coming to a preference is much more conducive to such
testing. If statistical reliability is required by the listener, then the
test can be repeated 15-20 times over several weeks or months to arrive at a
conculusion. If reliability of a sub-group, such as for example all
audiophiles with component systems valued at $5000 or more is desired, then
several dozen to several hundred people can take the test, and the results
statistically analyzed to determine if a true preference exists.

Attempts to get Arny to face up to this these issues, which scientists of
any stripe would recognize as absolutely necessity to be confronted in
attempting to design the most appropriate test, and then validated before
widespread use, are dismissed out of hand. His stock answer is: "it is
proven and good enough for audio research; and we know everything we need to
know about our hearing sensitivity, so that is that". In other words, "if
its good enough for audiometrics, it's good enough for me." That is the
primary reason why his obdurant repeating of his mantra became so divisive
on usenet that even JJ who used double-blind testing daily in his research
work took him to task.

I haven't even mentioned that fact that the abx test is potentially subject
to a very strong negative perceptual bias...anybody who really doesn't think
objects sound different can either deliberately guess at random, or (more
likely) be swift and somewhat cavalier in their choices and thus guarantee
(whether willfully or not) that their results will prove to find "no
difference". To be fair, this can also be a problem with blind a-b testing.
There is a solution: it is called monadic testing, and a complete test
validation should consider it as well. But I won't go into that here. If
you want to learn more about it, visit the RAHE archives looking for
"monadic test" and "monadic testing".

Harry Lavo

November 20th 06, 10:10 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been using for the past
>>year
>>or so:
>>
>>It is a Mitsumi model S6702.
>
> Ick. :-)
>
> I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice.
>
> Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk.

The last and only one I ever owned stopped working in months.
>

Arny Krueger

November 20th 06, 10:11 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:59:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>> I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice.
>>
>> I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech
>> are IME better tools.
>
> MS has several levels of quality. The stuff they supply
> as an OEM is horrible, but the stuff they sell at retail
> is quite a bit better.

I'm considering both.

>>> Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk.

Agreed.

>> Can't beat the price for something at least halfways
>> decent.

> The Mitsumi stuff I evaluated in the mid '90s was not
> even halfway decent, it was just inexpensive.

That was a long, long time ago.

> As I said, perhaps they have improved. But my first
> impulse would be to spend the extra $10 and get a
> Logitech mouse.

Been there done that, and it wasn't bad. More than that, it was very good.
But when there are a lot of systems in the buy, well something that works
well for a lot less has its charms.

Remember that the reason I brought this up was that Art blames a lot of crap
posts on a bad mouse, and there's no economic excuse for using a bad mouse.
Personally, I think that he just gets so excited that he sends in those
posts that are 100% copies of the post he was responding to, in a fit of
pique.

Harry Lavo

November 20th 06, 10:11 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been
>>> using for the past year or so:
>>>
>>> It is a Mitsumi model S6702.
>
>> Ick. :-)
>
> Not exactly a golden pinnacle of ergonomic research, but on balance,
> cheap, comfortable, and reliable.
>
>> I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice.
>
> I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech are IME better
> tools.
>
>> Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk.
>
> Can't beat the price for something at least halfways decent.

"beating the price" may mean value to you Arny, but if it falls apart it is
still junk even if you can buy three for the price of a Microsoft or a
Logitech.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 20th 06, 10:14 PM

wrote:

> Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into difference/preference
> in musical reproduction qualities between audio components would have
> to include cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical education,
> experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and
> his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do
> again if requested. Where's Krueger's research?.

I would also suspect that hearing acuity, environment, and several
other factors might apply too.

I do think that blind testing has its place. When developing new
CODECs, or at the manufacturing level, might be two examples.

For an audio hobbyist it's more bother than it's worth IMO.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 20th 06, 10:17 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>
> > On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been
> >> using for the past year or so:
> >>
> >> It is a Mitsumi model S6702.
>
> > Ick. :-)
>
> Not exactly a golden pinnacle of ergonomic research, but on balance, cheap,
> comfortable, and reliable.
>
> > I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice.
>
> I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech are IME better tools.
>
> > Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk.
>
> Can't beat the price for something at least halfways decent.

This about sums up Arns' view of life.

And audio, it would seem.;-)

Harry Lavo

November 20th 06, 10:23 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:28:19 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>> I found TAS to be rather snotty.
>>
>>HP wasn't snotty in those days...he basically did the same as
>>Stereophile...look for the best, and evaluate the equipment based
>>primarily
>>on sound and synergy.
>
> I never mentioned HP... :-)

You didn't have to?

>
> My impression from reading TAS was that the reviews were being handed
> down from on high, especially from Seacliff.

Actually if you heard his Magnapan/Infinity reference system driven by ARC
preamp and power amps and fed by a transcriptors arm/adc cartridge and
Fulton cables, you would understand why. This was 1974 remember, when even
audiophiles were still mostly listening to god-awful sounding Japanese
transistor electronics and AR and Advent speakers.

> As for HP, perhaps he was different in person, but it seemed to me
> (and others) that he was an arrogant prick.

He could be a prick, but he could be a lot of fun as well. And he did have
a fine ear, and an even finer ability to write about "the sound of things".
The journalist in him knew he was covering the same ground as JGH's
Stereophile, so to some degree the "tone" of the magazine was a deliberate
attempt to differentiate it. And boy, did he succeed...it took only a
couple of years to leave SP's cirulation in the dust.

>>
>>If JGH *had* published more on time, there probably wouldn't have been a
>>TAS. There was much audiophile unhappiness with Stereophiles erratic
>
> JGH did not come across to me as an arrogant prick.

Yeah, but he was a down-to-earth guy who couldn't get his mag out on time.

>
>
>>>> I like the tests that JA does for Stereophile too,
>>>> although I think more weight should be given to the results.
>>>
>>> There are problems with some of JAs tests, especially in the digital
>>> domain. However, IMO & IME the means by which they do equipment
>>> listening
>>> tests are unbelievably crude and inherently highly insensitive, issues
>>> of
>>> bias control notwithstanding. In essence their equipment reviews are as
>>> good as fiction or poetry. Well-written pap.
>>
>>We never would have guessed you held such views, Arny. :-)
>>
>
> I should perhaps have been more clear in that I meant the measurements
> that JA takes. Too many other magazines and web sites seem to have a
> disdain for measurements completely.

Right. I like them too. And you can give them as much or as little weight
viz-a-viz the subjective reviews they accompany as you desire. Don't like
the subjective...ignore them, and draw your own conclusions from JA's
measurement work.

>
> The listening tests in Stereophile reviews? They're about the same as
> everyone else's. A bunch of arm waving and purple prose. They even
> occasionally shuffle the reviewers around from place to place and you
> can't really tell. (Which magazine am I reading? Oh yeah, it's
> Stereophile.) :-)

That hasn't happened much in the last dozen years or so.

> The pictures in SP are nice though.

Agreed.

Harry Lavo

November 20th 06, 10:25 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:14:55 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I like the tests that JA does for Stereophile too, although I think
>>> more weight should be given to the results.
>>
>>The mag provides the info...subjective and objective. You provide the
>>"weights". How hard is that?
>>
>
> Except that I saw on several occasions something like, "Although the
> measurements showed there was something wrong with this piece of
> equipment, the listening tests by XYZ showed it was more wonderful
> than wonderful, so this piece of equipment must be just hunky-dory."
>
> It seems that there may be a tendency to discount the importance of
> the measurements. I don't agree with that. (It's partly why I am no
> longer a SP subscriber.)

I've never seen JA reach such an explicit conclusion. I have seen him
sometimes spell out the differences and proffer a possible explanation for
them, and I've sometimes just seen him figuratively "scratch his head".

Jenn

November 21st 06, 03:26 AM

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:28:19 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>> I found TAS to be rather snotty.
> >
> >HP wasn't snotty in those days...he basically did the same as
> >Stereophile...look for the best, and evaluate the equipment based primarily
> >on sound and synergy.
>
> I never mentioned HP... :-)
>
> My impression from reading TAS was that the reviews were being handed
> down from on high, especially from Seacliff.
>
> As for HP, perhaps he was different in person, but it seemed to me
> (and others) that he was an arrogant prick.

I found him to be charming and gracious when we met.

[email protected]

November 21st 06, 07:27 AM

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2006 12:53:36 -0800, " >
> wrote:
>
> >experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and
> >his few pals that I debunked several times and will be happy to do
> >again if requested. Where's Krueger's research?.
>
> So far, according to your standards (peer-reviewed paper in JAES),
> Clark is much more reputable than you are. :-)
>
I.ve been fed too many pseudoreferences to all kinds of audio research
to get excited and rush out to the Univ. Library on another wild goose
chase. It will wait till tomorrow. I'll be in touch and awaiting your
response..

The topic is not codecs, not phase differences, not harmonics
perception but what ABX is beeing marketed for: namely a TEST for
recognition by listeners of differences in performance of MUSIC by
different audio components.

More importantly: Not reflexions about the theory but experimental
evidence that IT WORKS.

Note that Clark's paper is dated year 1982. Note that it's taken Arny 5
years to give a refernece with no quote , no summary of what it
contains. I'll eat a (very small) paper hat if it contains an ACTUAL
comparison by a large panel between comparable audio components.
The hat is safe : my bet is that Arny would not keep it a secret all
these years quoting all kinds of irrelevancies in the meantime.

As for reputations: Anyone familiar with history and actuality of
medicine is not too worried about Holy Writs issued by reputable
people. Quite a few of them write all those diet books littering the
paper book sections of airline bookstalls. I'll tell you a secret: I'm
not worried about my reputation with RAO either.

> It seems like you practically foam at the mouth asking Arny to provide
> you with a peer-reviewed paper from the JAES. You were beating that
> horse over and over and over again. And yet again.

I love the "foaming at the mouth" bit,
It a ppears I'm foaming not Pinkerton who reached for sewers to call me
names, not Sullivan who investigated my medical qualifications in the
US colleges hoping to prove me an impostor. (poor guy- he never heard
of Canada!), Not Krueger who calls me half ignorant and half senile and
not you, who...but why bother.

.. I enjoy real debate too much to foam.. I also know a little about
semantics and I read "The meaning of meaning". So I doggedly refuse to
be sidetracked by Arny's somewhat primitive sidetracking tactics and I
take my gloves off when sworn at, called insane and worse by the Arnys,
Pinkertons and NYOBs.

And when I take my gloves off I don't need to descend into their
gutter..I just ask for evidence, evidence, evidence.
>
> Now that Arny gives you a reference, you're still not happy and have
> to dismiss it as "ridiculous."

I did not say this one was "ridiculous". I had not yet seen it. But I
said and repeat that the "research" on the ABX web site is ridiculous (
see below) and I wonder why Clark et al. would not reprint something
better if it showed up in JAES.
>
> Maybe you only want to accept peer-reviewed papers in the JAES that
> say what you want to hear?

Wrong again. I'd love to see a "test" that will tell me infallibly what
to buy. Who would not? You got it?

Ludovic Mirabel. .

What follows is the "research" that the ABX web site offers for its
forty years of marketing.
Essentially a copy of my answer to NYOB a few years ago.:

"> >> > "Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"

> >> > Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
> >> > members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
> >> > one and only "evidence" and once last year

> >> > So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be
> >> > bored no more than the writer.

> >> > The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
> >> > amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first

> >> > They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
> >> > low wattage tube amps: 7 watt Heatkit and a 10 watt "homebrew"

> >> > They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
> >> > two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
> >> > right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
> >> > Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
> >> > Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
> >> > which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
> >> > not bad but less than flat:

> >> > Believe it or not; They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
> >> > subtle differences"- lSubtle like between 200 and 7 watts.

> >> > 2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
> >> > panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
> >> > Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
> >> > numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables

> >> > 3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
> >> > "The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
> >> > speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
> >> > unstable when clipped, which proved audible".
And they could hear it!

> >> > Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.
> >> >

> >> > They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
> >> > watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
> >> > Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
> >> > vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
> >> > or not.

> >> > Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
> >> > Shure V15III, very "high-end" (at that time) against 4 different
> >> > cartridges.
One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
> >> > -repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
> >> > that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith.

Remember
> >> > also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
> >> > when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
> >> > cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
> >> > "different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.

> >> > Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
> >> > and one wrong.

> >> > First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- *the first cdplayer ever
> >> > made*, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
> >> > Against all odds- like using ABX.

> >> > They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
> >> > player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
> >> > technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"
> >> >
> >> > The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
> >> > distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
> >> > they?

> >> > If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
> >> > by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
> >> > comment:

> >> > "The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
> >> > operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
> >> > between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
> >> > conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
> >> > difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
> >> > Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
> >> > heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
> >> > low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "
> >> >
> >> > Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
> >> > training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played.
>>>>> NYOB reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
> >> > him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.
> >> >
> >> > Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
> >> > wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
> >> > right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
> >> > another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
> >> > menu in the lock-up.
> >> >
> >> > The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
> >> > against wire"
> >> > I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
> >> > volume at various frequencies. NYOB triumphantly reports it as six
> >> > positive ABX results

[email protected]

November 21st 06, 07:55 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into
> > difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities
> > between audio components would have to include
> > cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical
> > education, experience/preference etc.
>
> Sounds a lot like the people who have taken ABX tests over the years.
>
> > Not the ridiculous
> > "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked
> > several times and will be happy to do again if requested.
>
> Go ahead, Mirabel.

Always willing to oblige. Re-re-re quoted in my answer to the gentleman
from Ohio just below.this
>
> > Where's Krueger's research?.
>
> Where is yours, related to difference/preference in musical reproduction
> qualities?
>
> According to you, if it isn't in a relevant refereed professional journal,
> it ain't squat.

Oh dear!. Again and again and again. for the nth. time. I'm not an
audio researcher. I'm a consumer. I don't market a "TEST". I don't have
a website. Those who disagree with my likes are welcome to theirs (
poor guys- they don't know what they are missing)

Strange as it may seem to yousomeone who is offering a test has to
validate by research.I am looking for YOUR evidence, evidence, evidence
fot YOUR "test". We'll seer if it is any good when we see it.

> After you, Mirabel.

Welcome to courtly manners. Jenn must be exertin her womanly influence
and softening you up.
Ludovic Mirabel.

Arny Krueger

November 21st 06, 12:58 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Here in Ohio wrote:
>> On 20 Nov 2006 12:53:36 -0800, "
>> > wrote:

>>> experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous
>>> "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked
>>> several times and will be happy to do again if
>>> requested. Where's Krueger's research?.

>> So far, according to your standards (peer-reviewed paper
>> in JAES), Clark is much more reputable than you are. :-)

> I.ve been fed too many pseudoreferences to all kinds of
> audio research to get excited and rush out to the Univ.
> Library on another wild goose chase. It will wait till
> tomorrow. I'll be in touch and awaiting your response..

Ludo seems to be having a mind snap. I've pointed the Clark paper out to him
many times before.

Here is the first full RAO reference to it that I can quickly find dated
6/8/97, over 9 years ago.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/e7d5b905d2fc430d
Other searching suggests that this reference has been posted on RAO over 70
times since then.

At least 10 formal cites of this paper have been posted in RAO during the
past 5 years.

> The topic is not codecs, not phase differences, not
> harmonics perception but what ABX is being marketed for:
> namely a TEST for recognition by listeners of
> differences in performance of MUSIC by different audio
> components.

The Clark paper makes it quite clear that this is what the ABX test is for.

> More importantly: Not reflexions about the theory but
> experimental evidence that IT WORKS.

The ABX test paper passed formal review by the JAES review board and has
been demonstrated at a number of AES conferences. Obvioiusly, nobody in the
AES hierarchy at that time seriously doubted that it works.

> Note that Clark's paper is dated year 1982. Note that
> it's taken Arny 5 years to give a refernece with no quote
> , no summary of what it contains.

False claim. Google searching shows at least 10 full cites to Clarks paper
have been posted on RAO in the past 5 years.

> I'll eat a (very small)
> paper hat if it contains an ACTUAL comparison by a large
> panel between comparable audio components.

The Clark paper covers this in a manner that is consistent with other JAESb
papers.

> The hat is safe : my bet is that Arny would not keep it a
> secret all these years quoting all kinds of irrelevancies
> in the meantime.

Mirabel apparently thinks that 70 formal cites on RAO, 10 in the past 5
years, constitutes keeping something a secret.

Arny Krueger

November 21st 06, 12:59 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> wrote:
>
>> Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into
>> difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities
>> between audio components would have to include
>> cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical
>> education, experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous
>> "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked
>> several times and will be happy to do again if
>> requested. Where's Krueger's research?.
>
> I would also suspect that hearing acuity, environment,
> and several other factors might apply too.
>
> I do think that blind testing has its place. When
> developing new CODECs, or at the manufacturing level,
> might be two examples.
>
> For an audio hobbyist it's more bother than it's worth
> IMO.

Given that you're so ashamed of your posts that you won't even provide your
given name, we know exactly what you think your opinion is worth: zero.

Arny Krueger

November 21st 06, 01:30 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself into
> the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.

Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement completely
meaningless.

The claim that the ABX test intrudes into the process of listening to music
does not make it any different from the sighted, non-level matched,
non-time-synchronized listening tests that Harry uses and reports the
results of.

> That is very different from listening to FR differences, or level
> differences, or distortion artifacts, or codec artifacts,
> which is why this test was developed and how it was
> designed to be used.

Harry is spouting science fiction. He is implicitly claiming that there are
audio component differences that can't be explained by frequency response
differences, noise levels or nonlinear distortion. In fact there are no
other known differences among audio components. Furthermore, Harry cites
differences in frequency response, etc. as being the causes of audible
differences that he claims he hears in his sighted, non-level matched,
non-time-synchronized listening tests, which Harry uses and reports the
results of.

> So as a tool for the open-ended
> evaluation of components as musical transducers, it can
> legitimately be questioned.

Again Harry is implicitly claiming that a test that is effective for
detecting frequency response differences, noise levels or nonlinear
distortion, must be ineffective for evaluating components such as musical
transducers. Obviously, Harry believes that there can be other kinds of
audible differences. Let him describe them.

> When faced with that kind of
> situation, good test methodology calls for an indirect
> test, where what is being measured is measured without
> the test interfering, and by elicited and measureable
> response on secondary measures as well as primary
> measures.

Harry is making up new science, as he goes along. He claims that the
definition of an indirect test is one that does not interfere, when in fact
this is contrary to the meaning of indirect test as used in scientific
literature. Then he claims that all indirect tests can't possibly interfere
with what is being measured, and of course this is also a false claim.

> And if the proponent believes that a direct
> test will not interfere while his peers believe it will,
> it is imperative (in the scientific world) to validate
> the methodology by showing that the test does not
> interfere with the variable under test, as feared.

At this point the use of made-up terminology that differs from accepted use
in scientific literature renders Harrys comments meaningless.

> Arny (and many other objectivists as well) refuse to enter
> into any serious discussion as to how to do that.

How can one have a serious discussion with someone who is making up his
science as he goes along?

> Such a
> discussion was held on RAHE, but under much duress which
> often tended to short-circuit civil discourse, even on
> that proctored site (see last paragraph for further
> discussion)

> Another issue is its universality. Such testing is used
> at H-K in the classic manner...potential panel members
> are chosen from volunteers within the company, and then
> trained in what they are supposed to be listening for - a single
> characteristic (which such a test
> demands). Sean Phillips who leads the testing at H-K has
> written that nearly half of all potential testers are so
> bad at ABX'ng that even with training they have to be
> dropped from the panel. So just dropping abx testing
> into a randowm group of audiophiles probably means that
> as many as half of them automatically have no chance of
> succeeding in the test. And that in turn makes a mockery
> out of the "win statistics" needed to prove a difference
> exists. In other words, this phenomenon alone biases the
> test toward a null hypothesis.

Harry creates a straw man - "dropping abx testing into a random group of
audiophiles".

> And the need for testing reveals yet a third shortcoming of the test...how
> do you "train" for open-ended
> evaluation. Such evaluation general is done in a
> relaxed, evaluative state where the "perceived
> shortcoming" suddenly comes into conscious focus, and
> then can be a-b'd quickly to verfify that it exists. ABX
> testing is particularly ill-suited for such "exploratory"
> listening. A blind A-B preference test consisting of
> long and short term listening to music of subjects
> choice, with quick-switch, syncronized A-B switching
> under the control of the listener, and with no other
> requirement than eventually coming to a preference is
> much more conducive to such testing. If statistical
> reliability is required by the listener, then the test
> can be repeated 15-20 times over several weeks or months
> to arrive at a conculusion. If reliability of a
> sub-group, such as for example all audiophiles with
> component systems valued at $5000 or more is desired,
> then several dozen to several hundred people can take the
> test, and the results statistically analyzed to determine
> if a true preference exists.

Harry makes yet another fatal error and calls ABX a test for preference.

