Arnold Krueger clicks "mute"

[[email protected]]

A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
differentiating audio components is research-backed and validated.

As I predicted that paper did not have one word to say
about the subject. As I suspected A. Krueger did not undergo a
conversion and started practicing intellectual honesty.. He does not
understand the concept. Witness his fantasies like this one "Jaes has
published a number of works that I authored or coauthored".Or " My
writings have definately (original spelling L.M.) been published in
JAES.". In the end, when pressed to the wall for date and page all he
has is Clarks paper- 100% irrelevant to the topic.

As I predicted A. Krueger went into the "mute" mode to
restart once it is all forgotten.. My object in posting this is to
prevent it. It has gone on in this way for forty years- long enough.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by
> David Clark as his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for
> listening to and differentiating audio components is
> research-backed and validated.

Wrong. It is one of many pieces of evidence.

> As I predicted that paper did not have one
> word to say about the subject.

Ludo, It is well known that English is not your first language and that you
have extreme difficulties reading and writing it. In this case, you've
failed to properly understand Clark's paper.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com


> If it serves Kruger's purpose at least superficially he
> plugs it, and if not he ignores it, or tells everyone it
> is a piece of **** that snuck in. But he does not expect
> people to actually read the paper.

Have you read Clark's paper about ABX?

> Arny is not objective:

No living human is perfectly objective. Subjectivity is inherent in humans.
That's why bias-controls are so necessary.

> he has already made his mind up on any issue he discusses.

This makes me different from everybody else, exactly how?

> Any contradictory information is a priori wrong.

You've given us many examples of how this works in your life, Bret. I'm
sorry that you find being human so difficult.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message


> You mean you really don't know how different you are?

Let's put it this way Robert - I know many ways that I'm different from you,
and most people are very happy about them, including me, my wife, my
friends, and my children.

[George M. Middius]

L.M. said:

> As I predicted A. Krueger went into the "mute" mode to
> restart once it is all forgotten.. My object in posting this is to
> prevent it. It has gone on in this way for forty years- long enough.

That sounds Biblical. Which of the Great Plagues are you reliving?





--

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

[George M. Middius]

School must be out. The Kroo-Brat is acting up again.

> > he has already made his mind up on any issue he discusses.

> This makes me different from everybody else, exactly how?

It's just one of those little things, like compulsive lying and paranaoid
fixations -- you do it, so you assume everybody else does it. Probably yet
another symptom of your untreated mental illness.





--

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

[George M. Middius]

Robert said:

> > Ludo, It is well known that English is not your first language and that
> > you have extreme difficulties reading and writing it.

> Wrong.

Maybe in Krooger's delusional state of mind, he believes that Krooglish is
the most perfect manifestation of language.




--

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

[George M. Middius]

Robert said:

> >> You mean you really don't know how different you are?

> > Let's put it this way

Arnii, it should be put to you that you've beaten that cliched phrase into
the linguistic equivalent of the nutritional mush they feed you in the Hive.

> > Robert - I know many ways that I'm different from
> > you, and most people are very happy about them, including me, my wife, my
> > friends, and my children.

> [I] do not believe you in the slightest.

It's a known fact that Susan, the unfortunate Mrs. Krooborg, needs a
veritable pharmacopeia to get her through her sentence with Mr. ****.





--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> You mean you really don't know how different you are?
>>
>> Let's put it this way Robert - I know many ways that I'm
>> different from you, and most people are very happy about
>> them, including me, my wife, my friends, and my
>> children.
> I do not believe you in the slightest.

That's a decision you get to make. Don't trouble yourself, Robert. I wish
the best for you, but you are your own man. Bottom line is that you
disbelieve what I post here to your own detriment. I'm not your daddy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>

>>>>> You mean you really don't know how different you are?

>>>> Let's put it this way Robert - I know many ways that
>>>> I'm different from you, and most people are very happy
>>>> about them, including me, my wife, my friends, and my
>>>> children.

>>> I do not believe you in the slightest.

>> That's a decision you get to make. Don't trouble
>> yourself, Robert. I wish the best for you, but you are
>> your own man. Bottom line is that you disbelieve what I
>> post here to your own detriment. I'm not your daddy.

> It's not to my detriment that I do not believe your
> description of your personal life.

Sure it is. Falsely thinking less of your fellow man hurts you.

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

> >including me, my wife, my
> >friends, and my children.

> I make that four in total.

Can we give him Tommi Nousiane also? That would be four and a half.




--

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

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
>
> > A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by
> > David Clark as his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for
> > listening to and differentiating audio components is
> > research-backed and validated.
>
> Wrong. It is one of many pieces of evidence.
>
> > As I predicted that paper did not have one
> > word to say about the subject.
>
> Ludo, It is well known that English is not your first language and that you
> have extreme difficulties reading and writing it. In this case, you've
> failed to properly understand Clark's paper.

=================================
You've reached a new low Krueger. Staying mute would have
been a wiser course.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com
> >
> >> A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by
> >> David Clark as his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for
> >> listening to and differentiating audio components is
> >> research-backed and validated.
> >
> > Wrong. It is one of many pieces of evidence.
> >
> >> As I predicted that paper did not have one
> >> word to say about the subject.
> >
> > Ludo, It is well known that English is not your first language and that
> > you have extreme difficulties reading and writing it.
>
> Wrong.
==========================

If ho could think of any sensible answer he'd use it.

He could have for instance quoted ONE SINGLE sentence out of Dave
Clark's paper that was pertinent to the topic. But that face-saving
sentence was not there to be found. Not one.

Or better he could have asked his associate, the paper's author Dave
Clark, if still alive, to refute me. Clark not endowed with Krueger's
elastic conscience would refuse.

So he was reduced to slander. "Senility" a few days ago "illiteracy"
today.

He will not buy immunity. I'll pull him out of the sewer from time to
time as a sordid lesson of where one lands once one abandons ordinary
intellectual honesty.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
>
> Ludo, It is well known that English is not your first language and that you
> have extreme difficulties reading and writing it. In this case, you've
> failed to properly understand Clark's paper.

True, it is not his first language, howver, neither is Krooglish his
first language.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

>
> No living human is perfectly objective. Subjectivity is inherent in humans.


You finally have a clue. Now try and run with it!!!

[George M. Middius]

LM said:

> He will not buy immunity. I'll pull him out of the sewer from time to
> time as a sordid lesson of where one lands once one abandons ordinary
> intellectual honesty.

Honesty is irrelevant. Everything sounds the same. Your non-plebeian tastes
will be assimilated.





--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> You mean you really don't know how different you
>>>>>>> are?
>>
>>>>>> Let's put it this way Robert - I know many ways that
>>>>>> I'm different from you, and most people are very
>>>>>> happy about them, including me, my wife, my friends,
>>>>>> and my children.
>>
>>>>> I do not believe you in the slightest.
>>
>>>> That's a decision you get to make. Don't trouble
>>>> yourself, Robert. I wish the best for you, but you are
>>>> your own man. Bottom line is that you disbelieve what I
>>>> post here to your own detriment. I'm not your daddy.
>>
>>> It's not to my detriment that I do not believe your
>>> description of your personal life.
>>
>> Sure it is. Falsely thinking less of your fellow man
>> hurts you.

> You said, "Ludo, It is well known that English is not
> your first language and that you
> have extreme difficulties reading and writing it."

That's a matter of record.

> My post is in reaction to your above lie about Ludo.

Prove that its a lie.

> Ludovic is quite erudite.

Not about audio.

>You cannot clear yourself by piling lie upon lie.

What lie?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> If he could think of any sensible answer he'd use it.

Not with you, Ludo. You live in a logic-tight box when it comes to audio.

> He could have for instance quoted ONE SINGLE sentence
> out of Dave Clark's paper that was pertinent to the
> topic.

All I would be doing is quoting something that flew over your head the first
time. Why would the second time be any different?

> Or better he could have asked his associate, the paper's
> author Dave Clark, if still alive, to refute me.

Clark wouldn't waste any time with you at all, Ludo.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > If he could think of any sensible answer he'd use it.
>
> Not with you, Ludo. You live in a logic-tight box when it comes to audio.
>
> > He could have for instance quoted ONE SINGLE sentence
> > out of Dave Clark's paper that was pertinent to the
> > topic.
>
> All I would be doing is quoting something that flew over your head the first
> time. Why would the second time be any different?
>
> > Or better he could have asked his associate, the paper's
> > author Dave Clark, if still alive, to refute me.
>
> Clark wouldn't waste any time with you at all, Ludo.
===========================================

It isn't easy to decide whether to treat A. Krueger with more
contempt or more pity.

His desperation is shown by his writing down progressively stupider
lies that an intelligent six-year old could see through..

He never did the basic research before trumpeting his phoney listening
"test" for distinguishing between audio components. When challenged,
instead of getting down to honest work, he fantasizes his "many"
contributions in JAES without one single customary reference to title,
year, page. He is shown up on that.

In desperation he quotes Clarks paper. When shown that that paper never
as much as mentiones audio components listening tests he says that my
English is not up to the subtleties of a scientific paper written like
scientific papers usually are in basic unequivocal English. I suppose I
wrote my postgraduate specialist exams in internal medicine at
Edinburgh in Esperanto.

I am not pretending: I truly feel nauseated reading these sewer
productions. I'm answering only to try and keep an audio forum from
being completely drowned in the contents. .

Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

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

>> Prove that its a lie.
>
> I don't have to,

Good, then you have nothing relevant to say because you will not take
accountability for what you said about me.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ps.com

> In desperation he quotes Clarks paper. When shown that
> that paper never as much as mentiones audio components
> listening tests he says that my English is not up to the
> subtleties of a scientific paper written like scientific
> papers usually are in basic unequivocal English.

I see no evidence that you've even tried to read Clark's paper.

[George M. Middius]

Robert said:

> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark paper supports you.
> While it doesn't mean I accept the implication that audio components should
> be so tested by the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper "in your column".

Ludovic said unequivocally that Clark's paper does not address audio
components at all. Not directly, not parenthetically, not obliquely. And he
read the paper, unlike you or me (or even Krooger, I believe*).

To me, a lay reader, Ludovic's research answers the question. The question
that was posed being: "Is there any extant research published in a reputable
journal that supports the use of the 'ABX' method for comparing audio
components?" After many years of bluster and "debating trade" shtick,
Krooger finally coughed up Clark's paper. Ludovic says the paper did not
validate "ABX" for comparing audio components. I accept his informed answer.


_______________

* Krooger's ridiculous klaims about the paper show he did not read it, or at
best did not understand it. It's easy to imagine the 'borg crowd yakking it
up among themselves, stretching the limited premises of Clark's paper to an
unsupported contention about testing actual components. They found their one
bit of knowledge, and they closed the doors like medieval monks in order to
keep the bustling world away from their one pure molecule.




--

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

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
> his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
> differentiating audio components is research-backed and validated.
>
> As I predicted that paper did not have one word to say
> about the subject. As I suspected A. Krueger did not undergo a
> conversion and started practicing intellectual honesty.. He does not
> understand the concept. Witness his fantasies like this one "Jaes has
> published a number of works that I authored or coauthored".Or " My
> writings have definately (original spelling L.M.) been published in
> JAES.". In the end, when pressed to the wall for date and page all he
> has is Clarks paper- 100% irrelevant to the topic.

Ludovic,

This article mentions a positive ABX test.
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html

MIT speaker cable vs wire wrap wire.
Fascinating read...sounds like a Mexican inauguration ceremony.

Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
Do you have a copy of that?

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
> > his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
> > differentiating audio components is research-backed and validated.
> >
> > As I predicted that paper did not have one word to say
> > about the subject. As I suspected A. Krueger did not undergo a
> > conversion and started practicing intellectual honesty.. He does not
> > understand the concept. Witness his fantasies like this one "Jaes has
> > published a number of works that I authored or coauthored".Or " My
> > writings have definately (original spelling L.M.) been published in
> > JAES.". In the end, when pressed to the wall for date and page all he
> > has is Clarks paper- 100% irrelevant to the topic.
>
> Ludovic,
>
> This article mentions a positive ABX test.
> http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html
>
> MIT speaker cable vs wire wrap wire.
> Fascinating read...sounds like a Mexican inauguration ceremony.
>
> Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
> Do you have a copy of that?
>
> ScottW
==================================
> This article mentions a positive ABX test.
> http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html

Dear lost in the woods Mr. ScottW.