<snip remaining Harry blather>

Arny Krueger

November 21st 06, 01:32 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been
>>>> using for the past year or so:
>>>>
>>>> It is a Mitsumi model S6702.
>>
>>> Ick. :-)
>>
>> Not exactly a golden pinnacle of ergonomic research, but
>> on balance, cheap, comfortable, and reliable.
>>
>>> I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice.
>>
>> I've seen way too many MS mice bite the dust. Logitech
>> are IME better tools.
>>
>>> Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk.
>>
>> Can't beat the price for something at least halfways
>> decent.
>
> "beating the price" may mean value to you Arny, but if it
> falls apart it is still junk even if you can buy three
> for the price of a Microsoft or a Logitech.

You seem to have missed an important fact Harry - the Mitsumi mouse in
question has proven to be more reliable than certain Microsoft mice, and is
at least as reliable as certain Logitech mice. In fact, the Mitsumi mouse I
currenlty use replaces both Microsoft and Logitech mice that failed in
similar service of similar length.

Arny Krueger

November 21st 06, 01:33 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been
>>> using for the past year
>>> or so:
>>>
>>> It is a Mitsumi model S6702.
>>
>> Ick. :-)
>>
>> I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice.
>>
>> Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk.
>
> The last and only one I ever owned stopped working in
> months.

If harry can't tell us what model that failing Mitsumi mouse was, then his
comment is meaningless.

Arny Krueger

November 21st 06, 02:52 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On 20 Nov 2006 23:27:34 -0800, "
> > wrote:
>
>> Note that Clark's paper is dated year 1982. Note that
>> it's taken Arny 5 years to give a refernece with no
>> quote , no summary of what it contains. I'll eat a (very
>> small) paper hat if it contains an ACTUAL comparison by
>> a large panel between comparable audio components.
>> The hat is safe : my bet is that Arny would not keep it
>> a secret all these years quoting all kinds of
>> irrelevancies in the meantime.
>
> So now that a reference is provided, you try to denigrate
> it.

Mirabel is pulling the forum's collective legs. Simple google searching
shows something like 70 full citations of the Clark JAES article on RAO, at
least 10 in the last 5 years. The reference is well-known and was also cited
indirectly, since its on the ABX web site and that has been cited numerous
times.

> "Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals
> that I debunked several times and will be happy to do
> again if requested."

> You said this in response to Arny providing a reference
> to a paper in the JAES by Clark.

> It sure sounded to me like you were saying this paper was
> ridiculous.

Agreed.

Ludo sets up all of these tiny little hoops for people to jump through. He
also likes to play stupid. Or at least I hope he's playing.

George M. Middius

November 21st 06, 03:20 PM

Ribbet quibbles with the Kroo.

> >If harry can't tell us what model that failing Mitsumi mouse was, then his
> >comment is meaningless.

> Why? He was commenting on his experience with the Mitsumi brand.

Lack of "debating trade" chops noted.

The subtext, of course, is that Krooger loves Mitsumi mouses. Why does
Krooger love them? Because they're cheap, of course. Their cheapness allows
Krooger to make an extra $3 by telling his victims -- er, I mean "customers"
-- that Mitsumi mouses are just as good as Microsoft or Logitech or other
fancy brands and charging them almost as much as the name brand ones cost.

Say, Ribbet, if you're such an admirer of Krooger, why don't you try to get
him a job at your company? You geeks have to stick together. you know. The
day of fully automated LANs is not far off in the future. Pretty soon the
only job you clowns will have is shuttling boxes around the office.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Arny Krueger

November 21st 06, 03:36 PM

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:33:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been
>>>>> using for the past year
>>>>> or so:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a Mitsumi model S6702.
>>>>
>>>> Ick. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk.

That's a fair statement.

>>> The last and only one I ever owned stopped working in
>>> months.

But when that sad affair took place is not given. I specified a particular
Mitsumi mouse, not all Mitsuimi mice.

>> If harry can't tell us what model that failing Mitsumi
>> mouse was, then his comment is meaningless.

> Why? He was commenting on his experience with the Mitsumi
> brand.

As I'm sure you know, one not-so-hidden hidden agenda is the fact that not
all equipment sold under a given brand has identical failure rates, sources,
etc.

Many of us have been using mice for 20 years or more. Over 20 years, lotsa
things change.

For example, MS relies on others to manufacture a lot (if not all) of their
hardware including mice. A MS mouse you buy today might be made by someone
completely different from the organization that made the mouse hanging next
to it on the peg board. MS can do what they can to maintain consistency, but
there is this problem with reliabilty only being known for sure in the
retroactive sense, if you catch my drift.

AFAIK, Logitech has better control over the manufacturing of their products
than MS does.

Eeyore

November 21st 06, 07:09 PM

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Ribbet quibbles with the Kroo.
>
> > >If harry can't tell us what model that failing Mitsumi mouse was, then his
> > >comment is meaningless.
>
> > Why? He was commenting on his experience with the Mitsumi brand.
>
> Lack of "debating trade" chops noted.
>
> The subtext, of course, is that Krooger loves Mitsumi mouses. Why does
> Krooger love them? Because they're cheap, of course. Their cheapness allows
> Krooger to make an extra $3 by telling his victims -- er, I mean "customers"
> -- that Mitsumi mouses are just as good as Microsoft or Logitech or other
> fancy brands and charging them almost as much as the name brand ones cost.

You have to be joking !

I'm not noted for spending more than necessary but I've had Microsoft mice for
yonks.

Graham

George M. Middius

November 21st 06, 07:29 PM

Poopie piles on the Kroo-b-q.

> > Ribbet quibbles with the Kroo.

> > > >If harry can't tell us what model that failing Mitsumi mouse was, then his
> > > >comment is meaningless.

> > > Why? He was commenting on his experience with the Mitsumi brand.

> > Lack of "debating trade" chops noted.

> > The subtext, of course, is that Krooger loves Mitsumi mouses. Why does
> > Krooger love them? Because they're cheap, of course. Their cheapness allows
> > Krooger to make an extra $3 by telling his victims -- er, I mean "customers"
> > -- that Mitsumi mouses are just as good as Microsoft or Logitech or other
> > fancy brands and charging them almost as much as the name brand ones cost.

> You have to be joking !

Not at all, Mr. Donkey. My opinions is based on extant knowledge of how
Mr. **** runs his "business".

> I'm not noted for spending more than necessary but I've had Microsoft mice for
> yonks.

How much is a yonk in Sterling?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 21st 06, 07:36 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into
> >> difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities
> >> between audio components would have to include
> >> cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical
> >> education, experience/preference etc. Not the ridiculous
> >> "research" of Clark and his few pals that I debunked
> >> several times and will be happy to do again if
> >> requested. Where's Krueger's research?.
> >
> > I would also suspect that hearing acuity, environment,
> > and several other factors might apply too.
> >
> > I do think that blind testing has its place. When
> > developing new CODECs, or at the manufacturing level,
> > might be two examples.
> >
> > For an audio hobbyist it's more bother than it's worth
> > IMO.
>
> Given that you're so ashamed of your posts that you won't even provide your
> given name, we know exactly what you think your opinion is worth: zero.

LOL!

Nice logic, Arns.

Since most audio hobbyists buy their gear at places like Circuit City
or Best Buy, I doubt that they'd be interested anyway.

For those that do not (and what do you suppose the percentage is, Arns?
5%? 10%?), thaey aren't likely to go throught the hassle to save a few
bucks.

What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set up a test in
their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go out and buy at
least two of whatever component they are interested in, test them, and
then repackage and return (with a possible restock fee involved) some
of them to the store.

I just don't see where that bother would be worth it to audio
hobbyists. It certainly wouldn't be to me. As I said, that seems far
more appropriate to a labratory or to a marketing study at the
manufactuter level.

That opinion is valid and will not change whether you know my real name
and street address or not. After all, why would I want an insane
asshole like you to know where I live?

Nice attempt at deflection though. It shows you have no logical counter
to the argument.

___________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

Arny Krueger

November 21st 06, 07:42 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into
>>>> difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities
>>>> between audio components would have to include
>>>> cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical
>>>> education, experience/preference etc. Not the
>>>> ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I
>>>> debunked several times and will be happy to do again if
>>>> requested. Where's Krueger's research?.
>>>
>>> I would also suspect that hearing acuity, environment,
>>> and several other factors might apply too.
>>>
>>> I do think that blind testing has its place. When
>>> developing new CODECs, or at the manufacturing level,
>>> might be two examples.
>>>
>>> For an audio hobbyist it's more bother than it's worth
>>> IMO.
>>
>> Given that you're so ashamed of your posts that you
>> won't even provide your given name, we know exactly what
>> you think your opinion is worth: zero.

> Nice logic, Arns.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

George M. Middius

November 21st 06, 08:13 PM

Shhhh! said to The Big ****:

> What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set up a test in
> their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go out and buy at
> least two of whatever component they are interested in, test them, and
> then repackage and return (with a possible restock fee involved) some
> of them to the store.

To top all of that off, Krooger is still beating the drum for his pet aBxism
box, even though you can't get hold of one anywhere. As a wise man once
noted, aBxism is a cure for a nonexistent problem.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

November 21st 06, 08:16 PM

Dirty K tries a ploy from "debating trade" 001.

> >> Given

When Krooger says "Given", that means the klaim that follows will have a
strong resemblance to a freshly laid Kroo-turd.

> > > that you're so ashamed of your posts

As expected. There is no evidence of shame, at least none that can be
perceived by sane people.

> >> that you won't even provide your given name, we know exactly what
> >> you think your opinion is worth: zero.

> > Nice logic, Arns.

> Thanks for agreeing with me.
> [snip bothersome text]

Arnii, here's a little quiz for you. What is the correct term for your last
contribution to this exchange (i.e., "Thanks for agreeing with me."?)

(a) deception
(b) evidence of insanity
(c) sarcasm
(d) first step of a rain dance

Take your time.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 21st 06, 08:22 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Now a piece of my reasoning: Proper research into
> >>>> difference/preference in musical reproduction qualities
> >>>> between audio components would have to include
> >>>> cross-representation of sex, gender, age, musical
> >>>> education, experience/preference etc. Not the
> >>>> ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I
> >>>> debunked several times and will be happy to do again if
> >>>> requested. Where's Krueger's research?.
> >>>
> >>> I would also suspect that hearing acuity, environment,
> >>> and several other factors might apply too.
> >>>
> >>> I do think that blind testing has its place. When
> >>> developing new CODECs, or at the manufacturing level,
> >>> might be two examples.
> >>>
> >>> For an audio hobbyist it's more bother than it's worth
> >>> IMO.
> >>
> >> Given that I'm so ashamed of my homoerotic fantasies
> >> will you give me you name, so that I can call you?
> >> I think you're sexy!

Sorry, Arns. I have nothing against gays, but I'm solidly in the hetero
camp.

> > Nice logic, Arns.
>
> Thanks for agreeing with me that sleeping with small furry animals is entertaining. LosT':S!

Why, I never said any such thing, Arns. But as long as the animals give
their consent to you, I hope you enjoy yourself.

> Further, sometimes I slice off my own hemorrhoids and drink them
> with warm milk and toenail clippings. Yummy! ;-)

Fascinating, Arns. I really don't care to discuss your dietary 'habits'
though.

And shall we continue to dishonestly alter the meaning of each other's
posts, or would you care to try to be honest, for once? You're a very
sick being, Arns.

____________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

John Atkinson

November 21st 06, 08:42 PM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote::
> > What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set up a test in
> their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go out and buy at
> least two of whatever component they are interested in, test them, and
> then repackage and return (with a possible restock fee involved) some
> of them to the store.
>
> I just don't see where that bother would be worth it to audio
> hobbyists.

To save bandwidth, you should note that Arny Krueger has
been down this path before on r.a.o. About 5 years ago, Ed
Shain exposed at great length the impracticality of consumers
using ABX testing as a purchasing aid.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

November 21st 06, 09:20 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote::
>>> What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set
>>> up a test in
>> their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go
>> out and buy at least two of whatever component they are
>> interested in, test them, and then repackage and return
>> (with a possible restock fee involved) some of them to
>> the store.
>>
>> I just don't see where that bother would be worth it to
>> audio hobbyists.
>
> To save bandwidth, you should note that Arny Krueger has
> been down this path before on r.a.o. About 5 years ago, Ed
> Shain exposed at great length the impracticality of
> consumers using ABX testing as a purchasing aid.

As usual, Shain had his brown-colored spectacles on when he tried to foist
his highly-biased analysis off on RAO. In addition, he seemed so pleased
with himself when it was all over. It's almost like we never anticipated
that dealers would show so little regard for consumers who wished to inform
themselves.

Fact of the matter is that the issue with dealers is not anything as
sophisticated as ABX. They pretty universally fall flat on their face when
addressing the far simpler requirement of say, level-matching. They usually
fall flat on their face on even simpler grounds.

Bottom line is that even level-matched listening tests would require that
dealers step up to levels of accountibility that they are neither motivated
nor technically capable of addressing. There's really no reason to bring up
testing requirements as sophisticated as ABX, when neither dealers nor
consumers are interested or capable of doing something as basic as
level-matching.

Furthermore, even the issue of level-matching is moot compared to the degree
to which dealers and consumers rush into purchase decisions based on
fragmentary evidence. We recently threw around what it would take for
dealers to provide reasonably exact comparisons of high end turntables.
Mission impossible.

While the ABX partners were organizing themselves, the question of possible
sales of the ABX Comparator was raised. I figured that with heroic efforts
and everything going our way, maybe we could sell a thousand units. We never
put forth the heroic efforts and everything didn't go our way. Se la vie.

George M. Middius

November 21st 06, 09:37 PM

It's Krooglish time!

> Se la vie.

Arnii, what you really need is an aBxism ritual for Krooglish vs. human
language. If you had such a tool at your disposal, you might not have to
welcome the pity-storm from the lesser 'borgs who urge you to run away and
hide.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

MiNe 109

November 21st 06, 09:40 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Se la vie.

Dang. You were doing so well expressing yourself up to this point.

Stephen

John Atkinson

November 21st 06, 10:00 PM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > Se la vie.
>
> Dang. You were doing so well expressing yourself up to this point.

I suspect he transcribed the phrase phonetically from Chuck Berry's
"You Never Can Tell."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 21st 06, 10:16 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote::
> > > What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set up a test in
> > their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go out and buy at
> > least two of whatever component they are interested in, test them, and
> > then repackage and return (with a possible restock fee involved) some
> > of them to the store.
> >
> > I just don't see where that bother would be worth it to audio
> > hobbyists.
>
> To save bandwidth, you should note that Arny Krueger has
> been down this path before on r.a.o. About 5 years ago, Ed
> Shain exposed at great length the impracticality of consumers
> using ABX testing as a purchasing aid.

Thanks for the tip. Arns seems to have quite a history here.

Why am I not surprised that Arns has difficulty facing reality?

George M. Middius

November 21st 06, 10:16 PM

John Atkinson said:

> > > Se la vie.

> > Dang. You were doing so well expressing yourself up to this point.

> I suspect he transcribed the phrase phonetically from Chuck Berry's
> "You Never Can Tell."

Music is irrelevant. aBxism is trooth. You will be assimilated.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 21st 06, 10:18 PM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > Se la vie.
>
> Dang. You were doing so well expressing yourself up to this point.

LOL

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 21st 06, 10:25 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote::
> >>> What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set
> >>> up a test in
> >> their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go
> >> out and buy at least two of whatever component they are
> >> interested in, test them, and then repackage and return
> >> (with a possible restock fee involved) some of them to
> >> the store.
> >>
> >> I just don't see where that bother would be worth it to
> >> audio hobbyists.
> >
> > To save bandwidth, you should note that Arny Krueger has
> > been down this path before on r.a.o. About 5 years ago, Ed
> > Shain exposed at great length the impracticality of
> > consumers using ABX testing as a purchasing aid.
>
> As usual, Shain had his brown-colored spectacles on when he tried to foist
> his highly-biased analysis off on RAO. In addition, he seemed so pleased
> with himself when it was all over. It's almost like we never anticipated
> that dealers would show so little regard for consumers who wished to inform
> themselves.
>
> Fact of the matter is that the issue with dealers is not anything as
> sophisticated as ABX. They pretty universally fall flat on their face when
> addressing the far simpler requirement of say, level-matching. They usually
> fall flat on their face on even simpler grounds.
>
> Bottom line is that even level-matched listening tests would require that
> dealers step up to levels of accountibility that they are neither motivated
> nor technically capable of addressing. There's really no reason to bring up
> testing requirements as sophisticated as ABX, when neither dealers nor
> consumers are interested or capable of doing something as basic as
> level-matching.
>
> Furthermore, even the issue of level-matching is moot compared to the degree
> to which dealers and consumers rush into purchase decisions based on
> fragmentary evidence. We recently threw around what it would take for
> dealers to provide reasonably exact comparisons of high end turntables.
> Mission impossible.

It would seem that the groundswell of support from dealers and
consumers you were banking on never materialized. People make purchase
decisions on all sorts of factors that you cannot (try as you might)
control.

Rather than learn from this, you apparently are still flogging a horse
that died in the early 1980s. You should be proud that acoustical,
psychological, manufacturers and other investigators adopted the
procedure. Instead, you flail around trying to not only lead that dead
horse to water, but to force it to drink.

You remind me of someone living on (or 'keying off' LOL!) past laurels,
like Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Along Came Polly." You 'shart' here on
a daily basis.

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

paul packer

November 21st 06, 11:52 PM

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:28:22 -0500, Here in Ohio
> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:36:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:33:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the very, very reliable mouse that I've been
>>>>>>> using for the past year
>>>>>>> or so:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a Mitsumi model S6702.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ick. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer Microsoft or Logitech mice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps Mitsumi has improved, but they used to be junk.
>>
>>That's a fair statement.
>
>You really don't need to respond to anything with so many levels of
>quotes in front of it.
>
>I wrote that several go-rounds back and I think this is the second or
>third time you've replied to it.

Arnie's new to Usenet. :-)

George M. Middius

November 22nd 06, 12:05 AM

Shhhh! said:

> Why am I not surprised that Arns has difficulty facing reality?

Because he can't buy a ticket to that show.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

November 22nd 06, 12:07 AM

paul packer said:

> Arnie's new to Usenet. :-)

Seriously, do you believe Turdy finally got an upgrade to Borgware 3.0?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 12:29 AM

In article om>,
"John Atkinson" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > Se la vie.
> >
> > Dang. You were doing so well expressing yourself up to this point.
>
> I suspect he transcribed the phrase phonetically from Chuck Berry's
> "You Never Can Tell."

That's okay then; I like examples from literature and the art! If he
follows Berry's example, he orders 'a la carty'.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 12:39 AM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> Se la vie.
>
> Dang. You were doing so well expressing yourself up to
> this point.

Wow! what a blow out of snot. Well Stephen, I know you are in good health!

John Atkinson

November 22nd 06, 12:50 AM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> "John Atkinson" > wrote:
> > I suspect [AK] transcribed the phrase phonetically from Chuck
> > Berry's "You Never Can Tell."
>
> If he follows Berry's example, he orders 'a la carty'.

Now _that's_ subtle, Stephen!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 12:56 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> Se la vie.
> >
> > Dang. You were doing so well expressing yourself up to
> > this point.
>
>
> Wow! what a blow out of snot. Well Stephen, I know you are in good health!

Enjoy!

Stephen

Howard Ferstler

November 22nd 06, 01:00 AM

John Atkinson wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote::
>
>>>What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set up a test in
>>
>>their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go out and buy at
>>least two of whatever component they are interested in, test them, and
>>then repackage and return (with a possible restock fee involved) some
>>of them to the store.
>>
>>I just don't see where that bother would be worth it to audio
>>hobbyists.
>
>
> To save bandwidth, you should note that Arny Krueger has
> been down this path before on r.a.o. About 5 years ago, Ed
> Shain exposed at great length the impracticality of consumers
> using ABX testing as a purchasing aid.

Yes, but if a fair-minded product reviewer (for your
magazine or any other) believed that HE (or she) could hear
differences between competing amps or competing players (or
between competing wires), he (or she) would owe it to their
readers to prove that contention by doing an ABX test or
some other kind of level-matched blind comparison.

Most consumers may not be able to do practical ABX-style
testing, but reviewers who claim that audible differences
between the above-noted components do exist owe it to those
readers to do more than non-level-matched, non-blind
comparisons that involve wishful thinking (and a need to
keep subscribers on the edges of their collective seats,
waiting for the next proclamation about some superb and
expensive new products) more than a solid analysis.

And, yes, I did not do ABX comparing with every electronic
component I reviewed when I was doing review articles and I
certainly had problems with the technique at times, but I at
least level matched and I never made claims about hearing
audible differences when none existed.

That is more than we can say for the fakes who write for
your rag.

PS: I am still mostly retired, so forget about starting an
insult war. You will be talking to yourself.

Howard Ferstler

Harry Lavo

November 22nd 06, 01:12 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
news:4563a16e@kcnews01...
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote::
>>
>>>>What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set up a test in
>>>
>>>their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go out and buy at
>>>least two of whatever component they are interested in, test them, and
>>>then repackage and return (with a possible restock fee involved) some
>>>of them to the store.
>>>
>>>I just don't see where that bother would be worth it to audio
>>>hobbyists.
>>
>>
>> To save bandwidth, you should note that Arny Krueger has
>> been down this path before on r.a.o. About 5 years ago, Ed
>> Shain exposed at great length the impracticality of consumers
>> using ABX testing as a purchasing aid.
>
> Yes, but if a fair-minded product reviewer (for your magazine or any
> other) believed that HE (or she) could hear differences between competing
> amps or competing players (or between competing wires), he (or she) would
> owe it to their readers to prove that contention by doing an ABX test or
> some other kind of level-matched blind comparison.
>
> Most consumers may not be able to do practical ABX-style testing, but
> reviewers who claim that audible differences between the above-noted
> components do exist owe it to those readers to do more than
> non-level-matched, non-blind comparisons that involve wishful thinking
> (and a need to keep subscribers on the edges of their collective seats,
> waiting for the next proclamation about some superb and expensive new
> products) more than a solid analysis.
>
> And, yes, I did not do ABX comparing with every electronic component I
> reviewed when I was doing review articles and I certainly had problems
> with the technique at times, but I at least level matched and I never made
> claims about hearing audible differences when none existed.
>
> That is more than we can say for the fakes who write for your rag.
>
> PS: I am still mostly retired, so forget about starting an insult war. You
> will be talking to yourself.

Howard just happened to have his radar turned on this evening, while turning
a stool-leg in his woodworking workshop.

Howard Ferstler

November 22nd 06, 01:14 AM

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> paul packer said:
>
>
>>Arnie's new to Usenet. :-)
>
>
> Seriously, do you believe Turdy finally got an upgrade to Borgware 3.0?

After all of this time on rao you remain a jerk. Get a life.

Just passing through.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

November 22nd 06, 01:16 AM

Harry Lavo wrote:

> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> news:4563a16e@kcnews01...
>
>>John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>>>Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote::
>>>
>>>
>>>>>What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set up a test in
>>>>
>>>>their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go out and buy at
>>>>least two of whatever component they are interested in, test them, and
>>>>then repackage and return (with a possible restock fee involved) some
>>>>of them to the store.
>>>>
>>>>I just don't see where that bother would be worth it to audio
>>>>hobbyists.
>>>
>>>
>>>To save bandwidth, you should note that Arny Krueger has
>>>been down this path before on r.a.o. About 5 years ago, Ed
>>>Shain exposed at great length the impracticality of consumers
>>>using ABX testing as a purchasing aid.
>>
>>Yes, but if a fair-minded product reviewer (for your magazine or any
>>other) believed that HE (or she) could hear differences between competing
>>amps or competing players (or between competing wires), he (or she) would
>>owe it to their readers to prove that contention by doing an ABX test or
>>some other kind of level-matched blind comparison.
>>
>>Most consumers may not be able to do practical ABX-style testing, but
>>reviewers who claim that audible differences between the above-noted
>>components do exist owe it to those readers to do more than
>>non-level-matched, non-blind comparisons that involve wishful thinking
>>(and a need to keep subscribers on the edges of their collective seats,
>>waiting for the next proclamation about some superb and expensive new
>>products) more than a solid analysis.
>>
>>And, yes, I did not do ABX comparing with every electronic component I
>>reviewed when I was doing review articles and I certainly had problems
>>with the technique at times, but I at least level matched and I never made
>>claims about hearing audible differences when none existed.
>>
>>That is more than we can say for the fakes who write for your rag.
>>
>>PS: I am still mostly retired, so forget about starting an insult war. You
>>will be talking to yourself.
>
>
> Howard just happened to have his radar turned on this evening, while turning
> a stool-leg in his woodworking workshop.

Typical response from a typical rao phony.

Howard Ferstler

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 01:22 AM

Howard Ferstler wrote:

> ...he (or she) would owe it to their
> readers to prove that contention by doing an ABX test or
> some other kind of level-matched blind comparison.

Then he (or she) would also 'owe' training for people on acoustics,
electricity, basic electronics, psychological perception, hearing and
so forth, yes?

Then they could start a magazine called,
"Stereomedicpsycho-acousticselectromagneticauditoryophile."

Thank you. That's my ticket to millions.

> Most consumers may not be able to do practical ABX-style
> testing,

Not according to Arns. Why not try to convince him of this?

Or does Arns also call you names for making the same point that I've
made here?

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 01:25 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
news:4563a16e@kcnews01

> Yes, but if a fair-minded product reviewer (for your
> magazine or any other) believed that HE (or she) could
> hear differences between competing amps or competing
> players (or between competing wires), he (or she) would
> owe it to their readers to prove that contention by doing
> an ABX test or some other kind of level-matched blind
> comparison.

Nahh, its obvious that high end audio ragazine writers owe more to their
employers than their readers, and that their employers owe more to their
advertisers than their readers.

Besides, a lot of high end ragazine readers have money burning a hole in
their pocket, so the ragazine owners and writers owe it to them to help them
put the fire out. ;-)

> Most consumers may not be able to do practical ABX-style
> testing, but reviewers who claim that audible differences
> between the above-noted components do exist owe it to
> those readers to do more than non-level-matched, non-blind
> comparisons that involve wishful thinking (and a need to
> keep subscribers on the edges of their collective seats,
> waiting for the next proclamation about some superb and
> expensive new products) more than a solid analysis.

See above. Besides, it is well known that high end audio is largely a scam.
It's about separating people with money to burn from that money. Look at it
as fire prevention. ;-)

George M. Middius

November 22nd 06, 01:29 AM

Brother Horace the Insufferably Obtuse whined:

> That is more than we can say for the fakes who write for
> your rag.

> PS: I am still mostly retired, so forget about starting an
> insult war. You will be talking to yourself.

Did you get a Usenet Hypocrite License from Krooger?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

November 22nd 06, 01:30 AM

Brother Horace the Sticky and Stinky said:

> Just passing through.

So you're officially a Krooturd now? Congrats, Clerkie.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Harry Lavo

November 22nd 06, 01:31 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
>> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
>> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
>> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself into
>> the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
>> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
>> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.
>
> Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement completely
> meaningless.

I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not this makes
sense.

>
> The claim that the ABX test intrudes into the process of listening to
> music does not make it any different from the sighted, non-level matched,
> non-time-synchronized listening tests that Harry uses and reports the
> results of.
>
>> That is very different from listening to FR differences, or level
>> differences, or distortion artifacts, or codec artifacts,
>> which is why this test was developed and how it was
>> designed to be used.
>
> Harry is spouting science fiction. He is implicitly claiming that there
> are audio component differences that can't be explained by frequency
> response differences, noise levels or nonlinear distortion. In fact there
> are no other known differences among audio components. Furthermore, Harry
> cites differences in frequency response, etc. as being the causes of
> audible differences that he claims he hears in his sighted, non-level
> matched, non-time-synchronized listening tests, which Harry uses and
> reports the results of.

I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not this is
science fiction.

>> So as a tool for the open-ended
>> evaluation of components as musical transducers, it can
>> legitimately be questioned.
>
> Again Harry is implicitly claiming that a test that is effective for
> detecting frequency response differences, noise levels or nonlinear
> distortion, must be ineffective for evaluating components such as musical
> transducers. Obviously, Harry believes that there can be other kinds of
> audible differences. Let him describe them.

I think the reader can figure out for themselves that I am talking about
components playing music, not white noise.

>> When faced with that kind of
>> situation, good test methodology calls for an indirect
>> test, where what is being measured is measured without
>> the test interfering, and by elicited and measureable
>> response on secondary measures as well as primary
>> measures.
>
> Harry is making up new science, as he goes along. He claims that the
> definition of an indirect test is one that does not interfere, when in
> fact this is contrary to the meaning of indirect test as used in
> scientific literature. Then he claims that all indirect tests can't
> possibly interfere with what is being measured, and of course this is also
> a false claim.

I think the reader can figure out for themselves (particularly if they are
doctors, scientists, or social scientists) whether or not this makes sense.

>> And if the proponent believes that a direct
>> test will not interfere while his peers believe it will,
>> it is imperative (in the scientific world) to validate
>> the methodology by showing that the test does not
>> interfere with the variable under test, as feared.
>
> At this point the use of made-up terminology that differs from accepted
> use in scientific literature renders Harrys comments meaningless.

I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not my language
makes sense.

>> Arny (and many other objectivists as well) refuse to enter
>> into any serious discussion as to how to do that.
>
> How can one have a serious discussion with someone who is making up his
> science as he goes along?

I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not I am making
up science as I go. And whether Arny is up to his old debating trade tricks
again, or not.

>> Such a
>> discussion was held on RAHE, but under much duress which
>> often tended to short-circuit civil discourse, even on
>> that proctored site (see last paragraph for further
>> discussion)
>
>> Another issue is its universality. Such testing is used
>> at H-K in the classic manner...potential panel members
>> are chosen from volunteers within the company, and then
>> trained in what they are supposed to be listening for - a single
>> characteristic (which such a test
>> demands). Sean Phillips who leads the testing at H-K has
>> written that nearly half of all potential testers are so
>> bad at ABX'ng that even with training they have to be
>> dropped from the panel. So just dropping abx testing
>> into a randowm group of audiophiles probably means that
>> as many as half of them automatically have no chance of
>> succeeding in the test. And that in turn makes a mockery
>> out of the "win statistics" needed to prove a difference
>> exists. In other words, this phenomenon alone biases the
>> test toward a null hypothesis.
>
> Harry creates a straw man - "dropping abx testing into a random group of
> audiophiles".

I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether they understand
this or not.

>> And the need for testing reveals yet a third shortcoming of the
>> test...how do you "train" for open-ended
>> evaluation. Such evaluation general is done in a
>> relaxed, evaluative state where the "perceived
>> shortcoming" suddenly comes into conscious focus, and
>> then can be a-b'd quickly to verfify that it exists. ABX
>> testing is particularly ill-suited for such "exploratory"
>> listening. A blind A-B preference test consisting of
>> long and short term listening to music of subjects
>> choice, with quick-switch, syncronized A-B switching
>> under the control of the listener, and with no other
>> requirement than eventually coming to a preference is
>> much more conducive to such testing. If statistical
>> reliability is required by the listener, then the test
>> can be repeated 15-20 times over several weeks or months
>> to arrive at a conculusion. If reliability of a
>> sub-group, such as for example all audiophiles with
>> component systems valued at $5000 or more is desired,
>> then several dozen to several hundred people can take the
>> test, and the results statistically analyzed to determine
>> if a true preference exists.
>
> Harry makes yet another fatal error and calls ABX a test for preference.

I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not I have made
a "fatal error".

> <snip remaining Harry blather>

I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not this makes
sense.

I thing the reader can figure out for themselves whether you are trying to
hide something, particularly once I refresh their memory with what you
"snipped":

"Attempts to get Arny to face up to this these issues, which scientists of
any stripe would recognize as absolutely necessity to be confronted in
attempting to design the most appropriate test, and then validated before
widespread use, are dismissed out of hand. His stock answer is: "it is
proven and good enough for audio research; and we know everything we need to
know about our hearing sensitivity, so that is that". In other words, "if
its good enough for audiometrics, it's good enough for me." That is the
primary reason why his obdurant repeating of his mantra became so divisive
on usenet that even JJ who used double-blind testing daily in his research
work took him to task."

"I haven't even mentioned that fact that the abx test is potentially subject
to a very strong negative perceptual bias...anybody who really doesn't think
objects sound different can either deliberately guess at random, or (more
likely) be swift and somewhat cavalier in their choices and thus guarantee
(whether willfully or not) that their results will prove to find "no
difference". To be fair, this can also be a problem with blind a-b testing.
There is a solution: it is called monadic testing, and a complete test
validation should consider it as well. But I won't go into that here. If
you want to learn more about it, visit the RAHE archives looking for
"monadic test" and "monadic testing". "

I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether Arny is saying
anything of substance or not.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 01:40 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> See above. Besides, it is well known that high end audio is largely a scam.
> It's about separating people with money to burn from that money. Look at it
> as fire prevention. ;-)

Gosh. A sane person might even look at it as a free market at work.

Kind of like, say, a Ferarri dealer saying that their cars are 'better'
when even a Saturn will do the maximum speed limit in the US and get
better mileage too.

But those insane rich folks still buy their Ferarris and Bentleys.

Jealous, Arns? ;-)

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 01:43 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Besides, a lot of high end ragazine readers have money burning a hole in
> their pocket, so the ragazine owners and writers owe it to them to help them
> put the fire out. ;-)

BTW, Arns, why don't you start a low-end ragazine? I'm sure there's a
huge market for it, based on what you've said.

You could make a lot of money. Then, perhaps, you could afford to buy
nice things. You might find that you're not so jealous then.

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 01:45 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
>>> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
>>> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
>>> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself
>>> into the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
>>> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
>>> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.

>> Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement
>> completely meaningless.

> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether
> or not this makes sense.

Of course, Harry. I don't think you are insane, I just think you
underestimate the intelligence of your readers.

However, I have a powerful element of human nature working on my side.
People tend to be risk-adverse. By making your claims appear to be riskier
Harry, I reduce their credibility without regard for the relevance of what I
say. The fact that what I say is relevant, is just frosting on the
rhetorical cake.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 02:35 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

>The fact that what I say is relevant

Opinion stated as fact.

Next.

Harry Lavo

November 22nd 06, 02:57 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
>>>> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
>>>> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
>>>> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself
>>>> into the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
>>>> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
>>>> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.
>
>>> Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement
>>> completely meaningless.
>
>> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether
>> or not this makes sense.
>
> Of course, Harry. I don't think you are insane, I just think you
> underestimate the intelligence of your readers.
>
> However, I have a powerful element of human nature working on my side.
> People tend to be risk-adverse. By making your claims appear to be riskier
> Harry, I reduce their credibility without regard for the relevance of what
> I say. The fact that what I say is relevant, is just frosting on the
> rhetorical cake.

Go ahead and stroke yourself. See if I care.

The fact is: what I said is true, and it is a major flaw in the selection of
ABX for open-ended testing of audio components playing MUSIC, versus other
possible methodologies. Most people won't care. Those that do and think
about it will likely understand the concern.

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 02:58 AM

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> Howard just happened to have his radar turned on this evening, while turning
> a stool-leg in his woodworking workshop.

My bad.

Stephen

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 02:59 AM

In article <4563a542@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler >
wrote:

> Typical response from a typical rao phony.

Hey! You're back. I thought you weren't going to reply to threads.

Wanna hear about my NAD T753 and Linn center channel?

Stephen

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 03:00 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote::
>> > What you, OTOH, are arguing for is for hobbyists to set up a test in
>> their listening rooms. This implies that they are to go out and buy at
>> least two of whatever component they are interested in, test them, and
>> then repackage and return (with a possible restock fee involved) some
>> of them to the store.
>>
>> I just don't see where that bother would be worth it to audio
>> hobbyists.
>
> To save bandwidth, you should note that Arny Krueger has
> been down this path before on r.a.o. About 5 years ago, Ed
> Shain exposed at great length the impracticality of consumers
> using ABX testing as a purchasing aid.

Though you have never explained why reviewers can't use
it (or any other blind listening test protocol) as a reviewing aid.

ScottW

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 03:42 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
>>>>> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
>>>>> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
>>>>> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself
>>>>> into the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
>>>>> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
>>>>> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.
>>
>>>> Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement
>>>> completely meaningless.
>>
>>> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether
>>> or not this makes sense.
>>
>> Of course, Harry. I don't think you are insane, I just think you
>> underestimate the intelligence of your readers.
>>
>> However, I have a powerful element of human nature working on my side. People
>> tend to be risk-adverse. By making your claims appear to be riskier Harry, I
>> reduce their credibility without regard for the relevance of what I say. The
>> fact that what I say is relevant, is just frosting on the rhetorical cake.
>
> Go ahead and stroke yourself. See if I care.
>
> The fact is: what I said is true, and it is a major flaw in the selection of
> ABX for open-ended testing of audio components playing MUSIC, versus other
> possible methodologies. Most people won't care. Those that do and think
> about it will likely understand the concern.

So Harry...getting serious for a moment. If I was going to craft a test for
identifying audible differences in components
(as a researcher or developer or reviewer..so nix the consumer argument)
I would try to make
the test as sensitive as possible. I would do everything I could
to design the test so that positive outcomes could be achieved.
Think about it...a bad test that constantly provides null results
doesn't do anyone any good.

So in crafting such a test...no way would I use music only
as a source material. I'd be using carefully crafted test
signals that would assist the subject in ID'ing differences
rather than hinder them.

Music in general is far too masking and non-repetitive
(making audio memory difficult) to be used as a
highly discriminating test signal for human audibility.

If you get a positive with a highly discriminating signal,
then you might have a chance with music or maybe not.
Doesn't really matter...the components are audibly different
with some material and can be shown so.
But if you get a null with a more discriminating signals than
music, than obviously music will also be null.

So what is wrong with this approach?
I've worked as a test engineer in past jobs and occasionally
had basic acoustic requirements for mic's and earpieces
for voice applications. We never used actual voice
signals for testing their performance.
I can't see why audio equipment for music reproduction is
any different.

ScottW

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 04:10 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message

> Though you have never explained why reviewers can't use
> it (or any other blind listening test protocol) as a
> reviewing aid.

IME, the explanation is simple. DBTs would show the reviewers to be phoneys.

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 04:13 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> The fact is: what I said is true,

No Harry, it is just something you made up to avoid being exposed for being
a phony.

> and it is a major flaw
> in the selection of ABX for open-ended testing of audio
> components playing MUSIC, versus other possible
> methodologies.

All possible other methodologies involving conscious listeners, including
sighted evaluations, put the listeners under the same kinds of
circumstances.

Harry Lavo

November 22nd 06, 04:40 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
> So Harry...getting serious for a moment. If I was going to craft a test
> for
> identifying audible differences in components
> (as a researcher or developer or reviewer..so nix the consumer argument)
> I would try to make
> the test as sensitive as possible. I would do everything I could
> to design the test so that positive outcomes could be achieved.
> Think about it...a bad test that constantly provides null results
> doesn't do anyone any good.
>
> So in crafting such a test...no way would I use music only
> as a source material. I'd be using carefully crafted test
> signals that would assist the subject in ID'ing differences
> rather than hinder them.
>
> Music in general is far too masking and non-repetitive
> (making audio memory difficult) to be used as a
> highly discriminating test signal for human audibility.
>
> If you get a positive with a highly discriminating signal,
> then you might have a chance with music or maybe not.
> Doesn't really matter...the components are audibly different
> with some material and can be shown so.
> But if you get a null with a more discriminating signals than
> music, than obviously music will also be null.
>
> So what is wrong with this approach?
> I've worked as a test engineer in past jobs and occasionally
> had basic acoustic requirements for mic's and earpieces
> for voice applications. We never used actual voice
> signals for testing their performance.
> I can't see why audio equipment for music reproduction is
> any different.

A serious question deserves a serious answer and I have been working on one
for you....but I had three hours sleep last night and have to get up
early...so I'm parking it until tomorrow. See you then.

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 05:11 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ...

>> So Harry...getting serious for a moment. If I was going
>> to craft a test for
>> identifying audible differences in components
>> (as a researcher or developer or reviewer..so nix the
>> consumer argument) I would try to make
>> the test as sensitive as possible. I would do
>> everything I could to design the test so that positive outcomes could be
>> achieved.

>> Think about it...a bad test that constantly provides
>> null results doesn't do anyone any good.

Probably, the most useful kind of test is the enhanced difference test. In
this test the reproduction errors of the UUT are enhanced until they are
strong enough to hear. Then the errors are reduced in logical steps until
audibility ceases. Coming out of this, you know exactly how much of the
error can be tolerated, and how much can't be tolerated.

>> So in crafting such a test...no way would I use music
>> only as a source material. I'd be using carefully crafted
>> test signals that would assist the subject in ID'ing
>> differences rather than hinder them.

There are some reasonableness limits that are involved with this. For
example, the definition of proper quantization of an analog signal implies
adding dither or otherwise decorrelating quantization error. There are some
people (Atkinson for example) who use test signals that lack dither or other
forms of decorrelation. They are therefore always improper for the purpose
of testing that relates to actual operation.

>> Music in general is far too masking and non-repetitive
>> (making audio memory difficult) to be used as a
>> highly discriminating test signal for human audibility.

This has been discussed before on RAO - by JJ, Feng and myself. JJ provided
me with some signals that made certain kinds of phase errors more audible.
They were positively weird sounding and no way resembled any music that
could be imagined. Generating them involved doing things that no musical
synth would ever do, or be capable of doing. OK, you get a positive outcome
with a test signal like this. How is it relevant?

>> If you get a positive with a highly discriminatingsignal, then you might
>> have a chance with music or maybe not.

Maybe, maybe not - that's s bad off as you were before you started the test,
right?