I can do a lot but I cannot teach you reading comprehension so late in
your life.
The question on the table is and was (repeated ad nauseam): A paper
recounting a positive audio components ABX listening test ACCEPTED AS
MEETING SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS BY THE EDITORS OF A PROFESSIONAL AUDIO
JOURNAL (JAES IN THIS CASE) AND PUBLISHED THERE. Title, year, volume,
page.

Not "mentions" in the Stereophile or the ABX web
page.

Further the controversy of interest here in RAO is
not about the ABX use in aufio research about phase etc.. It is: DOES
IT WORK TO DIFFERENTIATE AUDIO COMPONENTS.FROM EACH OTHER?


I suggest you reread the above a few times because I
will not repeat it. At least not for your benefit.

> Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
> Do you have a copy of that?

If you refer to the paper Krueger quoted I have it
in front of me now. It has plenty about audio research BUT NOTHING,
ZERO, ZILCH ABOUT COMPARING COMPONENTS.

I suggest you take a trip to a branch of your
public library and ask them to get you any papers you want through the
the library interchange service. You'll have to spare a dime.

We've been there once before and I gave you the
same advice that did not sink in. Again: reading comprehension is not
your forte.

Stick to politics. There you can say anything
that your intellect has on offer..
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > > wrote in message
> > ps.com
> >
> >> In desperation he quotes Clarks paper. When shown that
> >> that paper never as much as mentiones audio components
> >> listening tests he says that my English is not up to the
> >> subtleties of a scientific paper written like scientific
> >> papers usually are in basic unequivocal English.
> >
> > I see no evidence that you've even tried to read Clark's paper.
> Further comment.
> 1. Your comments to my question about equalization were first class.
> 2. You have a right to defend your position against Ludovic's attack. Stick
> to the issues. I, for one, would be interested in a quote from Clark's
> paper. Going personal doesn't help you.
> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark paper supports you.
> While it doesn't mean I accept the implication that audio components should
> be so tested by the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper "in your column".
> 4. My comments about you are received by you as an insult. The purpose is so
> you can experience how Ludovic may feel about your comments regarding his
> command of the English language. My interest lies not in establishing the
> moral qualities of the debators. My interest lies in fostering debate about
> an audio subject.
> 5. Whoever descends to the adhominem level loses the argument. Had you kept
> a high tone, it is possible that at least some people would be more
> impressed with you than Ludovic. The quality of the logic is the key.
>
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894
==============================================

> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark paper supports you.
> While it doesn't mean I accept the implication that audio components should
> be so tested by the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper "in your column".

I find the paragraph above truly
disappointing. Your "inclinations " are immaterial. But simple, easily
verifiable facts do matter. Why don't you get the paper before
commenting on it?

I said that Clark's article did not have
one word to say about comparing audio components. I repeat it and I
stand by it. Krueger did not find one single sentence to quote in
refutation. Nothing: not even an ambiguity. For lack of anything better
he took refuge in sewerage mixed with stupidity..

These are easily verifiable facts. If
you doubt it you should have checked the original before giving vent to
your "inclinations" that cast a shadow of suspicion on my
truthfulness because that is the implication even though you may not
have intended it so. And I react strongly to that.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
>> > his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
>> > differentiating audio components is research-backed and validated.
>> >
>> > As I predicted that paper did not have one word to say
>> > about the subject. As I suspected A. Krueger did not undergo a
>> > conversion and started practicing intellectual honesty.. He does not
>> > understand the concept. Witness his fantasies like this one "Jaes has
>> > published a number of works that I authored or coauthored".Or " My
>> > writings have definately (original spelling L.M.) been published in
>> > JAES.". In the end, when pressed to the wall for date and page all he
>> > has is Clarks paper- 100% irrelevant to the topic.
>>
>> Ludovic,
>>
>> This article mentions a positive ABX test.
>> http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html
>>
>> MIT speaker cable vs wire wrap wire.
>> Fascinating read...sounds like a Mexican inauguration ceremony.
>>
>> Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
>> Do you have a copy of that?
>>
>> ScottW
> ==================================
>> This article mentions a positive ABX test.
>> http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html
>
> Dear lost in the woods Mr. ScottW.
>
> I can do a lot but I cannot teach you reading comprehension so late in
> your life.

I thought the sarcasm was self evident. Instead, your first response
is insulting. Very nice place this has become where audio is even
more venemous than politics.

> The question on the table is and was (repeated ad nauseam): A paper
> recounting a positive audio components ABX listening test ACCEPTED AS
> MEETING SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS BY THE EDITORS OF A PROFESSIONAL AUDIO
> JOURNAL (JAES IN THIS CASE) AND PUBLISHED THERE.

If you read the link....you'd see it was an AES event that conducted the
'exhibition'. Interesting, the writer clearly doesn't share your respect for
AES

> Title, year, volume,
> page.
>
> Not "mentions" in the Stereophile or the ABX web
> page.
>
> Further the controversy of interest here in RAO is
> not about the ABX use in aufio research about phase etc.. It is: DOES
> IT WORK TO DIFFERENTIATE AUDIO COMPONENTS.FROM EACH OTHER?

Thank you for so boldly declaring the limits of interest in this group.
I'll simply suggest those may be the bounds of your interest,
while others may not share your limits.

>
>
> I suggest you reread the above a few times because I
> will not repeat it. At least not for your benefit.

And I thank you for that.

>
>> Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
>> Do you have a copy of that?
>
> If you refer to the paper Krueger quoted

Since you weren't complete enough to reference Arny's quote,
I don't know exactly what he said.

>I have it
> in front of me now. It has plenty about audio research BUT NOTHING,
> ZERO, ZILCH ABOUT COMPARING COMPONENTS.

Thats interesting....then why would Clark participate in an exhibition
using ABX to compare 2 audio components of the speaker cable
class?

>
> I suggest you take a trip to a branch of your
> public library and ask them to get you any papers you want through the
> the library interchange service. You'll have to spare a dime.
>
> We've been there once before and I gave you the
> same advice that did not sink in. Again: reading comprehension is not
> your forte.

Yes..yes...you've demanded everyone start buying AES papers
and making trips to the library....frankly Ludo...its not that
interesting to me.
>
> Stick to politics. There you can say anything
> that your intellect has on offer..

Be careful what you wish for.

Sorry to see the holiday spirit has passed you by.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
> >> > his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
> >> > differentiating audio components is research-backed and validated.
> >> >
> >> > As I predicted that paper did not have one word to say
> >> > about the subject. As I suspected A. Krueger did not undergo a
> >> > conversion and started practicing intellectual honesty.. He does not
> >> > understand the concept. Witness his fantasies like this one "Jaes has
> >> > published a number of works that I authored or coauthored".Or " My
> >> > writings have definately (original spelling L.M.) been published in
> >> > JAES.". In the end, when pressed to the wall for date and page all he
> >> > has is Clarks paper- 100% irrelevant to the topic.
> >>
> >> Ludovic,
> >>
> >> This article mentions a positive ABX test.
> >> http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html
> >>
> >> MIT speaker cable vs wire wrap wire.
> >> Fascinating read...sounds like a Mexican inauguration ceremony.
> >>
> >> Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
> >> Do you have a copy of that?
> >>
> >> ScottW
> > ==================================
> >> This article mentions a positive ABX test.
> >> http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html
> >
> > Dear lost in the woods Mr. ScottW.
> >
> > I can do a lot but I cannot teach you reading comprehension so late in
> > your life.
>
> I thought the sarcasm was self evident. Instead, your first response
> is insulting. Very nice place this has become where audio is even
> more venemous than politics.
>
> > The question on the table is and was (repeated ad nauseam): A paper
> > recounting a positive audio components ABX listening test ACCEPTED AS
> > MEETING SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS BY THE EDITORS OF A PROFESSIONAL AUDIO
> > JOURNAL (JAES IN THIS CASE) AND PUBLISHED THERE.
>
> If you read the link....you'd see it was an AES event that conducted the
> 'exhibition'. Interesting, the writer clearly doesn't share your respect for
> AES
>
> > Title, year, volume,
> > page.
> >
> > Not "mentions" in the Stereophile or the ABX web
> > page.
> >
> > Further the controversy of interest here in RAO is
> > not about the ABX use in aufio research about phase etc.. It is: DOES
> > IT WORK TO DIFFERENTIATE AUDIO COMPONENTS.FROM EACH OTHER?
>
> Thank you for so boldly declaring the limits of interest in this group.
> I'll simply suggest those may be the bounds of your interest,
> while others may not share your limits.
>
> >
> >
> > I suggest you reread the above a few times because I
> > will not repeat it. At least not for your benefit.
>
> And I thank you for that.
>
> >
> >> Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
> >> Do you have a copy of that?
> >
> > If you refer to the paper Krueger quoted
>
> Since you weren't complete enough to reference Arny's quote,
> I don't know exactly what he said.
>
> >I have it
> > in front of me now. It has plenty about audio research BUT NOTHING,
> > ZERO, ZILCH ABOUT COMPARING COMPONENTS.
>
> Thats interesting....then why would Clark participate in an exhibition
> using ABX to compare 2 audio components of the speaker cable
> class?
>
> >
> > I suggest you take a trip to a branch of your
> > public library and ask them to get you any papers you want through the
> > the library interchange service. You'll have to spare a dime.
> >
> > We've been there once before and I gave you the
> > same advice that did not sink in. Again: reading comprehension is not
> > your forte.
>
> Yes..yes...you've demanded everyone start buying AES papers
> and making trips to the library....frankly Ludo...its not that
> interesting to me.
> >
> > Stick to politics. There you can say anything
> > that your intellect has on offer..
>
> Be careful what you wish for.
>
> Sorry to see the holiday spirit has passed you by.
>
> ScottW
=============================

ScottW writes:
> If you read the link....you'd see it was an AES event that conducted the
> 'exhibition'. Interesting, the writer clearly doesn't share your respect for
> AES

"Respect" is neither here nor there. I don't "respect" AES any more or
less than I respect the Massachusets Medical Association. But the
editorial standards of the "Boston Med. J." are known to be high. The
question of interest to me is (to quote myself):

> >A paper
> > recounting a positive audio components ABX listening test ACCEPTED AS
> > MEETING SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS BY THE EDITORS OF A PROFESSIONAL AUDIO
> > JOURNAL (JAES IN THIS CASE) AND PUBLISHED THERE.

Or do you know of any other PROFESSIONAL audio journal in North
America? In particular one that published such a paper? Title, year,
number , page please.

> Thats interesting....then why would Clark participate in an exhibition
> using ABX to compare 2 audio components of the speaker cable
> class?

Because Clark is an associate of Krueger and Carlstrom in the marketing
of the ABX comparator. So he boosts it when occasion offers itself. He
mentions (without details) ABXing amps and preamps in his JAES paper )
and says they all sounded the same. He's presumably referring to the
amateurish "research" in the PCABX web page that never appeared
anywhere else and that certainly made no contribution to
differentiating audio components.


I said:
> > Further the controversy of interest here in RAO is
> > not about the ABX use in aufio research about phase etc.. It is: DOES
> > IT WORK TO DIFFERENTIATE AUDIO COMPONENTS.FROM EACH OTHER?
>
Scottw. answered
> Thank you for so boldly declaring the limits of interest in this group.
> I'll simply suggest those may be the bounds of your interest,
> while others may not share your limits.

What other audio subjects were discussed in RAO? Titles, dates please.
Any by you?

Personal note: I read RAO to find something new about audio components.
Not about audio research. It would be way above my head AND my
interests.
I do not doubt that you, Mr. ScottW look for something else. May I
suggest that you consult the web for the address(es). On the other hand
you may not seek too keenly because in the next paragraph you say:
>
> Yes..yes...you've demanded everyone start buying AES papers
> and making trips to the library....frankly Ludo...its not that
> interesting to me.

Isn't it a shame? Make up your mind ScottW. And merry Xmas.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message


> 1. Your comments to my question about equalization were
> first class.

Thank for. For one thing, there was a fair amount to say at the time.

> 2. You have a right to defend your position against
> Ludovic's attack.

Been there, done that. Ludo is piano with one note, and he's going to play
that tune no matter what I say.

> Stick to the issues. I, for one, would
> be interested in a quote from Clark's paper. Going
> personal doesn't help you.

I'm very serious. I thought about Ludo's reply and decided that he probably
hadn't read the paper, and was trying to smoke out a quote from the paper
for him to **** on.

I'm not playing that game.

> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark paper
> supports you. While it doesn't mean I accept the
> implication that audio components should be so tested by
> the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper
> "in your column".

Given that I was cited as a source in the Clark paper, it is more like I
supported Clark's paper when it was being written.

> 4. My comments about you are received by you as an
> insult. The purpose is so you can experience how Ludovic
> may feel about your comments regarding his command of
> the English language. My interest lies not in
> establishing the moral qualities of the debators. My
> interest lies in fostering debate about an audio subject.

Ludo has not impressed me as a person who wants to have a serious debate
about audio.

> 5. Whoever descends to the adhominem level loses the
> argument. Had you kept a high tone, it is possible that
> at least some people would be more impressed with you
> than Ludovic. The quality of the logic is the key.

You seem to forget Robert, that Ludo has been engaging in name-calling
directed at me for weeks. Ludo has been on the low road for quite some time.

But of course Robert you can't see any of Ludo's faults. Yet another reason
why I don't see RAO as a productive forum for serious audio discussions that
might be targeted by Ludo.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ps.com

> I find the paragraph above
> truly disappointing. Your "inclinations " are immaterial.
> But simple, easily verifiable facts do matter. Why don't
> you get the paper before commenting on it?

I have the paper, and this is well-known. It has been established that I
have the AES CD that covers every AES paper and conference paper through the
early years of this millenium.

Tell you what Ludo. The very first paragraph discusses testing audio
equipment. Please quote it in its entirety.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
>
> If you refer to the paper Krueger
> quoted I have it in front of me now. It has plenty about
> audio research BUT NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH ABOUT COMPARING
> COMPONENTS.
>

The Clark 1983 JAES article mentions comparing components in its first
paragraph.

[[email protected]]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > Soundhaspriority wrote:
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > > wrote in message
> >> > ps.com
> >> >
> >> >> In desperation he quotes Clarks paper. When shown that
> >> >> that paper never as much as mentiones audio components
> >> >> listening tests he says that my English is not up to the
> >> >> subtleties of a scientific paper written like scientific
> >> >> papers usually are in basic unequivocal English.
> >> >
> >> > I see no evidence that you've even tried to read Clark's paper.
> >> Further comment.
> >> 1. Your comments to my question about equalization were first class.
> >> 2. You have a right to defend your position against Ludovic's attack.
> >> Stick
> >> to the issues. I, for one, would be interested in a quote from Clark's
> >> paper. Going personal doesn't help you.
> >> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark paper supports you.
> >> While it doesn't mean I accept the implication that audio components
> >> should
> >> be so tested by the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
> >> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper "in your column".
> >> 4. My comments about you are received by you as an insult. The purpose is
> >> so
> >> you can experience how Ludovic may feel about your comments regarding
> >> his
> >> command of the English language. My interest lies not in establishing the
> >> moral qualities of the debators. My interest lies in fostering debate
> >> about
> >> an audio subject.
> >> 5. Whoever descends to the adhominem level loses the argument. Had you
> >> kept
> >> a high tone, it is possible that at least some people would be more
> >> impressed with you than Ludovic. The quality of the logic is the key.
> >>
> >> Bob Morein
> >> Dresher, PA
> >> (215) 646-4894
> > ==============================================
> >
> >> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark paper supports you.
> >> While it doesn't mean I accept the implication that audio components
> >> should
> >> be so tested by the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
> >> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper "in your column".
> >
> > I find the paragraph above truly
> > disappointing. Your "inclinations " are immaterial. But simple, easily
> > verifiable facts do matter. Why don't you get the paper before
> > commenting on it?
> >
> > I said that Clark's article did not have
> > one word to say about comparing audio components. I repeat it and I
> > stand by it. Krueger did not find one single sentence to quote in
> > refutation. Nothing: not even an ambiguity. For lack of anything better
> > he took refuge in sewerage mixed with stupidity..
> >
> > These are easily verifiable facts. If
> > you doubt it you should have checked the original before giving vent to
> > your "inclinations" that cast a shadow of suspicion on my
> > truthfulness because that is the implication even though you may not
> > have intended it so. And I react strongly to that.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> Ludovic, my apologies. This is my intended meaning: The paper may contain
> remarks on the comparing of audible differences, which would support Arny by
> an extension of logic, not an extension of fact. However, it is also
> possible, as perhaps you imply, that Arny pulled a "Brian L. McCarty",
> associating his beliefs with a paper that has a plausible title, but no
> relevance, even by analogy. Where this truth lies would be a very
> interesting to know.
>
> The intent of my comment was to attempt to restore the relevancy of a thread
> that had very quickly gone awry. Yes, it is true that I do not have the
> paper. However, the thread could be made informative to the readership at
> large if it exhibited the logic of the two debators. Please bear in mind
> that on this subject, I am actually an ally, as I do agree with you that ABX
> testing as it is currently constituted probably disguises differences.
>
> I am afraid that the burden is on you, because you are a person of normal
> temperment. It is all too easy to "light up Arny." This is our r.a.o.
> equivalent of "running of the bulls." If it happens in the course of a
> discussion where some modest effort has been applied to a meeting of the
> minds, how could I object?
>
> Regards,
> Bob Morein
> (215) 646-4894
++++++++++++++++++++++++

As a shining example I'll compete with you in.chivalry
My turn to apologise. I found a sentence referring to component
comparison in Clark's paper. Not in the italiciseded summary, not in
"inroduction", not in "conclusions" but in the tex on p. 337. It
says:"We have not found any two preamplifiers or amplifiers that have
sounded different from each other when responses were matched". Yes
they all sound the same. Great evidence that ABX works to differentiaie
audio components.

There were no customary details:
how many participants, how selected, was selection randomised properly,
how
many preamps and amps. He is no doubt referring to the same "research"
quoted on the PCABX web page. No wonder there are no details. It would
have never been accepted by a professional journal if he provided the
amateurish setup.

I'll be delighted to try for "logic" if you explain to me how.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> > wrote in message
>> ps.com
>>
>>> I find the paragraph above
>>> truly disappointing. Your "inclinations " are
>>> immaterial. But simple, easily verifiable facts do
>>> matter. Why don't you get the paper before commenting
>>> on it?
>>
>> I have the paper, and this is well-known. It has been
>> established that I have the AES CD that covers every AES
>> paper and conference paper through the early years of
>> this millenium.

Robert's hero Ludo goes down in flames:

>> Tell you what Ludo. The very first paragraph discusses testing audio
>> equipment. Please quote it in its entirety.


> But if you play it on a Sony CDP-101, the words could
> hardly be made out, given the poor quality of the DAC.

Thanks again Robert for showing your poor faith and lack of sincere
interest.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ps.com
>>>>
>>>>> I find the paragraph above
>>>>> truly disappointing. Your "inclinations " are
>>>>> immaterial. But simple, easily verifiable facts do
>>>>> matter. Why don't you get the paper before commenting
>>>>> on it?
>>>>
>>>> I have the paper, and this is well-known. It has been
>>>> established that I have the AES CD that covers every
>>>> AES paper and conference paper through the early years of
>>>> this millenium.
>>
>> Robert's hero Ludo goes down in flames:
>>
>>>> Tell you what Ludo. The very first paragraph discusses
>>>> testing audio equipment. Please quote it in its
>>>> entirety.

>>> But if you play it on a Sony CDP-101, the words could
>>> hardly be made out, given the poor quality of the DAC.
>>
>> Thanks again Robert for showing your poor faith and lack
>> of sincere interest.

> Would someone please explain to Arny that the notion of
> AES papers available as audiobooks is a joke?

Ludo is also a joke.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> 1. Your comments to my question about equalization were
>>> first class.
>>
>> Thank for. For one thing, there was a fair amount to say
>> at the time.
>>> 2. You have a right to defend your position against
>>> Ludovic's attack.
>>
>> Been there, done that. Ludo is piano with one note, and
>> he's going to play that tune no matter what I say.
>>
>>> Stick to the issues. I, for one, would
>>> be interested in a quote from Clark's paper. Going
>>> personal doesn't help you.
>>
>> I'm very serious. I thought about Ludo's reply and
>> decided that he probably hadn't read the paper, and was
>> trying to smoke out a quote from the paper for him to
>> **** on. I'm not playing that game.
>>
>>> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark
>>> paper supports you. While it doesn't mean I accept the
>>> implication that audio components should be so tested by
>>> the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
>>> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper
>>> "in your column".
>>
>> Given that I was cited as a source in the Clark paper,
>> it is more like I supported Clark's paper when it was
>> being written.
>>> 4. My comments about you are received by you as an
>>> insult. The purpose is so you can experience how Ludovic
>>> may feel about your comments regarding his command of
>>> the English language. My interest lies not in
>>> establishing the moral qualities of the debators. My
>>> interest lies in fostering debate about an audio
>>> subject.
>>
>> Ludo has not impressed me as a person who wants to have
>> a serious debate about audio.
>>
>>> 5. Whoever descends to the adhominem level loses the
>>> argument. Had you kept a high tone, it is possible that
>>> at least some people would be more impressed with you
>>> than Ludovic. The quality of the logic is the key.
>>
>> You seem to forget Robert, that Ludo has been engaging
>> in name-calling directed at me for weeks. Ludo has been
>> on the low road for quite some time.
>>
>> But of course Robert you can't see any of Ludo's faults.
>> Yet another reason why I don't see RAO as a productive
>> forum for serious audio discussions that might be
>> targeted by Ludo.
> I'm not interested in seeing Ludo's faults. In fact, I'm
> not interested in seeing your faults. Now get back in the
> ring and punch above the belt.

Show us how to do it Robert, and hold Ludo's feet to the fire until he does
the same.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg is hurtin'.

> Ludo is also a joke.

Yes, Arnii, you have it all figured out correctly as usual. By your lights,
we "know" that John Atkinson is a wannabe publisher who can't match your
"Usenet career". We "know" that Paul Bamborough is too erudite for you,
which made him a phony. We "know" that Glenn Zelniker ran out of patience
with you, enabling you to "expose" him as somebody whose class you would not
take if you could actually get accepted into a graduate engineering program.

And now you reveal that Ludovic, who knows much more about the theory and
practice of DBTs than you do, is still inferior to you because.... Why was
that again? Do enlighten us. I'm sure you have just as much evidence for
your claim as you did for the conclusions you arrived at about those other
guys.