>> Doesn't really matter...the components are audibly
>> different with some material and can be shown so.
>> But if you get a null with a more discriminating signals
>> than music, than obviously music will also be null.

That's the dream.

>> So what is wrong with this approach?

It is questionable.

One common test signal that meets the basic specs you gave is pink noise.
Just the thought of it drives RAO trolls like Middius, Morein, and Art
totally nuts. OTOH, Atkinson recommends it. Interesting how that never gets
any comments from the usual suspects.

>> I've worked as a test engineer in past jobs and
>> occasionally had basic acoustic requirements for mic's and earpieces
>> for voice applications. We never used actual voice
>> signals for testing their performance.

That's easy to justify given that the range of frequencies in voice signals
are generally far less than that for common musical instruments.

>> I can't see why audio equipment for music reproduction is
>> any different.

Along those lines, one possible kind of test signal is music that is
frequency shifted up or down to stress the HF and LF handling capabilities
of equipment more severely.

[email protected]

November 22nd 06, 05:25 AM

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
> >> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
> >> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
> >> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself into
> >> the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
> >> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
> >> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.
> >
> > Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement completely
> > meaningless.
>
> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not this makes
> sense.
>
> >
> > The claim that the ABX test intrudes into the process of listening to
> > music does not make it any different from the sighted, non-level matched,
> > non-time-synchronized listening tests that Harry uses and reports the
> > results of.
> >
> >> That is very different from listening to FR differences, or level
> >> differences, or distortion artifacts, or codec artifacts,
> >> which is why this test was developed and how it was
> >> designed to be used.
> >
> > Harry is spouting science fiction. He is implicitly claiming that there
> > are audio component differences that can't be explained by frequency
> > response differences, noise levels or nonlinear distortion. In fact there
> > are no other known differences among audio components. Furthermore, Harry
> > cites differences in frequency response, etc. as being the causes of
> > audible differences that he claims he hears in his sighted, non-level
> > matched, non-time-synchronized listening tests, which Harry uses and
> > reports the results of.
>
>
> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not this is
> science fiction.
>
> >> So as a tool for the open-ended
> >> evaluation of components as musical transducers, it can
> >> legitimately be questioned.
> >
> > Again Harry is implicitly claiming that a test that is effective for
> > detecting frequency response differences, noise levels or nonlinear
> > distortion, must be ineffective for evaluating components such as musical
> > transducers. Obviously, Harry believes that there can be other kinds of
> > audible differences. Let him describe them.
>
>
> I think the reader can figure out for themselves that I am talking about
> components playing music, not white noise.
>
>
> >> When faced with that kind of
> >> situation, good test methodology calls for an indirect
> >> test, where what is being measured is measured without
> >> the test interfering, and by elicited and measureable
> >> response on secondary measures as well as primary
> >> measures.
> >
> > Harry is making up new science, as he goes along. He claims that the
> > definition of an indirect test is one that does not interfere, when in
> > fact this is contrary to the meaning of indirect test as used in
> > scientific literature. Then he claims that all indirect tests can't
> > possibly interfere with what is being measured, and of course this is also
> > a false claim.
>
>
> I think the reader can figure out for themselves (particularly if they are
> doctors, scientists, or social scientists) whether or not this makes sense.
>
>
> >> And if the proponent believes that a direct
> >> test will not interfere while his peers believe it will,
> >> it is imperative (in the scientific world) to validate
> >> the methodology by showing that the test does not
> >> interfere with the variable under test, as feared.
> >
> > At this point the use of made-up terminology that differs from accepted
> > use in scientific literature renders Harrys comments meaningless.
>
>
> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not my language
> makes sense.
>
> >> Arny (and many other objectivists as well) refuse to enter
> >> into any serious discussion as to how to do that.
> >
> > How can one have a serious discussion with someone who is making up his
> > science as he goes along?
>
>
> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not I am making
> up science as I go. And whether Arny is up to his old debating trade tricks
> again, or not.
>
>
> >> Such a
> >> discussion was held on RAHE, but under much duress which
> >> often tended to short-circuit civil discourse, even on
> >> that proctored site (see last paragraph for further
> >> discussion)
> >
> >> Another issue is its universality. Such testing is used
> >> at H-K in the classic manner...potential panel members
> >> are chosen from volunteers within the company, and then
> >> trained in what they are supposed to be listening for - a single
> >> characteristic (which such a test
> >> demands). Sean Phillips who leads the testing at H-K has
> >> written that nearly half of all potential testers are so
> >> bad at ABX'ng that even with training they have to be
> >> dropped from the panel. So just dropping abx testing
> >> into a randowm group of audiophiles probably means that
> >> as many as half of them automatically have no chance of
> >> succeeding in the test. And that in turn makes a mockery
> >> out of the "win statistics" needed to prove a difference
> >> exists. In other words, this phenomenon alone biases the
> >> test toward a null hypothesis.
> >
> > Harry creates a straw man - "dropping abx testing into a random group of
> > audiophiles".
>
>
> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether they understand
> this or not.
>
>
> >> And the need for testing reveals yet a third shortcoming of the
> >> test...how do you "train" for open-ended
> >> evaluation. Such evaluation general is done in a
> >> relaxed, evaluative state where the "perceived
> >> shortcoming" suddenly comes into conscious focus, and
> >> then can be a-b'd quickly to verfify that it exists. ABX
> >> testing is particularly ill-suited for such "exploratory"
> >> listening. A blind A-B preference test consisting of
> >> long and short term listening to music of subjects
> >> choice, with quick-switch, syncronized A-B switching
> >> under the control of the listener, and with no other
> >> requirement than eventually coming to a preference is
> >> much more conducive to such testing. If statistical
> >> reliability is required by the listener, then the test
> >> can be repeated 15-20 times over several weeks or months
> >> to arrive at a conculusion. If reliability of a
> >> sub-group, such as for example all audiophiles with
> >> component systems valued at $5000 or more is desired,
> >> then several dozen to several hundred people can take the
> >> test, and the results statistically analyzed to determine
> >> if a true preference exists.
> >
> > Harry makes yet another fatal error and calls ABX a test for preference.
>
>
> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not I have made
> a "fatal error".
>
> > <snip remaining Harry blather>
>
>
> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not this makes
> sense.
>
> I thing the reader can figure out for themselves whether you are trying to
> hide something, particularly once I refresh their memory with what you
> "snipped":
>
> "Attempts to get Arny to face up to this these issues, which scientists of
> any stripe would recognize as absolutely necessity to be confronted in
> attempting to design the most appropriate test, and then validated before
> widespread use, are dismissed out of hand. His stock answer is: "it is
> proven and good enough for audio research; and we know everything we need to
> know about our hearing sensitivity, so that is that". In other words, "if
> its good enough for audiometrics, it's good enough for me." That is the
> primary reason why his obdurant repeating of his mantra became so divisive
> on usenet that even JJ who used double-blind testing daily in his research
> work took him to task."
>
> "I haven't even mentioned that fact that the abx test is potentially subject
> to a very strong negative perceptual bias...anybody who really doesn't think
> objects sound different can either deliberately guess at random, or (more
> likely) be swift and somewhat cavalier in their choices and thus guarantee
> (whether willfully or not) that their results will prove to find "no
> difference". To be fair, this can also be a problem with blind a-b testing.
> There is a solution: it is called monadic testing, and a complete test
> validation should consider it as well. But I won't go into that here. If
> you want to learn more about it, visit the RAHE archives looking for
> "monadic test" and "monadic testing". "
>
>
> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether Arny is saying
> anything of substance or not.
==================================

Harry, I think that you're not being fair to Arny and the vocal crew
of his supporters.
He (and they) truly believe that to quote him:
> > Harry is spouting science fiction. He is implicitly claiming that there
> > are audio component differences that can't be explained by frequency
> > response differences, noise levels or nonlinear distortion. In fact there
> > are no other known differences among audio components

He truly believes that the science he learnt at his college n years ago
closed the book on the differences in music reproduction by audio
components. And he truly believes frequency response etc closes the
book.

And may be it it does for the kind of music he listens to. I want my
ideal "sytem to approach the sound of cello as played by the masters
when i listen to cello being played..

If I were a master myself I could tell the difference between one cello
and another. I can not.
If Arny, Chung, Ferstler etc. listened to chamber music they'd want to
hear something like a violin coming from the loudspeaker not the
commonly heard sound of chalk screeching on the blackboard. They might
even hear the differences between loudspeakers doing their best
trying.

I'm not just being elitist ( a great sin amongst the pseudocrats). I'm
trying to convey that human variety makes such a "scientific test"
almost beyond anyone's resources. A thousand Arnys in a thousand ABX
sessions may not hear any difference between a Yamaha and a Bluethner
piano. Do you think a pianist would care.?

The ABX through homogenising differences in the ears of the stupefied
listeners trying to memorise A, then B then compare X with those
memories flatters the great unwashed. The ABX "science" is custom-made
to support their belief that all that fuss about reproducing quartets
and symphonies is just a device to make someone feel superior. Here,
look: science tells you that it all sounds the same.

They'd love a similar "test" to prove that Grisham and Ludlow read the
same as Proust, Joyce and Dostoyevski. And for all I know some clever
engineers will devise just that.

In the meantime Arny after sending me on various wild goose chases
produced something that in its title at least has some relation to the
topic. (dated 1982).

I still did not manage to get a copy but every day of Arny's refraining
from giving a quote from Clark's paper makes more itl ikely that it
will only repeat the humorous "research"
he put in the ABX website.

And the topic is: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT ABXING IS A VALID TEST TO
DIFFERENTIATE THE REPRODUCTION OF MUSIC BY AUDIO COMPONENTS.

Hell is paved with dead theories.
Ludovic Mirabel

[email protected]

November 22nd 06, 05:50 AM

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2006 23:27:34 -0800, " >
> wrote:
>
> >Note that Clark's paper is dated year 1982. Note that it's taken Arny 5
> >years to give a refernece with no quote , no summary of what it
> >contains. I'll eat a (very small) paper hat if it contains an ACTUAL
> >comparison by a large panel between comparable audio components.
> >The hat is safe : my bet is that Arny would not keep it a secret all
> >these years quoting all kinds of irrelevancies in the meantime.
>
> So now that a reference is provided, you try to denigrate it.
>
> >
> >> It seems like you practically foam at the mouth asking Arny to provide
> >> you with a peer-reviewed paper from the JAES. You were beating that
> >> horse over and over and over again. And yet again.
> >
> >I love the "foaming at the mouth" bit,
> >It a ppears I'm foaming not Pinkerton who reached for sewers to call me
> >names, not Sullivan who investigated my medical qualifications in the
> >US colleges hoping to prove me an impostor. (poor guy- he never heard
> >of Canada!), Not Krueger who calls me half ignorant and half senile and
> >not you, who...but why bother.
>
> I wasn't talking about these other people. I have seen quite a few
> posts from you recently where you go on and on about Arny not being
> able to provide a peer-reviewed paper from a reputable organization
> (such as one published in the JAES).
>
> It didn't seem as if you were really looking for a paper, but rather
> that you just liked taking Arny to task. You did it over and over
> again.
>
> >
> >. I enjoy real debate too much to foam.. I also know a little about
> >semantics and I read "The meaning of meaning". So I doggedly refuse to
> >be sidetracked by Arny's somewhat primitive sidetracking tactics and I
> >take my gloves off when sworn at, called insane and worse by the Arnys,
> >Pinkertons and NYOBs.
>
> It appeared that you were trying to sidetrack various discussions when
> you brought up this request for a peer-reviewed paper over and over
> again, no matter what the original debate was about.
>
>
> >
> >And when I take my gloves off I don't need to descend into their
> >gutter..I just ask for evidence, evidence, evidence.
> >>
> >> Now that Arny gives you a reference, you're still not happy and have
> >> to dismiss it as "ridiculous."
> >
> >I did not say this one was "ridiculous". I had not yet seen it. But I
> >said and repeat that the "research" on the ABX web site is ridiculous (
> >see below) and I wonder why Clark et al. would not reprint something
> >better if it showed up in JAES.
>
> You said:
>
> "Not the ridiculous "research" of Clark and his few pals that I
> debunked several times and will be happy to do again if requested."
>
> You said this in response to Arny providing a reference to a paper in
> the JAES by Clark.
>
> It sure sounded to me like you were saying this paper was ridiculous.
>
>
> >>
> >> Maybe you only want to accept peer-reviewed papers in the JAES that
> >> say what you want to hear?
> >
> >Wrong again. I'd love to see a "test" that will tell me infallibly what
> >to buy. Who would not? You got it?
>
> I see DBT or ABX testing as something that will tell you what _not_ to
> buy. It's perhaps a subtle distinction, but I feel it's more
> realistic.
>
>
>
> >
> >Ludovic Mirabel. .
> >
> >What follows is the "research" that the ABX web site offers for its
> >forty years of marketing.
> >Essentially a copy of my answer to NYOB a few years ago.:
>

===================================

It looks like a safe bet that you read neither the paper by Clark in
JAES nor the ABX web site.

If you had you'd have known that Clark is one of the coauthors of the
ABX website.

My bet was that the paper would not contain any more validating
research than the same author's paper on the website.

Yoiu accuse me of trying to ridicule the website. I did not have to try
hard . It does not require years of experience in research to know what
decent research is like. My model was acquired as an employee of the
Med. Research Ccil of G.B. where double blind testing was first
developed and used in proper therapeutic research with objective
validation by lab tests and examination.

You say that Abx testing tells you what not to buy. You're wrong. It
tells you to buy at K-Mart or Best Buy.

The outcome of every ABX listening test reported in the "Stereo Review"
in the 80s (none since) was "They all sound the same". Conclusion is
clear : either the test homogenises the brain percetions ( Did YOU ever
do it?) or it is a good test for general use by small groups. .In this
case obviously the cheapest is the best

Enjoy.
Ludovic Mirabel
?

[email protected]

November 22nd 06, 06:07 AM

> ==================================
>
> Harry, I think that you're not being fair to Arny and the vocal crew
> of his supporters.
> He (and they) truly believe that to quote him:
> > > Harry is spouting science fiction. He is implicitly claiming that there
> > > are audio component differences that can't be explained by frequency
> > > response differences, noise levels or nonlinear distortion. In fact there
> > > are no other known differences among audio components
>
> He truly believes that the science he learnt at his college n years ago
> closed the book on the differences in music reproduction by audio
> components. And he truly believes frequency response etc closes the
> book.
>
> And may be it it does for the kind of music he listens to. I want my
> ideal "sytem to approach the sound of cello as played by the masters
> when i listen to cello being played..
>
> If I were a master myself I could tell the difference between one cello
> and another. I can not.
> If Arny, Chung, Ferstler etc. listened to chamber music they'd want to
> hear something like a violin coming from the loudspeaker not the
> commonly heard sound of chalk screeching on the blackboard. They might
> even hear the differences between loudspeakers doing their best
> trying.
>
> I'm not just being elitist ( a great sin amongst the pseudocrats). I'm
> trying to convey that human variety makes such a "scientific test"
> almost beyond anyone's resources. A thousand Arnys in a thousand ABX
> sessions may not hear any difference between a Yamaha and a Bluethner
> piano. Do you think a pianist would care.?
>
> The ABX through homogenising differences in the ears of the stupefied
> listeners trying to memorise A, then B then compare X with those
> memories flatters the great unwashed. The ABX "science" is custom-made
> to support their belief that all that fuss about reproducing quartets
> and symphonies is just a device to make someone feel superior. Here,
> look: science tells you that it all sounds the same.
>
> They'd love a similar "test" to prove that Grisham and Ludlow read the
> same as Proust, Joyce and Dostoyevski. And for all I know some clever
> engineers will devise just that.
>
> In the meantime Arny after sending me on various wild goose chases
> produced something that in its title at least has some relation to the
> topic. (dated 1982).
>
> I still did not manage to get a copy but every day of Arny's refraining
> from giving a quote from Clark's paper makes more itl ikely that it
> will only repeat the humorous "research"
> he put in the ABX website.
>
> And the topic is: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT ABXING IS A VALID TEST TO
> DIFFERENTIATE THE REPRODUCTION OF MUSIC BY AUDIO COMPONENTS.
>
> Hell is paved with dead theories.
> Ludovic Mirabel

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 07:49 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com

> It looks like a safe bet that you read neither the paper
> by Clark in JAES nor the ABX web site.

and neither have you, Mirabel.

> If you had you'd have known that Clark is one of the
> coauthors of the ABX website.

Wrong. The ABX web site was written by Dave Carlstrom.

> My bet was that the paper would not contain any more
> validating research than the same author's paper on the
> website.

The website and the JAES paper share only the cite on the website in common.

> Yoiu accuse me of trying to ridicule the website.

No, he accused you are rediculing the JAES paper.

> I did
> not have to try hard . It does not require years of
> experience in research to know what decent research is
> like.

If your own audio writings are any indication, you don't know, either.

> You say that Abx testing tells you what not to buy.
> You're wrong. It tells you to buy at K-Mart or Best Buy.

Horsefeathers. This is just dogmatic posturing.

> The outcome of every ABX listening test reported in the
> "Stereo Review" in the 80s (none since) was "They all
> sound the same".

Wrong again. The Stereo Review ABX tests did find audible differences
between audio components.

If you don't know what they are Mirabel, that's just proof that you never
read the articles that you are talking about.

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 07:51 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com

>
> He truly believes that the science he learnt at his
> college n years ago closed the book on the differences in
> music reproduction by audio components. And he truly
> believes frequency response etc closes the book.

OK Mirabel, since you brought up my formal education related to music
reproduction, please state what it was, and what yours is.

If you fail to do this with reasonble amounts of accuracy, then we know that
once again you are just making this stuff up as you go along.

John Atkinson

November 22nd 06, 12:09 PM

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Yes, but...forget about starting an
> insult war. You will be talking to yourself.

Okay.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

paul packer

November 22nd 06, 12:42 PM

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:14:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>After all of this time on rao you remain a jerk.

Howard, you seem to be expecting that RAO will/should actually improve
a person over time. Where is the evidence for that?

George M. Middius

November 22nd 06, 01:47 PM

paul packer said:

> >After all of this time on rao you remain a jerk.

> Howard, you seem to be expecting that RAO will/should actually improve
> a person over time. Where is the evidence for that?

Harold has told us that he is an excellent writer. Nonetheless, he
consistently withholds all evidence to support that opinion.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 02:09 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:14:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
>> After all of this time on rao you remain a jerk.
>
> Howard, you seem to be expecting that RAO will/should
> actually improve a person over time. Where is the
> evidence for that?

All of the people who wised up and split on out of here.

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 02:52 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> In article
>> om>,
>> "John Atkinson" >
>> wrote:
>>> I suspect [AK] transcribed the phrase phonetically from
>>> Chuck Berry's "You Never Can Tell."
>>
>> If he follows Berry's example, he orders 'a la carty'.
>
> Now _that's_ subtle, Stephen!

The flu and colds season seems to be causing the kiddies to spew a lot of
snot.

Will they ever grow up and get over it? I doubt it. :-(

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 02:55 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> In article
> >> om>,
> >> "John Atkinson" >
> >> wrote:
> >>> I suspect [AK] transcribed the phrase phonetically from
> >>> Chuck Berry's "You Never Can Tell."
> >>
> >> If he follows Berry's example, he orders 'a la carty'.
> >
> > Now _that's_ subtle, Stephen!
>
> The flu and colds season seems to be causing the kiddies to spew a lot of
> snot.
>
> Will they ever grow up and get over it? I doubt it. :-(

It goes to show you never can tell.

Stephen

George M. Middius

November 22nd 06, 03:08 PM

Ribbet croaked:

> I do feel that a lot of people would save money if they took a more
> objective view of things. They could then spend that money on more
> music, whether CD or LP or whatever. Even on concert tickets - isn't
> that a novel idea? :-)

<puke>

Even if that's your idea of "helping" the great unwashed, it's still a
****-poor excuse for being a Kroopologist.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 03:16 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>
> > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:14:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> After all of this time on rao you remain a jerk.
> >
> > Howard, you seem to be expecting that RAO will/should
> > actually improve a person over time. Where is the
> > evidence for that?
>
> All of the people who wised up and split on out of here.

Please lay this out as a logical argument.

LOL!
________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

Powell

November 22nd 06, 03:37 PM

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>> The outcome of every ABX listening test reported in the
>> "Stereo Review" in the 80s (none since) was "They all
>> sound the same".
>
> Wrong again. The Stereo Review ABX tests did find audible differences
> between audio components.
>
Please provide references and I'll look it up (no null
ABX findings)?.

> If you don't know what they are Mirabel, that's just proof that you never
> read the articles that you are talking about.
Please provide references and I'll look it up?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 05:44 PM

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2006 14:25:45 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
> >It would seem that the groundswell of support from dealers and
> >consumers you were banking on never materialized. People make purchase
> >decisions on all sorts of factors that you cannot (try as you might)
> >control.
> >
> >Rather than learn from this, you apparently are still flogging a horse
> >that died in the early 1980s. You should be proud that acoustical,
>
> Just because consumers didn't embrace DBT doesn't mean it is
> valueless.

I never said that, did I? I think I said that it has value to
scientific researchers and to manufacturers. I think I said that it is
far too much of a hassle for the vast majority of audio hobbyists.
Maybe you missed it. It was in that part of my post that you snipped.

> I do feel that a lot of people would save money if they took a more
> objective view of things. They could then spend that money on more
> music, whether CD or LP or whatever. Even on concert tickets - isn't
> that a novel idea? :-)

The point remains: consumers will make their decisions based on
whatever criteria they develop for themselves, whether or not you or
Arns agree with those criteria. They will spend their money as they see
fit. And if that .00001% of the audio market enjoys their purchase of
esoteric cables, good for them.

BTW, I seriously doubt that if someone spends $15,000 per meter (or
whatever those Tara Zero cables cost) they are really very worried
about where the dough for the next ticket/LP/CD is coming from.

The ones that are worried about that are most likely doing their
shopping at Best Buy.

Don't you agree?

George M. Middius

November 22nd 06, 06:17 PM

Shhhh! said to Ribbet:

> BTW, I seriously doubt that if someone spends $15,000 per meter (or
> whatever those Tara Zero cables cost) they are really very worried
> about where the dough for the next ticket/LP/CD is coming from.

According to Kroolore, those people are going straight to hell. The only way
to avoid hell, says Krooger, is to "rack up 100's and 100's of hours of good
wurks".

> The ones that are worried about that are most likely doing their
> shopping at Best Buy.
> Don't you agree?

How dare you invoke the name of Their temple in vain!

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[email protected]

November 22nd 06, 06:47 PM

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:31:32 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
> >>> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
> >>> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
> >>> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself into
> >>> the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
> >>> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
> >>> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.
> >>
> >> Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement completely
> >> meaningless.
> >
> >I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not this makes
> >sense.
>
> I think you're reaching for straws with the right brain / left brain
> stuff myself. :-)
>
> Once you buy into something like that, then it's easy to justify
> anything. You've pretty much left reality behind and wandered off into
> some kind of audio la-la land.
>
> Oh, BTW, do you have any proof that an ABX test is "very left brain?"
>
> >>
> >> Harry is spouting science fiction. He is implicitly claiming that there
> >> are audio component differences that can't be explained by frequency
> >> response differences, noise levels or nonlinear distortion. In fact there
> >> are no other known differences among audio components. Furthermore, Harry
> >> cites differences in frequency response, etc. as being the causes of
> >> audible differences that he claims he hears in his sighted, non-level
> >> matched, non-time-synchronized listening tests, which Harry uses and
> >> reports the results of.
> >
> >
> >I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not this is
> >science fiction.
>
> It isn't science fiction because there is no science behind it.

================================

Sir, you were invited to give account of your own ABX
experiences. You already told us that "tests" tell you what NOT to
buy. Could you possibly tell us when did ABX show you what to BUY as
between two comparable audio components. To clarify: you listened
carefully but couldn't decide - then you ABXed and it told you which
one of the two was superior.

With names please. We already know the theory but we'd like some help
with our choices.

If you can not do that 3 possibilities come to mind:1) you never ABXed
and you're talking out of sincere faith through your favourite hat 2)
You ABXed and everything sounded the same to you after just as it did
before.

Others might ask : Is it possible that ABX obliterates differences
rather than highlight them? Is it possible that someone else than you
might get a different result?

In other words: YOU used the "test" that confirmed to YOU that YOUR
ear-brain finctions well enough for YOU
Ludovic Mirabel.

Sander deWaal

November 22nd 06, 07:33 PM

Here in Ohio > said:
>
>I'm not stopping anyone from buying whatever they like. However, as I
>keep pointing out, it would be far better for all of us if people
>stopped buying snake oil and spent their money with companies that
>actually did worthwhile things.

I now have new coupling capacitors in my amplifiers,
paper-in-snake-oil.
Only $230 for a pair of 0.22 uF/800V, cheaper than Mundorf Supreme
Silver/Gold.
You gotta hear it to believe it!

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 08:04 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> So Harry...getting serious for a moment. If I was going
>>> to craft a test for
>>> identifying audible differences in components
>>> (as a researcher or developer or reviewer..so nix the
>>> consumer argument) I would try to make
>>> the test as sensitive as possible. I would do
>>> everything I could to design the test so that positive outcomes could be
>>> achieved.
>
>>> Think about it...a bad test that constantly provides
>>> null results doesn't do anyone any good.
>
> Probably, the most useful kind of test is the enhanced difference test. In
> this test the reproduction errors of the UUT are enhanced until they are
> strong enough to hear. Then the errors are reduced in logical steps until
> audibility ceases. Coming out of this, you know exactly how much of the error
> can be tolerated, and how much can't be tolerated.
>
>>> So in crafting such a test...no way would I use music
>>> only as a source material. I'd be using carefully crafted
>>> test signals that would assist the subject in ID'ing
>>> differences rather than hinder them.
>
> There are some reasonableness limits that are involved with this. For example,
> the definition of proper quantization of an analog signal implies adding
> dither or otherwise decorrelating quantization error. There are some people
> (Atkinson for example) who use test signals that lack dither or other forms of
> decorrelation. They are therefore always improper for the purpose of testing
> that relates to actual operation.
>
>>> Music in general is far too masking and non-repetitive
>>> (making audio memory difficult) to be used as a
>>> highly discriminating test signal for human audibility.
>
> This has been discussed before on RAO - by JJ, Feng and myself. JJ provided me
> with some signals that made certain kinds of phase errors more audible. They
> were positively weird sounding and no way resembled any music that could be
> imagined. Generating them involved doing things that no musical synth would
> ever do, or be capable of doing. OK, you get a positive outcome with a test
> signal like this. How is it relevant?

It gives the designer a tool for identifying and eliminating a possible
source of audible difference from the ideal. Usually that isn't all
that difficult once a test has been created that IDs the flaw.

In reliability engineering I have often run into the following corrollary.
We find a design or process that produces product that fails in
accelerated stress tests. Program managers always want to know
how bad is it? What does this mean to product in real world
environments. (Will it be audible to the consumer?)
Questions that are almost always impossible or are
at least extremely difficult and expensive to answer.
So what do we do? In almost all cases it is less difficult
to fix the design/process so it doesn't fail thereby eliminating
the possibility that it might be a cause of substandard performance
in the real world than it is to run the experiments necessary to
determine the real world outcome without actually experiencing it.
We'll eventually find out after shipping
thousands and gathering years worth of field data...but by
then...if you were wrong, you've made a horrendously expensive
error. It's almost always cheaper, easier, and safer to just
fix it so you pass the test.

>
>>> If you get a positive with a highly discriminatingsignal, then you might
>>> have a chance with music or maybe not.
>
> Maybe, maybe not - that's s bad off as you were before you started the test,
> right?

No...if it wasn't audible..you did no harm....if it was you fixed a flaw.

>
>>> Doesn't really matter...the components are audibly
>>> different with some material and can be shown so.
>>> But if you get a null with a more discriminating signals
>>> than music, than obviously music will also be null.
>
> That's the dream.

Is it a dream? I thought you always said a reasonable
battery of test could show you if there was an audible
difference or not?

>
>>> So what is wrong with this approach?
>
> It is questionable.
>
> One common test signal that meets the basic specs you gave is pink noise. Just
> the thought of it drives RAO trolls like Middius, Morein, and Art totally
> nuts. OTOH, Atkinson recommends it. Interesting how that never gets any
> comments from the usual suspects.

Those guys aren't rejecting the test validity for designers,
they're rejecting the applicability to a
consumer purchasing decision.
Different issue, one I am not
trying to address.
Perhaps Ludovic is better reference for human audibility
testing arguments.

>
>>> I've worked as a test engineer in past jobs and
>>> occasionally had basic acoustic requirements for mic's and earpieces
>>> for voice applications. We never used actual voice
>>> signals for testing their performance.
>
> That's easy to justify given that the range of frequencies in voice signals
> are generally far less than that for common musical instruments.
>
>>> I can't see why audio equipment for music reproduction is
>>> any different.
>
> Along those lines, one possible kind of test signal is music that is frequency
> shifted up or down to stress the HF and LF handling capabilities of equipment
> more severely.

I'm not trying to design the test here, though it is clear there are many
options
for test signals other than music that are far more discriminating than music.

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 08:13 PM

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 22 Nov 2006 09:44:38 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:

> >> I do feel that a lot of people would save money if they took a more
> >> objective view of things. They could then spend that money on more
> >> music, whether CD or LP or whatever. Even on concert tickets - isn't
> >> that a novel idea? :-)
> >
> >The point remains: consumers will make their decisions based on
> >whatever criteria they develop for themselves, whether or not you or
> >Arns agree with those criteria. They will spend their money as they see
> >fit. And if that .00001% of the audio market enjoys their purchase of
> >esoteric cables, good for them.
>
> I'm not stopping anyone from buying whatever they like. However, as I
> keep pointing out, it would be far better for all of us if people
> stopped buying snake oil and spent their money with companies that
> actually did worthwhile things.

How can somebody else's purchase decision possibly be better, even in
the remotest sense, for 'all of us' in any way, shape or form?

> >BTW, I seriously doubt that if someone spends $15,000 per meter (or
> >whatever those Tara Zero cables cost) they are really very worried
> >about where the dough for the next ticket/LP/CD is coming from.
>
> No, they probably only have a dozen "audiophile" LPs made of Extra
> Virgin vinyl that they demonstrate their system with. In short, people
> who spend $15,000 on Zero cables aren't really music lovers.

A rather sweeping generalization, which is an opinion asserted as a
fact. Do you have any (as in, even the slightest amount of) proof of
this claim?

> >The ones that are worried about that are most likely doing their
> >shopping at Best Buy.
> >
> >Don't you agree?
>
> I wasn't saying that people were worried about where to get the money
> for a CD anyway. I was just pointing out that they would get far more
> value out of one new CD or LP than out of all the fancy cables you
> could fit into a 55 gallon trash can.

Value using your definition and criteria of value. But, as I said,
these people will develop their own definition of value and criteria.

Isn't it just plain dumb that people will pay over $100 million for
something as fragile as a painting? They'd get far more value from a
$20 framed print from WalMart. Or how about those nuts who buy a
Mercedes instead of a Kia.

It's hard to figure out some people's values and criteria, don't you
agree?

If people like Arns expended as much energy trying to, say, get a local
food shelf stocked, as they do trying to convince the poor, uneducated,
unwashed masses here on how to spend their audio dollar, they might
actually do some good.

As it is, it's not only a waste of time, but it's assholish in an
insane kind of way. ;-)

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

Sander deWaal

November 22nd 06, 09:43 PM

Here in Ohio > said:

>For instance, buying a Curl-designed Parasound amp supports a company
>that is making real, no-BS products for rational prices. If they make
>money, we will see more good products from them. The money also goes
>to John Curl, and keep him working on new designs. It also employs
>real engineers.

So what you're actually saying is that I, a DIY-er, is stealing from
John Curl, his wife and kids, and his employees?

Hmmm......never thought of it that way ;-)

>So you're comparing Zero cables to a Monet or a Mercedes?

Don't be silly.
Mercedes isn't anywhere near the icon status it was 20 years ago.
At least not here in Europe.
Mercedes is associated with taxi drivers, building contractors and
local mafia.
--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 10:24 PM

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 22 Nov 2006 12:13:24 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Here in Ohio wrote:
> >> On 22 Nov 2006 09:44:38 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >> >> I do feel that a lot of people would save money if they took a more
> >> >> objective view of things. They could then spend that money on more
> >> >> music, whether CD or LP or whatever. Even on concert tickets - isn't
> >> >> that a novel idea? :-)
> >> >
> >> >The point remains: consumers will make their decisions based on
> >> >whatever criteria they develop for themselves, whether or not you or
> >> >Arns agree with those criteria. They will spend their money as they see
> >> >fit. And if that .00001% of the audio market enjoys their purchase of
> >> >esoteric cables, good for them.
> >>
> >> I'm not stopping anyone from buying whatever they like. However, as I
> >> keep pointing out, it would be far better for all of us if people
> >> stopped buying snake oil and spent their money with companies that
> >> actually did worthwhile things.
> >
> >How can somebody else's purchase decision possibly be better, even in
> >the remotest sense, for 'all of us' in any way, shape or form?
>
> For instance, buying a Curl-designed Parasound amp supports a company
> that is making real, no-BS products for rational prices. If they make
> money, we will see more good products from them. The money also goes
> to John Curl, and keep him working on new designs. It also employs
> real engineers.

I wonder what Parasound's (and like price-point amplifiers) volume is
compared to, say, all amplifiers sold over $5,000 per channel.

I seriously doubt Parasound's own marketing is trying to get that
(probably *very* small) niche.

I further seriously doubt that, even if Parasound captured that
*entire* niche market, they would employ very many more people. I don't
think that the 'problem' is anywhere near as large as some here would
have us believe.

I would also contend that, in the case of Arns, the 'solution' is far
worse than the 'problem.'

> In contrast, buying Monster Cables supports a big advertising and
> marketing budget and does nothing to further the art of audio design.
> The only engineers they are likely to employ are those who design the
> packages that Monster Cables are sold in.

They need jobs, too.

Or are you suggesting that buying a named cable somehow drives down
Home Depot's stock prices?;-)

> >> >BTW, I seriously doubt that if someone spends $15,000 per meter (or
> >> >whatever those Tara Zero cables cost) they are really very worried
> >> >about where the dough for the next ticket/LP/CD is coming from.
> >>
> >> No, they probably only have a dozen "audiophile" LPs made of Extra
> >> Virgin vinyl that they demonstrate their system with. In short, people
> >> who spend $15,000 on Zero cables aren't really music lovers.
> >
> >A rather sweeping generalization, which is an opinion asserted as a
> >fact. Do you have any (as in, even the slightest amount of) proof of
> >this claim?
>
> It's an opinion put forward in several of the high end audio
> magazines. It didn't originate with me.

I'd like to read that for myself. Can you point me to a high-end
magazine article or several (as you used the plural) that says people
who spend more than the norm (or more than a certain amount, or buy a
certain type of product, or whatever) are not music lovers?

I'd find that counterintuitive if all they are doing is marketing to
wingnuts, as some here suggest.

> >> >The ones that are worried about that are most likely doing their
> >> >shopping at Best Buy.
> >> >
> >> >Don't you agree?
> >>
> >> I wasn't saying that people were worried about where to get the money
> >> for a CD anyway. I was just pointing out that they would get far more
> >> value out of one new CD or LP than out of all the fancy cables you
> >> could fit into a 55 gallon trash can.
> >
> >Value using your definition and criteria of value. But, as I said,
> >these people will develop their own definition of value and criteria.
> >
> >Isn't it just plain dumb that people will pay over $100 million for
> >something as fragile as a painting? They'd get far more value from a
> >$20 framed print from WalMart. Or how about those nuts who buy a
> >Mercedes instead of a Kia.
>
> So you're comparing Zero cables to a Monet or a Mercedes?

Relative to value achieved (which was the point), why not? Why stop at
audio cables or amplifiers? Let's start a *real* crusade!

Anything above a Kia is a waste. We can point out that you'll get there
just as fast, with a probable fuel savings, as you would in a Mercedes,
Bentley, Ferrari, or any other high-end auto. Anything that covers that
area of your wall over and above a framed print is an utter waste.
$15-20 should be plenty. And why buy furniture anywhere other than at
Ikea? First-class airline seats are a ripoff. Coach is just as fast. We
should picket the airlines. The value comparisons are endless.

That logic applies to virtually every item in every category that has
ever been sold. So again I ask: why stop at a very, very small niche of
the audio market?

Do you own lots of Home Depot stock?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 10:28 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Here in Ohio > said:
>
>
> >For instance, buying a Curl-designed Parasound amp supports a company
> >that is making real, no-BS products for rational prices. If they make
> >money, we will see more good products from them. The money also goes
> >to John Curl, and keep him working on new designs. It also employs
> >real engineers.
>
>
> So what you're actually saying is that I, a DIY-er, is stealing from
> John Curl, his wife and kids, and his employees?

You thoughtless *******.

> Hmmm......never thought of it that way ;-)

See?:-)

> >So you're comparing Zero cables to a Monet or a Mercedes?

> Don't be silly.
> Mercedes isn't anywhere near the icon status it was 20 years ago.
> At least not here in Europe.
> Mercedes is associated with taxi drivers, building contractors and
> local mafia.

That marque still has status here.

Ford Crown Victorias retired from the highway patrol/police forces
(with Police Interceptor engines) are what you'll find in many cabs;
building contractors all drive pickups or SUVs; I don't know what the
local mafia drives. Back in the day it was Lincoln Towncars. Could also
be Mercedes here now, though.

[email protected]

November 22nd 06, 11:38 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > It looks like a safe bet that you read neither the paper
> > by Clark in JAES nor the ABX web site.
>
> and neither have you, Mirabel.
>
> > If you had you'd have known that Clark is one of the
> > coauthors of the ABX website.
>
> Wrong. The ABX web site was written by Dave Carlstrom.
>
> > My bet was that the paper would not contain any more
> > validating research than the same author's paper on the
> > website.
>
> The website and the JAES paper share only the cite on the website in common.
>
> > Yoiu accuse me of trying to ridicule the website.
>
> No, he accused you are rediculing the JAES paper.
>
> > I did
> > not have to try hard . It does not require years of
> > experience in research to know what decent research is
> > like.
>
> If your own audio writings are any indication, you don't know, either.
>
> > You say that Abx testing tells you what not to buy.
> > You're wrong. It tells you to buy at K-Mart or Best Buy.
>
> Horsefeathers. This is just dogmatic posturing.
>
> > The outcome of every ABX listening test reported in the
> > "Stereo Review" in the 80s (none since) was "They all
> > sound the same".
>
> Wrong again. The Stereo Review ABX tests did find audible differences
> between audio components.
>
> If you don't know what they are Mirabel, that's just proof that you never
> read the articles that you are talking about.

==========================================

Before complying with Arny's favourite tactics of derailing
the topic into :"I said this..", "No, you said that.." ,no exit blind
alleyway, let's restate what it is all about.

The topic is not codecs, not phase differences, not harmonics
perception but what ABX is being marketed for by you,: namely, a TEST
for
recognition by the audio public of differences in performance of MUSIC
by
different audio components.

More importantly: experimental evidence that IT WORKS for that
purpose.(Not just more asertions and speculations as per usual)

Next to get this out of the way. I have no hands on experience of
recording music. To say that my knowledge of electronics is elementary
is to pay me a compliment.

I am just a music listener and and an amateur trying to get the best
for the least expenditure into my listening room. Don't you offer your
"test" to people just like myself. I don't proclaim that my choices are
based on science or testing or whatever. They are what pleases me.

Just like anyone else's.

Do I have to be an EE to judge if your ABX is worth the trouble?

My detector for phony claims was honed by early exposure to various
doctrines claiming to explain humanity ( Marx, Freud). It was furthered
by my acquaintance with the history of medical treatment- full of
quackery ( on the "legitimate" side as much as on the straight-forward
quackery side). Those claims were invariably made in the name of
"science'.

And now we can get to the substance of Krueger's contribution to the
debate.

> > It looks like a safe bet that you read neither the paper
> > by Clark in JAES nor the ABX web site.
>
> and neither have you, Mirabel.
..
I said I did not. But I said also that it would surprise me if it
contained any more factual results of ABX testing than those already
available on the contemporary (now altered) PCABX site. Because Clark
was an ABX activist-was he not. I quoted and criticised this web
research in my response to the gentleman from Ohio on March 20th in
this thread. Obviously it escaped your attention. Read today's
footnote. (I said I'll requote SOS)

> Wrong. The ABX web site was written by Dave Carlstrom.

I was wrong: Clark did not sign the PCABX website.
He only signed this :1) Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F.,
Carlstrom, D., "Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp.
56-57 (0ct 1979
"Fairness and high sensitivity are just what makes the ABX method so
appealing." ...
]2 L. L. Greenhill and D. L. Clark, "Equipment Profile Sansui C-2301
....
www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5189 - Similar pages
3) He was responder in chief on behalf of ABX in the Stereophile debate
of July 1982 between Leventhal and Atkinson on one side and Clark on
the other
4) And of course the ABX article you quoted.
Blame me for getting it all mixed up.

But Mr. A. Krueger the point was: did Clark have any new results of ABX
testing in his article beyond the contemporary PCABX site that I'll
requote again in a footnote to this . And if he did: WERE ANY OF THEM
POSITIVE?

Till you come up with that I'll quote and requote that website till you
stop your usual obfuscation by irrelevancies and get down to the real
issues.

> > The outcome of every ABX listening test reported in the
> > "Stereo Review" in the 80s (none since) was "They all
> > sound the same".
>
> Wrong again. The Stereo Review ABX tests did find audible differences
> between audio components
> If you don't know what they are Mirabel, that's just proof that you never
> read the articles that you are talking about.