--

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

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> > A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
>> >> > his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
>> >> > differentiating audio components is research-backed and validated.
>> >> >
>> >> > As I predicted that paper did not have one word to say
>> >> > about the subject. As I suspected A. Krueger did not undergo a
>> >> > conversion and started practicing intellectual honesty.. He does not
>> >> > understand the concept. Witness his fantasies like this one "Jaes has
>> >> > published a number of works that I authored or coauthored".Or " My
>> >> > writings have definately (original spelling L.M.) been published in
>> >> > JAES.". In the end, when pressed to the wall for date and page all he
>> >> > has is Clarks paper- 100% irrelevant to the topic.
>> >>
>> >> Ludovic,
>> >>
>> >> This article mentions a positive ABX test.
>> >> http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html
>> >>
>> >> MIT speaker cable vs wire wrap wire.
>> >> Fascinating read...sounds like a Mexican inauguration ceremony.
>> >>
>> >> Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
>> >> Do you have a copy of that?
>> >>
>> >> ScottW
>> > ==================================
>> >> This article mentions a positive ABX test.
>> >> http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html
>> >
>> > Dear lost in the woods Mr. ScottW.
>> >
>> > I can do a lot but I cannot teach you reading comprehension so late in
>> > your life.
>>
>> I thought the sarcasm was self evident. Instead, your first response
>> is insulting. Very nice place this has become where audio is even
>> more venemous than politics.
>>
>> > The question on the table is and was (repeated ad nauseam): A paper
>> > recounting a positive audio components ABX listening test ACCEPTED AS
>> > MEETING SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS BY THE EDITORS OF A PROFESSIONAL AUDIO
>> > JOURNAL (JAES IN THIS CASE) AND PUBLISHED THERE.
>>
>> If you read the link....you'd see it was an AES event that conducted the
>> 'exhibition'. Interesting, the writer clearly doesn't share your respect
>> for
>> AES
>>
>> > Title, year, volume,
>> > page.
>> >
>> > Not "mentions" in the Stereophile or the ABX web
>> > page.
>> >
>> > Further the controversy of interest here in RAO is
>> > not about the ABX use in aufio research about phase etc.. It is: DOES
>> > IT WORK TO DIFFERENTIATE AUDIO COMPONENTS.FROM EACH OTHER?
>>
>> Thank you for so boldly declaring the limits of interest in this group.
>> I'll simply suggest those may be the bounds of your interest,
>> while others may not share your limits.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > I suggest you reread the above a few times because I
>> > will not repeat it. At least not for your benefit.
>>
>> And I thank you for that.
>>
>> >
>> >> Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
>> >> Do you have a copy of that?
>> >
>> > If you refer to the paper Krueger quoted
>>
>> Since you weren't complete enough to reference Arny's quote,
>> I don't know exactly what he said.
>>
>> >I have it
>> > in front of me now. It has plenty about audio research BUT NOTHING,
>> > ZERO, ZILCH ABOUT COMPARING COMPONENTS.
>>
>> Thats interesting....then why would Clark participate in an exhibition
>> using ABX to compare 2 audio components of the speaker cable
>> class?
>>
>> >
>> > I suggest you take a trip to a branch of your
>> > public library and ask them to get you any papers you want through the
>> > the library interchange service. You'll have to spare a dime.
>> >
>> > We've been there once before and I gave you the
>> > same advice that did not sink in. Again: reading comprehension is not
>> > your forte.
>>
>> Yes..yes...you've demanded everyone start buying AES papers
>> and making trips to the library....frankly Ludo...its not that
>> interesting to me.
>> >
>> > Stick to politics. There you can say anything
>> > that your intellect has on offer..
>>
>> Be careful what you wish for.
>>
>> Sorry to see the holiday spirit has passed you by.
>>
>> ScottW
> =============================
>
> ScottW writes:
>> If you read the link....you'd see it was an AES event that conducted the
>> 'exhibition'. Interesting, the writer clearly doesn't share your respect
>> for
>> AES
>
> "Respect" is neither here nor there. I don't "respect" AES any more or
> less than I respect the Massachusets Medical Association. But the
> editorial standards of the "Boston Med. J." are known to be high. The
> question of interest to me is (to quote myself):
>
>> >A paper
>> > recounting a positive audio components ABX listening test ACCEPTED AS
>> > MEETING SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS BY THE EDITORS OF A PROFESSIONAL AUDIO
>> > JOURNAL (JAES IN THIS CASE) AND PUBLISHED THERE.
>
> Or do you know of any other PROFESSIONAL audio journal in North
> America? In particular one that published such a paper? Title, year,
> number , page please.
>
>> Thats interesting....then why would Clark participate in an exhibition
>> using ABX to compare 2 audio components of the speaker cable
>> class?
>
> Because Clark is an associate of Krueger and Carlstrom in the marketing
> of the ABX comparator. So he boosts it when occasion offers itself. He
> mentions (without details) ABXing amps and preamps in his JAES paper )
> and says they all sounded the same. He's presumably referring to the
> amateurish "research" in the PCABX web page that never appeared
> anywhere else and that certainly made no contribution to
> differentiating audio components.
>
>
> I said:
>> > Further the controversy of interest here in RAO is
>> > not about the ABX use in aufio research about phase etc.. It is: DOES
>> > IT WORK TO DIFFERENTIATE AUDIO COMPONENTS.FROM EACH OTHER?
>>
> Scottw. answered
>> Thank you for so boldly declaring the limits of interest in this group.
>> I'll simply suggest those may be the bounds of your interest,
>> while others may not share your limits.
>
> What other audio subjects were discussed in RAO? Titles, dates please.
> Any by you?

Title: How flat is an LP.....Date: 12/2/06....yes.

>
> Personal note: I read RAO to find something new about audio components.
> Not about audio research.

Then why do you keep bringing up ABX?

>It would be way above my head AND my
> interests.
> I do not doubt that you, Mr. ScottW look for something else. May I
> suggest that you consult the web for the address(es). On the other hand
> you may not seek too keenly because in the next paragraph you say:
>>
>> Yes..yes...you've demanded everyone start buying AES papers
>> and making trips to the library....frankly Ludo...its not that
>> interesting to me.
>
> Isn't it a shame?

No, only so much time in the day.
anyway...you've said basically the same thing.

And merry Christmas to you too.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Soundhaspriority wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ps.com...
> >> >
> >> > Soundhaspriority wrote:
> >> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> . ..
> >> >> > > wrote in message
> >> >> > ps.com
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In desperation he quotes Clarks paper. When shown that
> >> >> >> that paper never as much as mentiones audio components
> >> >> >> listening tests he says that my English is not up to the
> >> >> >> subtleties of a scientific paper written like scientific
> >> >> >> papers usually are in basic unequivocal English.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I see no evidence that you've even tried to read Clark's paper.
> >> >> Further comment.
> >> >> 1. Your comments to my question about equalization were first class.
> >> >> 2. You have a right to defend your position against Ludovic's attack.
> >> >> Stick
> >> >> to the issues. I, for one, would be interested in a quote from Clark's
> >> >> paper. Going personal doesn't help you.
> >> >> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark paper supports
> >> >> you.
> >> >> While it doesn't mean I accept the implication that audio components
> >> >> should
> >> >> be so tested by the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
> >> >> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper "in your
> >> >> column".
> >> >> 4. My comments about you are received by you as an insult. The purpose
> >> >> is
> >> >> so
> >> >> you can experience how Ludovic may feel about your comments regarding
> >> >> his
> >> >> command of the English language. My interest lies not in establishing
> >> >> the
> >> >> moral qualities of the debators. My interest lies in fostering debate
> >> >> about
> >> >> an audio subject.
> >> >> 5. Whoever descends to the adhominem level loses the argument. Had you
> >> >> kept
> >> >> a high tone, it is possible that at least some people would be more
> >> >> impressed with you than Ludovic. The quality of the logic is the key.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bob Morein
> >> >> Dresher, PA
> >> >> (215) 646-4894
> >> > ==============================================
> >> >
> >> >> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark paper supports
> >> >> you.
> >> >> While it doesn't mean I accept the implication that audio components
> >> >> should
> >> >> be so tested by the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
> >> >> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper "in your
> >> >> column".
> >> >
> >> > I find the paragraph above truly
> >> > disappointing. Your "inclinations " are immaterial. But simple, easily
> >> > verifiable facts do matter. Why don't you get the paper before
> >> > commenting on it?
> >> >
> >> > I said that Clark's article did not have
> >> > one word to say about comparing audio components. I repeat it and I
> >> > stand by it. Krueger did not find one single sentence to quote in
> >> > refutation. Nothing: not even an ambiguity. For lack of anything better
> >> > he took refuge in sewerage mixed with stupidity..
> >> >
> >> > These are easily verifiable facts. If
> >> > you doubt it you should have checked the original before giving vent to
> >> > your "inclinations" that cast a shadow of suspicion on my
> >> > truthfulness because that is the implication even though you may not
> >> > have intended it so. And I react strongly to that.
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >
> >> Ludovic, my apologies. This is my intended meaning: The paper may
> >> contain
> >> remarks on the comparing of audible differences, which would support Arny
> >> by
> >> an extension of logic, not an extension of fact. However, it is also
> >> possible, as perhaps you imply, that Arny pulled a "Brian L. McCarty",
> >> associating his beliefs with a paper that has a plausible title, but no
> >> relevance, even by analogy. Where this truth lies would be a very
> >> interesting to know.
> >>
> >> The intent of my comment was to attempt to restore the relevancy of a
> >> thread
> >> that had very quickly gone awry. Yes, it is true that I do not have the
> >> paper. However, the thread could be made informative to the readership at
> >> large if it exhibited the logic of the two debators. Please bear in mind
> >> that on this subject, I am actually an ally, as I do agree with you that
> >> ABX
> >> testing as it is currently constituted probably disguises differences.
> >>
> >> I am afraid that the burden is on you, because you are a person of normal
> >> temperment. It is all too easy to "light up Arny." This is our r.a.o.
> >> equivalent of "running of the bulls." If it happens in the course of a
> >> discussion where some modest effort has been applied to a meeting of the
> >> minds, how could I object?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bob Morein
> >> (215) 646-4894
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > As a shining example I'll compete with you in.chivalry
> > My turn to apologise. I found a sentence referring to component
> > comparison in Clark's paper. Not in the italiciseded summary, not in
> > "inroduction", not in "conclusions" but in the tex on p. 337. It
> > says:"We have not found any two preamplifiers or amplifiers that have
> > sounded different from each other when responses were matched". Yes
> > they all sound the same. Great evidence that ABX works to differentiaie
> > audio components.
> >
> > There were no customary details:
> > how many participants, how selected, was selection randomised properly,
> > how
> > many preamps and amps. He is no doubt referring to the same "research"
> > quoted on the PCABX web page. No wonder there are no details. It would
> > have never been accepted by a professional journal if he provided the
> > amateurish setup.
> >
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This where we stopped:

> > I'll be delighted to try for "logic" if you explain to me how.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> Now you've gotten to the point. It is now up to Arny to show that the Clark
> paper is connected by more than the thinnest of threads.
>

===============================================
Thanks to you ( and my pertinacy in argument) I sharpened today my very
elementary computer skills. I learned how to copy text from a scanner
image without typing - a chore I loathe. .

Here is all I found about COMPARING AUDIO COMPONENTS in Clark's 1983
six page ABX paper.
Recall that this paper was Krueger's sole evidence of basic reserch
validating the use of the "ABX Comparator" to differentiate components
from each other in an ABX listening test. Recall also that in the
paper's heading under Clark's name it says: "ABX Company, Troy, MI
48099. USA" (Mr. ScottW please note).

On page 1, that Arni refers to, Clark says:
"Listening tests used to evaluate audio equipment can seldom be
considered scientific tests. For example, extraneous factors which
could influence the listener's decision are not eliminated or held
constant. A common failing is lack of a double-blind procedure because
of its inconvenience.
When scientific tests have been performed, listeners' audibility
thresholds have appeared to be poorer by orders of magnitude compared
to casual tests. It has been argued that the methods and equipment used
in the scientific test have inhibited the listener's discriminatory
ability.
A system of double-blind comparison testing, referred to as the A/B/X
method, is described. This system consists of:
1) Techniques to maximize discriminatory ability
2) Procedures and standards for maintaining validity
3) Commercially available double-blind test equipment.
It is the intent of this system to make practical and acceptable the
widespread use of scientific double-blind listening tests."

No tests and no test results. Just a boost for Clark's theories.. .

On p.7 I found:
"Most of the author's testing has been done in conjunction with the
SMWTMS group [10]. We have not found any two preamplifiers or
amplifiers that have sounded different from each other when responses
were matched. All units were of medium or higher quality and not
operated in clipping. Other precautions were taken, as listed earlier.
This result is in agreement with Lip****z et al. [11], Baxandall [12],
and others".

Yes, we already know that ABX makes it all sound the same. But what
does it help to differentiate?
Further on p. 7 Clark says:

"At this time SMWTMS has not been able to detect
.. differences in pickup cartridges. This testing has been
limited by its difficulty. It requires careful equalization,
is identical stamper number pressings in perfect condition,
; and synchronized turntables."

If this test for "subtle differences" does not allow to recognise
differences between phono cartridges what on earth does it do?

Further on the same page:

"Differences between loudspeakers are almost always a audible"

Another received truth that just is not so. See my full quote from Sean
Olive article on loudspekers in "How about this" thread .You ask
people to concentrate on difference and the brains pack up. You ask
them which one they like better and they respond. Just as you'd expect
if you did not have ABX fantasies on your brain.

Clark's reference to Lip****z's support turns out to be to a LETTER by
Lipschitz et al to the Audio Amateur mag. Convincing research.

That is all that I could find in Clark's article pertinent to comparing
components via ABX.. No accounts of any tests with test statistics,
methods,selection of a representative listeners' panel etc.

So much for basic research showing that ABX WORKS to differentiate
audio components.

As you say it is now Krueger's turn to show EVIDENCE that ABX works to
distinguish between componets. 40 years of sound and fury elapsed and
all he has to show is an article that has no results of any experiments
of any kind. Just theory , hypothesis and advertising.

Remember this is a rec(reation). audio group concerned with audio
components.The uses of ABX in pure research are not a concern here.
Anyway which self-respecting researcher would choose RAO to publish
his original research?
This note is just to kill at birth the customary derailing of
discussion into blind alleys...
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ps.com
>>>>
>>>>> I find the paragraph above
>>>>> truly disappointing. Your "inclinations " are
>>>>> immaterial. But simple, easily verifiable facts do
>>>>> matter. Why don't you get the paper before commenting
>>>>> on it?
>>>>
>>>> I have the paper, and this is well-known. It has been
>>>> established that I have the AES CD that covers every AES
>>>> paper and conference paper through the early years of
>>>> this millenium.
>>
>> Robert's hero Ludo goes down in flames:
>>
>>>> Tell you what Ludo. The very first paragraph discusses testing audio
>>>> equipment. Please quote it in its entirety.
>>
>>
>>> But if you play it on a Sony CDP-101, the words could
>>> hardly be made out, given the poor quality of the DAC.
>>
>> Thanks again Robert for showing your poor faith and lack of sincere interest.
> Would someone please explain to Arny that the notion of AES papers available
> as audiobooks is a joke?

You think he might mean a data CD? Come on Bob, if you're gonna
try to obfuscate with humor...you need to try harder.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> > A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
> >> >> > his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
> >> >> > differentiating audio components is research-backed and validated.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As I predicted that paper did not have one word to say
> >> >> > about the subject. As I suspected A. Krueger did not undergo a
> >> >> > conversion and started practicing intellectual honesty.. He does not
> >> >> > understand the concept. Witness his fantasies like this one "Jaes has
> >> >> > published a number of works that I authored or coauthored".Or " My
> >> >> > writings have definately (original spelling L.M.) been published in
> >> >> > JAES.". In the end, when pressed to the wall for date and page all he
> >> >> > has is Clarks paper- 100% irrelevant to the topic.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ludovic,
> >> >>
> >> >> This article mentions a positive ABX test.
> >> >> http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html
> >> >>
> >> >> MIT speaker cable vs wire wrap wire.
> >> >> Fascinating read...sounds like a Mexican inauguration ceremony.
> >> >>
> >> >> Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
> >> >> Do you have a copy of that?
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> > ==================================
> >> >> This article mentions a positive ABX test.
> >> >> http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html
> >> >
> >> > Dear lost in the woods Mr. ScottW.
> >> >
> >> > I can do a lot but I cannot teach you reading comprehension so late in
> >> > your life.
> >>
> >> I thought the sarcasm was self evident. Instead, your first response
> >> is insulting. Very nice place this has become where audio is even
> >> more venemous than politics.
> >>
> >> > The question on the table is and was (repeated ad nauseam): A paper
> >> > recounting a positive audio components ABX listening test ACCEPTED AS
> >> > MEETING SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS BY THE EDITORS OF A PROFESSIONAL AUDIO
> >> > JOURNAL (JAES IN THIS CASE) AND PUBLISHED THERE.
> >>
> >> If you read the link....you'd see it was an AES event that conducted the
> >> 'exhibition'. Interesting, the writer clearly doesn't share your respect
> >> for
> >> AES
> >>
> >> > Title, year, volume,
> >> > page.
> >> >
> >> > Not "mentions" in the Stereophile or the ABX web
> >> > page.
> >> >
> >> > Further the controversy of interest here in RAO is
> >> > not about the ABX use in aufio research about phase etc.. It is: DOES
> >> > IT WORK TO DIFFERENTIATE AUDIO COMPONENTS.FROM EACH OTHER?
> >>
> >> Thank you for so boldly declaring the limits of interest in this group.
> >> I'll simply suggest those may be the bounds of your interest,
> >> while others may not share your limits.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I suggest you reread the above a few times because I
> >> > will not repeat it. At least not for your benefit.
> >>
> >> And I thank you for that.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Theres also mention of a paper by Clark..10 years of ABX testing.
> >> >> Do you have a copy of that?
> >> >
> >> > If you refer to the paper Krueger quoted
> >>
> >> Since you weren't complete enough to reference Arny's quote,
> >> I don't know exactly what he said.
> >>
> >> >I have it
> >> > in front of me now. It has plenty about audio research BUT NOTHING,
> >> > ZERO, ZILCH ABOUT COMPARING COMPONENTS.
> >>
> >> Thats interesting....then why would Clark participate in an exhibition
> >> using ABX to compare 2 audio components of the speaker cable
> >> class?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I suggest you take a trip to a branch of your
> >> > public library and ask them to get you any papers you want through the
> >> > the library interchange service. You'll have to spare a dime.
> >> >
> >> > We've been there once before and I gave you the
> >> > same advice that did not sink in. Again: reading comprehension is not
> >> > your forte.
> >>
> >> Yes..yes...you've demanded everyone start buying AES papers
> >> and making trips to the library....frankly Ludo...its not that
> >> interesting to me.
> >> >
> >> > Stick to politics. There you can say anything
> >> > that your intellect has on offer..
> >>
> >> Be careful what you wish for.
> >>
> >> Sorry to see the holiday spirit has passed you by.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> > =============================
> >
> > ScottW writes:
> >> If you read the link....you'd see it was an AES event that conducted the
> >> 'exhibition'. Interesting, the writer clearly doesn't share your respect
> >> for
> >> AES
> >
> > "Respect" is neither here nor there. I don't "respect" AES any more or
> > less than I respect the Massachusets Medical Association. But the
> > editorial standards of the "Boston Med. J." are known to be high. The
> > question of interest to me is (to quote myself):
> >
> >> >A paper
> >> > recounting a positive audio components ABX listening test ACCEPTED AS
> >> > MEETING SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS BY THE EDITORS OF A PROFESSIONAL AUDIO
> >> > JOURNAL (JAES IN THIS CASE) AND PUBLISHED THERE.
> >
> > Or do you know of any other PROFESSIONAL audio journal in North
> > America? In particular one that published such a paper? Title, year,
> > number , page please.
> >
> >> Thats interesting....then why would Clark participate in an exhibition
> >> using ABX to compare 2 audio components of the speaker cable
> >> class?
> >
> > Because Clark is an associate of Krueger and Carlstrom in the marketing
> > of the ABX comparator. So he boosts it when occasion offers itself. He
> > mentions (without details) ABXing amps and preamps in his JAES paper )
> > and says they all sounded the same. He's presumably referring to the
> > amateurish "research" in the PCABX web page that never appeared
> > anywhere else and that certainly made no contribution to
> > differentiating audio components.
> >
> >
> > I said:
> >> > Further the controversy of interest here in RAO is
> >> > not about the ABX use in aufio research about phase etc.. It is: DOES
> >> > IT WORK TO DIFFERENTIATE AUDIO COMPONENTS.FROM EACH OTHER?
> >>
> > Scottw. answered
> >> Thank you for so boldly declaring the limits of interest in this group.
> >> I'll simply suggest those may be the bounds of your interest,
> >> while others may not share your limits.
> >
> > What other audio subjects were discussed in RAO? Titles, dates please.
> > Any by you?
>
> Title: How flat is an LP.....Date: 12/2/06....yes.
>
> >
> > Personal note: I read RAO to find something new about audio components.
> > Not about audio research.
>
> Then why do you keep bringing up ABX?
>
> >It would be way above my head AND my
> > interests.
> > I do not doubt that you, Mr. ScottW look for something else. May I
> > suggest that you consult the web for the address(es). On the other hand
> > you may not seek too keenly because in the next paragraph you say:
> >>
> >> Yes..yes...you've demanded everyone start buying AES papers
> >> and making trips to the library....frankly Ludo...its not that
> >> interesting to me.
> >
> > Isn't it a shame?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just a note before closing the computer down.
An exchange:

> > Personal note: I read RAO to find something new about audio components.
> > Not about audio research.

It is Recreation. Audio , not Research.Audio. Because I did not ever
see or expect o ever see any original researcher choosing RAO to
publish.
>
> Then why do you keep bringing up ABX?

Because ABX was actively promoted in RAHE as a tool for audiophiles
till banned by the moderator . Because it is still so promoted here in
RAO. Because its website is directed at the same wide public, Because
on a thousand occasions whenever one mentioned one's prefernce in audio
one Sullivan or another demanded a "bias-controlling test", because the
same was the gist of complaints against the Stereophile. (No blind
tests was the objection
voiced against its reviews)

Want any more?
Ludovic Mirabel



>
> No, only so much time in the day.
> anyway...you've said basically the same thing.
>
> And merry Christmas to you too.
>
> ScottW

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ps.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> >> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >> . ..
>> >> >> > > wrote in message
>> >> >> > ps.com
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> In desperation he quotes Clarks paper. When shown that
>> >> >> >> that paper never as much as mentiones audio components
>> >> >> >> listening tests he says that my English is not up to the
>> >> >> >> subtleties of a scientific paper written like scientific
>> >> >> >> papers usually are in basic unequivocal English.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I see no evidence that you've even tried to read Clark's paper.
>> >> >> Further comment.
>> >> >> 1. Your comments to my question about equalization were first class.
>> >> >> 2. You have a right to defend your position against Ludovic's attack.
>> >> >> Stick
>> >> >> to the issues. I, for one, would be interested in a quote from Clark's
>> >> >> paper. Going personal doesn't help you.
>> >> >> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark paper supports
>> >> >> you.
>> >> >> While it doesn't mean I accept the implication that audio components
>> >> >> should
>> >> >> be so tested by the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
>> >> >> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper "in your
>> >> >> column".
>> >> >> 4. My comments about you are received by you as an insult. The purpose
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> so
>> >> >> you can experience how Ludovic may feel about your comments regarding
>> >> >> his
>> >> >> command of the English language. My interest lies not in establishing
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> moral qualities of the debators. My interest lies in fostering debate
>> >> >> about
>> >> >> an audio subject.
>> >> >> 5. Whoever descends to the adhominem level loses the argument. Had you
>> >> >> kept
>> >> >> a high tone, it is possible that at least some people would be more
>> >> >> impressed with you than Ludovic. The quality of the logic is the key.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bob Morein
>> >> >> Dresher, PA
>> >> >> (215) 646-4894
>> >> > ==============================================
>> >> >
>> >> >> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark paper supports
>> >> >> you.
>> >> >> While it doesn't mean I accept the implication that audio components
>> >> >> should
>> >> >> be so tested by the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate for
>> >> >> audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark paper "in your
>> >> >> column".
>> >> >
>> >> > I find the paragraph above truly
>> >> > disappointing. Your "inclinations " are immaterial. But simple, easily
>> >> > verifiable facts do matter. Why don't you get the paper before
>> >> > commenting on it?
>> >> >
>> >> > I said that Clark's article did not have
>> >> > one word to say about comparing audio components. I repeat it and I
>> >> > stand by it. Krueger did not find one single sentence to quote in
>> >> > refutation. Nothing: not even an ambiguity. For lack of anything better
>> >> > he took refuge in sewerage mixed with stupidity..
>> >> >
>> >> > These are easily verifiable facts. If
>> >> > you doubt it you should have checked the original before giving vent to
>> >> > your "inclinations" that cast a shadow of suspicion on my
>> >> > truthfulness because that is the implication even though you may not
>> >> > have intended it so. And I react strongly to that.
>> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >
>> >> Ludovic, my apologies. This is my intended meaning: The paper may
>> >> contain
>> >> remarks on the comparing of audible differences, which would support Arny
>> >> by
>> >> an extension of logic, not an extension of fact. However, it is also
>> >> possible, as perhaps you imply, that Arny pulled a "Brian L. McCarty",
>> >> associating his beliefs with a paper that has a plausible title, but no
>> >> relevance, even by analogy. Where this truth lies would be a very
>> >> interesting to know.
>> >>
>> >> The intent of my comment was to attempt to restore the relevancy of a
>> >> thread
>> >> that had very quickly gone awry. Yes, it is true that I do not have the
>> >> paper. However, the thread could be made informative to the readership at
>> >> large if it exhibited the logic of the two debators. Please bear in mind
>> >> that on this subject, I am actually an ally, as I do agree with you that
>> >> ABX
>> >> testing as it is currently constituted probably disguises differences.
>> >>
>> >> I am afraid that the burden is on you, because you are a person of normal
>> >> temperment. It is all too easy to "light up Arny." This is our r.a.o.
>> >> equivalent of "running of the bulls." If it happens in the course of a
>> >> discussion where some modest effort has been applied to a meeting of the
>> >> minds, how could I object?
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Bob Morein
>> >> (215) 646-4894
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >
>> > As a shining example I'll compete with you in.chivalry
>> > My turn to apologise. I found a sentence referring to component
>> > comparison in Clark's paper. Not in the italiciseded summary, not in
>> > "inroduction", not in "conclusions" but in the tex on p. 337. It
>> > says:"We have not found any two preamplifiers or amplifiers that have
>> > sounded different from each other when responses were matched". Yes
>> > they all sound the same. Great evidence that ABX works to differentiaie
>> > audio components.
>> >
>> > There were no customary details:
>> > how many participants, how selected, was selection randomised properly,
>> > how
>> > many preamps and amps. He is no doubt referring to the same "research"
>> > quoted on the PCABX web page. No wonder there are no details. It would
>> > have never been accepted by a professional journal if he provided the
>> > amateurish setup.
>> >
>> Bob Morein
>> Dresher, PA
>> (215) 646-4894
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> This where we stopped:
>
>> > I'll be delighted to try for "logic" if you explain to me how.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> Now you've gotten to the point. It is now up to Arny to show that the Clark
>> paper is connected by more than the thinnest of threads.
>>
>
> ===============================================
> Thanks to you ( and my pertinacy in argument) I sharpened today my very
> elementary computer skills. I learned how to copy text from a scanner
> image without typing - a chore I loathe. .
>
> Here is all I found about COMPARING AUDIO COMPONENTS in Clark's 1983
> six page ABX paper.
> Recall that this paper was Krueger's sole evidence of basic reserch
> validating the use of the "ABX Comparator" to differentiate components
> from each other in an ABX listening test. Recall also that in the
> paper's heading under Clark's name it says: "ABX Company, Troy, MI
> 48099. USA" (Mr. ScottW please note).
>
> On page 1, that Arni refers to, Clark says:
> "Listening tests used to evaluate audio equipment can seldom be
> considered scientific tests. For example, extraneous factors which
> could influence the listener's decision are not eliminated or held
> constant. A common failing is lack of a double-blind procedure because
> of its inconvenience.
> When scientific tests have been performed, listeners' audibility
> thresholds have appeared to be poorer by orders of magnitude compared
> to casual tests. It has been argued that the methods and equipment used
> in the scientific test have inhibited the listener's discriminatory
> ability.
> A system of double-blind comparison testing, referred to as the A/B/X
> method, is described. This system consists of:
> 1) Techniques to maximize discriminatory ability
> 2) Procedures and standards for maintaining validity
> 3) Commercially available double-blind test equipment.
> It is the intent of this system to make practical and acceptable the
> widespread use of scientific double-blind listening tests."
>
> No tests and no test results. Just a boost for Clark's theories.. .
>
> On p.7 I found:
> "Most of the author's testing has been done in conjunction with the
> SMWTMS group [10]. We have not found any two preamplifiers or
> amplifiers that have sounded different from each other when responses
> were matched. All units were of medium or higher quality and not
> operated in clipping. Other precautions were taken, as listed earlier.
> This result is in agreement with Lip****z et al. [11], Baxandall [12],
> and others".
>
> Yes, we already know that ABX makes it all sound the same. But what
> does it help to differentiate?
> Further on p. 7 Clark says:
>
> "At this time SMWTMS has not been able to detect
> . differences in pickup cartridges. This testing has been
> limited by its difficulty. It requires careful equalization,
> is identical stamper number pressings in perfect condition,
> ; and synchronized turntables."
>
> If this test for "subtle differences" does not allow to recognise
> differences between phono cartridges what on earth does it do?