Krueger rides again. He omits to tell us which and what. Because Mr.
Krueger I read and reviewed all of the Stereo Review ABX audio
component listening tests: amplifiers, preamplifiers, cd players,
Dacs. In every case the moderators' verdict was: "Null result. No
differences" Detailed quotes by request. Obliging as ever-that'me.

I'll help and fill in for you. Yes, there was a positive. They
compared a thin with a thick cable. The thin cable produced 40% less
volume.
..
They could have never done that without ABX. Or let's rephrase: they
could hear that difference even when ABXing.

Anything more impressive Master?
Ludovic Mirabel
=============================================

And here as promised to Krueger is a reposting to answer his assertion
that I did not read the website. It dates from 3 years ago and was
never answered. Don't read it. It is boring.

Note particularly the "positives" Krueger still has the audacity to
quote- without any details of course.

ABX experiments by an ABX panel from the defunct?, unavailable?
website:

Statistically valid number of panelists? In a series of auditions
from one (yes one!) to three,,four or eight the number not always
listed .

Unselected, untrained panelists as in real life? Well if Carlstrom,
Greenhill, Krueger Nousaine are "untrained" who is?

Statistically validable protocol? eg. how many tries, how many
repeats, confidence levels? sometimes reported, sometimes not..

Comparable high end components? well, let's see.the opening page the
amplifiers. There were three "positives' (and seven "negatives").
Positives first:
A) 7 watt home wired Heathkit and a home made 10watt amp vs. 400 watt
(yes, 400 this is not a typo!) Dynaco the specialist panel can hear
the difference (loud applause from the gallery!!!)
B) Paoli 60M (?watts/channel?) ditto.
C) Unstable, buzzing ARC vs CM Labs. amp. All (?) three panelists
hear the buzz and report it as "difference"

The six "no difference" comparisons were between roughly comparable
amps. power wise though not in design, component quality etc. Of
course they all "sounded the same"

In one instance though the panel failed to hear the difference
between a 20 watt/ch. Swartz amp and 400 wat Dynaco. Quaintly Mr.
Carlstrom comments to the effect that this proves that all amps.
sound the same. Even if they * measure* (yes, measure!) very
differently? My alternative explanation: ABX fries more brains than
just mine. and the "measurements" are the objectivists' holy Grail
only when convenient .

Next cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
-repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith.

Remember also that ABXing made them report two very different
cartridges as "same". The famous expectation bias( would be for the
correct response ie. "different" ( the chapel acknowledges that
cartridges do sound different) . And yet they still got 2 comparisons
out of 4 wrong.

Next we reach the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right and one
wrong.
First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the very FIRST cdplayer
ever made, a museum piece against Sony 18 bit. They got it right!
Against all odds- like using the ABX "test"
They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology

In summary: ABXing those practised experts heard the difference
between a 7 watt Heathkit and 400 watt Dynaco, ditto for 60 watt Paoli
(Paoli who?) then between a damaged ARC, needing repair and
same but not even between a 20 watt amp and a 400 watt one. Some
"test" for "showing subtle differences"! Some believers
congregating in this
particular scientology chapel!

Nothing demonstrates the bankruptcy of the whole concept better than
your
bringing in this lame excuse for research as your sole witness.
You want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a just arrived
issue
of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
randomised,
double-blind, placebo-controlled,...trial of amoxicillin fo ...acute
otitis media
in children"
You know how many subjects? 512 children. Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an
antibiotic L.M.) had a modest (typicval, cautious understatement L.M.)
of about 9% better cure rate at 14 day over placebo".
Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not

like its ABX caricature.
Ludovic Mirabel

One year ago NYOB asked:
"Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"

Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
the identical pcavtech. dance routine.

Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably will
repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer fresh.
So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
bored as is the writer.
The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first

They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
1) 10 watt tubes amps
They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
not bad but less than flat:

They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
subtle differences"- like this one between 200 solid state and 7 watts
home brew

2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables

3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
"The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
unstable when clipped, which proved audible".
And they could hear it! Even when ABXing! Another feather in the ABX
cap.

They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
or not.

If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
comment:
"The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "

Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. NYOB
reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks him up
and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.

Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
right with a special "multifrequency signal". NYOB reports it as
another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
musical menu..

The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
against wire"
I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
positive ABX results.
For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference. But then I'm not ABXing.

And this is the validating EVIDENCE that ABX helps to hear differences
in performance.

The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
were not rather sad.
This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
standards of pop mags like the Stereo Review is the one and only
resource of the ABXers. For all the years of noise that's all they can
dig up..Or has Krueger anything better to offer?

"Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
randomised,
double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin fo .acute otitis
media in children"
You know how many subjects? 512
Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
placebo".
Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not
like its ABX caricature."

Notice (from 2 years ago) :This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice
several hours poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if
anyone brings it up again I'll just copy the text above

"

---------------------------------

[email protected]

November 23rd 06, 12:18 AM

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 22 Nov 2006 10:47:02 -0800, " >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >================================
> >
> > Sir, you were invited to give account of your own ABX
> >experiences. You already told us that "tests" tell you what NOT to
> >buy. Could you possibly tell us when did ABX show you what to BUY as
> >between two comparable audio components. To clarify: you listened
> >carefully but couldn't decide - then you ABXed and it told you which
> >one of the two was superior.
>
> You're getting carried away with yourself. The first two sentences are
> ok, but then you ask me for support for claims I haven't made.

No you did not. I did for you thinking that you had something to offer
other than the negatives. It appears I was wrong.
>
> DBT is an excellent tool for performing a reality check. You suddenly
> find out that things like fancy RCA cables don't do anything that far
> less expensive cables do.

I'm not talking about DBT. I do it myself at times using the right-
left arrangement of components but I do not claim that my results have
any scientific , objective value or that they apply to anyone else. I
accept that my betters could do better sighted than I double-blinded.
I'm talking a bot ABX. Listen to A and memorise, switch to B and
memorise, switch to X and compare with your A and B memories. Remember?
Let's not run in all directions at once.
>
> I participated in a DBT of cable, although it was of shielded twisted
> pair for use in the recording studio. We did a lot of trials and the
> results were indistinguishable from picking at random.
>
> I have also done single blind testing of various things over the
> years, testing which was less than rigorous and wouldn't satisfy some
> people here. We attempted to match levels as closely as possible, and
> randomize things as much as possible.
>
> I found that I did hear differences between some electronic components
> like CD players, preamps, and amplifiers. They tended to be rather
> slight though, and (other than the difference between an old tube amp
> and a modern SS amp), weren't of a magnitude such as to make choosing
> between preamps nearly as important as choosing between speakers.

So you heard differences but none that mattered to you Disappointing.
Pianists can hear major differences between a Yamaha and a Bluthner.
Can you?

Now about speakers. Which renowned, decent speakers did you compare by
ABXing with what results?
>
> >
> >With names please. We already know the theory but we'd like some help
> >with our choices.
>
> Names of what?

Of components. Next time I'll be more careful to remember that I'm
being read by a close reader.
>
> >
> >If you can not do that 3 possibilities come to mind:1) you never ABXed
> >and you're talking out of sincere faith through your favourite hat 2)
> >You ABXed and everything sounded the same to you after just as it did
> >before.
>
> Where's 3?

Thanks for close reading again: Correction : Two (2)
>
> >
> >Others might ask : Is it possible that ABX obliterates differences
> >rather than highlight them? Is it possible that someone else than you
> >might get a different result?
> >
> >In other words: YOU used the "test" that confirmed to YOU that YOUR
> >ear-brain finctions well enough for YOU
>
> I see no mechanism by which it obliterates differences. You've got A
> and B. You listen to both A and B.
> Where in there are differences being obliterated?

I don't discuss mechanisms. I discuss all those,(null), results. In the
reported ABX tests to date: In the Stereo Review, in the PCABX web site
(see my answer to Krueger). And in S. Olive excellent blind loudspeaker
comparison where he found that majority of his several hundred
listeners answered wrongly when asked for difference and correctly when
asked for preference. Where are the positives?

Subjectively I find that, (to repeat myself), listening to A and
memorising, switching to B and memorising, switching to X and comparing
with my A and B memories sends me bonkers in no time. It may be
different for you. Your positive results? Still waiting.
Ludovic Mirabel
>

Harry Lavo

November 23rd 06, 01:49 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
>>>>>> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
>>>>>> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
>>>>>> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself
>>>>>> into the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
>>>>>> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
>>>>>> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.
>>>
>>>>> Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement
>>>>> completely meaningless.
>>>
>>>> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether
>>>> or not this makes sense.
>>>
>>> Of course, Harry. I don't think you are insane, I just think you
>>> underestimate the intelligence of your readers.
>>>
>>> However, I have a powerful element of human nature working on my side.
>>> People tend to be risk-adverse. By making your claims appear to be
>>> riskier Harry, I reduce their credibility without regard for the
>>> relevance of what I say. The fact that what I say is relevant, is just
>>> frosting on the rhetorical cake.
>>
>> Go ahead and stroke yourself. See if I care.
>>
>> The fact is: what I said is true, and it is a major flaw in the selection
>> of ABX for open-ended testing of audio components playing MUSIC, versus
>> other possible methodologies. Most people won't care. Those that do and
>> think about it will likely understand the concern.
>
> So Harry...getting serious for a moment. If I was going to craft a test
> for
> identifying audible differences in components
> (as a researcher or developer or reviewer..so nix the consumer argument)
> I would try to make
> the test as sensitive as possible. I would do everything I could
> to design the test so that positive outcomes could be achieved.
> Think about it...a bad test that constantly provides null results
> doesn't do anyone any good.

Let me try to come at this from a broad perspective, so you can understand
why I take the position I do.

Your term "bad test" is a good one.

A test is only bad if it is inappropriate to the task at hand. So the end
purpose of the test must provide the initial criterium for determining if
the test is "good" or "bad". In reality, few tests are all good or all bad,
so realistically one must think in terms of approximations: does this
test's "good" outweight the "bad", or does this test's "bad" outweigh the
good. And to make that judgement, one must know and weigh all the factors
at work that affect the test, and one must be in position to evaluate how
and to what extent each factor affects the test. I would hope you would
immediately see that identifying a "good" test for a purpose is not a
trivial task; it is much easier to end up using a "bad" test. For example,
perhaps one has a) not thought of an alternative, or b) not identified all
the factors that probably will or might well affect the test, or c) not
properly understanding the impact an identified factor really can have.
This is one of the key reasons why scientific articles are peer-reviewed, so
that others can "buy into" the test design and say, in effect, "dear reader,
what ever this test shows, have faith that it is a valid test for it's
purpose". Note again, there is that end determinate: "for its purpose".

Now let's take three examples for a manufacturer, as you requested:

Example 1: the manufacturer produces a popular microphone preamp, using a
very costly hand-built circuit. One of his engineers redesigns the circuit
using a premium op-amp, but one that results in a much less expensive
circuit. The manufacturer is jealous of his reputation, and although all
the people in the project think that it sounds identical, the boss isn't so
sure. So how do you design the test: to determine if his fears are
justified? Well, another abx, right? Think about it? Can you train
somebody to recognize a "null". Can you train people to differentiate
"absence" from "absence". No, you cannot. So you have no idea whether the
testees are good abx'rs or not. Can you choose to test only among existing
users of the mic preamp, on the assumption that they "know" what the absence
sounds like and will therefore be sensitive if it isn't there in the new
version of the preamp? Perhaps...this probably would be a reasonable and
practical way to test...but it wouldn't be ideal. What it would prove, if
the null held up? Would it prove there was no difference. All you really
could say was that among this group of engineers who use the existing
product, the group overall could not detect a difference. Would it be safe
to launch? Suppose the group overall could not deterct a difference, but

The key is "bad test".
Are you looking for differences, and in what?
Volume level, frequency response, then ABX is probably fine.
Focus on the "transient snap" of a snare rim shot? Or the "stike" of the
mallet and skin tone of a kettle-drum hit. Now you are into music. Is
ABX'ng short snippets of same the best way to determine. Questionable.
Because of an unnatural listening environment for evaluating music...how
well or poorly or differently a piece of equipment under test performs is
best evaluated in the

>
> So in crafting such a test...no way would I use music only
> as a source material. I'd be using carefully crafted test
> signals that would assist the subject in ID'ing differences
> rather than hinder them.

What if what you were looking for was proof of better performance in what
audiophiles call "pace and rhythm"? Or transient "snap"? How are you going
to do that with
white noise?

>
> Music in general is far too masking and non-repetitive
> (making audio memory difficult) to be used as a
> highly discriminating test signal for human audibility.
>
> If you get a positive with a highly discriminating signal,
> then you might have a chance with music or maybe not.
> Doesn't really matter...the components are audibly different
> with some material and can be shown so.
> But if you get a null with a more discriminating signals than
> music, than obviously music will also be null.
>
> So what is wrong with this approach?
> I've worked as a test engineer in past jobs and occasionally
> had basic acoustic requirements for mic's and earpieces
> for voice applications. We never used actual voice
> signals for testing their performance.
> I can't see why audio equipment for music reproduction is
> any different.
>

First, music is *not* sound. You can listen to white or pink noise every
day of the week, and it is not likely to please you or to irritate you.

If what you want is to discover is frequency response aberrations, white
noise is fine.

But living with an audio component can either wear well with time, or it can
grow increasingly discomfiting with time. Playing music.

White noise has no pace or rhythm to it.

White noise doesn't have a transient snap like a snare rim-shot.

White noise tells you nothing about modulation of the noise floor with
signal.

White noise tells you nothing about transparency.

White noise tells you nothing about phase accuracy as it affects musical
perception.

White noise tells you nothing about dispersion differences in speakers.

When evaluating a high-end audio component in the home, one is usually
making a preference judgment about how that affects the music being
reproduced. Standards may differ: mine is "realism" compared to live
acoustic instruments. For others, it may be pace and rhythm above all else.
For others it may be female voice beauty.

If I hear a difference in white noise, am I going to *know* how that affects
the reproduction of music so that I *know* which component I will like best?
My experience suggests not.

And most of all, beyond frequency anomalies, I don't neccessarily *know*
what in the comparison will either place me in favor of one component over
another. I may have heard something in the showroom I liked, bring it home
for a comparison, and find that with my speakers, that amp just doesn't cut
it because it sounds sluggish, or that preamp doesn't sound as transparent.
A white noise test will not necessarily reveal those things, nor tip their
presence to you.

So as opposed to ABX, if I were to do a *direct* comparison, I would want it
blind if at all possible, and quick switch, and syncronized...I have no
quarrel with Arny there. But I would want it to be a "preference" test
playing my favorite pieces of music that I know well and can wring out the
equipment under test. I would start with longish listening segments and
make mental or written notes on what I thought I heard on the two pieces,
then return to the music that is telling on those things, and listen in
shorter or longer segments as desired, quick switching. And in the end,
when my feelings had jellied, I would record a preference. If possible i
would do this at least 10 times at least five days, to see how consistent my
judgements were. There obviously would have to be careful attention to the
methods for blinding, switching etc.

Now if I had all the time and money in the world and were buying a really
expensive piece, I would probably also want to do an evaluative test where I
listened to either A or B for an entire listening session (couple of hours)
and then at the end, evaluate how satisfying the session was. How happy did
I feel? Was I able to relax and really get into the music? Was there
anything that annoyed me that evening? How dynamic did the system sound
that evening? Did it ever sound "real", or was I always aware of the
system. I would do this evaluation using a closed-end evaluation form, and
after doing each variable alternately over lets say 15 sessions, I would
average my responses and evaluate any differences that showed
up...statistically if possible, qualitatively at least.

Now, if I were doing a large scale scientific test, one way I would consider
would be to take it a step further and make the test more indirect and use a
lot of subjects...say 150 or 200 people. I'd have them thinking they were
evaluating two subtly different performances (blind) while what I was doing
was changing a component, a preamp say. I might actually use two slightly
differeent versions of the same performance, but alternate the combination
of performance and preamp component, so in the end it all averaged
out...component a with both performances vs component b with bost
performances. I would use closed-end evaluative preference ratings and an
overall rating, focusing on performance enjoyment, relaxation, mood at end
of piece, string performance, percussion performance, etc. with the focus on
the music, with only a few "audio" ratings thrown in. If there was no
statistical difference on any rating, one could conclude the two preamps
sounded alike, or at least performed at a comparable level of customer
satisfaction in most all respects. If their were perfomacne differences
between the preamps, it should show up as a statistical difference on one or
more of the evaluative scales.

Harry Lavo

November 23rd 06, 01:58 AM

Just ignore this. I managed to hit "send" instead of "save". This is work
in progress....to be finished after Thanksgiving....I have to prepare dinner
for eight people tomorrow, so there will be little writing done until
Friday, when I hope to finish an opus.