I agree with you here...I don't accept that EQing the FR of
carts is valid in an effort to compare or differentiate carts.
Matter of fact..I don't accept EQing any equipment for
comparison. Only level matching.

In the case of carts...I guess less rigorous methods than quick
switching are probably required.
I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between my old
Signet mm and my new AT mc carts.

Ludo...why don't you drive down to my place and help me conduct
a blind test of these carts abx style. I'll play A...play B...
leave the room and you set it up for X...start the record, cover the
TT and then you leave...and I'll return for my listen.
If I get it right without quick
switching...will you become a believer?

For one thing...AT is a half db down in the right channel and it
shifts the soundstage noticeably. Should we balance channels
for the test?

ScottW

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>>
>> Then why do you keep bringing up ABX?
>
> Because ABX was actively promoted in RAHE as a tool for audiophiles
> till banned by the moderator . Because it is still so promoted here in
> RAO. Because its website is directed at the same wide public, Because
> on a thousand occasions whenever one mentioned one's prefernce in audio
> one Sullivan or another demanded a "bias-controlling test", because the
> same was the gist of complaints against the Stereophile. (No blind
> tests was the objection
> voiced against its reviews)
>
> Want any more?

No..that's fine. I don't know why you don't save your ammo
for when it comes up...but that is your choice.

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ps.com
>>>>
>>>>> I find the paragraph above
>>>>> truly disappointing. Your "inclinations " are
>>>>> immaterial. But simple, easily verifiable facts do
>>>>> matter. Why don't you get the paper before commenting
>>>>> on it?
>>>>
>>>> I have the paper, and this is well-known. It has been
>>>> established that I have the AES CD that covers every AES
>>>> paper and conference paper through the early years of
>>>> this millenium.
>>
>> Robert's hero Ludo goes down in flames:
>>
>>>> Tell you what Ludo. The very first paragraph discusses testing audio
>>>> equipment. Please quote it in its entirety.
>>
>>
>>> But if you play it on a Sony CDP-101, the words could
>>> hardly be made out, given the poor quality of the DAC.
>>
>> Thanks again Robert for showing your poor faith and lack of sincere
>> interest.
> Would someone please explain to Arny that the notion of AES papers
> available as audiobooks is a joke?
>

Some people get shorted brains at birth....Arny got shorted a sense of
humor. Forget it!

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Your comments to my question about equalization
>>>>> were first class.
>>>>
>>>> Thank for. For one thing, there was a fair amount to
>>>> say at the time.
>>>>> 2. You have a right to defend your position against
>>>>> Ludovic's attack.
>>>>
>>>> Been there, done that. Ludo is piano with one note, and
>>>> he's going to play that tune no matter what I say.
>>>>
>>>>> Stick to the issues. I, for one, would
>>>>> be interested in a quote from Clark's paper. Going
>>>>> personal doesn't help you.
>>>>
>>>> I'm very serious. I thought about Ludo's reply and
>>>> decided that he probably hadn't read the paper, and was
>>>> trying to smoke out a quote from the paper for him to
>>>> **** on. I'm not playing that game.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. I am personally inclined to think that the Clark
>>>>> paper supports you. While it doesn't mean I accept the
>>>>> implication that audio components should be so tested
>>>>> by the consumer, or that the methodology is accurate
>>>>> for audiophiles, I am still inclined to put the Clark
>>>>> paper "in your column".
>>>>
>>>> Given that I was cited as a source in the Clark paper,
>>>> it is more like I supported Clark's paper when it was
>>>> being written.
>>>>> 4. My comments about you are received by you as an
>>>>> insult. The purpose is so you can experience how
>>>>> Ludovic may feel about your comments regarding his
>>>>> command of the English language. My interest lies not
>>>>> in establishing the moral qualities of the debators.
>>>>> My interest lies in fostering debate about an audio
>>>>> subject.
>>>>
>>>> Ludo has not impressed me as a person who wants to have
>>>> a serious debate about audio.
>>>>
>>>>> 5. Whoever descends to the adhominem level loses the
>>>>> argument. Had you kept a high tone, it is possible
>>>>> that at least some people would be more impressed
>>>>> with you than Ludovic. The quality of the logic is
>>>>> the key.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to forget Robert, that Ludo has been engaging
>>>> in name-calling directed at me for weeks. Ludo has been
>>>> on the low road for quite some time.
>>>>
>>>> But of course Robert you can't see any of Ludo's
>>>> faults. Yet another reason why I don't see RAO as a
>>>> productive forum for serious audio discussions that
>>>> might be targeted by Ludo.
>>> I'm not interested in seeing Ludo's faults. In fact, I'm
>>> not interested in seeing your faults. Now get back in
>>> the ring and punch above the belt.
>>
>> Show us how to do it Robert, and hold Ludo's feet to the
>> fire until he does the same.
>>
> You know how to do it. I have confidence in you.

Of course I know how to do it - I do it all over Usenet. However, you spew
trash all over Usenet - you're on the verge of getting shoved out of RAP.
Again Robert - you're the one who is deficient - stop berating me for your
problems.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>>
>>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>
>>>>>> In desperation he quotes Clarks paper. When shown
>>>>>> that that paper never as much as mentiones audio
>>>>>> components listening tests he says that my English
>>>>>> is not up to the subtleties of a scientific paper
>>>>>> written like scientific papers usually are in basic
>>>>>> unequivocal English.

>>>>> I see no evidence that you've even tried to read
>>>>> Clark's paper.

>>> I said that Clark's
>>> article did not have one word to say about comparing
>>> audio components. I repeat it and I stand by it.

Then you are delusional Ludo, and it is possible to have a sane discussion
with you. The very first sentence of the paper mentions comparing audio
components.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message



> I agree with you here...I don't accept that EQing the FR of carts is
> valid in an effort to compare or differentiate
> carts. Matter of fact..I don't accept EQing any equipment
> for comparison. Only level matching.

If you take this approach, which does have some legitimacy, then you will
find that most cartridges sound different.

Now what?

> In the case of carts...I guess less rigorous methods than
> quick switching are probably required.

Basically what you are saying Scotty, is let's obfuscate the differences
between cartridges so we can do a better evaluation. Does that make sense?

> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between my old
> Signet mm and my new AT mc carts.

I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between any V15 and itself by
changing its capacitive load. Now what?

[George M. Middius]

Robert asked:

> Was Clark a business partner of Arny?

They were monks in the same abbey, yes.




--

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

[George M. Middius]

Straight from the horse's ass.

> Of course I know how to do it - I do it all over Usenet.

A rare bit of honesty from the Krooborg. Humans use toilets, but Arnii has
Usenet.




--

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

[George M. Middius]

Robert said:

> > Straight from the horse's ass.

> >> Of course I know how to do it - I do it all over Usenet.

> > A rare bit of honesty from the Krooborg. Humans use toilets, but Arnii has
> > Usenet.

> Not only that, but Arny's attempt to incite me to commit physical violence
> against Ludo, by inflicting third degree burns on his feet, and possibly
> worse, is distressing.

Thank's Robret for, admitting Robburt that its like you have never been to a
virtual S&M party Rebort.

> Could Arny be "joking"? Is it possible that I have
> missed a point of "humor" ?

Robart humor is like an a***le that every body has, one of Roobert.





--

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

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Soundhaspriority wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ps.com...
> >>>
> >>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
> >>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>> . ..
> >>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>> ps.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In desperation he quotes Clarks paper. When shown
> >>>>>> that that paper never as much as mentiones audio
> >>>>>> components listening tests he says that my English
> >>>>>> is not up to the subtleties of a scientific paper
> >>>>>> written like scientific papers usually are in basic
> >>>>>> unequivocal English.
>
> >>>>> I see no evidence that you've even tried to read
> >>>>> Clark's paper.
>
> >>> I said that Clark's
> >>> article did not have one word to say about comparing
> >>> audio components. I repeat it and I stand by it.
>
> Then you are delusional Ludo, and it is possible to have a sane discussion
> with you. The very first sentence of the paper mentions comparing audio
> components.

===================================
Let's restate what this thread is about:
I said:in my first posting:
"A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
differentiating audio components is research-backed and validated.
As I predicted that paper did not have one word to say
about the subject"

Krueger answers:

> Then you are delusional Ludo, and it is possible to have a sane discussion
> with you. The very first sentence of the paper mentions comparing audio
> components.

It is hard to find words within the limits of Krueger's basic English
vocabulary to deal with his infantile attempt at debate cunning .

Any more "mentions" out there?. This is the requote of the "mention":

"Listening tests used to evaluate audio equipment can seldom be
considered scientific tests."

End of "mention".

The hymn in praise of ABX follows.
Remember: ABX was and is being marketed as an instrument to
DIFFERENTIATE between audio components.

The "results" are again "mentioned" on p.337, that I already copied in
my response to Bob on the 30th.
.. Helped by ABX technology these researchers found that amps and
preamps all sound the same. (Just as they sound to Krueger when using
his own ears, unaided by "science") They acknowledge that even to them
phono cartridges .do not sound alike but they have not "been able to
detect differences in pickup cartridges. This testing has been limited
by its difficulties". Ditto for loudspeakers.(p.337).

Clark does not give any details: not even the basic ones: how many
repeat tests, how many testers?, did they havet a representative (age,
sex, musical experience), randomised panel as is done in any decent
double blind testing ? Not even a simple table of results/tester.
Nothing. Assertions only. (See P.S. for details)

And this is the best Krueger can offer for forty years of trumpeting
the virtues of ABX comparator for DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN AUDIO
COMPONENTS.. The only "results" he has on the table demonstrate that
using ABX audio component can not be distinguished from each other
Ludovic Mirabel

P.S.The details could be found on the old PCABX web page. I say "could"
because the latest version censored them out- for a good reason. Eg.
they had ONE listener for one of the "tests", maximum eleven. The
"representative, randomised" panel consisted of the Detroit chapel
members. But I was that route several times before (see the posting on
Oct. 20th in the:"Re: Ayre c5xe Universal..." thread)

In summary the ABXing chapel found no differences between anything and
anything else COMPARABLE in audio. Same "results" were obtained by the
other chapel members ABXing cables, cdplayers and daxes for the defunct
"Stereo review" in the eighties (nothing new since.
Gloriously they did hear differences between a 400 watt transistor
Dynaco amp and a 7 watt DIY Heathkit. Ditto for the very first ever
made Philips 8 bit cdplayer and Sony and other 16 bit cd players. Even
though ABXing.

:

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>> I agree with you here...I don't accept that EQing the FR of carts is valid
>> in an effort to compare or differentiate
>> carts. Matter of fact..I don't accept EQing any equipment
>> for comparison. Only level matching.
>
> If you take this approach, which does have some legitimacy, then you will find
> that most cartridges sound different.
>
> Now what?

Once sounding different is no longer in dispute we can move
on to preference discussions. I guess this is one of the reasons
vinyl retains appeal, there are indisputable differences we can taylor
to suit our preferences.

>
>> In the case of carts...I guess less rigorous methods than
>> quick switching are probably required.
>
> Basically what you are saying Scotty, is let's obfuscate the differences
> between cartridges so we can do a better evaluation. Does that make sense?

No..that isn't what I said...I just accepted the difficulties of time synched
quick switching with vinyl. That's all. In the case of ABX..I doubt it would
matter as I'm still confident that I could detect a difference with
less rigorous methods..the difference are that significant.
>
>> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between my old
>> Signet mm and my new AT mc carts.
>
> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between any V15 and itself by
> changing its capacitive load. Now what?

Now nothing...we're simply left to choose what sounds best to us.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
>>
>>
>> Straight from the horse's ass.
>>
>>> Of course I know how to do it - I do it all over Usenet.
>>
>> A rare bit of honesty from the Krooborg. Humans use toilets, but Arnii has
>> Usenet.
>>
> Not only that, but Arny's attempt to incite me to commit physical violence
> against Ludo, by inflicting third degree burns on his feet, and possibly
> worse, is distressing. Could Arny be "joking"? Is it possible that I have
> missed a point of "humor" ?

Bob sure knows how to bring all humor to a screeching halt.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> >> I agree with you here...I don't accept that EQing the FR of carts is
> >> valid
> >> in an effort to compare or differentiate
> >> carts. Matter of fact..I don't accept EQing any equipment
> >> for comparison. Only level matching.
> >
> > If you take this approach, which does have some legitimacy, then you will
> > find
> > that most cartridges sound different.
> >
> > Now what?
>
> Once sounding different is no longer in dispute we can move
> on to preference discussions. I guess this is one of the reasons
> vinyl retains appeal, there are indisputable differences we can taylor
> to suit our preferences.
>
> >
> >> In the case of carts...I guess less rigorous methods than
> >> quick switching are probably required.
> >
> > Basically what you are saying Scotty, is let's obfuscate the differences
> > between cartridges so we can do a better evaluation. Does that make sense?
>
> No..that isn't what I said...I just accepted the difficulties of time synched
> quick switching with vinyl. That's all. In the case of ABX..I doubt it
> would
> matter as I'm still confident that I could detect a difference with
> less rigorous methods..the difference are that significant.
> >
> >> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between my old
> >> Signet mm and my new AT mc carts.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between any V15 and itself by
> > changing its capacitive load. Now what?
>
> Now nothing...we're simply left to choose what sounds best to us.

Well said.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> I agree with you here...I don't accept that EQing the
>>> FR of carts is valid in an effort to compare or
>>> differentiate carts. Matter of fact..I don't accept EQing any
>>> equipment for comparison. Only level matching.
>>
>> If you take this approach, which does have some
>> legitimacy, then you will find that most cartridges
>> sound different. Now what?
>
> Once sounding different is no longer in dispute we can
> move on to preference discussions. I guess this is one of
> the reasons vinyl retains appeal, there are indisputable differences
> we can taylor to suit our preferences.

I like to forget that when I'm on RAO in the land of people who are
functional illiterates when it comes to equalizers.

If you want to impose frequency response perferences, why piddle around with
cartrdges that sound arbitrarily different, why not just dial in what you
want?

BTW I know the answer - many audiophiles are intimidated by equalizers,
which require a mental transfomation from how things sound to what knobs to
turn.

>>> In the case of carts...I guess less rigorous methods than quick
>>> switching are probably required.

>> Basically what you are saying Scotty, is let's obfuscate
>> the differences between cartridges so we can do a better
>> evaluation. Does that make sense?

> No..that isn't what I said...I just accepted the
> difficulties of time synched quick switching with vinyl.

Which are BTW non-existent given that the audible differences in vinyl are
relatively gross compared to any masking effects that can be rightfully
ascribed to moving it all into the digital domain.

> That's all. In the case of ABX..I doubt it would matter
> as I'm still confident that I could detect a difference
> with less rigorous methods..the difference are that
> significant.

There's a school of thought that says that if intelligent use of equalizers
can manage an audible difference, then its not an issue.

>>> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between my old
>>> Signet mm and my new AT mc carts.

>> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between any
>> V15 and itself by changing its capacitive load. Now
>> what?

> Now nothing...we're simply left to choose what sounds
> best to us.

The rational approach to that is to learn how to use an equalizer to get
what sounds best to you, equipment vagaries notwithstanding.
>
> ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

> I have the paper, and this is well-known.

rolled up amidst your uncashed $100 checks, no doubt.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
>
> Of course I know how to do it - I do it all over Usenet.

Please flush afer each use.

[George M. Middius]

It's Krooglish time!

> I like to forget that when I'm on RAO in the land of people who are
> functional illiterates when it comes to equalizers.

Go ahead and teach us how to read an equalizer, Turdy. We're all ears.






--

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

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> I agree with you here...I don't accept that EQing the FR of carts is
> > >> valid
> > >> in an effort to compare or differentiate
> > >> carts. Matter of fact..I don't accept EQing any equipment
> > >> for comparison. Only level matching.
> > >
> > > If you take this approach, which does have some legitimacy, then you will
> > > find
> > > that most cartridges sound different.
> > >
> > > Now what?
> >
> > Once sounding different is no longer in dispute we can move
> > on to preference discussions. I guess this is one of the reasons
> > vinyl retains appeal, there are indisputable differences we can taylor
> > to suit our preferences.
> >
> > >
> > >> In the case of carts...I guess less rigorous methods than
> > >> quick switching are probably required.
> > >
> > > Basically what you are saying Scotty, is let's obfuscate the differences
> > > between cartridges so we can do a better evaluation. Does that make sense?
> >
> > No..that isn't what I said...I just accepted the difficulties of time synched
> > quick switching with vinyl. That's all. In the case of ABX..I doubt it
> > would
> > matter as I'm still confident that I could detect a difference with
> > less rigorous methods..the difference are that significant.
> > >
> > >> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between my old
> > >> Signet mm and my new AT mc carts.
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between any V15 and itself by
> > > changing its capacitive load. Now what?
> >

..
> > Well said.
:


===========================
ScottW said answering Krueger' s equaliser poetry:
> > Now nothing...we're simply left to choose what sounds best to us
Jenn added:
> Well said.

Count me in.
I told Krueger once before that I did not hear an analogue equaliser
(and I owned five including two "professional" ones) that did not
degrade sound. Of course, no one would expect *him* to hear that..

We all know the great results of unrestrained equaliser use by the more
primitive of the recording engineer species. Plenty of Cds around that
sound like a caricature of music.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I agree with you here...I don't accept that EQing the
>>>> FR of carts is valid in an effort to compare or
>>>> differentiate carts. Matter of fact..I don't accept EQing any
>>>> equipment for comparison. Only level matching.
>>>
>>> If you take this approach, which does have some
>>> legitimacy, then you will find that most cartridges
>>> sound different. Now what?
>>
>> Once sounding different is no longer in dispute we can
>> move on to preference discussions. I guess this is one of
>> the reasons vinyl retains appeal, there are indisputable differences
>> we can taylor to suit our preferences.
>
> I like to forget that when I'm on RAO in the land of people who are functional
> illiterates when it comes to equalizers.
>
> If you want to impose frequency response perferences, why piddle around with
> cartrdges that sound arbitrarily different, why not just dial in what you
> want?
>
> BTW I know the answer - many audiophiles are intimidated by equalizers, which
> require a mental transfomation from how things sound to what knobs to turn.
>
>>>> In the case of carts...I guess less rigorous methods than quick switching
>>>> are probably required.
>
>>> Basically what you are saying Scotty, is let's obfuscate
>>> the differences between cartridges so we can do a better
>>> evaluation. Does that make sense?
>
>> No..that isn't what I said...I just accepted the
>> difficulties of time synched quick switching with vinyl.
>
> Which are BTW non-existent given that the audible differences in vinyl are
> relatively gross compared to any masking effects that can be rightfully
> ascribed to moving it all into the digital domain.
>
>> That's all. In the case of ABX..I doubt it would matter
>> as I'm still confident that I could detect a difference
>> with less rigorous methods..the difference are that
>> significant.
>
> There's a school of thought that says that if intelligent use of equalizers
> can manage an audible difference, then its not an issue.

I think carts also have varying degrees of distortion and channel
separation also affecting performance. These may be subtler
than FR..but they exist.

>
>>>> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between my old
>>>> Signet mm and my new AT mc carts.
>
>>> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between any
>>> V15 and itself by changing its capacitive load. Now
>>> what?
>
>> Now nothing...we're simply left to choose what sounds
>> best to us.
>
> The rational approach to that is to learn how to use an equalizer to get what
> sounds best to you, equipment vagaries notwithstanding.

As I said...that isn't the only factor affecting cart performance differences.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> I told Krueger once before that I did not hear an
> analogue equaliser (and I owned five including two
> "professional" ones) that did not degrade sound.

One important ingredient in the use of any equalizer is the operator. Given
that Mirabel can't find the word "equipment" in the first sentence of an
article he purports to have reviewed, no reasonable person would have any
faith that he would do any better with something as conceptually complex as
an equalizer. I might add that Mirabel once told me that he could never make
any of the PCABX programs work for him because a standard Windows "File
Open" dialog box exceeded his grasp of computer technology. We're talking
serious levels of incomptence here.

> Of course, no one would expect *him* to hear that..

Au contraire. I've often heard equalizers and other pieces of audio gear
degrade sound. For example I've reported here the wholesale degradation of
sound caused by the SET amplifiers I heard at HE2005.

> We all know the great results of unrestrained equaliser
> use by the more primitive of the recording engineer
> species. Plenty of Cds around that sound like a
> caricature of music.

No doubt largely due to incompetent or at least disagreeable use of
equalizers and compressors.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you here...I don't accept that EQing the
>>>>> FR of carts is valid in an effort to compare or
>>>>> differentiate carts. Matter of fact..I don't accept
>>>>> EQing any equipment for comparison. Only level matching.
>>>>
>>>> If you take this approach, which does have some
>>>> legitimacy, then you will find that most cartridges
>>>> sound different. Now what?
>>>
>>> Once sounding different is no longer in dispute we can
>>> move on to preference discussions. I guess this is
>>> one of the reasons vinyl retains appeal, there are
>>> indisputable differences we can taylor to suit our
>>> preferences.
>>
>> I like to forget that when I'm on RAO in the land of
>> people who are functional illiterates when it comes to
>> equalizers. If you want to impose frequency response perferences,
>> why piddle around with cartrdges that sound arbitrarily
>> different, why not just dial in what you want?

>> BTW I know the answer - many audiophiles are intimidated
>> by equalizers, which require a mental transfomation from
>> how things sound to what knobs to turn.

Case in point: Mirabel.