*************************************
"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
>>>>>>> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
>>>>>>> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
>>>>>>> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself
>>>>>>> into the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
>>>>>>> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
>>>>>>> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.
>>>>
>>>>>> Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement
>>>>>> completely meaningless.
>>>>
>>>>> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether
>>>>> or not this makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, Harry. I don't think you are insane, I just think you
>>>> underestimate the intelligence of your readers.
>>>>
>>>> However, I have a powerful element of human nature working on my side.
>>>> People tend to be risk-adverse. By making your claims appear to be
>>>> riskier Harry, I reduce their credibility without regard for the
>>>> relevance of what I say. The fact that what I say is relevant, is just
>>>> frosting on the rhetorical cake.
>>>
>>> Go ahead and stroke yourself. See if I care.
>>>
>>> The fact is: what I said is true, and it is a major flaw in the
>>> selection
>>> of ABX for open-ended testing of audio components playing MUSIC, versus
>>> other possible methodologies. Most people won't care. Those that do
>>> and
>>> think about it will likely understand the concern.
>>
>> So Harry...getting serious for a moment. If I was going to craft a test
>> for
>> identifying audible differences in components
>> (as a researcher or developer or reviewer..so nix the consumer argument)
>> I would try to make
>> the test as sensitive as possible. I would do everything I could
>> to design the test so that positive outcomes could be achieved.
>> Think about it...a bad test that constantly provides null results
>> doesn't do anyone any good.
>
> Let me try to come at this from a broad perspective, so you can understand
> why I take the position I do.
>
> Your term "bad test" is a good one.
>
> A test is only bad if it is inappropriate to the task at hand. So the
> end purpose of the test must provide the initial criterium for determining
> if the test is "good" or "bad". In reality, few tests are all good or all
> bad, so realistically one must think in terms of approximations: does
> this test's "good" outweight the "bad", or does this test's "bad" outweigh
> the good. And to make that judgement, one must know and weigh all the
> factors at work that affect the test, and one must be in position to
> evaluate how and to what extent each factor affects the test. I would
> hope you would immediately see that identifying a "good" test for a
> purpose is not a trivial task; it is much easier to end up using a "bad"
> test. For example, perhaps one has a) not thought of an alternative, or
> b) not identified all the factors that probably will or might well affect
> the test, or c) not properly understanding the impact an identified factor
> really can have. This is one of the key reasons why scientific articles
> are peer-reviewed, so that others can "buy into" the test design and say,
> in effect, "dear reader, what ever this test shows, have faith that it is
> a valid test for it's purpose". Note again, there is that end
> determinate: "for its purpose".
>
> Now let's take three examples for a manufacturer, as you requested:
>
> Example 1: the manufacturer produces a popular microphone preamp, using a
> very costly hand-built circuit. One of his engineers redesigns the
> circuit using a premium op-amp, but one that results in a much less
> expensive circuit. The manufacturer is jealous of his reputation, and
> although all the people in the project think that it sounds identical, the
> boss isn't so sure. So how do you design the test: to determine if his
> fears are justified? Well, another abx, right? Think about it? Can you
> train somebody to recognize a "null". Can you train people to
> differentiate "absence" from "absence". No, you cannot. So you have no
> idea whether the testees are good abx'rs or not. Can you choose to test
> only among existing users of the mic preamp, on the assumption that they
> "know" what the absence sounds like and will therefore be sensitive if it
> isn't there in the new version of the preamp? Perhaps...this probably
> would be a reasonable and practical way to test...but it wouldn't be
> ideal. What it would prove, if the null held up? Would it prove there
> was no difference. All you really could say was that among this group of
> engineers who use the existing product, the group overall could not detect
> a difference. Would it be safe to launch? Suppose the group overall
> could not deterct a difference, but
>
>
>
>
>
> The key is "bad test".
> Are you looking for differences, and in what?
> Volume level, frequency response, then ABX is probably fine.
> Focus on the "transient snap" of a snare rim shot? Or the "stike" of the
> mallet and skin tone of a kettle-drum hit. Now you are into music. Is
> ABX'ng short snippets of same the best way to determine. Questionable.
> Because of an unnatural listening environment for evaluating music...how
> well or poorly or differently a piece of equipment under test performs is
> best evaluated in the
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> So in crafting such a test...no way would I use music only
>> as a source material. I'd be using carefully crafted test
>> signals that would assist the subject in ID'ing differences
>> rather than hinder them.
>
> What if what you were looking for was proof of better performance in what
> audiophiles call "pace and rhythm"? Or transient "snap"? How are you
> going
> to do that with
> white noise?
>
>>
>> Music in general is far too masking and non-repetitive
>> (making audio memory difficult) to be used as a
>> highly discriminating test signal for human audibility.
>>
>> If you get a positive with a highly discriminating signal,
>> then you might have a chance with music or maybe not.
>> Doesn't really matter...the components are audibly different
>> with some material and can be shown so.
>> But if you get a null with a more discriminating signals than
>> music, than obviously music will also be null.
>>
>> So what is wrong with this approach?
>> I've worked as a test engineer in past jobs and occasionally
>> had basic acoustic requirements for mic's and earpieces
>> for voice applications. We never used actual voice
>> signals for testing their performance.
>> I can't see why audio equipment for music reproduction is
>> any different.
>>
>
> First, music is *not* sound. You can listen to white or pink noise every
> day of the week, and it is not likely to please you or to irritate you.
>
> If what you want is to discover is frequency response aberrations, white
> noise is fine.
>
> But living with an audio component can either wear well with time, or it
> can
> grow increasingly discomfiting with time. Playing music.
>
> White noise has no pace or rhythm to it.
>
> White noise doesn't have a transient snap like a snare rim-shot.
>
> White noise tells you nothing about modulation of the noise floor with
> signal.
>
> White noise tells you nothing about transparency.
>
> White noise tells you nothing about phase accuracy as it affects musical
> perception.
>
> White noise tells you nothing about dispersion differences in speakers.
>
> When evaluating a high-end audio component in the home, one is usually
> making a preference judgment about how that affects the music being
> reproduced. Standards may differ: mine is "realism" compared to live
> acoustic instruments. For others, it may be pace and rhythm above all
> else.
> For others it may be female voice beauty.
>
> If I hear a difference in white noise, am I going to *know* how that
> affects
> the reproduction of music so that I *know* which component I will like
> best?
> My experience suggests not.
>
> And most of all, beyond frequency anomalies, I don't neccessarily *know*
> what in the comparison will either place me in favor of one component over
> another. I may have heard something in the showroom I liked, bring it
> home
> for a comparison, and find that with my speakers, that amp just doesn't
> cut
> it because it sounds sluggish, or that preamp doesn't sound as
> transparent.
> A white noise test will not necessarily reveal those things, nor tip their
> presence to you.
>
> So as opposed to ABX, if I were to do a *direct* comparison, I would want
> it
> blind if at all possible, and quick switch, and syncronized...I have no
> quarrel with Arny there. But I would want it to be a "preference" test
> playing my favorite pieces of music that I know well and can wring out the
> equipment under test. I would start with longish listening segments and
> make mental or written notes on what I thought I heard on the two pieces,
> then return to the music that is telling on those things, and listen in
> shorter or longer segments as desired, quick switching. And in the end,
> when my feelings had jellied, I would record a preference. If possible i
> would do this at least 10 times at least five days, to see how consistent
> my
> judgements were. There obviously would have to be careful attention to
> the
> methods for blinding, switching etc.
>
> Now if I had all the time and money in the world and were buying a really
> expensive piece, I would probably also want to do an evaluative test where
> I
> listened to either A or B for an entire listening session (couple of
> hours)
> and then at the end, evaluate how satisfying the session was. How happy
> did
> I feel? Was I able to relax and really get into the music? Was there
> anything that annoyed me that evening? How dynamic did the system sound
> that evening? Did it ever sound "real", or was I always aware of the
> system. I would do this evaluation using a closed-end evaluation form,
> and
> after doing each variable alternately over lets say 15 sessions, I would
> average my responses and evaluate any differences that showed
> up...statistically if possible, qualitatively at least.
>
> Now, if I were doing a large scale scientific test, one way I would
> consider
> would be to take it a step further and make the test more indirect and use
> a
> lot of subjects...say 150 or 200 people. I'd have them thinking they were
> evaluating two subtly different performances (blind) while what I was
> doing
> was changing a component, a preamp say. I might actually use two slightly
> differeent versions of the same performance, but alternate the combination
> of performance and preamp component, so in the end it all averaged
> out...component a with both performances vs component b with bost
> performances. I would use closed-end evaluative preference ratings and an
> overall rating, focusing on performance enjoyment, relaxation, mood at end
> of piece, string performance, percussion performance, etc. with the focus
> on
> the music, with only a few "audio" ratings thrown in. If there was no
> statistical difference on any rating, one could conclude the two preamps
> sounded alike, or at least performed at a comparable level of customer
> satisfaction in most all respects. If their were perfomacne differences
> between the preamps, it should show up as a statistical difference on one
> or
> more of the evaluative scales.
>
>
>
>
>
>

ScottW

November 23rd 06, 02:13 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
>>>>>>> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
>>>>>>> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
>>>>>>> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself
>>>>>>> into the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
>>>>>>> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
>>>>>>> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.
>>>>
>>>>>> Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement
>>>>>> completely meaningless.
>>>>
>>>>> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether
>>>>> or not this makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, Harry. I don't think you are insane, I just think you
>>>> underestimate the intelligence of your readers.
>>>>
>>>> However, I have a powerful element of human nature working on my side.
>>>> People tend to be risk-adverse. By making your claims appear to be
>>>> riskier Harry, I reduce their credibility without regard for the
>>>> relevance of what I say. The fact that what I say is relevant, is just
>>>> frosting on the rhetorical cake.
>>>
>>> Go ahead and stroke yourself. See if I care.
>>>
>>> The fact is: what I said is true, and it is a major flaw in the selection
>>> of ABX for open-ended testing of audio components playing MUSIC, versus
>>> other possible methodologies. Most people won't care. Those that do and
>>> think about it will likely understand the concern.
>>
>> So Harry...getting serious for a moment. If I was going to craft a test
>> for
>> identifying audible differences in components
>> (as a researcher or developer or reviewer..so nix the consumer argument)
>> I would try to make
>> the test as sensitive as possible. I would do everything I could
>> to design the test so that positive outcomes could be achieved.
>> Think about it...a bad test that constantly provides null results
>> doesn't do anyone any good.
>
> Let me try to come at this from a broad perspective, so you can understand why
> I take the position I do.
>
> Your term "bad test" is a good one.
>
> A test is only bad if it is inappropriate to the task at hand. So the end
> purpose of the test must provide the initial criterium for determining if the
> test is "good" or "bad". In reality, few tests are all good or all bad, so
> realistically one must think in terms of approximations: does this test's
> "good" outweight the "bad", or does this test's "bad" outweigh the good. And
> to make that judgement, one must know and weigh all the factors at work that
> affect the test, and one must be in position to evaluate how and to what
> extent each factor affects the test. I would hope you would immediately see
> that identifying a "good" test for a purpose is not a trivial task; it is much
> easier to end up using a "bad" test. For example, perhaps one has a) not
> thought of an alternative, or b) not identified all the factors that probably
> will or might well affect the test, or c) not properly understanding the
> impact an identified factor really can have. This is one of the key reasons
> why scientific articles are peer-reviewed, so that others can "buy into" the
> test design and say, in effect, "dear reader, what ever this test shows, have
> faith that it is a valid test for it's purpose". Note again, there is that
> end determinate: "for its purpose".
>
> Now let's take three examples for a manufacturer, as you requested:
>
> Example 1: the manufacturer produces a popular microphone preamp, using a
> very costly hand-built circuit. One of his engineers redesigns the circuit
> using a premium op-amp, but one that results in a much less expensive circuit.
> The manufacturer is jealous of his reputation, and although all the people in
> the project think that it sounds identical, the boss isn't so sure. So how do
> you design the test: to determine if his fears are justified? Well, another
> abx, right? Think about it? Can you train somebody to recognize a "null".
> Can you train people to differentiate "absence" from "absence". No, you
> cannot. So you have no idea whether the testees are good abx'rs or not. Can
> you choose to test only among existing users of the mic preamp, on the
> assumption that they "know" what the absence sounds like and will therefore be
> sensitive if it isn't there in the new version of the preamp? Perhaps...this
> probably would be a reasonable and practical way to test...but it wouldn't be
> ideal. What it would prove, if the null held up? Would it prove there was no
> difference. All you really could say was that among this group of engineers
> who use the existing product, the group overall could not detect a difference.
> Would it be safe to launch? Suppose the group overall could not deterct a
> difference, but
>
>
>
>
>
> The key is "bad test".
> Are you looking for differences, and in what?
> Volume level, frequency response, then ABX is probably fine.
> Focus on the "transient snap" of a snare rim shot? Or the "stike" of the
> mallet and skin tone of a kettle-drum hit. Now you are into music. Is
> ABX'ng short snippets of same the best way to determine. Questionable.
> Because of an unnatural listening environment for evaluating music...how
> well or poorly or differently a piece of equipment under test performs is
> best evaluated in the
>
>
I'm having a hard time telling if your post dropped some
key segments or was supposed to be all choppy?
>
>
>
>>
>> So in crafting such a test...no way would I use music only
>> as a source material. I'd be using carefully crafted test
>> signals that would assist the subject in ID'ing differences
>> rather than hinder them.
>
> What if what you were looking for was proof of better performance in what
> audiophiles call "pace and rhythm"? Or transient "snap"? How are you going
> to do that with
> white noise?

I never suggested a good test be limited to one type of signal
source...I only suggested that limiting a test to music
would result in a bad (insensitive) test.

>
>>
>> Music in general is far too masking and non-repetitive
>> (making audio memory difficult) to be used as a
>> highly discriminating test signal for human audibility.
>>
>> If you get a positive with a highly discriminating signal,
>> then you might have a chance with music or maybe not.
>> Doesn't really matter...the components are audibly different
>> with some material and can be shown so.
>> But if you get a null with a more discriminating signals than
>> music, than obviously music will also be null.
>>
>> So what is wrong with this approach?
>> I've worked as a test engineer in past jobs and occasionally
>> had basic acoustic requirements for mic's and earpieces
>> for voice applications. We never used actual voice
>> signals for testing their performance.
>> I can't see why audio equipment for music reproduction is
>> any different.
>>
>
> First, music is *not* sound. You can listen to white or pink noise every
> day of the week, and it is not likely to please you or to irritate you.

I would find it irritating but I can't see the relevance to the process
of testing audio components.

>
> If what you want is to discover is frequency response aberrations, white
> noise is fine.

Good...then we have a signal for discriminating differences in that
performance aspect of audio equipment. A signal better than
music.
I'm sure other signals can be developped for discriminating
other performance aspects. Arny mentioned one for phase error.

>
> But living with an audio component can either wear well with time, or it can
> grow increasingly discomfiting with time. Playing music.
>
> White noise has no pace or rhythm to it.
>
> White noise doesn't have a transient snap like a snare rim-shot.
>
> White noise tells you nothing about modulation of the noise floor with
> signal.
>
> White noise tells you nothing about transparency.
>
> White noise tells you nothing about phase accuracy as it affects musical
> perception.
>
> White noise tells you nothing about dispersion differences in speakers.
>
> When evaluating a high-end audio component in the home, one is usually
> making a preference judgment about how that affects the music being
> reproduced. Standards may differ: mine is "realism" compared to live
> acoustic instruments. For others, it may be pace and rhythm above all else.
> For others it may be female voice beauty.
>
> If I hear a difference in white noise, am I going to *know* how that affects
> the reproduction of music so that I *know* which component I will like best?
> My experience suggests not.

ABX was never a preference test.

>
> And most of all, beyond frequency anomalies, I don't neccessarily *know*
> what in the comparison will either place me in favor of one component over
> another. I may have heard something in the showroom I liked, bring it home
> for a comparison, and find that with my speakers, that amp just doesn't cut
> it because it sounds sluggish, or that preamp doesn't sound as transparent.
> A white noise test will not necessarily reveal those things, nor tip their
> presence to you.
>
> So as opposed to ABX, if I were to do a *direct* comparison, I would want it
> blind if at all possible, and quick switch, and syncronized...I have no
> quarrel with Arny there. But I would want it to be a "preference" test
> playing my favorite pieces of music that I know well and can wring out the
> equipment under test. I would start with longish listening segments and
> make mental or written notes on what I thought I heard on the two pieces,
> then return to the music that is telling on those things, and listen in
> shorter or longer segments as desired, quick switching. And in the end,
> when my feelings had jellied, I would record a preference. If possible i
> would do this at least 10 times at least five days, to see how consistent my
> judgements were. There obviously would have to be careful attention to the
> methods for blinding, switching etc.
>
> Now if I had all the time and money in the world and were buying a really
> expensive piece, I would probably also want to do an evaluative test where I
> listened to either A or B for an entire listening session (couple of hours)
> and then at the end, evaluate how satisfying the session was. How happy did
> I feel? Was I able to relax and really get into the music? Was there
> anything that annoyed me that evening? How dynamic did the system sound
> that evening? Did it ever sound "real", or was I always aware of the
> system. I would do this evaluation using a closed-end evaluation form, and
> after doing each variable alternately over lets say 15 sessions, I would
> average my responses and evaluate any differences that showed
> up...statistically if possible, qualitatively at least.
>
> Now, if I were doing a large scale scientific test, one way I would consider
> would be to take it a step further and make the test more indirect and use a
> lot of subjects...say 150 or 200 people. I'd have them thinking they were
> evaluating two subtly different performances (blind) while what I was doing
> was changing a component, a preamp say. I might actually use two slightly
> differeent versions of the same performance, but alternate the combination
> of performance and preamp component, so in the end it all averaged
> out...component a with both performances vs component b with bost
> performances. I would use closed-end evaluative preference ratings and an
> overall rating, focusing on performance enjoyment, relaxation, mood at end
> of piece, string performance, percussion performance, etc. with the focus on
> the music, with only a few "audio" ratings thrown in. If there was no
> statistical difference on any rating, one could conclude the two preamps
> sounded alike, or at least performed at a comparable level of customer
> satisfaction in most all respects. If their were perfomacne differences
> between the preamps, it should show up as a statistical difference on one or
> more of the evaluative scales.

As a former test engineer...I think you're using a brute force approach
that could be efficiently met with a good test design.
Further...your results aren't useful to a designer who would only
know one unit is preferred but wouldn't know what performance
aspects caused that preference.

ScottW

ScottW

November 23rd 06, 02:15 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
> Just ignore this. I managed to hit "send" instead of "save". This is work in
> progress....to be finished after Thanksgiving....I have to prepare dinner for
> eight people tomorrow, so there will be little writing done until Friday, when
> I hope to finish an opus.

Ok...likewise my response but please don't spend time
focusing on the limitations of pink or white noise.
I never suggested one signal will meet all needs.

Enjoy the holiday.

ScottW

[email protected]

November 23rd 06, 04:08 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >>>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>> . ..
> >>>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The basic problem is the test itself....it potentially
> >>>>>>> violates one very important principle for use as a tool
> >>>>>>> for the open-ended evaluation of music.. It is a direct
> >>>>>>> test...very left brain..and the test intrudes itself
> >>>>>>> into the process of listening to music, which is a holistic
> >>>>>>> and emotion-stimulating process that occurs without
> >>>>>>> conscious thought and over a longer time frame.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Note the use of hedge words that makes this statement
> >>>>>> completely meaningless.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think the reader can figure out for themselves whether
> >>>>> or not this makes sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, Harry. I don't think you are insane, I just think you
> >>>> underestimate the intelligence of your readers.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I have a powerful element of human nature working on my side.
> >>>> People tend to be risk-adverse. By making your claims appear to be
> >>>> riskier Harry, I reduce their credibility without regard for the
> >>>> relevance of what I say. The fact that what I say is relevant, is just
> >>>> frosting on the rhetorical cake.
> >>>
> >>> Go ahead and stroke yourself. See if I care.
> >>>
> >>> The fact is: what I said is true, and it is a major flaw in the selection
> >>> of ABX for open-ended testing of audio components playing MUSIC, versus
> >>> other possible methodologies. Most people won't care. Those that do and
> >>> think about it will likely understand the concern.
> >>
> >> So Harry...getting serious for a moment. If I was going to craft a test
> >> for
> >> identifying audible differences in components
> >> (as a researcher or developer or reviewer..so nix the consumer argument)
> >> I would try to make
> >> the test as sensitive as possible. I would do everything I could
> >> to design the test so that positive outcomes could be achieved.
> >> Think about it...a bad test that constantly provides null results
> >> doesn't do anyone any good.
> >
> > Let me try to come at this from a broad perspective, so you can understand why
> > I take the position I do.
> >
> > Your term "bad test" is a good one.
> >
> > A test is only bad if it is inappropriate to the task at hand. So the end
> > purpose of the test must provide the initial criterium for determining if the
> > test is "good" or "bad". In reality, few tests are all good or all bad, so
> > realistically one must think in terms of approximations: does this test's
> > "good" outweight the "bad", or does this test's "bad" outweigh the good. And
> > to make that judgement, one must know and weigh all the factors at work that
> > affect the test, and one must be in position to evaluate how and to what
> > extent each factor affects the test. I would hope you would immediately see
> > that identifying a "good" test for a purpose is not a trivial task; it is much
> > easier to end up using a "bad" test. For example, perhaps one has a) not
> > thought of an alternative, or b) not identified all the factors that probably
> > will or might well affect the test, or c) not properly understanding the
> > impact an identified factor really can have. This is one of the key reasons
> > why scientific articles are peer-reviewed, so that others can "buy into" the
> > test design and say, in effect, "dear reader, what ever this test shows, have
> > faith that it is a valid test for it's purpose". Note again, there is that
> > end determinate: "for its purpose".
> >
> > Now let's take three examples for a manufacturer, as you requested:
> >
> > Example 1: the manufacturer produces a popular microphone preamp, using a
> > very costly hand-built circuit. One of his engineers redesigns the circuit
> > using a premium op-amp, but one that results in a much less expensive circuit.
> > The manufacturer is jealous of his reputation, and although all the people in
> > the project think that it sounds identical, the boss isn't so sure. So how do
> > you design the test: to determine if his fears are justified? Well, another
> > abx, right? Think about it? Can you train somebody to recognize a "null".
> > Can you train people to differentiate "absence" from "absence". No, you
> > cannot. So you have no idea whether the testees are good abx'rs or not. Can
> > you choose to test only among existing users of the mic preamp, on the
> > assumption that they "know" what the absence sounds like and will therefore be
> > sensitive if it isn't there in the new version of the preamp? Perhaps...this
> > probably would be a reasonable and practical way to test...but it wouldn't be
> > ideal. What it would prove, if the null held up? Would it prove there was no
> > difference. All you really could say was that among this group of engineers
> > who use the existing product, the group overall could not detect a difference.
> > Would it be safe to launch? Suppose the group overall could not deterct a
> > difference, but
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The key is "bad test".
> > Are you looking for differences, and in what?
> > Volume level, frequency response, then ABX is probably fine.
> > Focus on the "transient snap" of a snare rim shot? Or the "stike" of the
> > mallet and skin tone of a kettle-drum hit. Now you are into music. Is
> > ABX'ng short snippets of same the best way to determine. Questionable.
> > Because of an unnatural listening environment for evaluating music...how
> > well or poorly or differently a piece of equipment under test performs is
> > best evaluated in the
> >
> >
> I'm having a hard time telling if your post dropped some
> key segments or was supposed to be all choppy?
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> So in crafting such a test...no way would I use music only
> >> as a source material. I'd be using carefully crafted test
> >> signals that would assist the subject in ID'ing differences
> >> rather than hinder them.
> >
> > What if what you were looking for was proof of better performance in what
> > audiophiles call "pace and rhythm"? Or transient "snap"? How are you going
> > to do that with
> > white noise?
>
> I never suggested a good test be limited to one type of signal
> source...I only suggested that limiting a test to music
> would result in a bad (insensitive) test.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Music in general is far too masking and non-repetitive
> >> (making audio memory difficult) to be used as a
> >> highly discriminating test signal for human audibility.
> >>
> >> If you get a positive with a highly discriminating signal,
> >> then you might have a chance with music or maybe not.
> >> Doesn't really matter...the components are audibly different
> >> with some material and can be shown so.
> >> But if you get a null with a more discriminating signals than
> >> music, than obviously music will also be null.
> >>
> >> So what is wrong with this approach?
> >> I've worked as a test engineer in past jobs and occasionally
> >> had basic acoustic requirements for mic's and earpieces
> >> for voice applications. We never used actual voice
> >> signals for testing their performance.
> >> I can't see why audio equipment for music reproduction is
> >> any different.
> >>
> >
> > First, music is *not* sound. You can listen to white or pink noise every
> > day of the week, and it is not likely to please you or to irritate you.
>
> I would find it irritating but I can't see the relevance to the process
> of testing audio components.
>
> >
> > If what you want is to discover is frequency response aberrations, white
> > noise is fine.
>
> Good...then we have a signal for discriminating differences in that
> performance aspect of audio equipment. A signal better than
> music.
> I'm sure other signals can be developped for discriminating
> other performance aspects. Arny mentioned one for phase error.
>
> >
> > But living with an audio component can either wear well with time, or it can
> > grow increasingly discomfiting with time. Playing music.
> >
> > White noise has no pace or rhythm to it.
> >
> > White noise doesn't have a transient snap like a snare rim-shot.
> >
> > White noise tells you nothing about modulation of the noise floor with
> > signal.
> >
> > White noise tells you nothing about transparency.
> >
> > White noise tells you nothing about phase accuracy as it affects musical
> > perception.
> >
> > White noise tells you nothing about dispersion differences in speakers.
> >
> > When evaluating a high-end audio component in the home, one is usually
> > making a preference judgment about how that affects the music being
> > reproduced. Standards may differ: mine is "realism" compared to live
> > acoustic instruments. For others, it may be pace and rhythm above all else.
> > For others it may be female voice beauty.
> >
> > If I hear a difference in white noise, am I going to *know* how that affects
> > the reproduction of music so that I *know* which component I will like best?
> > My experience suggests not.
>
> ABX was never a preference test.
>
> >
> > And most of all, beyond frequency anomalies, I don't neccessarily *know*
> > what in the comparison will either place me in favor of one component over
> > another. I may have heard something in the showroom I liked, bring it home
> > for a comparison, and find that with my speakers, that amp just doesn't cut
> > it because it sounds sluggish, or that preamp doesn't sound as transparent.
> > A white noise test will not necessarily reveal those things, nor tip their
> > presence to you.
> >
> > So as opposed to ABX, if I were to do a *direct* comparison, I would want it
> > blind if at all possible, and quick switch, and syncronized...I have no
> > quarrel with Arny there. But I would want it to be a "preference" test
> > playing my favorite pieces of music that I know well and can wring out the
> > equipment under test. I would start with longish listening segments and
> > make mental or written notes on what I thought I heard on the two pieces,
> > then return to the music that is telling on those things, and listen in
> > shorter or longer segments as desired, quick switching. And in the end,
> > when my feelings had jellied, I would record a preference. If possible i
> > would do this at least 10 times at least five days, to see how consistent my
> > judgements were. There obviously would have to be careful attention to the
> > methods for blinding, switching etc.
> >
> > Now if I had all the time and money in the world and were buying a really
> > expensive piece, I would probably also want to do an evaluative test where I
> > listened to either A or B for an entire listening session (couple of hours)
> > and then at the end, evaluate how satisfying the session was. How happy did
> > I feel? Was I able to relax and really get into the music? Was there
> > anything that annoyed me that evening? How dynamic did the system sound
> > that evening? Did it ever sound "real", or was I always aware of the
> > system. I would do this evaluation using a closed-end evaluation form, and
> > after doing each variable alternately over lets say 15 sessions, I would
> > average my responses and evaluate any differences that showed
> > up...statistically if possible, qualitatively at least.
> >
> > Now, if I were doing a large scale scientific test, one way I would consider
> > would be to take it a step further and make the test more indirect and use a
> > lot of subjects...say 150 or 200 people. I'd have them thinking they were
> > evaluating two subtly different performances (blind) while what I was doing
> > was changing a component, a preamp say. I might actually use two slightly
> > differeent versions of the same performance, but alternate the combination
> > of performance and preamp component, so in the end it all averaged
> > out...component a with both performances vs component b with bost
> > performances. I would use closed-end evaluative preference ratings and an
> > overall rating, focusing on performance enjoyment, relaxation, mood at end
> > of piece, string performance, percussion performance, etc. with the focus on
> > the music, with only a few "audio" ratings thrown in. If there was no
> > statistical difference on any rating, one could conclude the two preamps
> > sounded alike, or at least performed at a comparable level of customer
> > satisfaction in most all respects. If their were perfomacne differences
> > between the preamps, it should show up as a statistical difference on one or
> > more of the evaluative scales.
>
> As a former test engineer...I think you're using a brute force approach
> that could be efficiently met with a good test design.
> Further...your results aren't useful to a designer who would only
> know one unit is preferred but wouldn't know what performance
> aspects caused that preference.
>
> ScottW
====================================