>>>>> In the case of carts...I guess less rigorous methods
>>>>> than quick switching are probably required.
>>
>>>> Basically what you are saying Scotty, is let's
>>>> obfuscate the differences between cartridges so we can
>>>> do a better evaluation. Does that make sense?
>>
>>> No..that isn't what I said...I just accepted the
>>> difficulties of time synched quick switching with vinyl.

>> Which are BTW non-existent given that the audible
>> differences in vinyl are relatively gross compared to
>> any masking effects that can be rightfully ascribed to
>> moving it all into the digital domain.

>>> That's all. In the case of ABX..I doubt it would matter
>>> as I'm still confident that I could detect a difference
>>> with less rigorous methods..the difference are that
>>> significant.
>>
>> There's a school of thought that says that if
>> intelligent use of equalizers can manage an audible
>> difference, then its not an issue.

> I think carts also have varying degrees of distortion

Competent cartrdiges should be able to reproduce the relatively high levels
of distortion that is inherent in the LP format. IOW the LP format has so
much inherent distortion that it masks the distortion in the better
cartrdiges.

> channel separation also affecting performance.

See above, plus the fact that channel separation is not that big of an issue
when you're listening with loudspeakers. Natural recordings don't have that
much inherent channel separation, and the separation in mixdowns is usually
sacrificed in the name of mono compatibility.

> hese may be subtler than FR..but they exist.

We did a relevant experiment, which is documented here:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm


>>>>> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between my
>>>>> old Signet mm and my new AT mc carts.
>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between any
>>>> V15 and itself by changing its capacitive load. Now
>>>> what?

>>> Now nothing...we're simply left to choose what sounds
>>> best to us.
>>
>> The rational approach to that is to learn how to use an
>> equalizer to get what sounds best to you, equipment
>> vagaries notwithstanding.

> As I said...that isn't the only factor affecting cart
> performance differences.

But it can be so overwhelming as to make the rest pretty irrelevant.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
>
> > I told Krueger once before that I did not hear an
> > analogue equaliser (and I owned five including two
> > "professional" ones) that did not degrade sound.
>
> One important ingredient in the use of any equalizer is the operator. Given
> that Mirabel can't find the word "equipment" in the first sentence of an
> article he purports to have reviewed, no reasonable person would have any
> faith that he would do any better with something as conceptually complex as
> an equalizer. I might add that Mirabel once told me that he could never make
> any of the PCABX programs work for him because a standard Windows "File
> Open" dialog box exceeded his grasp of computer technology. We're talking
> serious levels of incomptence here.
>
> > Of course, no one would expect *him* to hear that..
>
> Au contraire. I've often heard equalizers and other pieces of audio gear
> degrade sound. For example I've reported here the wholesale degradation of
> sound caused by the SET amplifiers I heard at HE2005.
>
> > We all know the great results of unrestrained equaliser
> > use by the more primitive of the recording engineer
> > species. Plenty of Cds around that sound like a
> > caricature of music.
>
> No doubt largely due to incompetent or at least disagreeable use of
> equalizers and compressors.
=================================

Krueger carries on:
>
> One important ingredient in the use of any equalizer is the operator. Given
> that Mirabel can't find the word "equipment" in the first sentence of an
> article he purports to have reviewed, no reasonable person would have any
> faith that he would do any better with something as conceptually complex as
> an equalizer. I

Wouldn't you love to engage me instead into a typical Krueger
"debate"?: "No, I did.". "Yes, you did not"". "You no speaka da
inglis", "Yes, I do speaka da Inglis"

No such luck to day.
And if you think that all you have to do is to wait for this thread to
be shoved into oblivion you have another think coming. It is time to
try and salvage this forum from the intellectual sewer-pit into which
you managed to run it over the last few years. Not losing one occasion
for advertising your ABX all along the way downwards.

The subject was and is: '
" A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as his ONLY
piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and DIFFERENTIATING audio
components is research-backed and validated. As I predicted that paper
did not have one word to say about the subject"

When will you come up with experimental , research evidence culled from
that paper.
Yes, Clark did say: "Equipment"

Did he say anything else? Like fo instance detailed, research account
of a successful use of ABX to DIFFERENTIATE audio components?
Any quotes? FROM THE PAPER, please. Not from Arnold Krueger! .
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> The subject was and is: '
> " A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
> his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
> DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed and
> validated. As I predicted that paper did not have one
> word to say about the subject"

The whole paper is about differentiating audio components. Your whole
complaint is that it doesn't follow an outline that you wrote about 30 years
after it was published.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > The subject was and is: '
> > " A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
> > his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
> > DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed and
> > validated. As I predicted that paper did not have one
> > word to say about the subject"
>
> The whole paper is about differentiating audio components. Your whole
> complaint is that it doesn't follow an outline that you wrote about 30 years
> after it was published.
===========================
No "outlines" Krueger. No theories Krueger. No speculations Krueger.
Just a verbatim (it means, word for word, Krueger) QUOTE with details
Krueger from Clark's article of what audio components his panel
differentiated .How many panelists, how many tries, percentage of
corrects- the usual stuff. An extract from the only source YOU quoted
as YOUR evidence of ABX usefulness for that purpose. Hoping that no one
would dig so far back and check.

And one more little thing. . I copied for this forum everything
relevant I could find in Clark's article. I will not have YOU
questioning my honesty- not even by implication. You' may think one lie
more or less is all in a day's work of a sorry hawker of phony cures
Krueger. I don't belong there with you Krueger.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> The subject was and is: '
>>> " A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark
>>> as his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to
>>> and DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed
>>> and validated. As I predicted that paper did not have
>>> one word to say about the subject"
>>
>> The whole paper is about differentiating audio
>> components. Your whole complaint is that it doesn't
>> follow an outline that you wrote about 30 years after it
>> was published.
> ===========================
> No "outlines" Krueger. No theories Krueger. No
> speculations Krueger. Just a verbatim (it means, word for
> word, Krueger) QUOTE with details Krueger from Clark's
> article of what audio components his panel differentiated
> .How many panelists, how many tries, percentage of
> corrects- the usual stuff. An extract from the only
> source YOU quoted as YOUR evidence of ABX usefulness for
> that purpose. Hoping that no one would dig so far back
> and check.

That information isn't there, but so what? As I said, Clark followed a
different approach from the one you've made after the fact.

> And one more little thing. . I copied for this forum
> everything relevant I could find in Clark's article. I
> will not have YOU questioning my honesty- not even by
> implication. You' may think one lie more or less is all
> in a day's work of a sorry hawker of phony cures Krueger.
> I don't belong there with you Krueger.

The fact is Mirabel that you said that you Just said over and over again
that Clark said nothing, zilch about equipment tests. In fact the article
starts with a discussion of equipment tests. You're either a fool or a liar,
but you aren't very smart or very honest.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>> The subject was and is: '
> >>> " A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark
> >>> as his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to
> >>> and DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed
> >>> and validated. As I predicted that paper did not have
> >>> one word to say about the subject"
> >>
> >> The whole paper is about differentiating audio
> >> components. Your whole complaint is that it doesn't
> >> follow an outline that you wrote about 30 years after it
> >> was published.
> > ===========================
> > No "outlines" Krueger. No theories Krueger. No
> > speculations Krueger. Just a verbatim (it means, word for
> > word, Krueger) QUOTE with details Krueger from Clark's
> > article of what audio components his panel differentiated
> > .How many panelists, how many tries, percentage of
> > corrects- the usual stuff. An extract from the only
> > source YOU quoted as YOUR evidence of ABX usefulness for
> > that purpose. Hoping that no one would dig so far back
> > and check.
>
> That information isn't there, but so what? As I said, Clark followed a
> different approach from the one you've made after the fact.
>
> > And one more little thing. . I copied for this forum
> > everything relevant I could find in Clark's article. I
> > will not have YOU questioning my honesty- not even by
> > implication. You' may think one lie more or less is all
> > in a day's work of a sorry hawker of phony cures Krueger.
> > I don't belong there with you Krueger.
>
> The fact is Mirabel that you said that you Just said over and over again
> that Clark said nothing, zilch about equipment tests. In fact the article
> starts with a discussion of equipment tests. You're either a fool or a liar,
> but you aren't very smart or very honest.
======================================

MY opening sentence in the Nr.! posting in this thread:
"A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed and validated.
As I predicted that paper did not have one word to say
about the subjecT"

And now for Krueger's version: He forges just one word out of my text :
DIFFERENTIATE
> The fact is Mirabel that you said that you Just said over and over again
> that Clark said nothing, zilch about equipment tests.

Once he gets his forgery pat he feels free to sail on:
> That information isn't there, but so what? As I said,
What did you say? When? Where?
> Clark followed a
> different approach from the one you've made after the fact.

What "different approach" did Clark follow? Did he invent a new way to
bypass research and experimentation and pile fresh dirt on Sir Francis
Bacon's grave?
What did you "say" about it? Say it once again if its not too much
trouble, please. It could be epoch-making...

Or was it the commercial "way" like yours when peddling the
"comparator" (Fowler:: "compare to,... with") on the web. With little
drawings of the Master Chef Krueger cooking it as in the first verdion
of the PCABX?

And if it was not in this Clark's paper why did you quote this one as
your ONLY piece of evidence that the marketing of your comparator
gadget was supported by research submitted to and accepted by the
Journal of Audio Engineering Society?

Have you got anything else? Make the fifth decade of your merchandising
be the first decade of its scientific validation by basic, plodding
research.
Unless Clark and you, between you, proved it was no longer a necessity.

Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> The fact is Mirabel that you said that you Just said
>> over and over again that Clark said nothing, zilch about
>> equipment tests. In fact the article starts with a
>> discussion of equipment tests. You're either a fool or a
>> liar, but you aren't very smart or very honest.
> ======================================

> MY opening sentence in the Nr.! posting in this thread:
> "A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
> his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
> DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed and
> validated. As I predicted that paper did
> not have one word to say about the subjecT"

> And now for Krueger's version: He forges just one word
> out of my text : DIFFERENTIATE

Mirabel, I don't have time for the likely unending debate over the
difference between comparing and differentiating.

If you'd like to debate the issue with yourself or perhaps Mr. Middius,
please be my guest.

[MvonB]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> The fact is Mirabel that you said that you Just said
>>> over and over again that Clark said nothing, zilch about
>>> equipment tests. In fact the article starts with a
>>> discussion of equipment tests. You're either a fool or a
>>> liar, but you aren't very smart or very honest.
>> ======================================
>
>> MY opening sentence in the Nr.! posting in this thread:
>> "A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
>> his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
>> DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed and
>> validated. As I predicted that paper did
>> not have one word to say about the subjecT"
>
>> And now for Krueger's version: He forges just one word
>> out of my text : DIFFERENTIATE
>
> Mirabel, I don't have time for the likely unending debate

Ahem...there's no evidence you've ever done anything else.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> The fact is Mirabel that you said that you Just said
> >> over and over again that Clark said nothing, zilch about
> >> equipment tests. In fact the article starts with a
> >> discussion of equipment tests. You're either a fool or a
> >> liar, but you aren't very smart or very honest.
> > ======================================
>
> > MY opening sentence in the Nr.! posting in this thread:
> > "A few days ago Krueger quoted a paper by David Clark as
> > his ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
> > DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed and
> > validated. As I predicted that paper did
> > not have one word to say about the subjecT"
>
> > And now for Krueger's version: He forges just one word
> > out of my text : DIFFERENTIATE
>
> Mirabel, I don't have time for the likely unending debate over the
> difference between comparing and differentiating.
>
> If you'd like to debate the issue with yourself or perhaps Mr. Middius,
> please be my guest.

================================================

Here you get our Krueger at his cutest once again.:

> Mirabel, I don't have time for the likely unending debate over the
> difference between comparing and differentiating.

When at a loss for an answer he grabs the dictionary and hopes that it
will all end in a Kruegerspeak tug of war. He is ready. In the
Kruegerland they always compare like with like to get "it all sounds
the same" answer.

Except that it is not about that at all. It is about your quoting:> > "
...a paper by David Clark
> > as your ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
> > DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed and
> > validated. As I predicted that paper did
> > not have one word to say about the subjecT

Tell the truth Krueger. You thought you could the subject derailed,
into the idiot level semantics didn't you?

Well, you can go mute for the second time.. I won't. Look forward to a
new posting.asking for your experimental validation for your quack
remedy.
Ludovic Mirabel