ScottW. says:

> ABX was never a preference test

Never say never.. Like for instance:

Here is what Mr. Carlstrom the codeveloper of the ABX test had to
say::(www.oakland.edu/-djcarlstr/abx_bino.htm)
"A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX test
bresult is not a preference......If ....a difference is heard,
selecting one's preference is easy and completely justified"

Not though if you're an immalutely pure "scientist" doing immaculately
pure research for which rec.audio.opinion is so perfectly suited. You
don't want to sully it with a vulgar liking one better than the other.
It would lower the tone of the place!
Ludovic Mirabel

[email protected]

November 23rd 06, 04:14 AM

Posting repeated in a digestible non google form

ScottW wrote:
> ABX was never a preference test.

> ABX was never a preference test

Never say never.. Like for instance:

Here is what Mr. Carlstrom the codeveloper of the ABX test had to
say::(www.oakland.edu/-djcarlstr/abx_bino.htm)
"A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX test
bresult is not a preference......If ....a difference is heard,
selecting one's preference is easy and completely justified"

Not though if you're an immalutely pure "scientist" doing immaculately
pure research for which rec.audio.opinion is so perfectly suited. You
don't want to sully it with a vulgar liking one better than the other.
It would lower the tone of the place!
Ludovic Mirabel

>

paul packer

November 23rd 06, 05:05 AM

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:09:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:14:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> After all of this time on rao you remain a jerk.
>>
>> Howard, you seem to be expecting that RAO will/should
>> actually improve a person over time. Where is the
>> evidence for that?
>
>All of the people who wised up and split on out of here.

And as for yourself....?

[email protected]

November 23rd 06, 05:55 AM

Powell wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
> >> The outcome of every ABX listening test reported in the
> >> "Stereo Review" in the 80s (none since) was "They all
> >> sound the same".
> >
> > Wrong again. The Stereo Review ABX tests did find audible differences
> > between audio components.
> >
> Please provide references and I'll look it up (no null
> ABX findings)?.
>
>
> > If you don't know what they are Mirabel, that's just proof that you never
> > read the articles that you are talking about.
> Please provide references and I'll look it up?
==================================

Thank you for trying to get to the real point. I know it is hard given
the asking address
You'll see the answer to Krueger's >>you never read the articles that
you are talking about.>>
in the postcript to my reply to him. Unfortunately looking through old
files I repeated the reprint which adds to the boredom of the whole
thing. Blame Krueger for making me repeat the same stuff year in year
out.
Ludovic Mirabel

..

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 06, 11:45 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> Next to get this out of the way. I have no hands on experience of
> recording music. To say that my knowledge of electronics is elementary
> is to pay me a compliment.

If you know so little about electronics Mirabel, then why are you trying to
tell me how to test electronic equipment?

> I am just a music listener and and an amateur trying to get the best
> for the least expenditure into my listening room. Don't you offer your
> "test" to people just like myself.

Wrong again, Mirabel. I don't offer to test anybody. That would be a lot
of work. I do have a web site that provides information and useful tools for
people who want to test themselves.

> I don't proclaim that my choices are
> based on science or testing or whatever. They are what pleases me.

Then why are you wasting your time talking about ABX? Seems like ou should
have something better to do.

> Do I have to be an EE to judge if your ABX is worth the trouble?

Since you aren't interested in testing audio products, why not just go away
from the topic of testing audio products?

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 06, 11:53 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> So Harry...getting serious for a moment. If I was going
>>>> to craft a test for
>>>> identifying audible differences in components
>>>> (as a researcher or developer or reviewer..so nix the
>>>> consumer argument) I would try to make
>>>> the test as sensitive as possible. I would do
>>>> everything I could to design the test so that positive outcomes could
>>>> be
>>>> achieved.
>>
>>>> Think about it...a bad test that constantly provides
>>>> null results doesn't do anyone any good.
>>
>> Probably, the most useful kind of test is the enhanced difference test.
>> In this test the reproduction errors of the UUT are enhanced until they
>> are strong enough to hear. Then the errors are reduced in logical steps
>> until audibility ceases. Coming out of this, you know exactly how much of
>> the error can be tolerated, and how much can't be tolerated.
>>
>>>> So in crafting such a test...no way would I use music
>>>> only as a source material. I'd be using carefully crafted
>>>> test signals that would assist the subject in ID'ing
>>>> differences rather than hinder them.
>>
>> There are some reasonableness limits that are involved with this. For
>> example, the definition of proper quantization of an analog signal
>> implies adding dither or otherwise decorrelating quantization error.
>> There are some people (Atkinson for example) who use test signals that
>> lack dither or other forms of decorrelation. They are therefore always
>> improper for the purpose of testing that relates to actual operation.

>>>> Music in general is far too masking and non-repetitive
>>>> (making audio memory difficult) to be used as a
>>>> highly discriminating test signal for human audibility.

>> This has been discussed before on RAO - by JJ, Feng and myself. JJ
>> provided me with some signals that made certain kinds of phase errors
>> more audible. They were positively weird sounding and no way resembled
>> any music that could be imagined. Generating them involved doing things
>> that no musical synth would ever do, or be capable of doing. OK, you get
>> a positive outcome with a test signal like this. How is it relevant?

> It gives the designer a tool for identifying and eliminating a possible
> source of audible difference from the ideal.

We already have that, more complete, more sensitive, much quicker and
cheaper to implement. It's called test equipment testing.

Bottom line - if an abstract tool is what we want, then we have a far better
abstract tool than listening to made-up audio signals.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 06, 11:59 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..

> Now let's take three examples for a manufacturer, as you requested:
>
> Example 1: the manufacturer produces a popular microphone preamp, using a
> very costly hand-built circuit. One of his engineers redesigns the
> circuit using a premium op-amp, but one that results in a much less
> expensive circuit. The manufacturer is jealous of his reputation, and
> although all the people in the project think that it sounds identical, the
> boss isn't so sure. So how do you design the test: to determine if his
> fears are justified? Well, another abx, right? Think about it? Can you
> train somebody to recognize a "null".

Harry Lavo major error #1 ABX testing is not about recognizing nulls, its
about recognizing differences.

> Can you train people to differentiate "absence" from "absence".

Harry Lavo major error #2 - He makes this situation a unique problem for ABX
when in fact it is a problem for any test

> So you have no idea whether the testees are good abx'rs or not.

Harry Lavo major error #3 - He has no clue as to how listener training is
done. Listener training starts out presenting listeners with audible
differences that are so gross, nobody can miss them, and then works the
listener down to subtle differences. Practical example can be found at
http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

I've covered this with Harry before, but it seems that he can't remember
*anything* this complex.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 06, 12:00 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Here is what Mr. Carlstrom the codeveloper of the ABX test had to
> say::(www.oakland.edu/-djcarlstr/abx_bino.htm)
> "A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX test
> bresult is not a preference......If ....a difference is heard,
> selecting one's preference is easy and completely justified"

This is not the same as saying that ABX is a test for preference. Perhaps if
English were your first language Mirabel, the subtlties of this situation
wold not be so completely lost on you.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 06, 12:10 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...

> I'm not noted for spending more than necessary but I've had Microsoft mice
> for
> yonks.

I routinely use Logictech, Microsoft, Mitusimi and other competitive mice. I
have different brands of mice on different computers that I own (Logitech
and Mitsumi), and I am constantly useing customer computers that have a
variety of mice.

I'm currently typing on my son's computer in York, and it has a cheap GE
branded mouse that probably came from WalMart. It's just fine right now, but
I don't know how long it will last. It resembles a cheap chinese mouse that
I've worked with that seems to last well enough. It sure works! The cheap
keyboard doesn't work - lots of sticky keys.

There's certainly nothing magical or special about Microsoft mice. If I was
going to spend a lot of money on a mouse, I'd probably go with Logitech
instead. Oh yes, I said I had some computers with Logitech mice on them. So
I do, but they don't seem to be any better or worse to use than the ones
with Mitsumi mice.

Let's face it - the last major innovation in mice was the optical mouse. For
a little while MS seemed to have a corner on that market, but their
competitive advantage went away long ago.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 06, 12:10 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:09:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:14:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> After all of this time on rao you remain a jerk.
>>>
>>> Howard, you seem to be expecting that RAO will/should
>>> actually improve a person over time. Where is the
>>> evidence for that?
>>
>>All of the people who wised up and split on out of here.
>
> And as for yourself....?

First answer me this:

As for yourself, Paul?

Eeyore

November 23rd 06, 01:49 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>
> > I'm not noted for spending more than necessary but I've had Microsoft mice
> > for yonks.
>
> I routinely use Logictech, Microsoft, Mitusimi and other competitive mice. I
> have different brands of mice on different computers that I own (Logitech
> and Mitsumi), and I am constantly useing customer computers that have a
> variety of mice.
>
> I'm currently typing on my son's computer in York, and it has a cheap GE
> branded mouse that probably came from WalMart. It's just fine right now, but
> I don't know how long it will last. It resembles a cheap chinese mouse that
> I've worked with that seems to last well enough. It sure works! The cheap
> keyboard doesn't work - lots of sticky keys.
>
> There's certainly nothing magical or special about Microsoft mice. If I was
> going to spend a lot of money on a mouse, I'd probably go with Logitech
> instead. Oh yes, I said I had some computers with Logitech mice on them. So
> I do, but they don't seem to be any better or worse to use than the ones
> with Mitsumi mice.
>
> Let's face it - the last major innovation in mice was the optical mouse. For
> a little while MS seemed to have a corner on that market, but their
> competitive advantage went away long ago.

The reason I use a Microsoft mouse is primarily for its ergonomics which I find
to be unsurpassed. I have the Serial Mouse 2.0A ( for an old DOS box ) and the
original Intellimouse.

They are also better built than almost any other and don't feel flimsy.

Additionally they seem to soldier on for ever.

Graham

George M. Middius

November 23rd 06, 02:12 PM

Poopie tries to bell the Krooborg in its lair.

> The reason I use a Microsoft mouse is primarily for its ergonomics which I find
> to be unsurpassed.

Ergonomics are irrelevant. Replace your hand if the mouse doesn't fit.
Wrists and knuckles will be assimilated.

> They are also better built than almost any other and don't feel flimsy.

Please provide proof that, Arnii didn't already know about the alleged MTBF
statistic's for MS mouse's.

> Additionally they seem to soldier on for ever.

Lack of, evidence noted. Thank's Poopie for admitting Poopie that you still
need to by your first clue about mouse history.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Howard Ferstler

November 23rd 06, 03:31 PM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article <4563a542@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Typical response from a typical rao phony.
>
>
> Hey! You're back. I thought you weren't going to reply to threads.
>
> Wanna hear about my NAD T753 and Linn center channel?

No.

PS: Done confuse a brief visit to being back. You will get
no response from me to your response. The whole internet
audio scene (all of it, everywhere) is bunk.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

November 23rd 06, 03:34 PM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>
>>...he (or she) would owe it to their
>>readers to prove that contention by doing an ABX test or
>>some other kind of level-matched blind comparison.
>
>
> Then he (or she) would also 'owe' training for people on acoustics,
> electricity, basic electronics, psychological perception, hearing and
> so forth, yes?
>
> Then they could start a magazine called,
> "Stereomedicpsycho-acousticselectromagneticauditoryophile."
>
> Thank you. That's my ticket to millions.
>
>
>>Most consumers may not be able to do practical ABX-style
>>testing,

> Not according to Arns. Why not try to convince him of this?

My problem with him is that he continues to debate boneheads
here on rao.

> Or does Arns also call you names for making the same point that I've
> made here?

Well, some people certainly can at least bother to do
level-matched comparisons. Even sighted those are superior
to the goofy face-offs some people do.

Modern high-end audio is 99 percent wishful thinking.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

November 23rd 06, 03:36 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> news:4563a16e@kcnews01

>>Yes, but if a fair-minded product reviewer (for your
>>magazine or any other) believed that HE (or she) could
>>hear differences between competing amps or competing
>>players (or between competing wires), he (or she) would
>>owe it to their readers to prove that contention by doing
>>an ABX test or some other kind of level-matched blind
>>comparison.

> Nahh, its obvious that high end audio ragazine writers owe more to their
> employers than their readers, and that their employers owe more to their
> advertisers than their readers.
>
> Besides, a lot of high end ragazine readers have money burning a hole in
> their pocket, so the ragazine owners and writers owe it to them to help them
> put the fire out. ;-)

Yours is about as accurate an observation as I have found
regarding the situation.

>>Most consumers may not be able to do practical ABX-style
>>testing, but reviewers who claim that audible differences
>>between the above-noted components do exist owe it to
>>those readers to do more than non-level-matched, non-blind
>>comparisons that involve wishful thinking (and a need to
>>keep subscribers on the edges of their collective seats,
>>waiting for the next proclamation about some superb and
>>expensive new products) more than a solid analysis.

> See above. Besides, it is well known that high end audio is largely a scam.
> It's about separating people with money to burn from that money. Look at it
> as fire prevention. ;-)

Yep.

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal

November 23rd 06, 04:03 PM

Howard Ferstler > said:

>Modern high-end audio is 99 percent wishful thinking.

I'm not up to speed with the current situation of commercial high end
audio, especially in the US, but around here, more and more people are
moving towards DIY.

Especially speakers, and ever since Hypex sells affordable class D
modules, they're making them active.

I routinely attend and even organize local DIY-meetings.
The creations I get to hear there, are up there with the best of
commercial designs (that I am aware of).

So, in a sense, audio is back where it belongs: in the DIY corner.

--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

George M. Middius

November 23rd 06, 04:12 PM

Hermano Harold el Ignorante Impaciente dijo:

> > Hey! You're back. I thought you weren't going to reply to threads.

> PS: Done confuse a brief visit to being back.

Si senor, no somos confusos. Y usted?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

November 23rd 06, 04:13 PM

Brother Horace the Endlessly Repetitive echoed:

> Well, some people certainly can at least bother to do
> level-matched comparisons.

..... and some of those people subsequently lie about the results and call it
"science". Not mentioning any names, except to note that such a person might
also be ethically challenged and have a compulsion to plagiarize.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

November 23rd 06, 04:14 PM

Brother Horace of the Obtunded Peduncle encourages the Krooborg.

> Yep.

You forgot to add, "Thank the Lord!"

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 23rd 06, 06:47 PM

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2006 17:40:17 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> See above. Besides, it is well known that high end audio is largely a scam.
> >> It's about separating people with money to burn from that money. Look at it
> >> as fire prevention. ;-)
> >
> >Gosh. A sane person might even look at it as a free market at work.
> >
> >Kind of like, say, a Ferarri dealer saying that their cars are 'better'
> >when even a Saturn will do the maximum speed limit in the US and get
> >better mileage too.
> >
> It can be objectively shown that a Ferrari is superior to a Saturn in
> some ways, even if the average driver in the US will never exploit
> that superiority.
>
> You can always take your Ferrari out to the track too, and you'll
> cream any Saturn ever made.

Who cares? The Saturn will 'get the job done.' The rest is so much
wasted effort.

I doubt that very many who own a Ferrari take it to the track. Probably
something like .000001%;-)

> Your turn. Show us how your fancy power cord or teeny, tiny SET amp is
> superior.

Um, as I've said before, I don't believe that those products are
necessarily superior. That is not the point. I personally prefer
amplifiers with more than 1w as IMO those amplifiers, among other
things, limit my speaker choices too severly. But if somebody likes how
they sound, and doesn't mind making those sacrifices in choices, why
should that bother me or you?

I'm not a fan of horns. Some people love them. Why should I care if
these people like horns, when there are obviously 'superior' products
to Klipsch (for example)?

The point is if somebody wants to believe that those products are
superior, that is their prerogative. Rather than continuously
brow-beating that preference, why not let it go? There are more
important things, IMO, in the world than the small, brief feeling of
superiority that some people get from bashing the preference of
somebody who disagrees with them. Especially since we are probably
talking about .000001% of the audio market.

Look at LPs. Somebody likes how they sound. In your eyes, for some
reason it's much more important to explain every time that discussion
comes up, all of the faults of the medium with a full explanation of
why it can't possibly sound good and why CD is superior.

But there's a problem with that: that isn't the case *to that person.*

> Actually, some of this expensive audio gear _is_ superior. It's much
> better at separating the gullible from their money than more rational
> gear is. :-)

I would suggest posting a FAQ on which amplifiers, preamps, cables,
tuners, CD players, speakers, and so on, are 'rip-offs.' Wouldn't that
be more helpful than, say, Arns' approach? Then any time somebody said,
"I love my Atmosphere OTL amps!" you could post your FAQ on why tubes
suck and how there are better values.

Rationality is your definition. Expensive is your definition. And those
definitions may not agree with someone else's definition.

In fact, your definition of 'good-sounding audio' does not match
everybody's. Some people are after absolute accuracy to the original
recording. Some are after a more 'live' sound. The path to those two
will probably not be the same.

So now it's your turn: please rationally explain why what somebody else
chooses to do, or how somebody spends their money, which literally has
absolutely *no* affect on you, is your business.